Mercenaries in Iraq

[Snarf]

Blood Is Thicker Than Blackwater
By Jeremy Scahill
The Nation

08 May 2006 Edition

It is one of the most infamous incidents of the war in Iraq: On March 31, 2004, four private American security contractors get lost and end up driving through the center of Falluja, a hotbed of Sunni resistance to the US occupation. Shortly after entering the city, they get stuck in traffic, and their small convoy is ambushed. Several armed men approach the two vehicles and open fire from behind, repeatedly shooting the men at point-blank range. Within moments, their bodies are dragged from the vehicles and a crowd descends on them, tearing them to pieces. Eventually, their corpses are chopped and burned. The remains of two of the men are strung up on a bridge over the Euphrates River and left to dangle. The gruesome image is soon beamed across the globe.

In the Oval Office the killings were taken as "a challenge to America's resolve," according to the Los Angeles Times. President Bush issued a statement through his spokesperson. "We will not be intimidated," he said. "We will finish the job." Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt vowed, "We will be back in Falluja.... We will hunt down the criminals.... It's going to be deliberate. It will be precise, and it will be overwhelming." Within days of the ambush, US forces laid siege to Falluja, beginning what would be one of the most brutal and sustained US operations of the occupation.

For most people, the gruesome killings were the first they had ever heard of Blackwater USA, a small, North Carolina-based private security company. Since the Falluja incident, and also because of it, Blackwater has emerged as one of the most successful and profitable security contractors operating in Iraq. The company and its secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder, Erik Prince, position Blackwater as a patriotic extension of the US military, and its employees are required to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. After the killings, Blackwater released a statement saying the "heinous mistreatment of our friends exhibits the extraordinary conditions under which we voluntarily work to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.... Our tasks are dangerous and while we feel sadness for our fallen colleagues, we also feel pride and satisfaction that we are making a difference for the people of Iraq."

The company swiftly rose to international prominence: Journalists were flooding Blackwater with calls, and military types were clamoring to sign up for work. "They're angry...they're saying, 'Let me go over,'" Blackwater spokesman Chris Bertelli told the Virginian-Pilot ten days after the killings, adding that applications to work for Blackwater had increased "considerably" in that time. "It's natural to assume that the visibility of the dangers could drive up salaries for the folks who have to stand in the path of the bullets," he said. A day after the killings, Prince enlisted the services of the Alexander Strategy Group, a now disgraced but once powerful Republican lobbying and PR firm. By the end of 2004 Blackwater's president, Gary Jackson, was bragging to the press of "staggering" 600 percent growth. "This is a billion-dollar industry," Jackson said in October 2004. "And Blackwater has only scratched the surface of it."

But today, Blackwater is facing a potentially devastating battle-this time not in Iraq but in court. The company has been slapped with a lawsuit that, if successful, will send shock waves through the world of private security firms, a world that has expanded significantly since Bush took office. Blackwater is being sued for the wrongful deaths of Stephen "Scott" Helvenston, Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona by the families of the men slain in Falluja.

More than 428 private contractors have been killed to date in Iraq, and US taxpayers are footing almost the entire compensation bill to their families. "This is a precedent-setting case," says Marc Miles, an attorney for the families. "Just like with tobacco litigation or gun litigation, once they lose that first case, they'd be fearful there would be other lawsuits to follow."

The families' two-year quest to hold those responsible accountable has taken them not to Falluja but to the sprawling Blackwater compound in North Carolina. As they tell it, after demanding answers about how the men ended up dead in Falluja that day and being stonewalled at every turn, they decided to conduct their own investigation. "Blackwater sent my son and the other three into Falluja knowing that there was a very good possibility this could happen," says Katy Helvenston, the mother of 38-year-old Scott Helvenston, whose charred body was hung from the Falluja bridge. "Iraqis physically did it, and it doesn't get any more horrible than what they did to my son, does it? But I hold Blackwater responsible one thousand percent."

In late 2004 the case caught the attention of the high-powered California trial lawyer Daniel Callahan, fresh from a record-setting $934 million jury decision in a corporate fraud case. On January 5, 2005, the families filed the lawsuit against Blackwater in Wake County, North Carolina. "What we have right now is something worse than the wild, wild west going on in Iraq," Callahan says. "Blackwater is able to operate over there in Iraq free from any oversight that would typically exist in a civilized society. As we expose Blackwater in this case, it will also expose the inefficient and corrupt system that exists over there."

Scott Helvenston was a walking ad for the military. He came from a proud family of Republicans; his great-great-uncle, Elihu Root, was once US Secretary of War and the 1912 Nobel Peace Prize-winner. Scott was tall, tan and chiseled and, by all accounts, a model soldier and athlete. At 17 he made history by becoming the youngest person ever to complete the rigorous Navy SEAL program. He spent twelve years in the SEALs, four of them as an instructor, and then tried his luck with Hollywood. He trained Demi Moore for her film G.I. Jane and did a few stints on reality television. In one, Man vs. Beast, he was the only contestant to defeat the beast, outmaneuvering a chimpanzee in an obstacle course. Once the cover boy on a Navy calendar, he also had several workout videos.

