Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Sorry, that should be the war on liberty, which is what the war on drugs really is. Jeremy Scahill reports in the Nation that Blackwater is rapidly expanding its array of government contracts. Not only is it guarding government officials and handling all sorts of logistical duties in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's now doing a wide range of other jobs as well. Including joining the government's efforts to stop drugs from coming into the country:
Blackwater's Iraq contract was extended in April, but the company is by no means betting the house on its long-term presence there. While the firm is quietly maintaining its Iraq work, it is aggressively pursuing other business opportunities.In September it was revealed that Blackwater had been "tapped" by the Pentagon's Counter Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office to compete for a share of a five-year, $15 billion budget "to fight terrorists with drug-trade ties." According to the Army Times, the contract "could include antidrug technologies and equipment, special vehicles and aircraft, communications, security training, pilot training, geographic information systems and in-field support." A spokesperson for another company bidding for the work said that "80 percent of the work will be overseas."...
Such an arrangement could find Blackwater operating in an arena with the godfathers of the war industry, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. It could also see Blackwater expanding into Latin America, joining other private security companies well established in the region. The massive US security company DynCorp is already deployed in Colombia, Bolivia and other countries as part of the "war on drugs." In Colombia alone, US military contractors are receiving nearly half the $630 million in annual US military aid for the country. Just south of the US border, the United States has launched Plan Mexico, a $1.5 billion counternarcotics program. This and similar plans could provide lucrative business opportunities for Blackwater and other companies. "Blackwater USA's enlistment in the drug war," observed journalist John Ross, would be "a direct challenge to its stiffest competitor, DynCorp--up until now, the Dallas-based corporation has locked up 94 percent of all private drug war security contracts." The New York Times reported that the contract could be Blackwater's "biggest job ever."
Private American armies wandering around Latin America operating outside of Congressional oversight, working with the military structures of other countries? Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Politics
Comments
I sometimes wonder if there are any sane leaders left in our system of federal government.
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (ret)
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 14, 2008 11:06 AM
And Obama will not change this.
Know who would have? Remember the guy who you refused to support?
Obama will not remove the troops from Iraq.
Nor will he change a goddamned thing.
The media worked on you.
"Ron Paul is a racist kook."
You bought it.
Stop being suckers.
Posted by: suck this | June 14, 2008 1:06 PM
I think this article speaks to several conservative agenda items:
1) They don't have the political capital neccesary to increase the number of troops on their watch. I would argue this lack of support is primarily caused by Americans' distrust of this Administration in using our troops wisely.
2) Conservatives are willing to get creative to fulfill their objectives no matter how idiotic it looks on paper, in this case by outsourcing the task.
3) Conservatives have no qualms about spending taxpayer money on their boondoggles. Can you imagine how much more expensive it is to outsource this task relative to the cost for the military to carryout these types of operations? The mind reels.
Ed - I had no idea this type of activity was going on, so thanks for the story. My immediate reaction was similar to Capt. Holcomb's.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 14, 2008 1:27 PM
ron paul is alright, but some of his supporters are pretty screwball. (cough*suckthis*cough)
Posted by: coreydbarbarian | June 14, 2008 1:32 PM
Ron Paul IS a racist kook; the evidence pretty strongly supports that conclusion. That doesn't mean all his ideas were bad. Some of them I loved, including his desire to end the war on drugs. But if you think he would actually have done so, you're out of your mind. You think either party in Congress is going to go along with a bill to legalize drugs? I doubt he'd get 5 votes in the entire legislature for that. Wanting something and actually achieving it are two different things.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 14, 2008 1:35 PM
He does have a point, though-- Obama appears wishy-washy on Blackwater.
Of course, that's from an old article and if Obama's position has since changed, then I'm just not aware of it.Posted by: Gretchen | June 14, 2008 1:50 PM
There is a big difference between legalizing drugs and ending the WAR on drugs.
A president can do a lot in the way that the DEA, ATF, FBI, etc. are run.
Too late now.
Just vote for Obama, feel good about it, and keep destroying freedom in this country.
Posted by: suck this | June 14, 2008 1:55 PM
Okay "suck this". Find yourself an electable candidate and get back to us. Perhaps then we might listen to you.
Posted by: tacitus | June 14, 2008 2:16 PM
"Electable" is about 1,000th on the list of the qualities I look for in a candidate to support.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 14, 2008 2:24 PM
sigh. whining about ron paul isn't going to help anyone.
and smearing obama because he won't "rule out" the use of private security firms is counter-productive.
is it at least possible that firms like blackwater might serve a useful purpose, somehow? obviously not in the war on drugs/liberty, and obviously not in the manner that dubya has utilized them, but in a different manner?
bitter rants about ron paul and attacks on obama don't really further the conversation, do they?
Posted by: coreydbarbarian | June 14, 2008 4:45 PM
If you want to know the real (dominant at least) reason for the war in Iraq... it is the same as the 'war on drugs'. These are just ways that massive amounts of public money can be transfered into a few powerful private hands.
Even if you delude yourself enough to think that there was some other dominant reason at first, it should be clear that maintaining the status quo in these boondoggles is about maintaining the cash flow. Yeah, Ike actually had a point about the military-industrial-congressional (I guess more executive in this case) complex.
