MotherJones Blog: State Dept. to Renew Blackwater's Security Contract in Iraq

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

State Dept. to Renew Blackwater's Security Contract in Iraq

After Blackwater operators opened fire on civilians in Baghdad last September, killing 17 and wounding more than 20 others, there was speculation that the controversial firm would be replaced by another security contractor when its five-year contract with the State Department expired in May. After all, initial investigations by the military and the FBI indicated that—contrary to Blackwater's version of events—its contractors were at fault in the shootings. "It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong," a military official told the Washington Post back in October. "The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP [Iraqi Police] or any of the local security forces fired back at them." For a company that has maintained that the actions of its contractors were justified, the steps it took immediately after the shootings certainly seemed suspicious. Initially, Blackwater said that damage to its vehicles would prove its side of the story—that its contractors were attacked and were simply defending themselves and their clients. Yet, after the incident, the company reportedly repainted and repaired its vehicles, destroying key evidence that could potentially exonerate the company.

While a cloud still hangs over Blackwater, and it remains the subject of multiple investigations, including one by Henry Waxman's House oversight committee, the State Department shocked some Blackwater watchers yesterday by announcing that it would renew the firm's contract for another year.

The State Department says it can terminate Blackwater's contract at any time—and that the results of the FBI's ongoing investigation, when released, could also affect Blackwater's deal. That said, it's fairly remarkable that State would endure what is sure to be an onslaught of bad PR just to keep Blackwater on the job in Iraq. But there's a reason the agency may be willing to weather the flack—it is scared that the job of guarding the civilians currently protected by Blackwater could fall to its Diplomatic Security branch, which is spread pretty thin as it is. According to the Washington Post, State has a total of 1,400 diplomatic security agents, which are stationed at various posts around the world. Blackwater, by comparison, has close to 1,000 contractors working in Iraq and the ability to deploy many more at a moment's notice. The truth is, the government has become so reliant on PSCs that it is likely willing to overlook a shooting here and a shooting there so long as it doesn't have to deploy its own to resources to do the very dangerous work of guarding diplomats and dignitaries (and, yes, members of the press).

But whether or not Blackwater's contractors are guilty of massacring civilians, there's a rather big problem with the State Department's decision to keep Blackwater on. Many Iraqis already believe that Blackwater, and other security firms, operate with complete impunity, shielded from any form of accountability for their actions, and the U.S. government has done nothing to dispel that notion. Now, by renewing Blackwater's contract, it probably only reinforced the already widespread belief that security contractors are above the law.

Last winter, as Bruce Falconer and I reported our recent story on Blackwater's sister company, Greystone, I rang up retired marine colonel T.X. Hammes, who served in Iraq during the early days of the war and who has been vocal in his belief that security contractors have no place there. He has nothing against Blackwater and said its operators are among the most well-trained and professional of the security contractors working in Iraq, something I've heard from numerous sources. But, he noted, the mission of security contractors—protecting their clients—is inherently in conflict with the military's overarching strategy in Iraq, which involves appealing to the hearts and minds of the people and paving the way for some form of political accommodation. You can imagine how security contractors can and have set these efforts back, when, for instance, they run cars off the road when they get too close to their convoys or, worse, when they wound or kill civilians. "I don't think they belong in an insurgency ever, or in a combat zone ever," Hammes told me. "In a counterinsurgency, essentially it's a competition for the legitimacy of the government. The government is legitimate if it can provide security and hope for a better future. But as part of that hope for a better future, there has to be a feeling that in some way that government is accountable to you.... Iraqis have known these guys will never be punished; they just leave the country." He added, "The very fact that you're using contractors undercuts the legitimacy of the government."

Comments

Yikes! Well, what could anyone expect? Insofar as the State Dept. responsibility is in the hands of [the truly weirdly named] Condoleezza Rice, we essentially have President Cheney and Faux President Bush in charge of State, and we know all about those guys.

The question becomes one of Congressional and Democratic backbone. Are there are hundreds of good reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney? Yes! Does Congress do it? No! Did they steal the 2000 election? Yes! Does Congress impeach them? No! Did they tell a thousand lies to get us into the disastrous war in Iraq? Yes! Does Congress impeach them? No! Did Bush and Cheney deliberately, and illegally, out a CIA agent as an act of political revenge? Yes! Does Congress impeach them? No!

As more revelations appear, such as Bush-Cheney responsibility for torture, for the crimes of Abu Ghraib, and as other horrific violations of the Constitution, of the public's trust, and of common humanity are revealed, does Congress impeach? No!

The people, in the absence of representation, find themselves in the grasp of tyranny. These criminals are going to get away scot-free, and perhaps even retain White House (in the person of another ignorant and venal Republican stooge. WHAT are we going to do?

Let us hope that retribution will be wrought upon these gangsters in some way, within the law, after they finaly leave office. Never forget these criminals and their crimes! Never give up on insisting that they face JUSTICE.

Posted by: Madernhell on 04/05/08 at 10:48 AM Respond

George W. Bush and the Republicans..... again, restoring accountability and integrity. Go Dubya!