If it had been up to Katy Helvenston, her son wouldn't have been in Iraq at all. "We had argued about him going over there," she recalls. "I believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan, but I never believed we should have gone into Iraq, and Scott bought the whole story about Saddam Hussein being involved with Al Qaeda and all that. He believed in what he was doing." He also had a financial motivation. In early 2004 Helvenston was between jobs and was eking out a living with the stints on reality TV, the movie consulting and the fitness videos. "It was good money, but it was never enough," his mother remembers. He was divorced but continued to support his ex-wife and two children. His mother says he took the job with Blackwater because the company offered short-term, two-month contracts, and Scott viewed it as an opportunity to turn his life around. "He said, 'I'm gonna go over there, make some money, maybe make a difference. I'll only be away from my kids for a couple of months.' That's why he chose Blackwater," she recalls.

Helvenston arrived for training at Blackwater's North Carolina campus around March 1, 2004. The man heading the training was Justin McQuown, nicknamed Shrek, after the green ogre movie cartoon character. According to the suit, McQuown lacked the credentials of Helvenston and other ex-SEALs. "During training, McQuown would often improperly instruct the class or provide erroneous information, tactics or techniques," the suit alleges. "On occasion, Helvenston would attempt to politely assist McQuown by offering his expertise on the correct manner of the particular training exercise. The fact that [McQuown]...was being exposed infuriated him." Scott's mother believes, based on Scott's e-mails and conversations with contractors who served with her son, that McQuown feared that Scott might replace him at the company.

After the training session, Helvenston got on a plane to Kuwait, where he touched down on March 18. It seemed like an ideal situation for him, as two of his friends from his days on the reality TV show Combat Missions were helping to run the Blackwater operations: John and Kathy Potter. When Helvenston set off for the Middle East, his family thought he was going to be working on Blackwater's high-profile job of guarding the head of the US occupation, Paul Bremer. At $21 million, it represented the company's biggest contract in Iraq. As it turned out, Helvenston was slated to carry out a far less glamorous task. John Potter had recently teamed Blackwater up with a Kuwaiti business called Regency Hotel and Hospital Company, and together the firms won a security contract with Eurest Support Services (ESS), guarding convoys transporting kitchen equipment to the US military. Blackwater and Regency had essentially wrestled the ESS contract from another security firm, Control Risk Group, and were eager to win more lucrative contracts from ESS in its other division servicing construction projects in Iraq. Unbeknownst to Helvenston, this goal would drive a series of events that would ultimately lead to his death.

According to former Blackwater officials, Blackwater, Regency and ESS were engaged in a classic war-profiteering scheme. Blackwater was paying its men $600 a day but billing Regency $815, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. "In addition," the paper reports, "Blackwater billed Regency separately for all its overhead and costs in Iraq." Regency would then bill ESS an unknown amount for these services. Kathy Potter told the News and Observer that Regency would "quote ESS a price, say $1,500 per man per day, and then tell Blackwater that it had quoted ESS $1,200." ESS then contracted with Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which in turn billed the government an unknown amount of money for the same security services, according to the paper. KBR/Halliburton refuses to discuss the matter and will not confirm any relationship with ESS.

All this was shady enough-but the real danger for Helvenston and the others lay in Blackwater's decision to cut corners to make even more money. The original contract between Blackwater/Regency and ESS, obtained by The Nation, recognized that "the current threat in the Iraqi theater of operations" would remain "consistent and dangerous," and called for a minimum of three men in each vehicle on security missions "with a minimum of two armored vehicles to support ESS movements." [Emphasis added.]

But on March 12, 2004, Blackwater and Regency signed a subcontract, which specified security provisions identical to the original except for one word: "armored." Blackwater deleted it from the contract.

"When they took that word 'armored' out, Blackwater was able to save $1.5 million in not buying armored vehicles, which they could then put in their pocket," says attorney Miles. "These men were told that they'd be operating in armored vehicles. Had they been, I sincerely believe that they'd be alive today. They were killed by insurgents literally walking up and shooting them with small-arms fire. This was not a roadside bomb, it was not any other explosive device. It was merely small-arms fire, which could have been repelled by armored vehicles."

Before Helvenston, Teague, Zovko and Batalona were ever sent into Falluja, the omission of the word "armored" was brought to the attention of Blackwater management by John Potter, according to the families' lawyers. They say Blackwater refused to redraft the contract. Potter persisted, insisting that his men be provided with armored vehicles. This would have resulted in Blackwater losing profits and would also have delayed the start of the ESS job. According to the suit, Blackwater was gung-ho to start in order to impress ESS and win further contracts. So on March 24 the company removed Potter as program manager, replacing him with McQuown, who, according to the families' lawyers, was far more willing than Potter to overlook security considerations in the interest of profits. It was this corporate greed, combined with McQuown's animosity toward Scott Helvenston, which began at the training in North Carolina, that the families allege played a significant role in the deaths of Helvenston and the other three contractors.

Scott Helvenston and his team were to deploy to Iraq on March 29. But late on the evening of March 27, McQuown called Helvenston and told him that he needed to pack his things immediately, that he would be leaving at 5 am with a completely different team. According to the lawsuit, "It was virtually unheard of to take a single person, like Scott Helvenston, and place him on a different group with whom he had never trained or even met." Helvenston resisted the change. Several other contractors stepped forward, offering to go in his place. McQuown refused to allow it.

