State Dept. Renews Blackwater Contract in Iraq Despite Pentagon Labeling Sept. Bag...

[rebelnyell]

Democracy Now! | State Dept. Renews Blackwater Contract in Iraq Despite Pentagon Labeling Sept. Baghdad Killing of 17 Civilians "A Criminal Event"

The State Department has announced it is extending the private military firm Blackwater’s contract in Baghdad for another year. The news comes despite an ongoing FBI investigation into the September 16th shooting in Baghdad where Blackwater guards were accused of killing seventeen Iraqi civilians. An earlier investigation by the Pentagon found that all seventeen Iraqis were killed as a result of unprovoked and unjustified fire by Blackwater operatives. We speak with journalist Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestselling book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s most Powerful Mercenary Army. Scahill recently confronted the vice president of Blackwater about the September 16th shootings.

I am quite interested in topics like this, some including Guantanamo Bay and other injustices around this time. I am wondering what you think of not only this event, Blackwater, but other ones like Guantanamo Bay and other relating to this.

[HelioPrime]

The administration is likely just figuring like most issues, this will fade and shortly be forgotten.

[rebelnyell]

The administration is likely just figuring like most issues, this will fade and shortly be forgotten.

Yea that is what it mentioned somewhat in the article:

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right, I mean, like much of US policy now, the Bush administration is sort of pushing everything for the next president to deal with. And the reality is that this is outraging the Iraqi government. As I was coming in here today, I was reading the comments of the puppet Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. I mean, let’s be clear here. He’s not really the prime minister of Iraq. There’s not really a sovereign Iraqi government. But even the puppet leader of Iraq is coming forward and saying this is a company that’s engaged in a massacre, and Iraq is saying that this was not done with the approval of the Iraqi government. I mean, this shows, though, how central this company has become to the US occupation.

I find it wrong how the administration expects nobody to actually care about this and how events like these and Guantanamo Bay are rarely ever showed throughout the main stream media cowardly following the administration. I wish informations like this was as widespread as the other media coverage supporting the War in Iraq instead of it just being slowly pushed aside pretending it never happened. And what really ticks me off is how usually the government today tries to hide the errors they committed by going around it, making things up, or just leaving it out of the public knowledge instead of just manning up. This is clearly evident by reading this article on this situation and this one on Guantanamo Bay and the US trying to label everyone as an enemy combatant:
Afghanistan: The Brutal and Unnecessary War the Media Aren't Telling You About | ForeignPolicy | AlterNet

[grandpa]

Yea that is what it mentioned somewhat in the article:
I find it wrong how the administration expects nobody to
actually care about this and how events like these and
Guantanamo Bay are rarely ever showed throughout the main stream
media cowardly following the administration.
I wish informations like this was as widespread as the
other media coverage supporting the War in Iraq instead of
it just being slowly pushed aside pretending it never happened.

Concerns about this fascistic administration are often portrayed as the paranoid, delusional yippings of a collective "liberal" mutt.

The war is screwing everything up, too. According to Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Customs Department, the war has "limited options for the $168
billion stimulus package signed into law by President George W. Bush on
February 13": "We really had very little wiggle room in order to pass this because of
the fact that we're spending $16 billion a month on Iraq and
Afghanistan....the country could have used a
larger fiscal stimulus but there is (no) cash to accommodate it."

RPT-War hits US economy, stalls recovery -Nobel winner | Reuters

Yes, that stimulus is laughable, but made even more laughable in light of this greater problem. The government would rather spend billions on killing people overseas than relieving the economic recession here. It's truly fascinating to see, I think.

Grandpa h.

[obvious child]

I am quite interested in topics like this, some including Guantanamo Bay and other injustices around this time. I am wondering what you think of not only this event, Blackwater, but other ones like Guantanamo Bay and other relating to this.

Simple.

The US military lacks sufficient assets in Iraq to do all of the jobs. Thus they hire contractors to fill in the gaps. Blackwater keeps its contract for a very simple reason: there is no one else. The other mercenary companies simply aren't available in large numbers to fill in the gap that not renewing Blackwater would leave. For the same reason that Boeing kept its satellite launch contract with the Air Force after being banned from contractors, Blackwater keeps its contract. There is simply no one else that the US government can hire to do the job.

[Charlatan]

Why hire a seperate comapny to deal with the security of Iraq? How many mercenaries are there? Surely they cost more to keep there than soldiers, so the government is wasting more money again. In killing a civilian it would weigh on the conscious of someone trying to do the right thing, like a soldier, but for someone hired to secure the place, and seeing there be none of the said security as people are against you and still plan to bomb the place, maybe killing a few civilians shows they are doing something, keeping there jobs maybe. If there was no killing of anyone then they wouldn't be doing anything by the eyes of their bosses, so rather do the wrong thing and keep your job? Doesn't sound logical, but having a bit of commotion going on shows you are doing something, so that might be a trick to keep getting paid?

Let's look at their alternatives, if they just didn't shoot anyone then there would be complete calm regarding their stay, and that would mean they are not needed, but when you stir up the situation people complain, and get more anti american, protesting, and that means that the government sees a lot of probable commotion, and so keeps the gaurds on, to deal with the commotion they caused! What else do they do there, stop a few trucks with inspection things and stuff, nothing newsworthy, and you never hear about them otherwise, so they must be doing minimal work there - all the more reason to get a bit trigger happy as they must be on gaurd against terrorists all the time.

I think that it is just a stunt to keep their jobs, I doubt there is any dire need for them to be there.

[grandpa]

Why hire a seperate comapny to deal with the security
of Iraq?
How many mercenaries are there?

It's the same reason not every company wants to act locally. If you act locally there is a greater risk of accountability. However, if you outsource, privatize and make up a complicated network of people just carrying out orders, it makes for less accountability. It's just another way to see our system is not at all about justice, but about control an domination. Those with power typically don't want to forfeit their place.
And there are always some willing citizen-soldiers and mercenaries to protect them.

Grandpa h.