I don't know a lot about them. I know some stats though. That counts for something. Pretty amazing stuff.

I think a good compromise for some of this would be to let Blackwater and their equipment stay and pull the troops out.

Is that a bad idea?

I really don't know. Just trying to think about things. I have reasons for thinking this - but my mind could be changed. I just don't know enough about them to have a strong opinion - yet.

The geniuses at the State Department talk about giving Iraq more control of its own destiny, and then you read this story. The decision of the government to renew Blackwater’s contact with the State Department underscores my deep disdain for Condoleezza Rice, the worst Secretary of State in my lifetime. These murderous thugs travel roughshod throughout Bagdad, behaving in much the same way as the detail that guarded Suddam Hussein and his sons. You’d think Billy the Kid was their mascot.

Of all the most recent displays of arrogance on Capital Hill of late, was that of Blackwater owner Erik Prince. To listen to this bonehead was like listening to a member of an organized crime family testify in any number of venues. “Dodge and weave” should have been the headline describing his testimony before Congress.

Given that we have outsourced as much of the war duties as possible, I guess we shouldn’t expect much. Sadly though, the Iraqi people are left to deal with another poorly rendered State Department decision. It’s not enough that 80,000 Iraqi people have been killed, but now we force-feed this vigilante group down their throats. Nothing more American than vigilante justice.

I hope the Iraqi people can one day forgive us for all we have done to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/04/blackwater/index.html

I have many questions. One at a time from me;

"Security contractors have immunity from Iraqi law."

Who wrote that law?

The Provisional Government did.

And is the Provisional Government staffed solely by Iraqi citizens? Or is it represented by US nationals too?

It just seems like a surprising thing to have citizens of Iraq be so willing to give immunity to people who are occupying their country.

I don't know! I really wish I did.

This is such a mess, I have a very difficult time sorting it out. When I wrote "provisional government" that could be any of three (fucking three!) administrative constructs that tried to bootstrap Iraq. (and are still trying)

After your earlier question, I followed the wiki stuff. It's just huge, and conflicting. I normally can blow through stuff, get a good framework and reason from there. Much of Iraq is in flux, leaving me in a position where I have no good frame of reference. That means digging through it all --there are no good short cuts, and information is missing. (probably that information currently being fought over...)

Right now, Iraq is divided into many regions. They don't get along, they all have agendas, and we don't control most of them.

Our region of control varies, with intense struggle about the oil. I don't think we have that nailed down right now, and I also think that's a big deal for both us and the Iraqis.

Essentially, our position is that Iraq economy is to be privatized, with few to no limits on where profits go. Meaning, not to the Iraqis, and to multi-nationals. That's in the current Iraqi law, and the big problem seems to be enough of the people not following a long that it's got no real teeth.

(which is why we are there, bleeding for it, literally.)

Also, should profit get shared, distribution among the factions is not agreed upon AT ALL. That too is driving tons of conflict.

The current Constitution is incomplete, and it names Islam as both the national religion, which does not sit well with some Iraqi factions, and as the highest law, and that does not go over well either.

It's a trifecta for sure! Economy, government and church / state issues are just hosed. IMHO, that really qualifies as a nascent nation, not a real sovereign one. It could still split, depending on who wins who over and where.

I think we seated, along with coalition nations, the early transitional authority. Most all of them were Iraqi, but were "our" picks.

From there, another effort and elections created an Iraqi government, which has not seen success. Right now some of that effort still exists, with contradictory ones forming and fighting.

Most of the greater operational stuff necessary to just baseline run things, just isn't done. There is not political unity for it to happen, there are not resources to force it.

This really enables the insurgent (resistance, depending on perspective) forces to recruit at will, pointing to the years and failure to reach any significant unity as an ongoing reason to fight.

IMHO, "Iraq" is exactly what the Iraqis say it is, and they don't agree and we are not currently strong enough to force it.

Somewhere in there lies the OIL. We want our hands on it, multi-nationals want the profit from it, many fear who gets control over it.

Many Iraqis know this, and fight seeing this as their one trump card that might actually get them something. Nothing else is going to, as the nascent government, currently trying to build, is not one of the people, not for the people, and really is serving outside interests, not theirs.

The idea is Iraqis hand over the keys and they will be taken care of. I don't think enough of them buy that for it to work, and that's the big rub.