Later that night, according to Scott's mother, McQuown came up to Helvenston's hotel room. "He was told at that time that he was not going to be doing security for the ambassador, Paul Bremer, and he was going to escort a convoy of trucks to pick up kitchen equipment. And Scott says, 'You're nuts,' you know, he says, 'I'm not goin' in there to Falluja. You're out of your mind. That's not what I was hired to do.' And at that point McQuown apparently told him that if he didn't do it, he would be fired immediately. He would have to reimburse any monies that had been paid to him, and he was on his own to get home. Well, that left Scott no choice. So the next morning they were off."

The night before he left, Helvenston sent an e-mail to the "Owner, President and Upper Management" of Blackwater, subject: "extreme unprofessionalism." In this e-mail, obtained by The Nation, he complained that the behavior of McQuown (referred to as "Justin Shrek" in the e-mail) was "very manipulative, duplicitive [sic], immature and unprofessional." He describes how his original team leader tried to appeal to Shrek not to reassign him, but, Helvenston wrote, "I think [the team leader] felt that there was a hidden agenda. 'Lets see if we can screw with Scott.'" Those were some of the last words Helvenston would ever write.

Callahan says that if Blackwater and McQuown had done in the United States what they are alleged to have done in Iraq, "There would be criminal charges against them." What happened between McQuown and Helvenston was no mere personality conflict. "Corporations are fictional entities-they only act through their personnel," explains Miles. "You need to show intent. You need to put a face on these acts. With regard to the wrongful death of these four men, that face is Justin McQuown of Blackwater." The company refused to comment on the case, but McQuown's lawyer, William Crenshaw, told The Nation there are "numerous serious factual errors" in the lawsuit, saying, "On behalf of Mr. McQuown, we extend our sincerest sympathies to the families of the deceased. It is regrettable and inaccurate to suggest that Mr. McQuown contributed in any way to this terrible tragedy."

On March 30, 2004, Helvenston, Teague, Zovko and Batalona left Baghdad on the ESS security mission. The suit alleges that there were six guards available that day, but McQuown intervened and ordered only the four to be sent. The other two were kept behind at Blackwater's Baghdad facility to perform clerical duties. A Blackwater official later boasted, the suit says, that they saved two lives by not sending all six men.

The four men were, in fact, working under contracts guaranteeing that they would travel with a six-person team. But their personal contracts also warned of death and/or injury caused by everything from "civil uprising" and "terrorist activity" to "poisoning" and "flying debris." In filing its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Blackwater quoted from its standard contract, insisting that those who sign it "fully appreciate the dangers and voluntarily assume these risks as well as any other risks in any way (whether directly or indirectly) connected to the Engagement."

Reading this, it would seem that Blackwater has a reasonable defense. Not so, say the families of the four men and their lawyers. They do not deny that the men were aware of the risks they were taking, but they charge that Blackwater knowingly refused to provide guaranteed safeguards, among them: They would have armored vehicles; there would be three men in each vehicle-a driver, a navigator and a rear gunner; and the rear gunner would be armed with a heavy automatic weapon, such as a "SAW Mach 46," which can fire up to 850 rounds per minute, allowing the gunner to fight off any attacks from the rear. "None of that was true," says attorney Callahan. Instead, each vehicle had only two men and far less powerful "Mach 4" guns, which they had not even had a chance to test out. "Without the big gun, without the third man, without the armored vehicle, they were sitting ducks," says Callahan.

The men got lost on the evening of March 30 and eventually found a Marine base near Falluja where they slept for a few hours. "Scotty had tried to call me in the middle of the night," Katy Helvenston remembers. "I had my bedroom phone ringer turned off-I didn't get the call, so he left me a message. It mostly was, 'Mom, please don't worry, I'm OK. I'm gonna be home soon and I'm gonna see ya. We're gonna go have fun. I'm gonna take care of you.' You know, just stuff like that, which obviously wasn't true. By the time I got the message he'd already been killed."

Shortly after Helvenston left that message, the men left the base and set out for their destination. Without a detailed map, they took the most direct route, through the center of Falluja. According to Callahan, there was a safer alternative route that went around the city, which the men were unaware of because of Blackwater's failure to conduct a "risk assessment" before the trip, as mandated by the contract. The suit alleges that the four men should have had a chance to gather intelligence and familiarize themselves with the dangerous routes they would be traveling. This was not done, according to Miles, "so as to pad Blackwater's bottom line" and to impress ESS with Blackwater's efficiency in order to win more contracts. The suit also alleges that McQuown "intentionally refused to allow the Blackwater security contractors to conduct" ride-alongs with the teams they were replacing from Control Risk Group. (In fact, the suit contends that Blackwater "fabricated critical documents" and "created" a pre-trip risk assessment "after this deadly ambush occurred.")

