Democrats’ ‘Sellout’ on Bush’s Mercenaries

Posted on Apr 30, 2007

By Jeremy Scahill

Note: This report was originally published on TomDispatch.com.

Introduction

By Tom Engelhardt

Let’s be clear about what it is—when it comes to “withdrawal” from Iraq—that the President will veto this Wednesday.  Section 1904(b) of the supplemental appropriations bill for the Pentagon, H.R. 1591, passed by the House and Senate, mandates that the Secretary of Defense “commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.”  If you’ve been listening to network TV news shows or reading your local newspaper with less than an eagle eye, you might well be under the impression that—just as the phrasing above seems to indicate—a Democratic-controlled Congress has just passed a bill that mandates a full-scale American withdrawal from Iraq.  (Reporters and commentators regularly speak of the Democrats’ insistence that “American troops be withdrawn from Iraq.”)  But that’s only until you start reading the exceptions embedded in the bill.

Here are the main ones.  According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:

1. “Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces”:  This doesn’t sound like much, but don’t be fooled.  As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as “George W’s Palace”).  When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka “the International Zone”) which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities.  Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago’s O’Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained.  We’re talking about a sizable force here.

2. “Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces”: By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom—see above—would undoubtedly need “guarding”). 

3. “Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach”:  This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled “al-Qaeda.” 

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the “protection forces” and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops.  None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country. 

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. “combat brigades,” adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return.  None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable). 

No less strikingly, in an era in which the “privatizing” of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private “security” companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched.  On this striking point Jeremy Scahill has much to say—and he should know.  He’s the author of the surprise national bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which will shake you to your combat boots when it comes to the nature of the mercenary age—sorry, the age of “private security contractors”—that we’ve now entered.  No personal library that claims to make sense of our messy, bloody planet should be without his book.  Tom 

Who Will Stop the U.S. Shadow Army in Iraq?

Don’t Look to the Congressional Democrats

By Jeremy Scahill

The Democratic leadership in Congress is once again gearing up for a great sell-out on the Iraq war. While the wrangling over the $124 billion Iraq supplemental spending bill is being headlined in the media as a “show down” or “war” with the White House, it is hardly that. In plain terms, despite the impassioned sentiments of the anti-war electorate that brought the Democrats to power last November, the Congressional leadership has made clear its intention to keep funding the Iraq occupation, even though Sen. Harry Reid has declared that “this war is lost.”

For months, the Democrats’ “withdrawal” plan has come under fire from opponents of the occupation who say it doesn’t stop the war, doesn’t defund it, and insures that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq beyond President Bush’s second term. Such concerns were reinforced by Sen. Barack Obama’s recent declaration that the Democrats will not cut off funding for the war, regardless of the President’s policies. “Nobody,” he said, “wants to play chicken with our troops.”

As the New York Times reported, “Lawmakers said they expect that Congress and Mr. Bush would eventually agree on a spending measure without the specific timetable” for (partial) withdrawal, which the White House has said would “guarantee defeat.” In other words, the appearance of a fierce debate this week, Presidential veto and all, has largely been a show with a predictable outcome.

The Shadow War in Iraq

While all of this is troubling, there is another disturbing fact which speaks volumes about the Democrats’ lack of insight into the nature of this unpopular war—and most Americans will know next to nothing about it.  Even if the President didn’t veto their legislation, the Democrats’ plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq—and it’s not the British military. It’s the estimated 126,000 private military “contractors” who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war.

The 145,000 active duty U.S. forces are nearly matched by occupation personnel that currently come from companies like Blackwater USA and the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which enjoy close personal and political ties with the Bush administration. Until Congress reins in these massive corporate forces and the whopping federal funding that goes into their coffers, partially withdrawing U.S. troops may only set the stage for the increased use of private military companies (and their rent-a-guns) which stand to profit from any kind of privatized future “surge” in Iraq.

1   2   NEXT PAGE >>>

TAGS: democrats engelhardt mercenaries scahill sell-out timetable veto withdrawal

Related Entries

• November 15, 2009 War in Afghanistan: Not in Our Name
• September 2, 2009 Iraqi Death Toll Hits 13-Month High in August
• August 20, 2009 U.S. Commander ‘Frustrated’ by Training Pace in Iraq
• August 5, 2009 Blackwater Founder ‘Implicated in Murder’
• July 24, 2009 Psst! We May Never Leave

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Airing Gonzales' Dirty Laundry

Next item: Unfair at Any Speed

Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By purplewolf, September 27, 2007 at 2:14 am #

Can the Blackwater soldiers be trusted not to turn on the American public. NO. If you think it can’t happen,it already has. Bush already has this goon squad and others lined up for when he declares Martial Law.Then the Bush/Cheney duo will close down everything,shutting out all of congress for at least six months or more before informing them of what is going on,provided that they all (democrats only)have not been disposed of by this group of paid killers when the six months or longer are up. Don’t believe Bush’s Martial Law plans? Check them out on the web.This is probably the reason the demos have folded and let Bush run over them with a steamroller.They are in fear for their pitiful existances.Why else don’t they stand up to this Wimp in the White House and impeach him and cheney and start to end this mess in Iraq.