In the end, with these kinds of problems, the government authority is not self-evident as ours is. That's a really different frame of reference that makes understanding their issues very, very difficult, for me at least.

I think a good compromise for some of this would be to let Blackwater and their equipment stay and pull the troops out. Is that a bad idea?

Yes, it is the worst possible scenario. We would essentially be turning Iraq over to a private mercenary army with little or no oversight. According to House testimony, Blackwater and other contractors do not give a damn who gets hurt or killed, even on their own team, so good people die and bad people get away with murder. Combine that with their widely reported record of abuses at home and abroad. Then, top it all off with a leader who operates glibly above the law, and embraces the idea of a Biblical Armageddon. Of course, to keep the positive stateside spin going, they have the International Peace Operations Association.

I think we ought to require much more from our elected officials. We also have to let our military know that we want them to do the job, we will proudly support them, and we do not want a penny going to someone who is playing soldier by other rules. We have to demand steps from investigative transparency to weaning our country off of mercenaries forever. The State Department has just said that they are renewing their no-bid Blackwater contract and I hope it causes an uproar. In the meantime, we can scrutinize, share and/or support the moves that the House and Senate are taking to at least slow the growth and create oversight of the privatization of our military.

IMHO, Blackwater from investigative journalist, Jeremy Scahill, is a fantastic book on the subject, and at this point, the most definitive and in depth source of information.

Who granted immunity?

KSKD is spot on, it was Order 17 of the Coalition Provisional Authority and folks are pressing to have it overturned by the Iraqis.

And is the Provisional Government staffed solely by Iraqi citizens? Or is it represented by US nationals too?

Missing is right: This is a puzzle from hell. When it all went down, the BBC made a Who's who in post-Saddam Iraq, and it is a good place to see how this has been a circus all along. Here is a line-up card from 2007, but since the turnover in their politics is far more volatile than minor league baseball, some folks are more powerful, some folks are dead and some folks are gone for good. Even our friends at Wiki have trouble untangling it all. NPR did a recent report on the sad state of the Iraqi government, and some experts say we are betting the future on this horse in the upcoming elections.

Good stuff so far! I know I just dropped a whole lot of information to check out all at once, but please continue the discussion. Much more is out there to dig up and share. This is important to study and talk about now, before it engulfs our American way of life.

IMHO, the big take away from this Iraq business is their government is not "democracy" and it does not promote "freedom" in the same sense ours does.

A lot of people think in our terms, with me being one of them until CJ popped the topic, and project that onto the conflict.

From that perspective, it's entirely defensible to see where the ends could justify means, given we permit that as a valid basis for "winning" and "freeing" the Iraqi people.

I don't, but can understand those that do.

The blackwater struggle essentially comes down to private interests having to go at the pot of gold (OIL) on their own, because we are tapped out. If we just step away, then we've left the Iraqi people to face serious economic interests, and a mercenary force that flat is just gonna execute (both literally and figuratively) the plan and the people, until there is some kind of peace.

That's the cut 'n run crowd talking, and I'm not so sure they are wrong. Republicans own this mess, and as Americans, we then own it. Bastards.

Really, "freedom" means free to exploit, then care for the Iraqis. It's trickle down nirvana, and I'm quite sure the Iraqis will have none of it.

If that's true, it's also my opinion the insurgent / resistance forces will absolutely be unstoppable, unless there is just mass killing to break the people there on all levels.

"democracy" means those remaining people, having a say in, the choices they are given to deliberate over.

I don't see how that's going to NOT build terror. Having lost their soverginty, being exploited and killed en-masse, terror will be one of the few options left to them.

If they are nationalistic at all, and from what I read many Iraqis are proud people, they will absolutely do this, because the land they live in just won't be theirs, like ours is "ours".

(and I know, we were bastards about it with the Indians, but still, it ended up being "ours", for the people, by the people --and as such, ugly, but self evident in it's authority.)

I don't condone terror, but put yourself in their shoes. Say that was done to us! As proud Americans, wouldn't you resists your national roots being eliminated like that?: Could you serve as a citizen, owned by large interests?

I couldn't and would very likely cause a lot of damage to make statements and lot let people forget what the real America was all about.

Think "Red Dawn" people.