The men entered Falluja with Helvenston and Teague in one vehicle and Zovko and Batalona in the other. "Since the team was driving without a rear-gunner and did not have armored vehicles, the insurgents were able to literally walk up behind the vehicles and shoot all four men with small arms at close range," the suit alleges. "Their bodies were pulled into the streets, burned and their charred remains were beaten and dismembered." The men, it goes on, "would be alive today" had Blackwater not forced them-under threat of being fired-to go unprepared on that mission. "The fact that these four Americans found themselves located in the high-risk, war-torn City of Fallujah without armored vehicles, automatic weapons, and fewer than the minimum number of team members was no accident," the suit alleges. "Instead, this team was sent out without the required equipment and personnel by those in charge at Blackwater."

After the killings, Katy Helvenston joined the families of Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona in grieving and in seeking details about the incident. Blackwater founder Erik Prince personally delivered money to some of the families for funeral expenses, and the company moved to get the men's wives and children benefits under the government's Defense Base Act, which in some cases insures those on contract supporting US military operations abroad.

But then things started to get strange. Blackwater held a memorial service for the men at its compound. The families were gathered in a conference room, where they thought they would be told how the men had died. The Zovko family asked Blackwater to see the "After Action Report" detailing the incident. "We were actually told," recalls Zovko's mother, Danica, "that if we wanted to see the paperwork of how my son and his co-workers were killed that we'd have to sue them."

Thus began the legal battle between Blackwater and the dead men's families. In one of its few statements on the suit, Blackwater spokesperson Chris Bertelli said, "Blackwater hopes that the honor and dignity of our fallen comrades are not diminished by the use of the legal process." Katy Helvenston calls that "total BS in my opinion," and says that the families decided to sue only after being stonewalled, misled and lied to by the company. "Blackwater seems to understand money. That's the only thing they understand," she says. "They have no values, they have no morals. They're whores. They're the whores of war."

Since its filing in January 2005, the case has moved slowly through the legal system. For its part, Blackwater is represented by multiple law firms. Its lead counsel is Greenberg Traurig, the influential DC law firm that once employed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The lawyers for the families charge that Blackwater has continued its practice of stonewalling. While some of that may be legitimate defense tactics, the lawyers argue that the company has actively prevented court-ordered depositions from taking place, including taking steps to prevent a key witness from testifying: John Potter, the man who blew the whistle on Blackwater's removal of the word "armored" from the contract and was subsequently removed.

Attorney Marc Miles says that shortly after the suit was filed, he asked the court in North Carolina for an "expedited order" to depose John Potter. The deposition was set for January 28, 2005, and Miles was to fly to Alaska, where the Potters were living. But three days before the deposition, Miles says, "Blackwater hired Potter up, flew him to Washington where it's my understanding he met with Blackwater representatives and their lawyers. [Blackwater] then flew him to Jordan for ultimate deployment in the Middle East," Miles says. "Obviously they concealed a material witness by hiring him and sending him out of the country." Callahan says Blackwater took advantage of the Potters' financial straits to hinder the case against the company. "Potter didn't have any other gainful employment, because many of these men who are ex-military, their skills don't transfer easily into the civilian sector," he says, adding that after Potter was removed for blowing the whistle on the armor issue, the company abandoned him "until they needed him to avoid this subpoena and this deposition and they said, 'We need you and we need you now.' And zoom, off he goes." Blackwater subsequently attempted to have Potter's deposition order dissolved, but a federal court said no.

Blackwater has not offered a rebuttal to the specific allegations made by the families, except to deny in general that they are valid. It has fought to have the case dismissed on grounds that because Blackwater is servicing US armed forces it cannot be sued for workers' deaths or injuries and that all liability lies with the government. In its motion to dismiss the case in federal court, Blackwater argues that the families of the four men killed in Falluja are entitled only to government insurance payments. That's why the company moved swiftly to apply for benefits for the families under the Defense Base Act. Many firms specializing in contractor law advertise the DBA as the best way for corporations servicing the war to avoid being sued. In fact, Blackwater's then-general counsel, Steve Capace, gave a workshop last May on the subject to an "International Super-Conference" for contractors. In the presentation, called "Managing Contracting Risks in Battlefield Conditions," Capace laid out a legal strategy for deflecting the kind of lawsuit Blackwater now faces. That's why this case is being watched so closely by other firms operating in Iraq. "What Blackwater is trying to do is to sweep all of their wrongful conduct into the Defense Base Act," says Miles. "What they're trying to do is to say, 'Look-we can do anything we want and not be held accountable. We can send our men out to die so that we can pad our bottom line, and if anybody comes back at us, we have insurance.' It's essentially insurance to kill."

Given the uncounted tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died since the invasion and the slaughter in Falluja that followed the Blackwater incident, some might say this lawsuit is just warmongers bickering-no honor among thieves. Indeed, the real scandal here isn't that these men were sent into Falluja with only a four-person detail when there should have been six or that they didn't have a powerful enough machine gun to kill their attackers. It's that the United States has opened Iraq's door to mercenaries who roam the country with impunity.

"Over a thousand people died because of what happened to Scotty that day," says Katy Helvenston. "There's a lot of innocent people that have died." While this suit doesn't mention the retaliatory US attack on Falluja that followed the Blackwater killings, the case is significant because it could blow the lid off a system that allows corporations to face zero liability while reaping huge profits in Iraq and other war zones. "Scotty's not going to die in vain," says his mother. "I'm driven and I'm not going to quit. They will be accountable."

