Death by Mercenary

The indispensable Leila Fadel reports from Baghdad for McClatchy:

During the ensuing week, as Crocker and Petraeus told Congress that the surge of more U.S. troops to Iraq was beginning to work and President Bush gave a televised address in which he said "ordinary life was beginning to return" to Baghdad, Blackwater security guards shot at least 43 people on crowded Baghdad streets. At least 16 of those people died.

Now, obviously, Blackwater is operating in a legitimately deadly environment so some of this violence was probably justified. But "interviews with eyewitnesses and survivors of each incident describe similar circumstances in which Blackwater guards took aggressive action against civilians who seemed to pose no threat." And of course the system under which Blackwater is operating -- a system in which neither US military justice nor Iraqi law applies to Blackwater personnel -- is an open invitation to abuse. No government, be in headquartered in Washington or Baghdad, that was genuinely concerned with the well-being of the Iraqi people could possibly let an organization operate under those terms.

Comments

Krugman good on it too

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html

Posted by P O'Neill | September 28, 2007 10:23 AM

Are you suggesting that anyone in the American government or supportive of the invasion, besides truly the most naive and rose-spectacled, is, was, or ever will be "concerned with the well-being of the Iraqi people"?

There's ample evidence that the plan all along was to tear it in three. Power vacuum, chaos, civil war, 3 states. Senate finally seems to be admitting that that's the desired outcome "at this stage"... Even though the people who planned this have been writing about it for at least 10 years.

Of course you have so many clueless media voices ASSUMING this must really be for humanitarian purposes, the advancement of Iraqi society, the return of peace and the rule of law (and sewers!).

Why is the pundit class so fucking clueless? Someone please answer me that. Thank you.

Posted by M | September 28, 2007 10:35 AM

No government, be in headquartered in Washington or Baghdad, that was genuinely concerned with the well-being of the Iraqi people could possibly let an organization operate under those terms.

Yet, they do.

Posted by terraformer | September 28, 2007 10:59 AM

Give the pundit class credit: They're extremely clueful about cocktail wienies, getting invites to the right parties, the fine art of teabagging, and spotting which side of the bread the butter is on.

Anybody who thinks that the well-being of the Iraqi people -- or the American people, for that matter -- has anything at all to do with Bush's war in Iraq should read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (links below).

There is a playbook here, and the plays are being followed, and that's well understood by all the players (among whom we are distinctly not numbered).

What we see is a disaster Our Betters see as a business opportunity. (In that way, Iraq is exactly like Katrina.) What we see as incompetence, looting, and death Our Betters see as unavoidable friction on the path to billions in profit--even leaving aside the oil.

Nice to see our Democrats in Congress standing strong on our side ... Oh, wait...

Link to Klein lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4

There are six in all. Enjoy!

Posted by lambert strether | September 28, 2007 11:07 AM

Interesting leap in logic to assume that violence is probably warranted in the dangerous enviornment of Iraq. Go ahead and take out civilians, we're the good guys, after all. Laws, we don't need no sinkin' laws. The same old same old as in a previous war fought not long ago in the jungles of SE Asia.

Posted by browne | September 28, 2007 11:29 AM

MY and most of the other blogospheric pundits are still trying to maintain a civil manner, a polite relationship to the establishment, a semblance of a polity. i don't blame them too much

after the start of the war with iran it will be interesting to see who cuts themselves loose, because the separation will likely be irrevocable.

Posted by bob mcmanus | September 28, 2007 12:21 PM

Having had considerable experience while an employee of the Federal Government with crooked contractors, the issues with Blackwater surprise me not at all.

Posted by SLC | September 28, 2007 12:29 PM

Who are these guys any way? The most common explanations for the use of these thugs are 1) we don't have enough troops to do the job and 2) the thugs are cheaper. To date we have not gotten an answer to any of the following: 1)how many thugs have we hired? 2) how many civilians have the thugs killed? and 3)how many thugs have been killed.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 28, 2007 12:37 PM

"Now, obviously, Blackwater is operating in a legitimately deadly environment so some of this violence was probably justified."

No, these are mercenaries who have been deemed not to be answerable to any law. Nothing they do is justified. Their being in the country at all is not morally justified. Each mercenary who shoots somebody is personally responsible for doing something evil and unjustifiable.

Posted by Ian | September 28, 2007 12:38 PM

Each if us who is not part of this evil organization should be thankful. Karma never fails or forgets, murder is murder and the Blackwater boys are murderers.

Posted by balzar | September 28, 2007 1:11 PM

A lot of the mercenaries in Iraq that we hired are former Pinochet Chilean military guys, former apartheid-era South African security, military and intelligence people and former Inkatha Freedom Party enforcers, in addition to American hires.

"There's ample evidence that the plan all along was to tear it in three. Power vacuum, chaos, civil war, 3 states."

That assumes the pro-war people were smart enough in 2002-2003 to look up "Iraq" on Wikipedia and learn that there were three primary ethnic-religious groups in Iraq. These are not smart, well-informed people.

Posted by Reality Man | September 28, 2007 1:42 PM

That the US political establishment cares nothing about what happens to the Iraqi people is nothing to be surprised at, and scarcely worth comment. However, for some time I could not understand why, judging from actions rather than words, they seemed to have exactly the same attitude towards US troops, but I think the explanation is here.

As the public institution disintegrates, it can be replaced by a privatized military which will be even more profitable and even less accountable than the one America has now. Of course, American corporations will not pay for this mercenary force; that will continue to be the responsibility of the taxpayer.

Machiavelli wouldn't have approved, but then he thought war was a political act rather than a financial one.

Posted by RLaing | September 28, 2007 2:15 PM

MY and most of the other blogospheric pundits are still trying to maintain a civil manner, a polite relationship to the establishment, a semblance of a polity. i don't blame them too much

after the start of the war with iran it will be interesting to see who cuts themselves loose, because the separation will likely be irrevocable."

Bob hit that one out of the ballpark.

I, too, am waiting for Matt to come down on one side or the other of the Iran thing. He has steadfastly refused to do so, merely commenting on how Iran warmongers are not great people and other "toe nudgings" without committing himself to anything.

He has, for example, AFAIK, said absolutely nothing about Obama's attitude toward Iran as a "serious threat". Note that Obama has not said that Iran isn't proven to have a nuclear weapons program, or that Iran has a perfect right to enrichment under the NPT. All Obama has said is that "Iran is a serious threat" and "we should use diplomacy before..." - before what? Bombing them, obviously.

Yet Matt has no criticism of this position.

When are you going to step up, Matt? Because if you don't do it before Bush starts the war, you're going to have zero credibility doing it afterwards - because you already screwed up on the Iraq war. Hiding behind a "non-position" on Iran isn't going to help your credibility.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 28, 2007 4:05 PM

MY must still be harboring hopes of one day writing for the New York Times...

Posted by D.R. Marvel | September 28, 2007 11:33 PM

I think he's got a better chance to write for Mad Magazine...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 29, 2007 2:12 AM