Is Blackwater Reconsidering Things?
|
|
| Also listed in: Courage Campaign Staff |
Cross posted at Calitics
Blackwater may be on shaky ground. Despite official protestations to the contrary, it's starting to look as though Blackwater's course might be shifting. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is starting to ask why the government is using so many private contractors, asking "Why have we come to rely on private contractors to provide combat or combat-related security training for our forces?" and going on to wonder "are we comfortable with this practice, and do we fully understand the implications in terms of quality, responsiveness and sustainability?"
These are questions that a competent government would have been asking in 2001 when Donald Rumsfeld declared that privatizing national security would be a good idea because...I don't know why...his friends would make money? It was Rumsfeld shift away from publicly-guaranteed and provided security that brought about the rise of Blackwater and a litany of other, slightly less infamous private security firms. But in light of the continuing legal proceedings probing Blackwater's Nusoor Square (17 civilians dead for no reason), Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's insistence on eliminating immunity for security contractors in any new Iraq-U.S. security negotiations, and now Gates' expressed concerns, Blackwater executives have been saying they'll shift away from private security because it's causing them too much grief. Blackwater will supposedly "survive with a focus on international training, aviation and construction."
This has a number of potential implications for the new Blackwater facility in San Diego. If the above list is correct, then Blackwater would be getting out of not only the private security business but also the domestic training business. Which would make their San Diego facility superfluous. They've assured the public repeatedly (perhaps protesting too much) that this facility would not be a staging area for aviation surveillance of the border, but we know they're expanding their fleet of surveillance aircraft and are apparently heading in that direction. We know they've received new government contracts to provide training in Latin America and have recently provided security for Sen. John McCain in Mexico. Blackwater officials have sworn up and down that setting up just three blocks from the Mexican border has nothing to do with these other plans to operate multi-million dollar contracts in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, but it remains convenient.
Now maybe the public denials are accurate, but if Blackwater is getting out of domestic security training and moving away from the sorts of contracts that send them to Iraq, (aside from being a welcome development) it means they don't have any use for their San Diego "vocational school." I look forward to seeing the thread of logic play out for them.
Blackwater may be on shaky ground. Despite official protestations to the contrary, it's starting to look as though Blackwater's course might be shifting. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is starting to ask why the government is using so many private contractors, asking "Why have we come to rely on private contractors to provide combat or combat-related security training for our forces?" and going on to wonder "are we comfortable with this practice, and do we fully understand the implications in terms of quality, responsiveness and sustainability?"
These are questions that a competent government would have been asking in 2001 when Donald Rumsfeld declared that privatizing national security would be a good idea because...I don't know why...his friends would make money? It was Rumsfeld shift away from publicly-guaranteed and provided security that brought about the rise of Blackwater and a litany of other, slightly less infamous private security firms. But in light of the continuing legal proceedings probing Blackwater's Nusoor Square (17 civilians dead for no reason), Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's insistence on eliminating immunity for security contractors in any new Iraq-U.S. security negotiations, and now Gates' expressed concerns, Blackwater executives have been saying they'll shift away from private security because it's causing them too much grief. Blackwater will supposedly "survive with a focus on international training, aviation and construction."
This has a number of potential implications for the new Blackwater facility in San Diego. If the above list is correct, then Blackwater would be getting out of not only the private security business but also the domestic training business. Which would make their San Diego facility superfluous. They've assured the public repeatedly (perhaps protesting too much) that this facility would not be a staging area for aviation surveillance of the border, but we know they're expanding their fleet of surveillance aircraft and are apparently heading in that direction. We know they've received new government contracts to provide training in Latin America and have recently provided security for Sen. John McCain in Mexico. Blackwater officials have sworn up and down that setting up just three blocks from the Mexican border has nothing to do with these other plans to operate multi-million dollar contracts in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, but it remains convenient.
Now maybe the public denials are accurate, but if Blackwater is getting out of domestic security training and moving away from the sorts of contracts that send them to Iraq, (aside from being a welcome development) it means they don't have any use for their San Diego "vocational school." I look forward to seeing the thread of logic play out for them.