Blackwater

Blackwater

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The war strategy that the Bush Administration has emphasized for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism in general has been one where a delicate balance between domestic political concerns and national security objectives has been thrust together like never before. In previous wars, the United States was able to conscript military forces to achieve US national security objectives. Military personnel that were conscripted fell under the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the traditional civilian-elect chain of command. This gave the Congress of the United States enhanced powers to regulate the conduct of the wars that conscription supplemented, and it also allowed the American people themselves a greater stake in shouldering the burdens that war brings to the nation-state. Conscription for war by the nation-state crosses political and ideological boundaries as such representation by the people for the armed services of the United States is needed to fight and win wars. Military conscription policy also solidifies opponents against war like no other issue besides the source of war conflict itself. This happens because there are sources of political power that believe that there can be no justification for war regardless of circumstance, but we know national security objectives can demand war because when diplomacy is irrational, war is rational.

The Vietnam War is the best example of conscription policy melding in a hostile way with political special interest groups that oppose war in all forms. Military conscription was under constant attack during the Vietnam War with draftees burning draft cards, massive demonstrations against the war in US cities across the country, and acts of violence against military facilities, personnel and equipment. That said, fighting wars requires soldiers to do the fighting, and since military conscription is no longer a palatable political tool, the interest in the formation of private military forces has increasingly become the norm, especially in the current War on Terrorism.

Private recruitment of military forces is defined by opponents to such recruitment as that of mercenary activity. Blackwater USA recruits from the full spectrum of former soldiers that have served in the US Armed Forces. In the 1990s the US Armed Forces downsized after the First Persian Gulf War to take advantage of what was coined the “peace dividend”, or the fallacious belief that after the fall of communism that the world would see reductions of human conflict. In reality, the global security condition of the world was dangerously reduced because there was no longer two hegemons capable of keeping order between nation-states. The emergence of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in its declared war against democracies drew the United States into an emergency conflict that has dangerously pressured the military forces of the US because of the troop reductions that occurred in the 1990s.

Absent direct and lawful conscription, a valid higher politic of the nation-state, the United States would be forced to either conscript the manpower that it needed to fight the War on Terrorism or to call upon privatized military forces through companies such as Blackwater USA to recruit former military veterans that in most cases have some level of combat experience and would not function as a raw conscripted recruit would during times of war.

Opponents of the War on Terrorism and the advancement of the idea of America around the world are livid due to the creation of such military forces acting on behalf of the United States. The privatizing of war using private corporations gives the Commander in Chief greater flexibility to call upon more specialized forces that would otherwise be ineligible for standard military service due to age or other factors. Many military veterans are fully capable but are older than the maximum age recruitment cutoff that the US military uses as one enlistment benchmark which is age 42. These former soldiers are also excellently trained and have global experience in hostile areas.

The attraction to recruiting military personnel through private companies then is very palatable to elected officials that have unexpectedly been tasked to defend the United States against transnational terrorism. The Administration would not be well received in its national security objectives if a decision were made to conscript from the general population of eligible males. Opponents of the war understand this and these special interest groups have already pressured recruitment numbers down far enough to meet their expectations that they can influence Administration objectives in waging war against America’s enemies. It is predictable then that these same special interests would go after Blackwater USA to eliminate the privatization and recruitment of private armies.

What must be recognized here is a more sinister approach that is emerging, and one that I have talked about before here at OPORD Analytical, and that attacks upon the existence of Blackwater USA and other private security forces are the first stages of broader attacks upon US intelligence, its funding and operations in defense of the United States. One must simply look back to what occurred after the Vietnam Conflict when the US Intelligence community was brought swiftly under scrutiny by the Church Committee. I predict that attacks upon companies such as Blackwater USA by special interest organizations including the media will expand across other components of the national security strategy that the United States is using during the War on Terrorism.

With military conscription an unlikely choice for the modern politician, attempts to restrict the operational capability of companies such as Blackwater USA will hurt US national security. If Blackwater USA is unable to operate in Iraq with the flexibility that the company currently deploys, US servicemen and women will be the ones who pay the personal cost of such political wagering. Companies such as Blackwater USA provide a vital security role in the modern theatre of war.

The IC should carefully examine the political attacks upon Blackwater USA as a litmus test of pending expanded scrutiny upon the IC budget and how the IC conducts business during the War on Terrorism.

Christopher Farmer

MS, National Security

Blackwater USA is under attack by special interest politics. What are your thoughts about the privatization of military forces?

Your donations keep OPORD Analytical in business. Please using our convenient donation form. Thank you!