Anyway, getting out is going to require diplomacy because that's really all there is to get these folks on the same page. Unless we just kill a lot of them...

OK, the how about this;

If the citizens of Iraq, government or whomever is allowed to make the call for themselves ( and I mean as opposed to The United States officials ) decide for THEMSELVES that they don't want Blackwater in there any longer, do you think that should be honored?

CJ - ABSOLUTELY!

Just like I think that if the citizens of Iraq and the Iraqi government decide they don't want our military presence there, we should pack up and get the hell out.

Won't happen though.

If we do that, then we basically wall the thing off, George Carlin style, and let them fight it out. When enough of them are gone, they look around and say, "ok this sucks, let's deal", and then a new Iraq grows from that.

Remember, there are three major factions that do not get along, and many regions also having trouble. There is going to be a LOT of fighting in that scenario.

Edit: It may well split too. We don't know.

If we don't wall it off, then other interests will slip in there, trying to get their cut, just like we did.

That Iraq would control it's oil. That would happen by default. It's authority over it's people would be self-evident though. That's a good thing, a necessary thing.

That Iraq would also be very likely to not want to play nice with us either. What if it struck a deal with some other larger nations? Could happen right? Actually, I think it's highly likely to happen just that way.

I don't know if this is right or not, but that would also mean we spent a ton of lives and dollars to build a nice and stable enemy, with OIL we need to deal in. That kind of sucks.

It's kind of like the abandoned kid. Parents are young, ditch the kid, leaving them to the system. They make new friends, new parents and grow up kind of pissed off, right?

IMHO, we own this, so we need to somehow manage this. I don't like it, but we are where we are.

" Won't happen though."

Admittedly I am projecting my own reasons why I think that would not happen, but I really want someone to spell out WHY it wouldn't happen.

Is it because the Iraqi citizens won't be allowed to or given an oppotunity to express that? But what if that is what they desire? Is that not EXACTLY what we claim to be doing there as of today; To let them make their own political decisions?

Or is it because they DO want Blackwater there?

Or is it for another reason?

I think it comes down to:

The Iraqi people not in agreement. Some of them want it, others don't.

We won't just let the private interests go and do their thing because we might get exploited the same as we are hoping they do for the Iraqis.

I don't think that action is defensible globally. Nobody is going to want to set the expectation that we can just hammer a nation, then let the corporations come in and clean house for their profit.

" The Iraqi people not in agreement. Some of them want it, others don't."

Yeah? So? Neither are we and we get to vote on things that matter to us. I'm not playing devils advocate nor am I being combative - I really am ignorant about a lot of this stuff and am trying to figure out where I stand. Others have it all figured out for themselves. I don't yet. Not even close.

" We won't just let the private interests go and do their thing because we might get exploited the same as we are hoping they do for the Iraqis. "

Private interests like what, exactly? You mean protect the money that has been spent? A Burger King?

...because if we leave someone's private interests - what, unguarded? I'm not following - then what would happen? They would lose money?

I totally get it! IMHO, I'm liking this thread.

With us, we disagree on things and vote. We operate within a common authority that is for us, by us and of us. We can actually say "we" and mean Americans and point to the chain of authority that makes that all happen.

The people that occupy Iraq can't do that!

Simple things like voting then are huge problems! Who runs the elections, who makes them safe, who sees the results and has the authority to make them binding, etc...

Right now, just holding an election for all the people of Iraq isn't possible. Some factions will subvert it with violence, or claims of false authority.

I don't have it figured out either! I'm getting there on what having a government actually means and how they form and what that means for the people.

Huge ass civics lesson there. We are lucky, and we don't even know it.

When I say private interests, this is world bank, multi-national type stuff.

They operate on levels where they own nations resources, profit from them, build infrastructure, and return some value to the people in them for profit.

Their power comes from simple economic debt. They pay the debt, then literally own something that would otherwise be sovereign --owner by the people and their government.

So it seems like Iraq isn't really able to accept our brand of Democracy. And that is evident by the very citizens themselves not wanting it. Some do. Most don't? Well then at what point do we, as an occupying nation, accept that and let them have their country back? ( Such as it is ).

I think that if they are not interested in Democracy, then they should be allowed to be that way. It's not like we didn't try to show them. They are telling us DAILY that they don't want it. I know, or at least suspect, I am oversimplifying things. But there has to be some compromise between oversimplifying it and managing a war like this to a degree that is not only inefficient - but ineffective and genuinely unwanted by the citizens of Iraq.