How to 'fix' it is quite tricky politically. Dramatically reducing the military budget would help a lot, and the politics, while very difficult, aren't impossible given the economic downturn (more butter, less guns).
Posted by: travc | June 14, 2008 4:56 PM
Why would they stop the "war on drugs" when it provides such an excellent smokescreen?
Posted by: BaldApe | June 14, 2008 5:16 PM
More problems are possible with this scheme:
Blackwater will be recruiting from DEA & FBI ranks, depleting them by offering much more money - just as Special Forces are depleted for the more remunerative jobs as private security. This means more money for training new agents will have to be spent.
Another possibility is that Blackwater will turn out to be something like the CIA in Vietnam and Nicaragua. The will know the ins and outs of the drug trade, destroy enough of it to raise prices, and then some of the more enterprising will become smugglers. Just like foxes employed to catch rats in the henhouse.
That's why I am a cynic :-/
Posted by: natural cynic | June 14, 2008 5:16 PM
coreydbarbarian,
Unless you're one of those people who think Obama can do no wrong, being concerned about the fact that he refuses to say that he will do away with Blackwater is hardly a "smear" or a "bitter rant." Hillary Clinton was willing to make that promise, for pete's sake. The entity simply should not exist, full stop.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 14, 2008 5:16 PM
Gretchen,
thank you for clarifying your position. please note that my comment on rants & smears wasn't actually aimed at you. it did feel, however, like you were defending suck this's rants & smears.
i am not convinced that blackwater should cease to exist entirely. i AM convinced that they have no business combatting the drug trade, or somehow being placed above the law, as in iraq. my mind is still open on the matter, though.
natural cynic,
with regard to your 1st scenario: what if the military, dea, fbi, etc. simply prohibited agents from going straight to private security firms, much as congress now prohibits its members from immediately becoming a lobbyist?
Posted by: coreydbarbarian | June 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Ron Paul was never first on my list of people to be President. Or #600, for that matter. But attacking candidates' bad policies and pointing out that there were candidates that did not espouse those policies does further the conversation. Even though 'suck this' might have done it in a fairly blunt manner.
And the DEA does not exist primarily to transfer public money into private hands. It, like a lot of bureacracy, exists primarily to exist. It started out as a semi-good idea (libertarianism aside, narcotics are fairly dangerous drugs that do ruin people's lives) - although it's not clear whether the gov't should have gotten involved in this. And then it took on a life of its own.
Posted by: Brian | June 14, 2008 8:29 PM
I was-- and am-- to some extent. It's true that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, and upon election would do everything in his power to remove our troops from that region as soon as possible. That's not a "rant"-- it's a protest against the absurdity that everything about the occupation of Iraq represents. Even Obama is apparently not bright enough to recognize that the so-called "war effort" is the biggest expansion of federal power, growth of national debt, and abuse of constitutional rights that the United States has seen in quite some time. If Ron Paul is indeed a "racist kook," then the question still remains whether we would rather have a racist kook as president or someone willing to kill thousands more Americans and create thousands more terrorists for the sake of....what? Nothing, really.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I am, however, a relentless critic of anyone-- especially those who presume to try and rule the country-- who think nothing of continuing to waste trillions of dollars and millions of lives for no reason whatsoever.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 14, 2008 9:35 PM
Ron Paul is not only a racist kook, he also said America is a christian nation, there is no separation between church and state and has dominionist bent.
The real reason I will never vote for him is his rejection of evolution because that will spell doom for science education in this country.
Posted by: Draconiz | June 15, 2008 10:06 AM
uhm...i knew huckabee held those views (usa ='s christian nation, rejects evolution, etc.), but i never heard that about ron paul.
not saying you're lying, but do you have any links to support this?
Posted by: coreydbarbarian | June 15, 2008 4:50 PM
For Paul's views on evolution, Ed posted a video a while back where he calls it "just a theory". Though the video is missing the part where he said his views on evolution shouldn't be a factor since the president shouldn't have a role in deciding education policy.
He also wrote about the "war on Christmas" where he states that "[t]he notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers". For someone who thinks his positions are based solely on the Constitution, it's pretty troubling to see him write that along with the Declaration of Independence "both [are] replete with references to God"
Posted by: mcmillan | June 15, 2008 6:00 PM
coreydbarbarian,
Here you go, sorry for not giving you the source, hope you see it
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Here's another gem where Paul thinks "In God we trust" has been the national motto since the founding of this country.
The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/239/religious-liberty-thwarted-by-the-supreme-court/
Posted by: Draconiz | June 16, 2008 12:49 AM
holy wow, folks...i had no idea!
thanks for schoolin' me. seriously. :)
Posted by: coreydbarbarian | June 16, 2008 7:27 AM
...just as Special Forces are depleted for the more remunerative jobs as private security.
Do you have data to back up this statement? I know JFK alumni do sometimes go into private security after they're done with their "Group time," but I don't think that's the most common destination for ex-SF (it's a bit of overkill, honestly...). And in terms of tons of team guys jumping ship, I dunno. I certainly haven't seen a lot of that. Sure, there is a bit of reorganization that goes on in combat units after a deployment, and SF is no exception, but to imply that there is some mass exodus going on in the teams for destinations like Blackwater...that seems like an overstatement.
Posted by: Josh | June 16, 2008 8:35 AM