Obama and Mercenaries

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 18:22


The Obama campaign wouldn't give me an on-the-record explanation of his refusal to sponsor a bill to defund Blackwater, pointing me to this page instead.  As I noted, Obama has a long history of aggressive work surrounding military contractors, which gives him some credibility on the issue.  That he won't support this bill is reasonable, since you can quibble with any bill and it doesn't necessary reflect your position if there are other circumstances out there.  That he won't state explicitly that he believes in defunding these mercenary groups, though, probably means he's interested in a regulatory approach.  Yes, let's regulate mercenaries.  Awesome.

I would say that we should get ready for the great turn to the right, except that I've never seen compelling evidence that Obama would govern as a progressive.

Matt Stoller :: Obama and Mercenaries

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Obama and Mercenaries | 51 comments
And just when I was getting ready to... (4.00 / 5)
....rejoin civilization, learn to sing Kumbaya and....you know...get...Fired Up!

Oh...one more thing Matt....

Duck!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Obama will govern as a progressive (4.00 / 1)
Obama's core appeal and ability is to frame progressive ideas in language and examples that are palatable to independents and conservatives.  He is betting and will prove that the country is more progressive than Faux News would lead us to believe.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

I couldn't disagree more (4.00 / 4)
Obama seems to be telegraphing quite clearly that partisanship and "small-minded" politics are the real problems. He is going to be the visionary president who stands above the parties, proposing a "unity" agenda based on "common-sense" policies.

Good luck with that.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
First: welcome back desmoinesdem (4.00 / 3)
And we are all glad you're recovering, hope you feel great.

I dont know what it 'means' and I definitely want clarification, but private armies and mercenaries are not debatable. Period. We have an armed force that is trained, indoctrinated and committed to democracy and democratic control or we dont have anything at all resembling a democracy anymore.

Period.

Its not defensible. NO way at all.

Mercenaries are a corporatist's wet dream, the final answer to the argument, which is more powerful Money or Democracy.

There is no middle ground. A period of building up troops, our troops, loyal troops  and then the outlawing of private armies in no uncertain terms is possible. So long as it is ohhh six months long and is announced as part of the "first 100 days" or ... well I'm stumped.

Having private armies doesn't "point to" a lack of progressive governing, it is the direct opposite.

I hope, this is a miscommunication, and not drift as Matt fears.

Barack! Your staff is not communicating your position well!


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
A few devil's advocate thoughts (0.00 / 0)
Don't get angry at me now, just a couple of balloons:

1. The State Dept. is a big reason why Blackwater is still around.  There aren't enough soldiers to protect Diplomats in Iraq (or the military won't do it, not sure which) and the diplomats won't leave the Green Zone w/out bodyguards.  Obama may have this very entrenched institutional reality in mind, particularly if he makes good on his promise to withdraw actual soldiers.

2. We do need contractors to do things in foreign countries, and he may be being deliberately vague so as not to handicap his ability to contract out legitimate work without looking like a hypocrite.

[ Parent ]
I think this is a fair assessment (0.00 / 0)
While I'd like to see less reliance on contractors in general (I think the federal government farms too much out to contractors), the way things are right now is that there is reliance on those contractors.

The bottom line is, IMHO we shouldn't be relying upon mercenaries (except, perhaps, in certain limited circumstances by intelligence agencies, and under strict limitations and control).  However, we very well may be in a situation right now that can't be changed both quickly and safely.  What's more, private security personnel are widely used and are another matter entirely.

[ Parent ]
We shouldn't be doing mercenary (0.00 / 0)
I said draw down so thats fine if safety makes it necessary, but that means as replacements are trained and deployed.

Its the difference between our troops, as in our country, and their troops, which means everyone else.

It is fundamentally wrong to have divided loyalty troops, and that is mild.

To have an industry thats makes enough money to lobby and advertise and bribe, whose business model is intimidation, cannot be tolerated in a democracy.

So yeah draw down as safety determines fine. Then clean it up, shut it down.

Policing is much the same, if the economy is being so split into poor and rich, that only the rich have safety, civic collapse is, well, somewhere past possible.

