Blackwater Founder Wants to Provide “Turn Key” Mercenary AF for Afghanistan

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13193/blackwater-founder-thinks-his-private-air-force-can-help-afghanistan

by QAPereo • 9 years ago

27 56 9 years ago

Good. Maybe if more people start to see the military as just another business they will start to change the way we think about how we use our military. It will be less, "Brave soldiers putting their life on the line for us" and more "People whose job sometimes requires they kill people for the highest bidder."

Teever• 9 years ago

I wish that people didn't take these knee-jerk, edgy, contrarian responses.

There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibility of the potential benefit you claim.

I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.

How do we ensure they don't go rogue?

prawn• 9 years ago

And who defines "rogue"?

microwavecamera2• 9 years ago

Considering the history of Blackwater it's a distinct possibility.

Lazare2• 9 years ago

I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.

Historically, that's hardly unusual.

How do we ensure they don't go rogue?

How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.

Consultant324529• 9 years ago

I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war

Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder.

How do we ensure they don't go rogue?

The public entity is already rogue.

Bartweiss• 9 years ago

I'm sort of stunned at all the people saying "the military is already rogue so it's fine". It feels alarmingly ahistorical - a military the public is unhappy with is bad, but the history of e.g. Rome ought to speak to how vastly much worse military privatization can become.

chii3• 9 years ago

I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.

what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.

microcolonel• 9 years ago

I'd take a position between you two. I personally don't see the problem with a military force being operated as a private business. The state still has the monopoly on approving the use of force, and they are no more and no less protected from a force "going rogue", when you think about it.

I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force.

Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.

wavefunction3• 9 years ago

What happens when one of these private companies comes through your area and kills your loved ones? Who is to be held responsible?

At least with nation states there's some feeble international law.

Lazare2• 9 years ago

Is international law what stops Russia from annexing Alaska?

Conversely, how well is international law working for the residents of eastern Ukraine?

Although I wish it were otherwise, when I look around the world, I see a system governed by force, not laws. Private military forces fit tidily into this system.

rhcom22• 9 years ago

There is a difference between fighting for a country's interests and fighting for personal profit. The military is not "just another business".

Consultant324529• 9 years ago

I disagree that our military fights for our nation's best interests and not for personal profit.

verelo• 9 years ago

Is there? In theory yes, but in practice does this happen? I really really want to say there should be but I don't know I could sell that story and completely believe it myself.

frgtpsswrdlame• 9 years ago

How do you envision the effects of that change in thinking? Doesn't seem like it could be anything positive to me.

Consultant324529• 9 years ago

I believe that hero worship of military personnel is what allows so many crimes against humanity to be overlooked. Getting rid of that seems like it might at least let us put torturers behind bars.

3131s5• 9 years ago

Are you aware of who Erik Prince and Stephen Feinberg are? You are essentially advocating for even more death and misery abroad in the short term, in the hope that the public's stance on the US military will change. It won't change anyway though, the opposite would happen -- allowing Blackwater and Dyncorp to do what they do (murder, human trafficking, torture, etc.) will accelerate chaos in the Middle East and globally, and you'll end up with even more Americans throwing themselves behind the war machine.

trestletech• 9 years ago

Amazingly, UberForWar.com is still available.

dhbanes• 9 years ago

Not anymore

jimjimjim• 9 years ago

the whole point of mercenaries is meant to be distance and deniability.

if something 'goes wrong' who gets the blame?

beedogs• 9 years ago

Well, apparently nobody gets the blame. Or, more accurately, the court system overturns the convictions of mercenaries who slaughter dozens of civilians:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-co...

chii3• 9 years ago

it should be the paying entities that takes the responsibility. The mercs themselves don't (and arguably shouldn't) take any liability when they are ordered to kill anyone.

theEXTORTCIST• 9 years ago

this is an interesting application... was linked in the article safestrike.it

chickenbane• 9 years ago

For those who don't read the article, AF in this context is Air Force and not As Fuck

spraak2• 9 years ago

I wonder how frequently people on HN go straight to the comments? (I did think AF was 'as fuck')

YouKnowBetter• 9 years ago

I always do. Only after reading a) some good discussion, b) seeing no comments at all I will potentially visit the original site.

spraak2• 9 years ago

Wow, I'm shocked that I didn't even realize the US was still 'at war' in Afghanistan. Now I'm looking at the Wikipedia page and reading that "[t]he War in Afghanistan is the longest war in United States history" [1].

How embarrassing :( I wonder how many Americans are un/aware of this.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...

3131s5• 9 years ago

A lot probably. The US population seems to be totally unaware of what their military is really doing.

The whole thing is obfuscated in a web of foreign governments, three-letter agencies, contractors and tech giants, endless acronyms and euphemisms (e.g. 'disposition matrix', 'extraordinary rendition', 'enhanced interrogation techniques', 'collateral damage'), and as others in this thread have said, a lot of it is about creating distance from culpability. Barack Obama was a remarkably adept and slick PR guy, possessing the perfect confluence of personal attributes to make Americans not care about whatever their government was doing. But now Trump is letting the cat out of the bag! It's a dangerous course of events but maybe has more opportunity for creating lasting change if people unite against him.

Can I suggest this news network?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News

They have a Youtube channel with all their videos up. The name pre-dates the "real" vs. "fake news" thing. It's a rare example of American journalists speaking candidly about the US war & arms industry. They have other content too, along the lines of Democracy Now but with less focus on social justice issues, but I know that the CEO / editor Paul Jay believes that US war profiteering is presently the main existential threat to humankind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s

cmurf• 9 years ago

It just shows we have learned nothing from Iran-Contra.

The decision of the International Court of Justice in June 1986 condemning the United States for the “unlawful use of force” and illegal economic warfare was dismissed as an irrelevant pronouncement by a “hostile forum” (New York Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

War profiteering is a rent-seeking activity. It's public fraud. And its adherents are aristocratic. They believe they're better than others, murder is completely ethical and available for a price, which is its only inhibitor. Thing is, when this class get out of control, their fellow little primates, who happen to be the vast majority, can go ape shit and build things like guillotines. Yes, there were so many victims that needed execution the streets ran with blood for days. They'd obviously let them accumulate unchecked for far too long. Oh well.

Blackwater Founder Wants to Provide “Turn Key” Mercenary AF for Afghanistan

Related Stories