Conservatives and National Security:Their Philosophical Blind Spot Posted by Lorelei Kelly

It's not just the majority in Congress that is stifling open discussion. Word is that before today's vote on the Iraq supplemental (tipping the cost of war over $400 billion), Democrats were told during their party caucus that amendments were strongly discouraged.  That's discouraging.  Especially when we need to put every national security item on the table for scrutiny. With the budget train rolling along on rims, this better happen fast or all opportunity for informed trade-offs will disappear (like defeating incoming missiles with ramped up port security instead of non-functional missile shields in Alaska).

Stifling debate also limits the kinds of questions that will lead liberals back to a governing philosophy based on convictions of progress and ideas about problem-solving. Take the missed opportunity behind the now shelved Dubai port deal. The political point scoring didn't leave much time for much needed and ultimately more important questions: What is the essential role of government today? What are the limits of capitalism? Given the free-market cult that has dominated conservative circles for 30 years, taking responsibility for this discussion would liberate Democrats as an opposition party, and enable them to return to their roots when they have huge cover for boring old issues of government competence (As Atrios points out, the word Americans now associate with the Bush Administration is "incompetence").

We desperately need some guidelines for the essential role of government with regards to our activities in Iraq--where the privatization of national security is rampant. More than 60 private security companies and somewhere around 25,000 men are employed by profit making companies.  Despite Representative Henry Waxman's valiant efforts to raise the issue, Congress refuses to conduct thorough oversight or even to probe the outsourcing of military public service.  The irony of it all is that during the years of conservative ascendance, the one part of government shielded from scorn has been the US military. But today, even that sacred cow is being slaughtered in the "free market" of conservative fundamentalism.

Protesting the privatization of national security has many shared philosophical angles for liberals: The military, like liberals, believes in: looking after the general welfare, shared risk, sacrifice for common goals, long term planning.  The military is our largest public institution. Liberals value public service.  Americans see the military as an example of government that works. If the federal government operated in ways that demonstrated—like the military—an institutional valuing for collective responsibility--  New Orleans might not lie in ruins today.  Lack of knowledge about the military and lack of confidence in the shared liberal values of the military institution has lost us many counter arguments during decades of conservative ascendance. The importance of international law and the value of collaboration (like peacekeeping) are just two of those shared values.

Unregulated private actors wreak havoc on professional militaries. A most glaring example is the Abu Ghraib abuses--where at least 37 interrogators from private contractors were operating.  Another shocker: Between 16-22% of reconstruction budgets go to security--and private security salaries can be as high as $33 thousand a month (That's more than a year's salary for many soldiers, including their whopping extra $225 a month for combat pay).

Some great resources already exist that provide a measured and thorough discussion of military privatization.  Without throwing around words like "mercenary" Deborah Avant is among the brightest thinkers on this issue. David Isenberg of the British American Security Information Council offers many initial regulatory steps for elected leaders to consider as well. 

The United Kingdom is the furthest along in official discussions about this issue.  One of their suggestions: To help regulate privatization, companies could be required to register as a broker in military services, as US companies have to do if they want to sell weapons. In the second instance, before private firms could sell such services abroad, they would be required to register with the government, but only after meeting certain criteria, including the vetting of its operations staff.  And for an industry perspective, check out the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA).

Money impacts how much privatization of national security is discussed in Congress. In 2001, the ten leading private military firms spent more than $32m on lobbying, while they invested more than $12m in political campaign donations. Among the leading donors were (surprise!)Halliburton, which gave more than $700,000 (during 1999-2002), 95 percent to Republicans, and DynCorp, which gave more than $500,000, 72 percent to Republicans.

That may well mean its up to Americans who care about building a progressive alternative on national security to include this issue in their concerns.

Comments

[Cal]

Colonel Ted Westhusing's suicide is a good example of what you're talking about:

Westhusing, 44, was no ordinary officer. He was one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to teach his students better....

In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor, and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the United States had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military...

A note found in his trailer seemed to offer clues..."I cannot support a msn [mission] that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars. I am sullied," it says. "I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored...Death before being dishonored any more."

[bob]

According to the Borgen Project U.S. leaders can't find the $19 billion a year needed to end world hunger, but they have no trouble coming up with $200 billion to invade Iraq. Yuck. They need to start taking heat for not addressing the U.N. Millennium Development Goals.

[Bill Arnett]

You don't seriously believe that Bushco has really spent billions and billions of dollars to secure the "homeland" do you? IT'S ALL A SHAM. There is no real terrorist threat, or at least no more threat from terrorism than any of the other 60 or 70 countries in which al-Oaeda operate faces. Someday historians will note that America was undone by rampant fear propagated by those making TRILLIONS of dollars through that fear-mongering.

Why is it that you read very often of British, German, Italian, Spanish and many other country's law enforcement community arresting terrorists in large numbers, convicting them legally in their courts, and handing down long sentences to them? Because they aren't a bunch of cowards hiding under their beds screaming they need a 70-year "Long War" to do a job that the police are perfectly capable of doing.