The private firefighters protecting single homes in the valley last summer, as their neighbours smoldered is not an innovation, it is a diagnostic of a crime, a failure.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Oh please (0.00 / 0)
1. If the world's so-called superpower can't protect its own embassies and their personnel they should just close the damn embassies. Even Rove couldn't come up with something this twisted. Obama is supposed to CHANGE the entrenched institutional reality, remember?

2. Why are you trying to conflate electricians and teachers with armed thugs? There's a pretty clear line between contractors and mercenaries: legitimate contractors are not there to shoot people. Mercenaries have no right to exist, period.

If Obama can't do better than this, I'm done with him.

[ Parent ]
That's what I'd like to believe (0.00 / 0)
So I do. I could also choose not to believe this - but since he is probably the nominee anyway, and because I very much want him to win, I'll allow myself to be disappointed later if need be. In the meantime, is it really too much to ask for everyone to look at Obama's words and actions through the lens of a General Election against War Hero John McCain. Because that is what this is now (almost, probably). We didn't get Romney folks, and we didn't get Huckabee. God I wish we did, but instead we got McCain. And because of this, it will have to be a different type of election - and not the good kind where we just whoop on the other guy. The kind where Obama has to take shitty stands on important issues - namely defense.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I Hope That He's Lying (4.00 / 2)
When it comes to Obama, you really have to hope that he's just lying to the conservatives, indepedents and the media and that he's really on your side.

But have you ever considered that you have it backwards?  That it is you who is being lied to?

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
Like I said, I CHOOSE to believe the more optimistic perspective. And it's not all faith - Obama has a strong, liberal track record of voting throughout his career in elected office. And he has strong progressive roots prior to seeking office. He's not some conservative sleeper, I have no doubt about this, but he may not end up being the progressive sleeper I kind of hope he is.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
That's pretty much the message (0.00 / 0)
I've been getting all along.  But I get yelled at a lot when I say it out loud.

But have you ever considered that you have it backwards?  That it is you who is being lied to?  

I even went to the trouble of reading Obama's book, and that was what really convinced me he's no progressive.
 

[ Parent ]
Amazing what's in that pile of.... (2.00 / 2)

.........whatever. After skimming it I really have to question whether many of Obama's supporters are Democrats...much less progressives.

The Reagan adulation was the least of it.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Hope he's lying ? (0.00 / 0)
What a commentary on the state of politics in this country.  I saw this on DU.  This use to be true.  

Voting guide

*Conservatives - Vote for the liar that promises you less.
*Liberals - Vote for the liar that promises you more.
*Libertarians - Vote for the liar that promises to give you nothing.

Now it should read like this:

*Conservatives - Vote for the Republican liar that promises you less.
*Liberals - Vote for the Democratic liar that promises you less and hope s/he's lying about that, too.
*Libertarians - Don't vote because third parties never get anywhere and only steal votes from the real candidates.

[ Parent ]
(sound of teeth grinding) (4.00 / 3)
Man, it's really tough going to read stuff like this.  We were all supposed to loathe and despise Hillary for things like this, yet when it's Obama, oh, well, he just has to say this for the general election.

I appreciate the sincerity with which you support the guy, but could you please, please spend a minute to look at and acknowledge the stunning double standard here?

Arrrggghhhh.

[ Parent ]
yeah, Matt, Obama is sooo conservative (0.00 / 0)
Yes, Matt, you are right. Obama will

- appoint judges who want to overturn Roe v. Wade
- block research into stem cells
- invade Iran and any other country Bill Kristol claims has a nuclear weapons program
- continue Bush's policy of global warming denial and delay
- extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich
- privatize Social Security
- use waterboarding on enemy combatants
- oppose any attempt to have a universal health care system
- continue Bush's warrantless wiretapping program and other eviscerations of the Constitution

Yessir. There is no difference at all between Obama and Bush and McCain. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, we should all vote for Nader. Because that all worked so great in 2000. Give me a break.  

straw......man? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
When you have no defense - attack! eom (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Roshomon On Steroids (4.00 / 1)
What's a mother to do?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
Not Progressive How? (0.00 / 0)
Matt, I get that you disagree with him on this issue, but that does not mean there is some "great turn to the right" here.  Why do you get to define what the progressive policy is?  I consider myself a progressive and I think Obama has a very sensible plan.  Could you clarify why you think it's not?
Progressive (4.00 / 3)
The use of mercenaries has to be one of the most anti-progressive positions ever imagined.  Legalized corporate killing?  Ceding that kind of power to corporations that aren't in anyway accountable to the public is at odds with progressive politics.