I am also beginning to believe that we are enabling them in a way that never really let's them spread their wings. I wonder what would REALLY happen if we just up and left. Seriously. Because if we are just there to save face, forget it. I'm not interested. Ain't gonna happen. That's not a good enough reason for me any longer.

If they can't stave off Iran, then so be it. We can defend ourselves. And trade routes and oil prices? So be it. It rather pay 6 bucks a gallon for gas than have this war any longer. Each family will be charged $16,500 for this war. I would be willing to pay that to have this be over and then some more to keep our soil safe. No problem.

Europe and The Middle East need to step up for their own sake as well. They aren't doing shit. Meanwhile, we are going in with this " all neck - no head " attitude and people are laughing at us. I'm sick of it. Still. Again.

Maybe I'll calm down later and rethink some of my positions. But right now there is nothing but the election that is making me feel better about the future.

I can't believe I just said that.

What's sad is that this is a prime example of American private corporations that are greatly benefiting from the mess our government has created over there. Whether it's Blackwater, Halliburton, or what have you, they are in Iraq operating under contracts negotiated with the White House and Pentagon, often without competition, often paying these corporations an egregious amount to conduct business over there, without concern for the Iraqi citizens or human life.

Much like Vietnam, I think that our troops and, in this case private contractors, are becoming desensitized to the plight of the Iraqi people, the deaths and destruction. It's very common in combat situations ...

"So it seems like Iraq isn't really able to accept our brand of Democracy. And that is evident by the very citizens themselves not wanting it. Some do. Most don't? Well then at what point do we, as an occupying nation, accept that and let them have their country back? ( Such as it is )."

THAT is the issue. The Bush administration is trying to enact a form of government in a place that has never had it, in a REGION that has no form of it, and never has. I don't think it's an issue of the people not wanting some sort of democracy. It's a multi-faceted issue.

-You have the Shiites and Sunnis, who are bitterly against each other. The Shiites are the majority, but the Sunnis ruled the roost for 30+ years under the Saddam regime, and the Shiites were completely shut out. Now the Shiites are in the majority and the Sunnis are outnumbered, and they are clashing over representation. Add the Kurds in the north who want their own autonomy and both the Shiites and Sunnis ignoring their plight, plus the Turks making a power grab from the north there ... yeah, a really volatile situation that the people just don't know how to handle.

Making everything Westernized ain't going to work, and it ain't going to fix a damn thing. The Bush administration is guilty of many atrocities here, and trying to force our form of government on a group of people and a society where it simply won't work is one of them.

It's funny the EXTREME RIGHTIES don't chime in....

Here's an interesting tidbit.

Mark Penn is a senior adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Mark Penn is Worldwide President & CEO of Burson-Marsteller.
Burson-Marsteller is a Lobbying firm that represents Blackwater.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01blackwater-sub.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1 &oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1207398016-gKnEDJ6ndWlNUHbch9qviQ&oref=slo gin

Obama for President!

Hillary = business as usual
McCain = business as usual

Get it? Got it?
GOOD!

CJ, Brianl & Missing, you guys have got me thinking. Sure, the complexities seem really difficult to grok, but what if we just turned the clock back and compared a bit?

The America that lead to our nation had native peoples cast aside, murdered and chased into the swamps in the south and the mountains of the west. We were torn by fundamentalism that led to torture and killings in our small villages. We had violence often based on religious differences, our ancient bloodlines, gender divisions, economic despair and racial inequality. There was a mass exodus of refugees of different sects to and from growing cities in loosely defined districts that became political territories. At one time we knew how to get along, and be civilized, but as the occupation dragged on, poverty gripped most citizens, and it led to uprisings and massive bloodshed. Over the course of a few years, many citizens revolted against the British, and drove them out, even though they were reinforced by thousands of mercenaries. Americans were convinced that they could rebuild their country in a new image, unite and live in peace. Though we continued the massacre of indigenous peoples, skirmished over land and enslaved Africans, we did not collapse into an all-out civil war again for decades.

