Since early October there has been a significant amount of news coverage surrounding what the media calls the "private security company Blackwater" for allegations that they killed Iraqi civilians. The local and national news media were running stories on a daily basis in mid October about Blackwater, but despite all the attention there have been several issues that the mainstream media haven't touched on or have only glossed that are central to understanding why function Blackwater plays in the foreign policy matters.

First, why is the world do we have private mercenaries doing the work that traditional US soldiers used to do? Blackwater and some 100 other companies are being contracted to make food for US troops, to build military bases, to wash the troops clothing, and to guard diplomats and other high profile people involved in the US occupation of Iraq. Why? Using Blackwater to "protect" US diplomats is just one example of the push to privatize anything and everything. Think of what Nestle and its subsidiary Ice Mountain have done by convincing communities in Michigan to let their company take water, put it in little bottles, and then sell it to the public to make a huge profit. That is privatization. Along comes a company like Blackwater and they convince the government that they can do a better job of killing people and then turn around and charge US taxpayers even more money than what is paid to US troops. In fact, Blackwater charges sometimes 5 or 10 times more than the cost would be if US troops were doing the same work. Well that makes about as much sense as paying $1.29 for a 10 oz. bottle of water don't ya think?

It should be noted that this privatization of US military work did not begin with the current Bush administration. Some of these privatized services were done in the first Gulf War in 1990-91 under the Bush Sr. administration and the Clinton administration made an even larger component during operations in the former Yugoslavia and the Kosovo wars. At that time Halliburton was the biggest winner of private military contracts. The CEO of Halliburton during the Clinton years was Dick Cheney. The evolution of the privatization of the military is well documented in a book by P.W. Singer entitled Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. I mention this evolution because it is not a new phenomenon, but the does reflect the direction of more and more government policy.

The Grand Rapids Press in their October 15 editorial column said this about private mercenaries in Iraq, "Their presence allows the official military forces to make better use of their fighting resources. Troops who aren't guarding a convoy or protecting a government official can be diverted to more urgent tasks, like fighting insurgents. Indeed, contractors have become an integral part of the armed American presence in Iraq." While it is true that private mercenaries have become an "integral part of the armed American presence in Iraq" the Press editorialist doesn't address why there is an armed US presence in Iraq in the first place.

So, only the most rabid ideologues believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since most people would laugh at WMDs as the reason for the US invasion of Iraq, it does beg the question as to why we are actually there? If you are going read a book anytime in the near future or buy one for a friend as a gift, I suggest you read Naomi Klein's newest book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Klein's book is not just about why the US is in Iraq, but demonstrates that the fundamental reason for the US occupation of Iraq is to make sure that the wealth of Iraq doesn't benefit Iraqis, rather it should benefit global capitalists - oil companies, banks, investors, etc. This is why L. Paul Bremer was brought in to run Iraq in 2003. Bremer re-wrote the Iraqi constitution in such a way as to be favorable to foreign investors. Bremer called for the privatization of numerous sectors of the Iraqi economy and made sure that the "reconstruction" of Iraq would benefit the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater. In fact, Blackwater's first assignment in Iraq was to guard Bremer. Bremer was so impressed with Blackwater and believed so deeply in private mercenary forces that his last act as defacto dictator in Iraq in 2004 was to pass Order 17, which gave private mercenary forces immunity from prosecution...another one of those minor omissions in recent news coverage of the Blackwater shootings in Iraq.

Some readers might be thinking, "but the news coverage has been really been bad for Blackwater. Blackwater CEO Erik Prince has been on 60 Minutes, the Today Show and CNN and the Iraqis are now suing Blackwater for millions of dollars." True enough, Blackwater is up against the ropes but it is important to remember that one of the reasons that we are seeing the CEO of Blackwater on CNN, the Today Show and 60 Minutes is because Blackwater hired the PR firm of Burson-Marsteller before Prince appeared in front of Congress in order to do crisis management for the company. Burson-Marsteller has worked for the tobacco industry, the Department of Homeland Security, and acted as a lobbyist for the government of Saudi Arabia to downplay human rights abuses in order to get US aid. (See The Torturers' Lobby, by Pamela Brogan.) And even if Blackwater is kicked out of Iraq we are still faced with the fact that another 100 private mercenary companies are still operating in Iraq and US taxpayers are footing the bill.

One last omission in recent news coverage of the Blackwater scandal has been the local connection of Erik Prince. Again, it's not that there is no mention of the Prince family history, but what has been reported is of little substance. The Congressional hearings did produce some questions as to Erik Prince's relationship with the DeVos family, but this was marginal. The local Indy media news site MediaMouse.org has extensive information and links on the Prince and DeVos family influence under "the Far Right in West Michigan" section. What you will find is that both families have funded numerous rightwing projects for years and wield tremendous influence in the Republican Party and Christian Right circles. This influence has not been explored in the local news coverage of Blackwater. However, there was one editorial column by GR Press editor Mike Llyod on October 7 that was quite instructive.

In his column Llyod cites 2nd Congressional District Representative Pete Hoekstra as his only source. It also says that Hoekstra himself has been guarded by Blackwater mercenaries in trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hoekstra goes on to say that Prince was treated unfairly during the Congressional hearing, that Hoekstra's in district director, Bill Huizenga, is a good friend of Erik Prince, and that Hoekstra himself talks with Prince on a regular basis for intelligence advice. Hoekstra said, "I've called him, and he's called me. Erik has people on the ground all the time. I get a different perspective from him than I do from our own military." Do you think this is good practice for legislators, especially one that was the former head of the House Intelligence Committee, to have regular phone conversations with a private security contractor about what was happening in Iraq?

Whatever the outcome with the Blackwater shootings in Iraq it is important that we get independent information on what role this company and other private mercenary groups have in the larger US foreign policy strategy. A great book on Blackwater is by journalist Jeremy Scahill entitled Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Scahill was in Holland this past May. Media Mouse did an interview with him and taped his lecture, both of which can be heard online.