http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/blackwater.afghanistan/index.html?hpt=Sbin
This article describes the Senate Armed Services Committee’s emphasis on making sure that private contractor personnel, such as Blackwater, are, "Adequately screened, supervised and held accountable," for their actions in Afghanistan. The US finds this necessary because the Afghani people do not differentiate US private contractors from the US Military. Past actions of private contractors, such as Blackwater, have diminished the trust of the Afghan people towards American intervention. This is a problem because, as Sen. Carl Levin says, “[The] key to beating the Taliban in Afghanistan will be the ability of U.S. forces to win support from the Afghan people.” According to this article, in order to gain the trust of Afghan people, the US government will have to make sure to keep the actions of private contractors consistent with that of the US Military.
This article also brings up an interesting concept of the separation between the US Military and private contractors. These private security firms are licensed by the US Department of State, and cover many of the same services and expertise that the government military does, just on a smaller scale. The private contractors specialize and are assigned to carry out certain tasks, but sometimes the lack of coordination between these private firms and the military causes inconsistencies in tactics and procedure. However, I am confused by why, if both operations are state-run, are the private security firms able to have different interests, and act according to them? Why haven’t regulations already been imposed, if these private firms are interconnected with the government? I am interested to learn more about these firms, and the certain distinctions they have from the military.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am also interested in the operational difference between state-run private contractors and the US Military. Why aren't they coordinating their efforts together?
ReplyDeleteI want, however, to connect your article to readings we've had in class. From your article you quote, "The key to beating the Taliban in Afghanistan will be the ability of the U.S. to win trust from the Afghan people." This relates to the social construct discussion we had in class. From the Dillon piece, "fear and danger are interpreted and molded by society's institutions and can be used to mobilize, manipulate, and shape public opinion." If the opposite of fear is trust, then we have a long way to go before true trust is achieved. Therefore, we have to take into account Afghani's social constructs of American soldiers before we can "win their trust." Our history with Afghanistan has allowed negative preconceived ideas about the United States. It may seem to them that we are invading their country's sovereignty as well.
Since the lines are so fuzzy between the traditional concept of the military and this relatively new phenomenon (at least in the 20th/21st century) of the use of mercenaries, we might ask what conditions and circumstances have led the US and others to rely on private military contractors. P.W. Singer has written a book about this called "Corporate Warriors". His work spans academic and policy worlds, and this book literally kicked off a whole subfield of security studies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete