7 ms·

Blackwater Founder Wants to Provide “Turn Key” Mercenary AF for Afghanistan

27 points by QAPereo 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago
Good. Maybe if more people start to see the military as just another business they will start to change the way we think about how we use our military. It will be less, "Brave soldiers putting their life on the line for us" and more "People whose job sometimes requires they kill people for the highest bidder."
- Teever 9y ago
  I wish that people didn't take these knee-jerk, edgy, contrarian responses. There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibility of the potential benefit you claim. I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
  - prawn 9y ago
    And who defines "rogue"?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - chii 9y ago
      those who are currently in power will define rogue to mean those who threaten their status quo.
  - microwavecamera 9y ago
    Considering the history of Blackwater it's a distinct possibility.
    - 3131s 9y ago
      Dyncorp should be mentioned in the headline too. From what I've been able to gather Dyncorp is still a much larger company than Blackwater and their history of war crimes is more extensive too.
      - microwavecamera 9y ago
        Definitely. Dyncorp has been implicated in horrible human rights abuses too, including child sex trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies Edit: A good documentary to check out about military contractors in Iraq is Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o
  - Lazare 9y ago
    > I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. Historically, that's hardly unusual. > How do we ensure they don't go rogue? How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.
    - 3131s 9y ago
      It's not new, Dyncorp has been around since 1946. And the US-backed groups variously called paramilitaries, anti-communist insurgents, moderate rebels, etc. are essentially foreign-run PMCs by another name.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder. >How do we ensure they don't go rogue? The public entity is already rogue.
    - wbl 9y ago
      Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
      - knieveltech 9y ago
        How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
      - 3131s 9y ago
        Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.
    - 9y ago
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    I'm sort of stunned at all the people saying "the military is already rogue so it's fine". It feels alarmingly ahistorical - a military the public is unhappy with is bad, but the history of e.g. Rome ought to speak to how vastly much worse military privatization can become.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      We even have more recent examples with the specific guy proposing this 'adventure.' Truly depraved criminal actions by personnel in the employ of his merc company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
  - chii 9y ago
    > I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    I'd take a position between you two. I personally don't see the problem with a military force being operated as a private business. The state still has the monopoly on approving the use of force, and they are no more and no less protected from a force "going rogue", when you think about it. I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force. Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  What happens when one of these private companies comes through your area and kills your loved ones? Who is to be held responsible? At least with nation states there's some feeble international law.
  - Lazare 9y ago
    Is international law what stops Russia from annexing Alaska? Conversely, how well is international law working for the residents of eastern Ukraine? Although I wish it were otherwise, when I look around the world, I see a system governed by force, not laws. Private military forces fit tidily into this system.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      There is to a point a framework of laws that at least provide some semblance of order and redress. Treaties, frameworks, alliances. Now obviously force in the moment is what decides everything but the decisions that may lead to that moment or away from it are at least possible with the international framework of relations.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      > Is international law what stops Russia from annexing Alaska? So when someone told you a loved one of yours was murdered by some private contractor or soldier, expecting some kind of reaction out of you, that would be yours? Just a shrug? That's how the world is, and that's that?
      - Lazare 9y ago
        Of course not, and nothing in my response could reasonably be understood to suggest that. Your comment is absurd. My argument is that there's no real difference between the two: The exact same force prevent both from occurring. (And, should it occur, it would be just as terrible, of course.) The comment I replied to was discussing how to hold people responsible, and suggesting (in my view, incorrectly) that international law is of more use against state actors than non-state actors.
- rhcom2 9y ago
  There is a difference between fighting for a country's interests and fighting for personal profit. The military is not "just another business".
