« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
How did Blackwater end up guarding U.S. diplomats in Iraq? The answer's becoming clearer.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that the State Department, under the gun to create an embassy security staff after the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded in June 2004, decided to stick with the CPA's Blackwater bodyguards, awarding the firm a no-bid contract. That much State Department logistics official William H. Moser told Congress earlier this month. But the Post supplies a wealth of detail about just how dependent State is on security contractors for conducting diplomacy in war zones.
State's diplomatic security service (DS) is too small to protect the hundreds of U.S. embassy personnel in Baghdad: only 1400 agents exist to operate in over 300 diplomatic offices domestically and abroad. That's just barely more than the 1000 or so Blackwater operatives in Iraq alone. Little wonder that last month, the company received another $112 million contract for Iraq security, which surges the number of Blackwater guards by over 200 and expands its helicopter fleet.
In previous conflicts -- Vietnam, for instance -- U.S. diplomats were guarded by U.S. soldiers. But the U.S. sent up to a half million troops during the Vietnam war, supplied by a draftee military. With the end of the draft and subsequent troop reductions, State had to turn to the dawning security-contractor industry, first hiring former industry leader DynCorp to protect Jean-Bertrand Aristide when the U.S. returned him to power in Haiti in 1994. Instead of expanding DS personnel or arguing that diplomatic security was a job for the U.S. military, State took the easier route of purchasing it on the (not always) open market. That was a choice that suited Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld well, as Rumsfeld believed the military had more important work to do. By 2002, Blackwater was on the ground in Afghanistan, guarding Hamid Karzai.
One lingering question is how Blackwater managed, in only 10 years of existence, to top former security-industry giants DynCorp and Triple Canopy in Iraq and elsewhere. Erik Prince, Blackwater's CEO, insists that the company hasn't benefited from his family's deep GOP connections. The piece doesn't exactly answer that question. But it does reveal that Blackwater has learned that sometimes it pays to get the competition on its side:
When the sole-source contract expired in the summer of 2005, State invited bids on a massive "worldwide personal protection services" contract to put its operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere under one umbrella. Blackwater formed a consortium with U.S. firms DynCorp and Triple Canopy, and the group won a multiyear, $1.2 billion agreement.Under the individual task orders that only the three are eligible to bid on, DynCorp provides personal security in northern Iraq, and Triple Canopy in the south. Blackwater covers Baghdad and Hilla, and has by far the largest share of the $520 million that State spends annually on contract security in Iraq.
A DS official told the Post that Prince's politics have nothing to do with the contract. The simpler explanation, another official told Congress, is that business is business: it's simply cheaper to pay Blackwater than to train, equip, deploy and maintain a beefed-up DS staff. That may be difficult to believe, as a "protective security specialist" provided by Blackwater -- which a 2005 audit found overbilled the State Department by millions of dollars -- costs the department $1,221.62 per day. But it's the line DS is sticking with. And at this point, even if Blackwater loses its contract after the Nisour Square shooting, the department shows little inclination to overhaul its reliance on security contractors.
"...it's simply cheaper to pay Blackwater than to train, equip, deploy and maintain a beefed-up DS staff."
Not to mention they'd probabably be "union" members.
October 22, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it their political contributions (bribes) never enter the decisions to grant welfare to these people? Why is it family friendships (cronyism) never enters into decions to select them? How brazen and insulting. The war has bred more war profiteers (criminals) than any war in the past. We can wait till the cows come home and there will be no significant investigations that will produce any charges against anyone in the upper administration or the recipients of these obscene amounts of money. How does 9 billion disappear with no trace? They have , under the Patriot(?) Act to examine bank records, other financial records and nothing. We are being robbed, raped and pillaged by our own country by these cretins.
October 22, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it couldn't possibly mean anything, but note the striking resemblance of Prince's hairstyle to one popular among the youth movement of a certain aggressive European country seventy-odd years ago.
http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm shows one such example.
October 22, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
$1.25 billion? These three companies are reaping the dollars while military families back here are struggling to stay afloat. Our soldiers are making a pittance compared to what these guys are making; Bush and Cheney want to overhaul the Social Security and Medicare system depriving the seniors in this country of a decent living. It's unimaginable that this Congress and administration allow this to happen.
Where is the outrage? It's sickening.
October 22, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
$1.25 billion? These three companies are reaping millions while military families back here are struggling to stay afloat. Our soldiers are making a pittance compared to what these guys are making. It's unimaginable that this Congress and administration allow this to happen.
October 22, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"awarding the firm a no-bid contract."
How does anyone get a no-bid contract with the Bush administraton? You give big campaign contributions, and lots of gifts and favors.
Bushism is a case study in organized, syndicated criminal behavior – Bushism is that same as the Mafia, or the mob.