Still, Blackwater has friends in high places. It's a well-connected, Republican-controlled business that has made its fortune because of the Bush Administration. Company founder Erik Prince and his family have poured serious money into Republican causes and campaign coffers over the past twenty years. An analysis of Prince's contributions prepared for The Nation by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that since 1989, Prince and his wife have given some $275,550 to Republican campaigns. Prince has never given a penny to a Democrat. While it is not unheard of for a successful business to cast its lot entirely with one party, it has clearly paid off. Shortly after George W. Bush was re-elected in November 2004, Gary Jackson sent out a mass celebratory e-mail declaring, "Bush Wins, Four More Years!! Hooyah!!"

The White House, for its part, has turned the issue of accountability of Blackwater and other private security companies into a joke, literally. This April at a forum at Johns Hopkins, Bush was asked by a student about bringing "private military contractors under a system of law," to which Bush replied, laughing, that he was going to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, "I was going to-I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question [laughter]. This is what delegation-I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never-[laughter] I really will-I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work."

[jasJis]

What a biased hatchet job. While I may agree that Blackwater's McQuown may have contributed to the death of Halveston and the lawsuit seems reasonable, the way the article is written with histronics is shameful. It continually calls the US, the 'occupation' force when it isn't necessary. It completely twists Government contracting practices into some sort of clandestine shennanigans. The writer has an agenda and is shows. Instead of providing a factual piece, it makes sure every facet has a 'spin' that fits the writer's agenda of bashing the US. Shame on Jeremy.

[MichaelFilo]

Well, as an Iraqi I can tell you, when a force that is foriegn is in your country, it is an occupational force. As to the rest of the article, well, I learned to leave these Iraqi issues alone because it's always a one man show with an actual point, and one or two crazy leftist bashing Bush.

God bless,
Mikey

[Snarf]

I won't argue what merits or debases a hidden agenda in the article, it seems pretty irrelevant to me how offended people are over the term "occupation". It's a pretty neutral word in the first place, not to mention perfectly orthographic in context. I'm not Iraqi, and I don't deny the heartwarming stories of American soldiers being praised as heroes. But, I can't help but estimate that the term "liberation", applied to a sustained presence in a country that was technically liberated three years ago, strikes a sizable portion of the Iraqi people as something of a misnomer. I know that I should be patient and wait until we've wasted a decade or so there before I throw around the term "quagmire", but while there is an immediate threat from Tehran and a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, seeing the bulk of the armed forces tied up for painfully abstract reasons in Iraq (see my post on that elsewhere) does strike me as, well, quagmire-ish. We were sold a war on the grounds of WMD intelligence that was cherry-picked so discriminately that it was just as useless as the UN said it would be, and for the case of genocide which was no longer convenient to overlook as water under the bridge. There's got to be some kind of cosmic joke that because of those, we're impotent to deal with REAL WMDs and ONGOING genocide. I'd probably laugh if not for that heirloom scrap of decency of mine.

But, the original reason I posted this was to show the love and support our troops receive. I personally hold the archaic belief that if a state should engage in a maniacal war that's both inwardly and outwardly destructive, it should at least hold itself to such standards that as few people should die and quality of life be retained to the best of anyone's ability. Wildly inefficient and unjustifiably expensive corporate services don't really fit into the scheme of a realistic war. Yeah, I've studied enough military history to know that mercenaries extend back in time [i]at least[/i] ten years, so I'm not altogether opposed to soldiers getting compensated for extraordinary services. However, if I were a PFC, I'd be something of disheartened to find out that more money is going to non-descript soldiers for their incidental affiliation with a contributor to political parties. If, in turn, it ended up being that money meant for armor and weapons went unspent, ultimately channeled into party campaigns, I'd not be any more excited.

It's one thing to lie to a nation to go to war. To begin a war with an invincible lack of foresight or exit strategy is another. Telling a nation of insurgents "Bring it on" isn't helpful. Siphoning tax dollars into the business sector for reasons totally contradictory to military sensibility is more than a little transparent. Misappropriating said tax dollars by cutting corners on life-saving technology is just, well, evil.

[jasJis]

The Iraqi families I am related to by marriage do not consider the American's as occupiers. I don't know what dictionary you might have gotten for Christmas, Snarf, but 'Occupation', when used to describe a military operation primarily means a foreign force that invaded, posses, and controls a Country. That isn't a neutral term.

Pope JPII might not have been happy about the US going in, but he did feel the US is working in conjuction with other Countries to help Iraq establish a government without Sadaam.

But you've chosen your perspective. Then this was a fair minded and balanced article.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='959529' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:26 PM']
Well, as an Iraqi I can tell you, when a force that is foriegn is in your country, it is an occupational force.
[/quote]
Is that so? So America and Britain were the 'occupational force' when they invaded France during WWII? I think not. It is all about intent. If we wanted, we could have raped Iraq, but we don't. Why? Because we aren't occupiers. We are there now to rebuild, give them a shot at something better, and defend them from suicide bombers who kill innocent by-standers and who seek civil war and disunity amongst their own race

[Shawn]

First, this comes from The Nation magazine, an extreme Left Marxist rag that promotes abortion and "gay rights" and is virulently opposed to any form of conservative or traditional Christianity.

Second, snarfs comment that were lied into this war is itself a lie that has been disproven. The information is avaliable on the net for anyone with an open mind (i.e not Bush haters).

Edited April 25, 2006 by Shawn

[Snarf]

The "occupation" of France was for all intents and purposes "in bello" thing, so I don't really see how you can make a comparison between the two. Of course, everyone has decided that "Bush haters" "don't think", so some of you might make the claim that the liberation of France (a fine apple) and the occupation of Iraq (quite an orange) are comparable. Truth doesn't matter, because you're just making a point and those evil liberals won't notice because they "don't think".

[i]If we wanted, we could have raped Iraq, but we don't. Why? Because we aren't occupiers.[/i]

You and Jasjis can argue positive or negative connotations you want, but when the English language dictates that something is a spade, you should either call it a spade or concede that you're being absurdly hypersensitive. US in post-war Japan? An occupation. US in post-war Germany? An occupation. Were they actually necessary? Yes. Did they leave a positive impact? Yes. When Magritte painted [i]La trahison des images[/i] and said "ceci n'est pas une pipe", he was delving into surrealist expression. When you all say "this is not an occupation", you're demonstrating an unawareness of what the word means and/or what's going on in Iraq.

[i]First, this comes from The Nation magazine, an extreme Left Marxist rag that promotes abortion and "gay rights" and is virulently opposed to any form of conservative or traditional Christianity.[/i]

Which should make it easy for you to point out its outright lies and motives, right? Feel free. I posted the article so we could discuss the article, not quibble over the application of bluntly applicable words.

[i]Second, snarfs comment that were lied into this war is itself a lie that has been disproven.[/i]

I posted at length on this subject in the poll thread on the subject of the war. Intellectually responsible conservatives don't even bother defending Bush's lack of honesty.

[jasJis]

Snarf,
I'm not sure what dictionary you got for Christmas, but maybe you should use another one. Occupation means a military force that is there to possess and take control as a conquest. The US did occupy Japan and Germany. The US did not occupy Kuwait or Iraq after the first Gulf War, even though they maintained military bases in Kuwait. Occupation has negative connotations, not neutral. Neutral is 'Military Presence'. Positive is 'Liberators', negative is 'Occupiers'. Get real.

My extensive Iraqi family (by sister's marriage) both in Iraq and here in the US consider the US government as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The US went to ware because Sadaam refused to comply with the military restrictions to not re-build his military or pursue WMD he agreed to with the US and the UN. The burden of proof was on his government. He kept throwing out the inspectors and manipulated the Oil for Food program to build Palaces adn his military. After 10 years, what were the options.

This is important because Iran is playing the same game now. Iran is outright defying the world community because the UN and World Community and the US are crippled by public opinion that are not experts or well informed. Is the world forced to wait until a Country shoots a sarin-gas or nuclear missile at Isreal first?

Intellectual honesty, not spin counterbalanced by opposite spin is what is required. A tremendous number of lives are in the balance.

[Shawn]

The source for this article IS important. That the Nation is a Marxist magazine opposed to the national defense of the US and in favour of evil like abortion os relevent in dertimining whether the content of the article should be trusted.

On the next issue I am very familiar with American conservative opinion and in fact the vast majority of US conservatives DO defend Bush, because he did not lie.

I read your posts on Iraq elsewhere and they are deeply flawed and based on a large number of factual inacuracies, unsubstantiated assumptions and outright lies. I am happy to enage in debate on that and prove that your claims are false and that your either ignorant or lying.

So, at a time of war, with Americans and Westerners around the world at risk from Islamic terrorists, when Osama bin Laden and terrorists around the world are using any excuse and any Western dissent to attack the West and the US and justify their jihad, your response is to help them out by postring propaganda from a Marxist pro-abortion rag.

Nice.

Do you do that for free or did you get your thirty pieces of silver?

[Snarf]

[i]That the Nation is a Marxist magazine opposed to the national defense of the US[/i]

Hyperbolic garbage. If you really think that throwing gasoline on the flames of the Middle East is in the best interest of "national defense of the US", then your (sic) either ignorant or, well, naive. In fact, I'm pretty sure that censoring out any point of view that does not comply with yours is, well, ignorant. Before the Catholic Church denounces something as heretical, it tends to read what the heretics actually have to say. When you refuse to offer any insight into objective data provided by a source because of its foundational leanings, that's just turning yourself into a sheep. I'd watch out for wolves if I were you.

[i]On the next issue I am very familiar with American conservative opinion and in fact the vast majority of US conservatives DO defend Bush, because he did not lie[/i]

I stated quite clearly that the American conservative opinion to which I was making reference was in fact that minority. The difference is between the extreme majority who defend Bush because they've been misinformed, and between the select minority who defend Bush because his selective use of information conforms to the Machiavellianism espoused by the Neo-Con movement.

I was never a big fan of Clinton and was elated when he was impeached (having grown up a little I don't know how I'd feel if history were repeated), but the present administration has inherited his verbal dexterity for certain. The UN said that whether or not Iraq had any WMD, they regardless were too impotent to use them. The CIA agreed in full. Many opponents of the war point to these instances as being "lies", but at large I tend to agree with those who call it bovine feces. The difference is that lies tend to incur the outright manufacturing of information in the face of contradictary information, while bovine feces can take the form of overplaying convenient facts while simply ignoring--not affirming or denying--the remainder. To compare the reports of the UN weapons inspectors and the CIA documents, at least the ones freely available at present, with the claims made at the 2003 State of the Union Address, Colin Powell's speech before the United Nations, and countless speeches made by both Democrats and Republicans since 1998, the concept of bovine feces is a recurring theme that should strike any reader.

For instance, when the two hydrogen trailers were found in Iraq, the presidency immediately bragged about having found biological laboratories. That was a case of misinformation, presented as bovine feces, and evolved historically into a lie.

[i]I read your posts on Iraq elsewhere and they are deeply flawed and based on a large number of factual inacuracies, unsubstantiated assumptions and outright lies. I am happy to enage in debate on that and prove that your claims are false and that your either ignorant or lying.[/i]

It seems a little too convenient that you can call me a liar while not citing any example. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask for citations or coraborations, but calling someone a liar without any indication of what you're talking about just kind of seems like an easy way out. Of course, to make irrelevant assertions on the authorship of an article on corporate abuse and hijack the thread accordingly without making any attempt of contradicting the factuality of events in question, is not something that paints you as one who is interested in the pursuit of level-headed debate. The whole Judas thing was a nice touch as well. Calling someone a Judas is usually a tactic for people who focus on Christ as a good example for human being and citizen and less as a divinity figure, as for them it invokes less hypocrisy than for a Christian making the same comparison. Anyone who sins is a Judas figure according to Christian tradition, so calling someone a traitor because of his lack of support for a war and levelling him as Judas accordingly isn't just inflammatory, it's supremely hypocritical.

Oh, speaking of lies: "when Osama bin Laden and terrorists around the world are using any excuse and any Western dissent to attack the West and the US and justify their jihad". I fail to see how this can hold any water, except in the minds of those who are both extremely polarized and extremely ignorant. It sounds more like the theory that Jews put bubonic plague in community wells in the 14th Century than anything else. Once I signed the moveon.org anti-war petition in 2001 my inbox has been clogged with their banter, but not once have they sent me a super-secret link to a bin Laden telecast instructing me how to take down the American government. Maybe I have to make a donation first, I dunno. Here are some facts, though. The Iraq-al Qaeda connection is a pretty loose one, especially in comprarison to the Arabic theocratic states, many of which we consider political allies. Saying that an Arab state formally opposes Zionism is about as astute as saying that they have sand and camels, so bin Laden wouldn't have been particularly impressed by a secular power paying thousands of dollars to suicide bomber families. With that in mind, do you really think that bin Laden had more or less to gain by the American invasion of Iraq? I can imagine him saying "See, this is what happens to secular states." I can imagine him saying, "See, American Zionism is inching ever closer to the homeland." I can't really imagine American dissent being any help for him. So, I think the quote of yours falls somewhere in the "unsubstantiated claims" realm, not to mention bovine feces. I'd call you a liar, but I'm not entirely sure that you don't have the credulity to honestly believe what you present as an opinion.

So. How 'bout them mercenary corporations?

[jasJis]

Snarf, you're funnier than your name suggests.

I remember the pics of the trailers they found purposely buried in the sand. Everyone felt they were mobile bio labs. But 'hydrogen trailers'? What's up with that?

You didn't address my challenge to calling Occupation Force a neutral term.

I don't even get your response to Shawn's posit that the magazine's general ideology is very supportive of the left. To refute that, instead of big word b.s., show how the article or mag really is neutral.

I don't get your logic that a minority of conservatives think Bush may have lied is significant. Because they're the minority they don't just accept the party line? That's the foundaiton of thier credibility?

What about the challenge to your theory of why the US went to war w/ Iraq. Was it not about the threat of WMD, breaking treaties and agreements for UN inspectors? EVERYONE thought WMD would be found.

Let's talk about those 'Mercenary Corporations'. What do you mean by that? What type of offensive military operations are they involved in?

Peace, Love, Truth, brother.

[Aloysius]

properly speaking, snarf is correct about the term "occupying force".

in the context of modern linguistic connotations, yes it has negative connotations.

but we ourselves in our media and now in our history books refer to things like the occupation of Germany, the occupation of Japan, et cetera. They were occupations.

The general modern connotation tends to say that if they are occupiers they are permanent occupiers without the consent of those who are occupied... a distinction should then be made between permanent and temporary occupiers and wanted and unwanted occupiers.

the US occupation of Iraq is clearly stated to be a temporary occupation, and it falls right in between the spectrum of wanted and unwanted. The majority of Iraquis have a love-hate relationship with the whole situation but sort-of kind-of want us in that we provide one heck of a secuirity force but then really don't want to see us because it hurts their patriotism and pride and makes them fear we want to be a permanent occupying force.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='961350' date='Apr 26 2006, 04:53 AM']
properly speaking, snarf is correct about the term "occupying force".

in the context of modern linguistic connotations, yes it has negative connotations.[/quote]
Snarf said 'occupiers' is neutral. It isn't. Yes, it's a legitimate choice.
So is 'Military Presence'.
So is 'Peace Keepers'.
So is 'Liberators'.
So is 'Victors'.
So is 'Foriegn Combatant'
So is 'Security Force'
So is 'Invader'
So is 'Rescuer'

All these words can describe the US troops there. Military Presence is neutral.