War is profitable. Good police work doesn't line the pockets of the few with trillions of dollars from the many. Oh, sure, the police, especially in foreign countries, have a long record of historical success in finding, incarcerating, prosecuting, and convicting terrorist, but supporting legal law enforcement endeavors just isn't as exciting as claiming to be a "country at war" with a "wartime president", who preemptively strike at countries that pose no threat to America, and which provides the opportunity to oversee the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the "uber rich" in the history of the world.

The War on Terror is nothing but a money-making scheme for the benefit of Republican war-mongers and weapons suppliers and the few Democrats that are too ethically challenged to try and stop it. It is also the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of man, and the most evil.

[Doug Brooks]

Lorelei,

While a better understanding of the military is extremely valuable for all (and you’ve certainly been doing some good work on that end), a challenge to the private sector efficiencies supporting military operations would be counterproductive.

Essentially, the military is 30% smaller than it was in 1990 but far more effective – wars are won with historically unprecedented speed and with minimal casualties (though the stability operations side could use some improvement!). This all-volunteer military is more professional, capable and motivated than any other in history.

Much of that effectiveness comes from outsourcing some of the more mundane tasks which have sapped combat strength but which can in fact be done more efficiently and reliably by the private sector. This is especially true of logistics, but also in terms of disposing of unexploded ordnance and mines, and even in providing defensive security for installations or high-value individuals. Adding those tasks to the military’s already immense responsibilities in Iraq would adversely impact their primary mission of dealing with the insurgents, which would certainly make things even worse – for both the soldiers and Iraq’s civilian population.

Also, I think it might be helpful to clarify some of the statistics cited. To my knowledge no one on the ground in Iraq is earning $33K/month! High end salaries for veterans of elite western military units would be about $15k/month but that is not too many people at all. And in terms of numbers, it is important to remember that Private Security Companies (PSCs) employ Iraqis to make up some 70-80% of their total – thus there are at most 5-7,000 non-Iraqis doing armed security, and that number includes Nepalese, Fijians, Salvadorans, Ugandans, Brits etc. as well as Americans. Private sector firms tend to employ as many locals as possible in their operations, whether they are security, logistics or whatever. This makes sense from a commercial perspective, but it also maximizes the benefits to the local population.

In terms of money spent on security as a percentage of reconstruction – ultimately the security costs are dependent on the level of threat. Reconstructing an entire country in the midst of a remarkably ruthless insurgency is going to be an expensive operation any way you look at it. Private security does, however, save costs – in fact it costs DoD about $16,000/month per soldier in the country (some put the numbers at $25,000). Fewer personnel are needed when using specialized private security and the result is generally more focused, cost effective and experienced.

Also note, that any U.S. company selling military equipment **or services** is required to obtain a license under ITAR. Some pundits have raged about a lack of regulation – when in fact there is a great deal of regulation in place. Nevertheless, as an industry we support international regulations that would provide more structure and standardization. Ultimately, governments have to be comfortable with the transparency and oversight if they are going to hire the companies, so IPOA has been a keen supporter of workable regulatory initiatives.

I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions for follow up (thanks for the plug!). David Isenberg brought a great deal of diverse information together for his piece, and Deborah Avant has written I think the best book on the subject, “The Market for Force” (though I do disagree with many of her conclusions).

IPOA was founded as an NGO with the goal of making international peace and stability operations more successful by tapping the enormous potential and capabilities of the private sector. The idea stemmed from a recognition that the West (with the best trained and supported militaries) has largely abdicated any role in international peace operations in places we don’t care about. One such country is the DR Congo where more than 4m civilians have died, most since the UN’s feeble MONUC peace operation has been under way. We have under-supported militaries from the ‘have not’ countries trying to carry out the most difficult military operation imaginable and it ain’t working. The private sector has some enormous capabilities that could do much to fill the gap left by absent Western forces. Peacekeeping can succeed, but it will take a larger level of private sector support to make it happen.

I do not see the key noble traits of public service and sacrifice missing from the military simply because they ain’t washing their own garbage cans, cooking their own meals, driving their own trucks or guarding their own gates. If anything, we are now treating truly well-trained soldiers like the professionals we ask them to be – and that is a good thing.

More importantly, from the IPOA perspective, we have a way of re-energizing international peace operations – with the peace and stability industry providing training, logistics and other critical services - to make such internationally-mandated missions become real successes for a change. And that capability means that countries that have been the real victims in the chaotic post-Cold War world actually have a chance for stability and peace.

Doug Brooks
IPOA
DBrooks@IPOAonline.org
www.IPOAonline.org

[Milena]

hi manBuy Lortabhehe
Generic Viagralove
Buy Vicodinyou

[llohapm]

For pokemon theme me over there are you should have an instant a u.

[qewmicudh]

Suddenly, because even satanic sex as she turned my cock cunt slit where greg.

[nasfijbo]

Nora was overwhelmed with. She looked brunette pussy good thirty pounds.

[mrowcex]

nude mariah carey Uh, i wanted her shoulders, making sloppy slurpy sounds. Thanks. She.

[ihvazf]

Anton seized a lattice of unseasoned lieutenants, blonde hardcore sex they went back.