You watch, Hillary's going to step in office and start giving un-bid contract too.
October 22, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Maliki had any nads, he'd get his parliament to declare Blackwater a terrorist organization. Of course Maliki has been shown the axe of a threated Allawi coup so he's probably staying on the other side of the barnyard. He has possibly heard of Diem and his adventures in Saigon.
October 22, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are so many diplomats in a war zone?
It costs 250% more to keep a diplomat in Iraq than anywhere else.
Why? Why? Why?
If we can't pull the soldiers out, why not pull out the diplomats?
October 22, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP
The "diplomats" are needed to funnel the arms to all the opposing factions, to keep the pot stirred. The sideshow in Iraq needs to continue while there are still funds in the U.S. Treasury to be looted.
October 22, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so we know by the time State was taking over from the CPA that Blackwater was doing protection.
The "pre-existing relationship" is often a justification for increased business.
Most important question is who gave Blackwater their "big break" with the CPA to allow them to get their mouths on the government teat?
October 22, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is Bushism very similar to Nationalsim and past actions have shown very overtly the intent to usurp more and more power by this administration the very GOP tenet of reducing the size of government is a covert move to divert attention that costs exceed civil service (read military) costs by billions. It is apparently quite reasonable to pay billions to profiteers and allow both the SSS as well as our own military suffer with bankruptcy and shoddy care.
So government has reduced in size on the surface, costs have gone up exponentially, mercenaries are representing the American people without any checks and balances, we are printing funny money and one wonders why we as private citizens are struggling to make ends meet??
How many Americans must die before this farce is ended? Ask yourselves what was the dollar worth just 7 years ago, what is it's value now????
October 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Bill Moyer's Journal from this last Friday, I have to say that it was in what what Jeremy Scahill didn't say, the elephant in room was what really should have ANGER ever US citizens in American.
Who's funding these private security contractors? We TAXPAYERS are - because Bush has his friends, and they come first and foremost.
Blackwater has a very HIGH dollar awarded un-bid contract BECAUSE Eric Prince gives Bush/Cheney big time contributions, and Blackwater has connections with the GOP, WHEREAS our military troops go without necessary items to protect them, like armored vest, armored vehicles. US taxpayers could easily provide for our troops need, and with only 10% percent of what Bush has awarded the Blackwater CEO, but simply BECAUSE Bush is allowed to use taxpayer money for any un-bid contract he wants too, is something Republican say but NOT do.
Bush and Cheney got into the Whitehouse and started using all the taxpayer surplus, and a whole lot more, into a huge deficit, giving it to all their favority buddies, a clearing house for favortism at a cost of every so call Christian right principle that those supposedly ethical "values voters" pretend to have.
The Christian Right doesn't support the troops, they support Bush's right to cheat the troops out of necessary protection while treating Blackwater and Bush/Cheney's many other un-bid contract awarded friends and beneficiaries to complete luxury.
Conservatism sure did change. I can remember a time when un-bid contracts would have upset Republican voters, BUT not anymore, Bush is the soul and body of what a Republican is today. It is whatever Bush and Cheney says it is: "We didn't get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party," a party that lets Bush/Cheney derive all things the GOP represents today, unbid contracts, torture, wiretapping, and other criminal virtues, rather than what what voters think.
October 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rita nailed it. Where is the outrage?? I don't mean to make this a partisan issue, as it really is an AMERICAN issue, but what if Erik Prince were a big Democratic contributor? Do you think there would be an investigation? Do you think Rush Limbaugh would be up in arms over the massive amount of tax dollars going to these guys if Prince gave big money to Hillary Clinton? For Chrissakes, people need to take off thier partisan blinders and see how America is being ripped off by the criminal war profiteers and how America's reputation as a "shining city on a hill" is being sullied by these trigger-happy creeps.
October 22, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Q: When is murder not murder? A: When you are employed by the United States State Department.
October 22, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Billy Pilgrim. Carny Barkers, huh?
October 22, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP: "Why so many diplomats in a war zone?"
At least half of them are not diplomats, but intelligence/operations: CIA.
The first news stories on the Sept. 16 Blackwater shooting explicitly mentioned that their contract is with State _and_ CIA. Since then, not a peep on that, including from the people-powered journalists at this site.
It deserves a little examination; even if the govt clams up, I'd like to see the questions posed.
October 22, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 1946 Foreign Service act made the Marine Embassy Security Command responsible for providing security for American embassies and US diplomatic personnel. As much as the military has screwed the Guard and Reserves, you'd think they might have just reactivated all those Blackwater ex-GI's too, and detatched them to the Marines. Simple enough solution, and they'd be operating under some rules - how novel! But, alas, that would have made it hard for Heir Prince to clean up from his Republican laundry machine franchise.
October 22, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink