ILSM – Interpreting Blackwater

This one is by ILSM:

———–

Boot and Dowd, Different Conclusions from the Same Observations:

Max Boot and Maureen Dowd wrote about Blackwater and mercenaries today.

They both recognize two arguments on the subject:

First, Blackwater costs a lot and appears to be war profiteering.

Second, Blackwater and similar contracted security (mercenaries) infringe upon the charade of Iraqi sovereignty. There is no Iraqi sovereignty or these issues would be disposed of by Iraqi authority.

The two part ways on the effects of these two issues.

Dowd highlights the slide into the “abyss” of militarism and compares Blackwater to Hessians of 1776. She also highlights the role of Blackwater’s connections to republican fund raisers and implies the huge revenue growth and no bid contracts may be pay back for campaign contributions. Nothing like friends on K Street!

Boot, ignores the elephant in the room of Iraqi occupation, and claims that mercenaries “free up” US troops who would require as many as 200,000 more soldiers in the Army and Marine Corps to support the “mission”.

This is a wild exaggeration of the need for the mercenaries. Like Gaffney every contractor does the work of 8 to 10 soldiers. The work is not really needed and the cost per contractor is not accounted for.

Defining missions as Boot does in such unfounded terms is business development for the contractors, aided by K Street paying back political favors.

The definition of “mission” is the issue and no one is looking out for the mission or the effects or lack there of.

There is the issue of war profiteering as well as the occupation. None of which contributes to achieving any necessary outcome other than keeping the long profit training going.

Boot’s 200,000 figure is hyperbole, same as the justification for the occupation and the huge war machine with its war profiteers.

This post was by ILSM.