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I disagree that our military fights for our nation's best interests and not for personal profit.
  - verelo 9y ago
    Is there? In theory yes, but in practice does this happen? I really really want to say there should be but I don't know I could sell that story and completely believe it myself.
    - rhcom2 9y ago
      Economics plays a huge part in politics and a country's interest sure but military decisions are accountable to elected public officials. Businesses are accountable to share holders.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  How do you envision the effects of that change in thinking? Doesn't seem like it could be anything positive to me.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I believe that hero worship of military personnel is what allows so many crimes against humanity to be overlooked. Getting rid of that seems like it might at least let us put torturers behind bars.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 3131s 9y ago
  Are you aware of who Erik Prince and Stephen Feinberg are? You are essentially advocating for even more death and misery abroad in the short term, in the hope that the public's stance on the US military will change. It won't change anyway though, the opposite would happen -- allowing Blackwater and Dyncorp to do what they do (murder, human trafficking, torture, etc.) will accelerate chaos in the Middle East and globally, and you'll end up with even more Americans throwing themselves behind the war machine.
trestletech 9y ago
Amazingly, UberForWar.com is still available.
- dhbanes 9y ago
  Not anymore
jimjimjim 9y ago
the whole point of mercenaries is meant to be distance and deniability. if something 'goes wrong' who gets the blame?
- beedogs 9y ago
  Well, apparently nobody gets the blame. Or, more accurately, the court system overturns the convictions of mercenaries who slaughter dozens of civilians: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-conviction-in-blackwater-case-thrown-out-other-sentences-overturned/2017/08/04/a14f275c-792e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-co...
  - chii 9y ago
    it should be the paying entities that takes the responsibility. The mercs themselves don't (and arguably shouldn't) take any liability when they are ordered to kill anyone.
theEXTORTCIST 9y ago
this is an interesting application... was linked in the article safestrike.it
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chickenbane 9y ago
For those who don't read the article, AF in this context is Air Force and not As Fuck
- spraak 9y ago
  I wonder how frequently people on HN go straight to the comments? (I did think AF was 'as fuck')
  - YouKnowBetter 9y ago
    I always do. Only after reading a) some good discussion, b) seeing no comments at all I will potentially visit the original site.
spraak 9y ago
Wow, I'm shocked that I didn't even realize the US was still 'at war' in Afghanistan. Now I'm looking at the Wikipedia page and reading that "[t]he War in Afghanistan is the longest war in United States history" [1]. How embarrassing :( I wonder how many Americans are un/aware of this. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...
- 3131s 9y ago
  A lot probably. The US population seems to be totally unaware of what their military is really doing. The whole thing is obfuscated in a web of foreign governments, three-letter agencies, contractors and tech giants, endless acronyms and euphemisms (e.g. 'disposition matrix', 'extraordinary rendition', 'enhanced interrogation techniques', 'collateral damage'), and as others in this thread have said, a lot of it is about creating distance from culpability. Barack Obama was a remarkably adept and slick PR guy, possessing the perfect confluence of personal attributes to make Americans not care about whatever their government was doing. But now Trump is letting the cat out of the bag! It's a dangerous course of events but maybe has more opportunity for creating lasting change if people unite against him. Can I suggest this news network? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News They have a Youtube channel with all their videos up. The name pre-dates the "real" vs. "fake news" thing. It's a rare example of American journalists speaking candidly about the US war & arms industry. They have other content too, along the lines of Democracy Now but with less focus on social justice issues, but I know that the CEO / editor Paul Jay believes that US war profiteering is presently the main existential threat to humankind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s
cmurf 9y ago
It just shows we have learned nothing from Iran-Contra. The decision of the International Court of Justice in June 1986 condemning the United States for the “unlawful use of force” and illegal economic warfare was dismissed as an irrelevant pronouncement by a “hostile forum” (New York Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States War profiteering is a rent-seeking activity. It's public fraud. And its adherents are aristocratic. They believe they're better than others, murder is completely ethical and available for a price, which is its only inhibitor. Thing is, when this class get out of control, their fellow little primates, who happen to be the vast majority, can go ape shit and build things like guillotines. Yes, there were so many victims that needed execution the streets ran with blood for days. They'd obviously let them accumulate unchecked for far too long. Oh well.