And for all those idiots running for the presidency over 20 months before the elections,if they are not suspended by then,none of you are fit to run this country as you have proven by being on the campaign trail rather than doing the job you were elected to do, which is to keep this president in check, which you haven’t done and try to return creditabilityback to America,are hard task and start to rollback many if not all of the diasterous decessions, laws, rules, underhanded dealings, illegal actions that this president and his band of cronies have done to America. You can start be reinstating the parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that Bush has destroyed. Do your job you were voted to do, serve the American Public, not special interest groups,big corporations, the insanity of a madman who thinks he is king of the world and most important your own selves,you were not voted in to see how much money you could screw out of the American people and mess up our lives, you were voted in to make our world a better place, somewhere along the way all of you forgot that.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, May 3, 2007 at 2:00 am #

Lefty….

Excellent points, but the Democrats are cowards and all they care about is winning the next election just like corporate hell America only cares about the next quarters profits. They only do what they think will make them win. They don’t have a philosophy or vision.

The Democrats have NO long range plan.

Except for Kucinich and Gravel, they are
Republicans-Lite.

I agree with you 100% that if they declared a liberal agenda, they’d be unstoppable.

But they’re all afraid of their own shadows.

I’ll have to think long and hard whether I’ll vote Democratic again. I became ashamed to be a Democrat when they removed the “stick” of impeachment. All they said to the monster was “do what you want, there will be no consequences”.

Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth

Report this

By cann4ing, May 3, 2007 at 1:58 am #

re comment #67721 by Outraged.  All good points.  I would add not only getting people you know to go to Kucinich.us so they can obtain a detailed account of where Mr. Kucinich stands on issues that are truly important, and, as it pertains to a basic level of political education, encouraging others to tune into Democracy Now! (available on the net at democracy now.org).

Report this

By Outraged, May 2, 2007 at 1:43 pm #

This administration is a dangerous one.  Will they be able to control their own “mercenaries” in the end.  They pride themselves on the credentials of the “top brass” of this private army, but are THEY ready to take on these trained “killers” should they become unstable.  Who will they use to do it?

There isn’t an allegience to anything for the “killing squads” the Blackwater Company is creating.  Obviously, reasonable people wouldn’t “hire on” to this type of organization, so who are these people?  Their similarities to Al Qaeda are bizarre.  Secretive, religious, violent, paid well, trained for free and privately controlled.

If we do not end privitization of critical departments of our government, AND DO IT NOW, we will become the secretive ones, blogging about our dictator and laying down our lives for an extra $5 a day in wages.

END PRIVITIZATION.

Also, to respond to the comment about what can we do to get Kucinich and Gravel a fair shake.  Grassroots, grassroots, grassroots.

Start making yard signs for Kucinich and Gravel - Get the word out, make them a household name.  Make them “familiar”, talk about them.  Right now, the majority of people are floundering (rightfully so), not knowing what to do or who to vote for.  They don’t trust the dems or the repukes. They feel the whole thing is a sham and they don’t have the time to investigate the matter.

Make requests/demands of “news programs” to cover or interview them.  Put them on the map.  Who hasn’t heard of Michael, Oprah, Ozzy or Dr. Phil.  Make sure having them on a show is a little “cash crop”.  Remind people what this administration has done and is doing!  Be empowered, it’s attractive…isn’t that why Americans snap up those self-help books.

WE CAN DO SOMETHING. (sure, sometimes it may not work)

But, The WORST thing we could do is nothing….

Report this

By Verne Arnold, May 2, 2007 at 10:43 am #

Republicrats…remember?  Clinton was the first one.  If you don’t see there is no difference between the two parties, then you are lost.  No…we are lost.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 1, 2007 at 11:29 pm #

re comment #67582 by Lefty.  There are times where you hear something profound that sticks with you.  For me, it occurred in 1969 when I had left Vietnam, getting out a couple of months early to start college.  My freshman history professor said, “If the American right can always be criticized for its absolute insensitivity to the human condition, the American left can always be criticized for its inability to count.”

You are absolutely right.  Turning to third parties at this point in our nation’s history is an exercise in futility, and it is so unnecessary.  Nader’s mistake was in failing to understand that the left must first recapture control of the Democratic party, taking it away from the corporatist charletons of the Democratic Leadership Council.  Today we have not one, but two presidential candidates who truly represent the interests of the vast majority of Americans—the middle and working classes.  Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not beholden to the military-industrial complex.  Neither man is shy about speaking truth to power.  They would take the discourse of this nation to a place the corporate media pundits do not want to go.  That is why, as I writethis, the punditocracy is searching for excuses to exclude them from future debates. 

I am confident that if Kucinich and Gravel could find a way to break through the conglomerated media sound barrier, if they could really communicate their message, Americans would swarm to them like moths to a flame.  I, like others, remain curious as to how that could be accomplished.  Perhaps other truthdiggers might add their thoughts on this.

Report this

By TC, May 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm #

Given a humane economy and social support, one would think it would be impossible to recruit. As it is in a dismal economy and brutal social system for so many, it’s still hard to recruit with no end to the occupation in sight, thanks not least to the Dems’ and Reps’ corporate soldout plan(s) as Engelhardt details. So the war is outsourced as Scahill details, even within the military itself:

“They’re coming after John Doe Dimslow Junior at school. Now with the deaths of Iraqi guerillas and civilians and U.S. soldiers and private mercenaries mounting every day, U.S. military recruiters are having trouble recruiting soldiers into the “all-volunteer” forces. So they have to make it more and more a mercenary military of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine troops to go along with the private mercenaries. They have to offer cash to kill: “$20,000 bonus for enlisting, $9,000 more if enlistees ship out in the next 30 days, and even better, $70,000 for college.”

“The big bucks tempted J Junior so much that he gave the recruiters the a-okay to come over to our home for a home visit. Except he never cleared it with Daddy-O, one John Doe Dimslow.” ...

http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/the-dimslow-report-warhawk-guns-for-hire/

Report this

By James Yell, May 1, 2007 at 11:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Once again Donald Kaul is proven right. He wrote a book titled “They are all in this Together”. What pisses me off the most is we pay these elected officials very well and give them great health care and retirement and yet they can’t act in the interests of most of America, because there is so much money to be had, by midirecting, or out right selling their responsibilites to the highest bidder.

We have Lieberman the poster boy of what is wrong. A man who thinks once elected in office—in office forever, even if you have to sell out the people who voted you in office in the first place. “A pox on all their houses”

Report this

By cann4ing, May 1, 2007 at 10:41 am #

The Democratic “leadership’s” so-called opposition to the war is a charade.  The only measure in Congress that is designed to end this war is H.R. 1234 (Kucinich).  It is refreshing that this time there are actually “two” candidates speaking with clarity about subjects that truly matter to the American electorate, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. 

If there was anything resembling a Fourth Estate in this country, the dangers posed by the privatization of the military function would be a topic for presidential debates.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.  The thought police, also known as media pundits, are scrambling to come up with rationalizations for excluding Kucinich and Gravel from future debates so that topics like this never arise.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, May 1, 2007 at 4:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

What is the news the republicans have found another way to funnel public money into private hands.The democrats are feckless.With Pres approval at 30% and support for the war about the same they are afraid to challenge this guy.The democratic plan is when they take over companies like Blackwater will be filling up their cofers.If I am not mistaken the oil companies have already been redirecting their contributions to democrats.It is a game of keep the suckers the American public in the dark.Both parties follow the WC Fields maxim,never give a sucker an even break.

Report this

By madmax, May 1, 2007 at 2:30 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Members of Congress continue to fund mercenary forces even those deployed in the U.S. I ask both Senators and my Congress Woman how much is being spent on mercenaries and they won’t answer. I ask if private armies can be raised in the U.S. and they won’t answer. I ask if they know the sordid history of mercenaries and they won’t answer, these three liberal women.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, May 1, 2007 at 1:54 am #

Two days after the Nov election, I changed my party from life long Democrat to Independent after I heard the cowards Pelosi and Dean say “impeachment is off the table”. How dare they???!!!  I will never vote Democratic again.

It didn’t even take 24 hours for them to forget that they work for US and not the reverse.

The Democrats will cave and do whatever the murderer-in-chief wants to do.

The Democrats are Republicans-Lite. The status quo will continue. We are eternally screwed.

Demand a new, true 9/11 investigation…the lie that is the “official” story is their house of cards that needs to come crashing down like the WTC.

Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By Louise, May 1, 2007 at 1:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

If an honest man was in charge, the first thing he would do is order the mercenaries OUT of Iraq!

Followed by the Israeli agents that are there. Followed by ALL corporate profiteers who are there!

That simple act would speak volumes to the Iraqi’s that we are serious about returning their country to them. And provide a needed boost to military morale.

Once we had Iraqi neighbor nations firmly engaged in diplomatic efforts to restore order, the troops would be on their way out.

Then, an honest man would revisit Blackwater and all the rest of the war profiteers and demand an intense investigation into their activities, profit and how much they owe in taxes. Followed by a challenge to the legal status of them and their activities.

This would require congress do away with a few laws the repubs passed, like not holding the war profiteers responsible for anything. But if an honest man were in charge, it would happen.

Off hand I can think of only two honest men who are running for president.

Gravel is tough and outspoken. He is also experienced in driving through law to stop an illegal war.

Kucinich is tough and outspoken and has a long record of standing up for the little guy, no matter what the “establishment” says trying to discourage him. Plus, he has successfully worked with the establishment for years, and never compromised his integrity.

So, is it a contest between those two?

In my mind no. My first exposure to Gravel was the opportunity to meet the candidates provided by the dems. I was impressed by his candor and willingness to speak out, but I was concerned as well. He holds great appeal to those of us who are just plain fed up, but like it or not we still have to reach the “fed up but still frightened.”

By the way. Watch out for Joe Lieberman. (Joe Lieberman?) This man is working the circuits explaining why we need an independent candidate. Using the peoples objection to mud-slinging and divisiveness. And so many dems apparent unwillingness to stand up to Bush, he will try to sell the nation on abandoning the dems and throwing their support behind an independent party.

Nothing wrong with that except, if he is the leader of that party, and ultimately their candidate, we will see a continuation of the loss of Constitutional rights and the fascist policy that we are being assaulted with today.

After all, who gave Lieberman the support and money he needed to run as an independent Senator?

His candidacy would make it easier for the repubs to fix the election again and make no mistake, if they can, they will.
Now about congress.
Today, I got six different emails from six different organizations requesting I sign their petition.
This is typical.

Each of their issues of the day are valid and do require our attention, but until we can get everyone on the same page the shear volume of bad stuff from the Bush administration requiring immediate action leaves everyone unfocused and the politicians overwhelmed.

One more reason why impeachment is imperative.

Impeachment contrary to what the Speakers say, would get everyone on the same page. Maybe in two different margins, but all on the same page. It wouldn’t impede congressional action on stopping the war, because they wont pass a binding law anyway.

The upside is, an impeachment investigation would slow down the Bush assault! Even if a final vote was unsuccessful, it would require investigations into what the dems truly know, but hesitate to speak. It would also put information in front of the “fed up but still frightened”  that they’re not getting now. They don’t know where to go or what to look for.

The dirty laundry has to be brought out and spread on the line, so everyone can see it.

Once everyone who’s fed up sees the dirt in the light of day, I believe the pressure would be there to make an impeachment effort successful. 

Kucinich is the only congressman right now, in this moment, calling for impeachment!

Report this

By Verne Arnold, May 1, 2007 at 12:29 am #

Why does the old saw never get learned?  “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
Yeah, yeah, I know it’s not an exact quote, but the question remains.
Dwight Eisenhower warned of this very thing in the very early 1950’s.
After thousands of years of this crap I conclude there is something fundamentally wrong with most of us humans.

Report this

By Kim, April 30, 2007 at 11:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with what you are saying, but it must have some kind of limitation otherwise Bush would sign it.  It is a start, and with the backboneless Democrats that we have in the house right now, that is all we are going to get.  In fact, I suspect this bill is more than we are going to get.  It will be watered down from here.  This is just the starting point.  I hope it doesn’t sound cynical, but we need some poeple in congress that don’t care if they get re-elected in 2008 and put themselves out there on the lines.  What I mean is, politics are not nearly as dangerous than the front lines of war, and I wish they would act like it.

What is so wrong with stating a case?  Fear of reprocussions?  To what?  To whom?  If none of them have the guts to stand up for this country, why are they representing us?  I would like a few of them to “lay down their lives” for America and deal with the reprocussions.  They can always get a job in “consulting”.  The more that speak out, the more sensible it will sound to the media since it then would not be a minority opinion.

Report this

By DennisD, April 30, 2007 at 10:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I wish I could be surprised, just once, that when the term “sell-out” is connected to either political party they’re not selling out the American people again. Dream the f**k on.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!

Name:

Email: (won't be displayed on the site)

Your Web Site:

Your Comment:


Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?

Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.