U.S. military in decline, security contractors' surging profits
Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:41:31 AM PDT
We have been hearing reports of how our military seems to be sliding into the abyss, overtaxed, over-deployed, insufficiently armored, personnel leaving the military, inadequate training, and enlistments down.
At the same time, we are reading how "security" contractors such as Blackwater -- otherwise known as "hired guns" -- we are learning what a growth industry this has become.
So here it is, side-by-side, a deteriorating military and an expanding market of hired mercenaries.
Is anyone else finding this troubling? And what is the difference between the Ruby Ridge militia and Blackwater contractors?
As I was following the showdown between the Democratic-controlled Congress and George Bush over the war funding bill, time lines, and the benchmarks for the Iraqi government, I stumbled into a surreal intersection of sorts between the deteriorating condition of our military and the recent "surge" of profits being enjoyed by Blackwater's government contracts for security services.
Blackwater and others like them seem to be in a growth industry. Yeah, security as a growth industry. This is in contrast to our U.S. military sliding off into the abyss as the result of mismanagement and abuse.
I think I remember learning that our military could not be deployed domestically against U.S. citizens. State governors can deploy their respective national guards for the protection of the citizens, but not the U.S. military under the control of the executive branch.
So after reading how Blackwater had "security" contracts in Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina, I began to see this organization as a federal militia answering solely to the executive branch -- or to George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Then I began to wonder just what makes Blackwater hired-guns different from the Ruby Ridge militia-types? This looks like organized crime in a corporate suit to me.
And should Congress allow Bush/Cheney to continue weakening our military, what would prevent -- and this is a rhetorical question -- what would prevent such a federal militia answering only to the executive branch from
directing a military coup in our own country?
I've seen the advertisments directed at soldiers who are separating from the military. These ads offer big salaries and benefits to veterans to come work for these "security" contractors. Oh, yes, it is a growth industry all right.
We have recently learned that these security contractors are not accountable to our nation's laws while employed in Iraq. In fact, there are no laws governing their behavior in any area of conflict. Military law and statutes? Nope. Nothing.
There was a protest in the Northwest back in 2002 where "law enforcement" officers shot rubber bullets into the crowds of people. There were families in that permitted march against Bush/Cheney's plans to invade Iraq, families that included small children. When the dust settled and people wanted to know who authorized this action, no one in authority would take responsibility for it. Gosh, no one authorized this action. And that's where the story died. No one knew anything about it.
Does this sound familiar? As in, U.S.Attorney-gate? Perhaps Blackwater or another outfit like them in this "growth" security industry provided those "officers" who fired the rubber bullets into the crowd exercising their Constitutional rights of assembly.
So when Bush calls for a "clean" funding bill, I humbly suggest that Congress hands him a bill all right -- a bill of indictment containing the articles of impeachment for high crimes against our nation.
Permalink | 15 comments