27 points by QAPereo 9y ago

Good. Maybe if more people start to see the military as just another business they will start to change the way we think about how we use our military. It will be less, "Brave soldiers putting their life on the line for us" and more "People whose job sometimes requires they kill people for the highest bidder."

Teever 9y ago
I wish that people didn't take these knee-jerk, edgy, contrarian responses. There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibility of the potential benefit you claim. I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
- prawn 9y ago
  And who defines "rogue"?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - chii 9y ago
    those who are currently in power will define rogue to mean those who threaten their status quo.
- microwavecamera 9y ago
  Considering the history of Blackwater it's a distinct possibility.
  - 3131s 9y ago
    Dyncorp should be mentioned in the headline too. From what I've been able to gather Dyncorp is still a much larger company than Blackwater and their history of war crimes is more extensive too.
    - microwavecamera 9y ago
      Definitely. Dyncorp has been implicated in horrible human rights abuses too, including child sex trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies Edit: A good documentary to check out about military contractors in Iraq is Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o
- Lazare 9y ago
  > I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. Historically, that's hardly unusual. > How do we ensure they don't go rogue? How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.
  - 3131s 9y ago
    It's not new, Dyncorp has been around since 1946. And the US-backed groups variously called paramilitaries, anti-communist insurgents, moderate rebels, etc. are essentially foreign-run PMCs by another name.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder. >How do we ensure they don't go rogue? The public entity is already rogue.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
    - knieveltech 9y ago
      How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
    - 3131s 9y ago
      Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.
  - 9y ago
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  I'm sort of stunned at all the people saying "the military is already rogue so it's fine". It feels alarmingly ahistorical - a military the public is unhappy with is bad, but the history of e.g. Rome ought to speak to how vastly much worse military privatization can become.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    We even have more recent examples with the specific guy proposing this 'adventure.' Truly depraved criminal actions by personnel in the employ of his merc company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
- chii 9y ago
  > I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I'd take a position between you two. I personally don't see the problem with a military force being operated as a private business. The state still has the monopoly on approving the use of force, and they are no more and no less protected from a force "going rogue", when you think about it. I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force. Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.
wavefunction 9y ago
What happens when one of these private companies comes through your area and kills your loved ones? Who is to be held responsible? At least with nation states there's some feeble international law.
- Lazare 9y ago
  Is international law what stops Russia from annexing Alaska? Conversely, how well is international law working for the residents of eastern Ukraine? Although I wish it were otherwise, when I look around the world, I see a system governed by force, not laws. Private military forces fit tidily into this system.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    There is to a point a framework of laws that at least provide some semblance of order and redress. Treaties, frameworks, alliances. Now obviously force in the moment is what decides everything but the decisions that may lead to that moment or away from it are at least possible with the international framework of relations.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    > Is international law what stops Russia from annexing Alaska? So when someone told you a loved one of yours was murdered by some private contractor or soldier, expecting some kind of reaction out of you, that would be yours? Just a shrug? That's how the world is, and that's that?
    - Lazare 9y ago
      Of course not, and nothing in my response could reasonably be understood to suggest that. Your comment is absurd. My argument is that there's no real difference between the two: The exact same force prevent both from occurring. (And, should it occur, it would be just as terrible, of course.) The comment I replied to was discussing how to hold people responsible, and suggesting (in my view, incorrectly) that international law is of more use against state actors than non-state actors.
rhcom2 9y ago
There is a difference between fighting for a country's interests and fighting for personal profit. The military is not "just another business".
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I disagree that our military fights for our nation's best interests and not for personal profit.
- verelo 9y ago
  Is there? In theory yes, but in practice does this happen? I really really want to say there should be but I don't know I could sell that story and completely believe it myself.
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    Economics plays a huge part in politics and a country's interest sure but military decisions are accountable to elected public officials. Businesses are accountable to share holders.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
How do you envision the effects of that change in thinking? Doesn't seem like it could be anything positive to me.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I believe that hero worship of military personnel is what allows so many crimes against humanity to be overlooked. Getting rid of that seems like it might at least let us put torturers behind bars.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
3131s 9y ago
Are you aware of who Erik Prince and Stephen Feinberg are? You are essentially advocating for even more death and misery abroad in the short term, in the hope that the public's stance on the US military will change. It won't change anyway though, the opposite would happen -- allowing Blackwater and Dyncorp to do what they do (murder, human trafficking, torture, etc.) will accelerate chaos in the Middle East and globally, and you'll end up with even more Americans throwing themselves behind the war machine.