Even Machiavelli was a progressive when it came to the use of mercenaries.  Have a read through Chapter 7 of The Prince: http://www.constitution.org/ma...
(don't worry, it's not very long, like most chapters in the Prince.)

[ Parent ]
Uh -Oh Joe trippi must be back from the Keys (0.00 / 1)
Hi Joe,

Have a good vacation....stop torturing Matt.....Here come the turn to the right posts!
LMAO

As a fervent Obama supporter (4.00 / 1)
What Matt is doing is what the blogosphere is supposed to do.  Obama's not perfect... and I'm pretty sure he stands against mercenary armies working for the US... But I'm not completely sure... So we should critique him on this and get him to make a more firm statement or nudge him toward our position (which should be the "sane" position).

If he tacks to the right on something we need to make our voices heard. Every candidate tacks to the middle during a general election.  We're just coming out of an era where conservative ideology dominated (with help from spineless dems) so not, at least somewhat, going to the center would be bad politics as far as getting elected is concerned.

Also...  I don't think someone with as strong of an anti-nuke policy as his would be in favor of mercenaries. period.

Thank you for the reasonabl response to this (0.00 / 0)
I have to be honest so far of all the posts here yours give me hope that people will keep his feet to the fire. Honestly,t hat's the real question  for all of them, not just Obama, but people tend to take these things personally rather than making sure each candidate reflects our values. It's like they give up who they are in favor of who the candidate is, and that;'s the part that's scary. Glad to see that's not true of all.
[ Parent ]
I understand your opinion... (4.00 / 1)
...but let's be clear: the government uses contractors at every level, including security.  Government buildings in DC wouldn't have security if it weren't for contractors, and changing that situation couldn't be accomplished overnight.

Blackwater and company are clearly out of control.  But that doesn't mean that it would be wise to eliminate the use of contractors in Iraq cold turkey.  It also doesn't mean that contractors, regulated properly, haven't been used responsibly in the past.

As with most things, the problem under Bush is more a matter of extreme excess than anything.

For one thing, it would be really nice if contractors would be subject to the rule of law -- any law.

And to be clear... (0.00 / 0)
...there is a profound difference between "mercenary armies" and "contractors".
[ Parent ]
Perhaps you'd be good enough to.... (2.00 / 2)

......................explain that difference?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
The difference is... (4.00 / 2)
...how the contractors are used, and how they're kept under control.

I work in DC (Commerce Department), and I walk by contract security personnel every day as I go to work.  So does my wife, who works for another federal agency.  They even have guns.  And they're not "mercenaries".

The State Department also uses contractors as security personnel, both at home and abroad.

[ Parent ]
Question (0.00 / 0)
Did the security contractors who you walk by every day have their own airforce and navy?  If they do have their own airforce and navy, are they amongst the biggest in the world?
[ Parent ]
I think his point is (4.00 / 1)
We can't unilaterally condemn all security contractors because there are good approaches and bad approaches.  Everybody here disapproves of mercenaries.
[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
My feeling is both that we need to drastically reduce the reliance upon bona-fide mercenaries (eliminate, if possible) and bring any that are used under the rule of law.  And IMHO it's pretty clear quite a few should be up on war crimes charges.
[ Parent ]
Jonweasel, can you comment on my other comment above? (0.00 / 0)
Would like to hear your opinion.
[ Parent ]
Don't think! (4.00 / 1)
You are...... (4.00 / 1)

........a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad person.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
Obama and Mercenaries (4.00 / 2)
Denial

Anger

Bargaining

Depression

Acceptance

Progressive Shmogressive (4.00 / 2)
All you have to do is look at Obama's voting record, his non-voting record, and listen to his recycled speeches to know that he isn't a progressive.

Nobody on the left gives a hang.
Hate Hillary is the antidote to any lingering doubts about the integrity of Mr. Obama.

"I would say that we should get ready for the great turn to the right, except that I've never seen compelling evidence that Obama would govern as a progressive."
So says Matt.

Obama is already on the right, Matt.
There is no evidence that he isn't quite comfortable there.

Of course there is no evidence that Obama would govern as a progressive.
That doesn't stop progressives from being totally absorbed by this guy.

