...well before the 2003 Iraq invasion, American strategic minds were already cannily sizing up the mercenary market. Paul Bremer, original viceroy of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq—who was guarded by a Blackwater security detail during his time in office—authored a revealing 2001 paper that served as a conceptual blueprint for Blackwater’s ugly reign. Titled “New Risks In International Business,” the policy document advanced a rather radical analysis: it argued that that opening new global markets leads to dramatic spikes in income inequality, which in turn cause the social unrest that leads to terrorism. But, after naming capitalism as a central driving factor behind the terror threat, Bremer goes on to cheerlead the risk-management opportunities that the situation presents. His argument is an exercise in myopic and opportunistic nihilism, but it’s also coldly rational: since global privatization is causing global unrest, it also represents a great opportunity to privatize our response to said unrest. The bottom line, in other words, is that companies like Blackwater have a vested interest in preserving a manageable level of global despair.The Baffler
Murder by Other MeansScott Beauchamp
I'm not sure one should oppose McFate's ideas.
ReplyDeleteFor one, it would remove the fig leaf covering the use currently assigned to the armed forces. As public servants, they are supposedly paid to serve the public. This is the image they have and cultivate, but that's not what they do: they serve their political masters, and are ready to turn their weapons on the public. That move would make that clear.
Secondly, it may even diminish the flow of resources to military use: they would no longer count on Uncle Sam to bankroll them.
And one thing is for sure: they would lose all professional effectivity.
Overall, it seems a matter of capitalism poisoning itself (which is alright with me).