The latest shooting controversy involving Blackwater USA security forces in Iraq only underscores the accountability problems inherent in privatizing war.
A Blackwater detail reportedly opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood Sunday in the midst of a firefight, killing eight civilians and prompting the al-Maliki government to angrily vow to pull the company’s "license" to operate in the country and to prosecute those involved.
That’s unlikely. Blackwater and other private soldiers don’t need Iraqi permission. They contract with the Pentagon and State Department, which depend on them for security because of a shortage of U.S. forces to do the job. So don’t expect them to leave anytime soon. Nor are these well-paid mercenaries apparently bound by the same Uniform Code of Military Justice that applies to ordinary grunts — a point of some resentment among troops. And a 2004 American-issued order gives private companies immunity from Iraqi law.
In fact, the estimated 30,000 private soldiers in Iraq are remarkably free to engage in combat and fire away at Iraqi civilians without facing any consequences for reckless rules of engagement.Beyond tightening oversight of contractors, Congress needs to take a hard look at why U.S. forces have become so dependent on private soldiers to carry out a national security mission.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has few Republicans in his corner, but at least, like it or not, he has the American Civil Liberties Union. The group has filed a brief in support of Craig’s efforts to withdraw his guilty plea related to a gay-sex sting in a Minneapolis airport men’s room, viewing the charge of disorderly conduct as violating Craig’s free speech rights. The ACLU argues, in part: "Since the law the state has applied to this defendant makes it a crime to use offensive language, and since the use of offensive language alone cannot be made a crime, the law is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face."
Meanwhile, the airport restroom in question has become a hot tourist attraction. And wouldn’t you know: Minneapolis-St. Paul happens to be the site of the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
A key measure of the Iraqi government’s ability to govern — the passage of a national oil-sharing deal — appears to have collapsed, according to the New York Times. The failure on oil is key, because it is the economic basis of power sharing in Iraq.
As Times columnist Paul Krugman and others have noted, it’s telling that international oil companies, such as Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, have recently inked their own deals with Kurdish officials, bypassing and undermining the national process.
Economic market forces, the ultimate “decider” for the Bush administration, already seem to have delivered a verdict on the Iraq government: no confidence.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book blasts President Bush for failing to use his veto power in his first six years of office to rein in the Republican-controlled Congress’ spending spree.
“The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan writes. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.”
Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican," says former Presidents Nixon and Clinton were “by far the smartest presidents I’ve worked with,” and praises Clinton for focusing steadily on long-term economic growth.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Evangelical leaders aren’t rushing to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign as they had earlier indicated they would. The leaders are having doubts about whether Thompson really does share their views on social issues and whether he has the stomach to survive a tough campaign, the Associated Press reported.
Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, questioned Thompson’s commitment. “When you really take a stand on issues dear to the heart of social conservatives, you’re going to shed some blood in the process,” he said. “And so far, Fred Thompson’s political career has been wrinkle-free.”
Of particular concern to some evangelicals is whether Thompson supports a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “At one time, he said he was against it,” said Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel. “Then he said in June he was for it. So if now he’s saying he’s against it, to me that’s a double-minded person. And that would be a real concern for religious conservatives.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
