The dangers of privatizing government intelligence and military functions

The Republican mantra of privatization has mission creeped its way into some surprising areas of government. Intelligence, once thought to be the last bastion of government, has now become increasingly privatized. The problems with this are numerous, not the least of which is that privatization has proved to be more expensive, not less, and there is a loss of organizational memory when contracts are bid from one contract period to another, with private firms potentially changing with each contract.

I recommend you follow the link and read the following article before continuing:

The Vast and Dangerous Transfer of American Spying to Mercenary Companies
By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted July 28, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/92933/the_vast_and_dangerous_transfer_of_amer

Johnson considers just how incompetent and unscrupulous a thoroughly privatized intelligence 'community' has turned out to be.

AlterNet Editor's note--

Chalmers Johnson has produced a superb new article on what privatization has meant to the U.S. Intelligence Community.

Focusing on Tim Shorrock's new book, Spies for Hire, Johnson traces the history of "the wholesale transfer of military and intelligence functions to private, often anonymous operatives" from Ronald Reagan's day to the present, reminding us of just how crucial the Clinton administration was to this development. He also lays out just what can happen when the intelligence budget soars and startling amounts of it are placed in private, for-profit hands. Not only, he claims, has the privatization of intelligence made it easier for enemies to penetrate American intelligence and greased the slippery slope to the loss of professionalism within the community of intelligence analysts, but, perhaps most serious of all, it has ensured the loss of the most valuable asset any intelligence organization possesses -- its institutional memory.

Johnson concludes: "The current situation represents the worst of all possible worlds. Successive administrations and Congresses have made no effort to alter the CIA's role as the president's private army, even as we have increased its incompetence by turning over many of its functions to the private sector. We have thereby heightened the risks of war by accident, or by presidential whim, as well as of surprise attack because our government is no longer capable of accurately assessing what is going on in the world and because its intelligence agencies are so open to pressure, penetration, and manipulation of every kind."

This is a serious issue. We have already seen how Blackwater is usurping the military in Iraq, being paid many times more than the comparable soldier to perform the same function. We now are aware that Blackwater has ordered fighter jets. Why would a security firm need fighter jets?

New Embraer Jets Poised For Take Off Miriam Marcus, Forbes.com, 06.06.08, 6:10 PM ET

http://www.forbes.com/equities/2008/06/06/embraer-aircraft-closer-markets-equity-cx_mlm_0606markets37.html


Slowly, but surely, we are seeing our intelligence and military operations privatized. It started in the Reagan administration and has picked up speed in GWB's administration, going full out with the goal of achieving a totally privatized army and intelligence.

Blackwater is not the only culprit that is laughing all the way to the bank. There are other companies as well. Halliburton, for one. But you have to ask yourself, "Why?" Why is the U.S. government forfeiting its institutional intelligence and institutional memory that is an important part of an organization's functioning -- to be able to learn from the past from those who have been there before?

I find it to be of grave concern. Below is an excellent article on Blackwater:

Checkbook Imperialism: The Blackwater Fiasco
Robert Scheer, Truthdig.com, Sep 18, 2007

Please, please, I tell myself, leave Orwell out of it. Find some other, fresher way to explain why “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is dependent upon killer mercenaries. Or why the “democratically elected government” of “liberated” Iraq does not explicitly have the legal power to expel Blackwater USA from its land or hold any of the 50,000 private contractor troops that the U.S. government has brought to Iraq accountable for their deadly actions.

Were there even the faintest trace of Iraqi independence rising from the ashes of this failed American imperialist venture, Blackwater would have to fold its tents and go, if only in the interest of keeping up appearances. After all, the Iraqi Interior Ministry claimed that the Blackwater thugs guarding a U.S. State Department convoy through the streets of Baghdad fired “randomly at citizens” in a crowded square on Sunday, killing 11 people and wounding 13 others. So the Iraqi government has ordered Blackwater to leave the country after what a government spokesman called a “flagrant assault ... on Iraqi citizens.”

But who told those Iraqi officials that they have the power to control anything regarding the 182,000 privately contracted personnel working for the U.S. in Iraq? Don’t they know about Order 17, which former American proconsul Paul Bremer put in place to grant contractors, including his own Blackwater bodyguards, immunity from Iraqi prosecution? Nothing has changed since the supposed transfer of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority, which Bremer once headed, to the Iraqi government holed up in the Green Zone and guarded by Blackwater and other “private” soldiers. They are “private” in the same fictional sense that our uniformed military is a “volunteer” force, since both are lured by the dollars offered by the same paymaster, the U.S. government. Contractors earn substantially more, despite $20,000 to $150,000 signing bonuses and an all-time-high average annual cost of $100,000 per person for the uniformed military. All of this was designed by the neocon hawks in the Pentagon to pursue their dreams of empire
while avoiding a conscripted army, which would have millions howling in the street by now in protest.

Instead, we have checkbook imperialism. The U.S. government purchases whatever army it needs, which has led to the dependence upon private contract firms like Blackwater USA, with its $300-million-plus contract to protect U.S. State Department personnel in Iraq. That is why the latest Blackwater incident, which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki branded a “crime,” is so difficult to deal with. Iraqis are clearly demanding to rid their country of Blackwater and other contractors, and on Tuesday the Iraqi government said it would be scrutinizing the status of all private security firms working in the country.

But the White House hopes the outrage will once again blow over. As the Associated Press reported on Monday: “The U.S. clearly hoped the Iraqis would be satisfied with an investigation, a finding of responsibility and compensation to the victim’s families—and not insist on expelling a company that the Americans cannot operate here without.” Or, as Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified to the U.S. Senate last week: “There is simply no way at all that the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts.”

Consider the irony of that last statement—that the U.S. experiment in building democracy in Iraq is dependent upon the same garrisons of foreign mercenaries that drove the founders of our own country to launch the American Revolution. As George Washington warned in his farewell address, once the American government enters into these “foreign entanglements,” we lose the Republic, because public accountability is
sacrificed to the necessities of war for empire.

Despite the fact that Blackwater USA gets almost all of its revenue from the U.S. government—much of it in no-bid contracts aided, no doubt, by the lavish contributions to the Republican Party made by company founder Erik Prince and his billionaire parents—its operations remain largely beyond public scrutiny. Blackwater and others in this international security racket operate as independent states of their own, subject neither to the rules of Iraq nor the ones that the U.S. government applies to its own uniformed forces. “We are not simply a ‘private security company,’ ”

Blackwater boasts on its corporate website. “We are a professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations firm. ... We have become the most responsive, cost-effective means of affecting the strategic balance in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”

Yeah, so who elected you guys to run the world?

It is a question of accountability. It is very difficult to apply the "sunhine" law to anonymous employees in private industry, as we have found in the last seven years. Accountability is the cornerstone of the checks and balances in government. When the government brings private industry into the mix, the lines of accountability are obfuscated.

We must get a handle on this now.