Posted by: Matthew on 04/05/08 at 11:19 AM Respond

I don't see why the big banks
& corporations need them anymore. I mean really,
the rest of the planet is
about to get hip to
"Brown Gas"!

Posted by: josephjsalas on 04/05/08 at 12:14 PM Respond

Where do we assign blame? The Republicans who started the occupation? The Democrats who have completely failed to act as an opposition party? The media which has failed to criticize an unjust war? Or the half of the population that doesn't vote?

The Roman empire was famous, among other things, for using mercenaries.

Posted by: disbelief on 04/06/08 at 12:03 AM Respond

So what if Iraqis are angry? If the outrage over trigger-happy, unaccountable contractors draws people into insurgent groups and endangers American and other nationals working or serving in the occupation forces in Iraq, as well as Iraqi citizens, of what importance is that compared with the need to generate huge profits for a generous campaign contributor? Loyalty is important, you know!

Posted by: AlexLawyer on 04/06/08 at 2:13 AM Respond

Ah! The virtues of of the
Foreign Fed being shrouded
in corporate webbing.

Posted by: josephjsalas on 04/06/08 at 8:28 AM Respond

Bush like, fired a bunch of State Dept. peeps and replaced em with his pals from the Penta$cam, what did you think was going to happen, there? That's ok, though, just vote for Bert.
We'll spend $200 billion on green-tech, and not another plug nickel on Iraq, and turn Congress loose on the whole bunch until that federal budget balances. Troops etc. will have to re-learn the long lost art of independent self-support, but into every life, some rain must fall...
and I intend to lay that faucet wide-open if I get George's job! Boy, howdy, it's gonna be a gusher...
lots of people getting fired on-the-spot, too. It's gonna be ugly, but that federal budget WILL balance!
Bert08

Posted by: Bert on 04/06/08 at 8:35 AM Respond

If "economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomarrow (C. Coolidge)," why're we paying Blackwater $1,200 per day, per man to guard officials that the Army could take well in hand...

But doesn'that make just as much sense as Pres. Bush deciding that a U.S. citizen could be held incommunicado and systematically tortured (water board) completely dependant upon uncorroborated hearsay evidence extracted by torture in an overseas secret prison...

No..., you don't step on Superman's cape... HUH???!!!

Alternatively, in United States v. Watts the US Supreme Court held that Congress intended incremental punishment for each of the multiple offenses of which a defendant is ACQUITTED. First the District Court "enhanced" a sentence on its own inititive; then the Court of Appeals reversed: "... a sentencing judge may not, 'under any standard of proof,' rely on facts of which a defendant was acquitted."

Now a recent MIT report says ETHANOL causes slightly more greenhouse gases than gasoline alone--while significantly raising the price of Natural Gas (and food too)!!!!

"The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 (35.9 billion) were more than the profits of all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion)," The Truth About Drug Companies, M Angell, M.D.

"Since George Bush became President in 2001, the top five oil companies in the United States have recorded profits of $464 billion through the first quarter of 2007 ...," Skyrocketing Gasoline Prices and Record Oil Company Profits: No Coincidence, R. Nader, Public Citizen.

Let's Work Together--WHAT???!!!

Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 04/06/08 at 7:40 PM Respond

Isn't it interesting and instructive the way the slaughter of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square has disappeared down the memory hole? No one was held accountable. Not one person. Amazing. What kind of country permits mass murder of unarmed civilians to go unpunished? We have become a pariah nation with good reason.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on 04/07/08 at 11:35 AM Respond

has this state department ever cared about "bad pr"?

Posted by: francis seidle on 04/07/08 at 1:07 PM Respond

Why don't we divide Blackwater into two separate teams, and the US and Iraq teams can go fight each other, leaving the military, and more important, the Iraqi civilians out of it.

Posted by: Suzanne Pontius on 04/07/08 at 1:52 PM Respond

I thought the security of diplomatic personnel was a long and honorable tradition of the Marines.

Posted by: Robert H. Norman on 04/07/08 at 2:15 PM Respond

when a soldier or marine rapes or kills in war he goes to trial, not the whole army or the marine corps.
contractors acting illegaly goes to trial the same way not the whole entity.

Posted by: Dr.Q on 04/07/08 at 3:59 PM Respond

Bush: "The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper" Bush: gives us the middle finger once again, he deserves to be brought up for WAR Crimes. The Blackwater Prince's family must have joined the KKK,or those gun nuts in the early years, posse comitotus? But judging by the latest pictures of Bush so called speaking, he's loosing it mentally.

Posted by: John Bakalik on 04/08/08 at 6:03 AM Respond

The media nor American government has ever held these private security forces accountable and the numbers are large--hundreds of thousands spread around the globe guarding the rich and powerful. They were in New Orleans protecting the rich though nobody mentioned it. The militarization of America has grown at an alarming rate under the Bush regime--CIA armies, new nuclear weapons, expanded SDI, and black ops weapons systems (Cheney's favorite). Makes me recall the '60s slogan: "War is good business, invest your children."
Tom Hall
Baltimore

Posted by: Thomas Hall on 04/09/08 at 1:00 PM Respond