trestletech 9y ago

Amazingly, UberForWar.com is still available.

dhbanes 9y ago
Not anymore

jimjimjim 9y ago

the whole point of mercenaries is meant to be distance and deniability. if something 'goes wrong' who gets the blame?

beedogs 9y ago
Well, apparently nobody gets the blame. Or, more accurately, the court system overturns the convictions of mercenaries who slaughter dozens of civilians: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-conviction-in-blackwater-case-thrown-out-other-sentences-overturned/2017/08/04/a14f275c-792e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-co...
- chii 9y ago
  it should be the paying entities that takes the responsibility. The mercs themselves don't (and arguably shouldn't) take any liability when they are ordered to kill anyone.

theEXTORTCIST 9y ago

this is an interesting application... was linked in the article safestrike.it

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

chickenbane 9y ago

For those who don't read the article, AF in this context is Air Force and not As Fuck

spraak 9y ago
I wonder how frequently people on HN go straight to the comments? (I did think AF was 'as fuck')
- YouKnowBetter 9y ago
  I always do. Only after reading a) some good discussion, b) seeing no comments at all I will potentially visit the original site.

spraak 9y ago

Wow, I'm shocked that I didn't even realize the US was still 'at war' in Afghanistan. Now I'm looking at the Wikipedia page and reading that "[t]he War in Afghanistan is the longest war in United States history" [1]. How embarrassing :( I wonder how many Americans are un/aware of this. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...

3131s 9y ago
A lot probably. The US population seems to be totally unaware of what their military is really doing. The whole thing is obfuscated in a web of foreign governments, three-letter agencies, contractors and tech giants, endless acronyms and euphemisms (e.g. 'disposition matrix', 'extraordinary rendition', 'enhanced interrogation techniques', 'collateral damage'), and as others in this thread have said, a lot of it is about creating distance from culpability. Barack Obama was a remarkably adept and slick PR guy, possessing the perfect confluence of personal attributes to make Americans not care about whatever their government was doing. But now Trump is letting the cat out of the bag! It's a dangerous course of events but maybe has more opportunity for creating lasting change if people unite against him. Can I suggest this news network? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News They have a Youtube channel with all their videos up. The name pre-dates the "real" vs. "fake news" thing. It's a rare example of American journalists speaking candidly about the US war & arms industry. They have other content too, along the lines of Democracy Now but with less focus on social justice issues, but I know that the CEO / editor Paul Jay believes that US war profiteering is presently the main existential threat to humankind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s

cmurf 9y ago

It just shows we have learned nothing from Iran-Contra. The decision of the International Court of Justice in June 1986 condemning the United States for the “unlawful use of force” and illegal economic warfare was dismissed as an irrelevant pronouncement by a “hostile forum” (New York Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States War profiteering is a rent-seeking activity. It's public fraud. And its adherents are aristocratic. They believe they're better than others, murder is completely ethical and available for a price, which is its only inhibitor. Thing is, when this class get out of control, their fellow little primates, who happen to be the vast majority, can go ape shit and build things like guillotines. Yes, there were so many victims that needed execution the streets ran with blood for days. They'd obviously let them accumulate unchecked for far too long. Oh well.