On to the next point.

Edited April 26, 2006 by jasJis

[Snarf]

[i]But 'hydrogen trailers'? What's up with that?[/i]

Something to call trailers used to isolate hydrogen for conventional weaponry, maybe?

[i]You didn't address my challenge to calling Occupation Force a neutral term.[/i]

It's neutral in that it reflects reality in such away to which you've agreed. Talking about connotations is far too subjective for it to be worth discussing. When you read an article about people dying over profit margins and you become emotionally charged over a term that makes all the sense in the world to appear in a magazine with such a leftist slant, I think I should grace you with the assumption that you're misrepresenting yourself. I'd gladly offend any number of any types of persons if it meant lives could be saved. That's a purely hypothetical statement, as those countries that burn the most American flags tend to be the ones most likely to recruit terrorists. So, maybe offending those people isn't such a good idea, I'm sure a political party based on plutocracy has the emotional gumption to not kill people over the word "occupation".

[i]I don't even get your response to Shawn's posit that the magazine's general ideology is very supportive of the left. To refute that, instead of big word b.s., show how the article or mag really is neutral[/i]

My point was that it's not necessary to establish it as neutral, just as any bias either way is irrelevant so long as it maintains honesty. So long as the dollar amounts, historical events, personal testimonies, legal errata, et cetera are factually accurate, the remainder of the text could be randomized New Order song lyrics for all anyone should care. There's no such thing as a liberal or conservative media, only different applications of the same facts to different target audiences (markets). It's not like I subscribe to The Nation anyways nor touted it as a bastion of independent thinking. Part of high school civics class taught how to digest any given article into facts so that you can form your own opinion regardless of those buried within the text. Darwin had religious issues that influenced him to not censor his views on evolution, but to use that fact as an attack on the theory itself is so stupid that most fundamentalists have given up on that front.

[i]I don't get your logic that a minority of conservatives think Bush may have lied is significant. Because they're the minority they don't just accept the party line? That's the foundaiton of thier credibility?[/i]

The "foundation of their credibility" is their academic laurels on top of the logical consistency of THEIR version of the conservative story. Both political parties have their very educated and not-so-educated factions. I doubt you'd argue that the executives of Enron voted Republican for the same reasons as the religious right did, just as the inhabitants of the projects voted Democrat for different reasons from everyone in Hollywood. As I'm sure you remember, in 2003 the President issued first a demand that the UN inspectors be granted full access in Iraq, then he demanded full disclosure of Iraq's weapons programs, then he demanded complete abdication of Saddam, all WITHIN A MATTER OF WEEKS. The majority's idea of the purposes for war paint this instance as being unnecessarily erratic, if war was really only meant as a last resort. From the alternative point of view, it fits in perfectly.

[i]What about the challenge to your theory of why the US went to war w/ Iraq. Was it not about the threat of WMD, breaking treaties and agreements for UN inspectors? EVERYONE thought WMD would be found.[/i]

...Everyone except the UN, the CIA, and just maybe some fraction of the hundreds of thousands of war protesters. Like I mentioned, before the war the case was presented not as the "threat of WMD" but the fact that having WMDs were illegal, as you then mention. As for "agreements for UN inspectors", even I was dumbfounded that the administration would call the findings of the UN inspectors as well as the decisions of the security council irrelevant and then cite the UN agreements as a jus ad bellum in the same breath. I have too much respect for Orwelle to throw around 1984 quotes indescriminantly, but has their really been any more perfect historical example of doublespeak?

[i]Let's talk about those 'Mercenary Corporations'. What do you mean by that? What type of offensive military operations are they involved in?[/i]

I never really watched Beavis and Butthead because I never had MTV until its popularity had waned. I did see an episode in a hotel or at a friend's house wherein they volunteered to sell fundraiser candy. Once they sold one bar, they used that money to buy the chocolate bars off of each other, passing the money back and forth until the chocolate was all gone. That sounds just about like what's going on with mercenaries right now.

Countless B-movies have been made about special operations units in every branch of the armed services. So, some of them probably exist. Exactly who decides where special ops units should be deployed, and where mercenaries? I can imagine a number of situations wherein a mercenary would be more useful or effecient than conventional soldiers, but it's not a big number. If someone was very specialized in a very urgently needed field, offering high-reward short-term contracts seems perfectly reasonable. Under no circumstance would the quoted royalties to third-party companies be justified, but still. I see no reason for the magnitude of the mercenary operations except as an excuse to spend money. But hey, I'm the lover of big government on PM, am I not? Except I'd rather see that money go to body protection, veterans benefits, family reparations, things like that. Somehow, this earns me the name "traitor" and bin Laden loves me for it.

Peace be with everyone.