April 26, 2006
THE SCOTS-IRISH WOULD OUTDO THE UN:
Peace Corp. (Boston Globe, 4/23/2006)
THREE YEARS OF FIGHTING in the Darfur region of Sudan have left an estimated 180,000 dead and nearly 2 million refugees. In recent weeks, both the UN and the US have turned up the volume of their demands to end the violence (which the Bush administration has publicly called genocide), but they've been hard pressed to turn their exhortations into action. The government in Khartoum has scuttled the UN's plans to take control of the troubled peacekeeping operations currently being led by the African Union, and NATO recently stated publicly that a force of its own in Darfur is ''out of the question."...But according to J. Cofer Black, vice chairman of the private security firm Blackwater, there is another option that ought to be on the table ...
A few weeks ago, at an international special forces conference in Jordan, Black announced that his company could deploy a small rapid-response force to conflicts like the one in Sudan. "We're low cost and fast," Black said, "the question is, who's going to let us play on their team?"...
Private military companies have had a hard time convincing the international community that privatizing peacekeeping would be as good for Darfur, and for the rest of the world, as for their industry.... Kofi Annan ... [once declared] that "the world is not yet ready to privatize peace."
Just as with health care, education, telephones, and every other pastime, so with peace. If you oppose privatizing it, you oppose it. Posted by pjaminet at April 26, 2006 8:06 PM
Good luck with this one, OJ. Not that I disagree, I just don't see goverments giving up the monopoly on force except at gunpoint. Heck, taxes would implode. It would be funny to watch(yes, I know, Black Humor) the various armies sent in to 'fix' Central and South America. Corporate Wars, here we come!
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 26, 2006 8:42 PMIt's been privatized before -- see Amendment 2, US Constitution. Privatized, of course, does not mean unregulated.
Posted by: pj at April 26, 2006 9:06 PMYes, and the second amendment allowed civilians to own cannons. That didn't last long. It's hard to regulate an armed people. Remember the Whiskey rebellion? The goverment does....
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 26, 2006 9:13 PM""the question is, who's going to let us play on their team?"...
And that's the danger. I presume Mr. Black would not have second thoughts of taking, say, Saudi money to do some "peacekeeping."
Posted by: Brad S at April 26, 2006 10:25 PMBrad - Since his employees are American, mostly ex-Special Forces, he can only take gigs Americans want to do.
Posted by: pj at April 26, 2006 10:38 PMUntil the Left reforms the Lincoln Brigades to stop the American Empire's agents........
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 26, 2006 10:44 PMWhat is al Qaeda but the new Lincoln Brigades? And Blackwater Security has engaged them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: pj at April 27, 2006 7:36 AMThank you PJ. I would call al Qaeda the new Anarcists. The Lincoln Brigades would by definition be filled with American Leftists. I think we almost saw them reform over the Contras. Just a reminder that the Left in America has never had a problem with force(in their hands), and there are a lot of very rich Leftists. It would not be a one-sided fight.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 27, 2006 10:50 AM