The Iraq of today has native peoples swept aside, murdered and chased into the swamps of the south and the mountains of the north. They are torn by fundamentalism that leads to torture and killings in their small villages. They have violence often based on religious differences, ancient bloodlines, gender divisions, economic despair and racial inequality. There was a mass exodus of refugees of different sects to and from bigger cities in loosely defined districts that are becoming political territories. At one time they knew how to get along, and be civilized, but as the occupation dragged on, poverty has gripped most citizens, and it has led to uprisings and massive bloodshed. Over the last few years, many citizens have revolted against us, and seek to drive us out, even though we are reinforced by thousands of mercenaries. Iraqis may be convinced that they could rebuild their country in a new image, unite and live in peace. Though they may continue the massacre of indigenous peoples, skirmish over land and enslave refugees from neighboring countries, they may not collapse into an all-out civil war again for decades.

Unlike the United States, Iraq was a modern prosperous place full of educated people, western technology, and a secular political environment. Though they are spiritual folks, it was not fanaticism. As they have after other long and bitter wars, this is the natural course for their culture to return. Just as we did not stop drinking tea or tipping our hats the moment the British finally went home, they will not reject having running water and wi-fi again. Beyond a few nomadic tribes, Iraq was a culture fully dependent on the very same infrastructure as any other comparable industrialized place, like say, Texas. Given a bit of peace, access to the materials to fix their infrastructure, and a promise of help from the world community, this country could surprise all of us.

We were once controlled by an empire and armed totalitarians who wanted to exploit our natural resources too. We also put together rag-tag coalitions to fight with the corrupt leadership, each other and the newly arrived outsiders. Americans were underestimated on virtually every level by the British. We not only won independence and healed our internal wounds from that war, but in the years since, we have freed many more of our own people. Once our leaders were elected, not selected, everything changed forever. By evolving, our country has grown stronger for hundreds of years. Do we have it all figured out? Of course not, but our democratic experiment may yet see a three hundredth birthday party. We were really damn shaky at first, but we did it, and others can too.

The Iraqis by and large hate the contractors, but our military has worked to stay on friendly terms with many people. Nevertheless, year after year, overwhelming numbers say they want us to go. I think that they ought to be more concerned with their future, and on balance, if they think they have a better opportunity without our occupation, we should respect it. There is still a chance to be forgiven for our atrocities if they get a taste of Iraq without Saddam on their own terms. Many of our military minds agree that leaving does not guarantee anything except the end of one era, and the beginning of another. They also agree that it is not good right now and only getting worse.

When one rushes with blind optimism into a conflict, it is equally foolish to refuse to leave on stubbornly pessimistic grounds. Somewhere in the middle is where the answers have been all along. While thousands of brave Americans die, this administration has made a habit of overriding solid ideas from our field commanders. Our next President must insist that we have experts in charge of operations instead of deferred Draculas in a secret room where industry eggheads make decisions using magic eight balls. Our military leaders must be at the table for any withdrawl plan. It cannot be as willy-nilly as our invasion.

No matter what happens, we must take care of our Veterans now and in the future. The mercenary armies have got to be dismantled before they return to the United States and their current domestic ranks must be thinned and regulated. We have a proud National Guard sworn to serve our communities in emergencies and disasters. This is not a job for a corporation. Especially a company that expects the taxpayers to spend $380,258,066 a year without blinking. Dangerous recent developments are making it imperative that we stop Blackwater and others from taking away our nation block by block in a crisis. It is our country, and we must press the new leadership to take it back and keep it democratic.

Great stuff guys, this is a good discussion.

Ok, you've convince me. I vote we bring home Blackwater.

"We were once controlled by an empire and armed totalitarians who wanted to exploit our natural resources too. We also put together rag-tag coalitions to fight with the corrupt leadership, each other and the newly arrived outsiders. Americans were underestimated on virtually every level by the British."

That whole post was outstanding, Littlesongs. Bravo.

What is sad is, the United States of America has become EXACTLY what we fought against some 235 years ago. The British were trying to impose their will on us, the "right way" to do things, the British Way.

We are now in Iraq trying to Westernize the government, the economy, the populace ... and guess what, it's not working. On ANY level.

Instead of letting the Iraqi people decide how to pave their own road ahead, we're jumping out front doing it for them. And we're deeply hated and resented because of it.

It is so amazing how history repeats itself, when ignored.

As my Grandpa used to say, "If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting."

That observation means more to me every day.