Progressives love Obama and hate Ralph Nader.
Go figure.

I'm curious to know... (0.00 / 0)
What you consider your "progressive" principles, and why Obama doesn't meet them.  This is an honest question.

Do you think he'd appoint right-wing judges?  Invade more countries?  Block Stem-cell research, start wars, lower taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the middle-class?

Seriously, which "progressive" causes are you worried about with Obama?

[ Parent ]
To answer your question... a partial list. (0.00 / 0)
  - While campaigning for Lieberman's re-election in 2006, Obama says that Lieberman is working in "our behalf". Nice rhetoric from the guy who says he is against the war in Iraq.

 - Votes for the Patriot Act.

 - Co-sponsors the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act". The Sierra Club warned that this legislation "would double the global warming emissions of regular gasoline..." An obvious gift to the coal industry of Illinois at the expense of the environment.

 - Opposes gay marriage because of his "religious beliefs".

 - Travels on a Gospel tour with homophobe Donnie McClurkin.

 - Receives $430,578 from Goldman Sachs.

 - Co-sponsors S.970, which calls for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. This is the same language Obama says he opposed in Kyn-Lieberman and for which he condemned Hillary Clinton.

- Says he would invade a sovereign nation, Pakistan, without the consent of the government, if he had "actionable intelligence" about terrorists. "Actionable intelligence". That has served us well, hasn't it?

- With respect to Iran, Obama still calls them a threat and has left invasion and the use of nuclear weapons "on the table".

"Obama, the nation's only black senator, disagreed with claims that President Bush is racist or that the federal government responded poorly to Katrina because many of its victims were black." (Obama.senate.gov)

With respect to Judges, taxing the rich, stem-cell research... who knows?

With respect to the environment, civil liberties, civil and human rights, protecting the right to privacy and habeas corpus, rights of homosexuals, accepting money from the health insurance industry and wall street, and saber rattling - his record is dreadful.

[ Parent ]
Not going to respond to every one of those... (0.00 / 0)
But will say that Clinton is not substantively different on many, if any, of these.

I'll also say that Obama has put up the most pro-gay rights rhetoric of any of the presidential candidates.  He just wrote an open-letter expressing his support for Civil Unions at the federal level (which is the same thing as for straight couples), as well as allowing state's to decide what they define as "marriage".  Is it the absolute most "progressive" anyone could be on gay rights?  No, of course not... but it's by far the most progressive out there of the presidential candidates.

As for the judges, taxing rich, and stem-cell research, he's on record for all of them... and you have to be crazy if you think that his record on all of these will be far better than that of McCain.

Patriot Act?  Please... I guess our only option for president should be Feingold, then.  (And hey, I like Feingold quite a bit, but I'm sure we could sit around and find a bunch of other votes we didn't like of his as well... say, his pro John Roberts vote... and he's on the Judiciary committee too!)

I'm actually glad you wrote up this list... it's extremely weak, if you ask me, and bodes well for the general election.

[ Parent ]
Correction... (0.00 / 0)
"you have to be crazy if you think that his record on all of these will be far better than that of McCain."

That was supposed to say, "you have to be crazy if you think that his record on all of these WON'T be far better than that of McCain" of course. =)

[ Parent ]
Why exactly should we vote for Obama if his record isn't better (4.00 / 1)
It's not enough to claim its the same. It seems the arguments are now morphing from he's the change candidate to he's not all that bad. Not exactly appeali ng.
[ Parent ]
Well, there are several other arguments.. (0.00 / 0)
First, this is by no means an exhaustive list of positions.

Second, I think his record on a variety of things IS better than Clinton's...  My point was that for the list given here, it's not much different than Clinton's.  Even so, I still pointed out that his gay-rights stance seems more progressive than Clinton's... as is his accepting contributions from "corporations" like Goldman-Sachs, seeing as he's not accepting PAC or federal lobbyist contributions.

Finally, we're trying to select a candidate who balances being most with our views AND can win in the general election.  No candidate, except perhaps yourself, will possibly be 100% in line with all of your positions.  No matter who it is, they will, quite likely, disappoint you from time to time.  So at this level, if we accept that they're fairly close policy wise (which I think both Clinton and Obama would probably agree), then we have to worry about winning the election, and, potentially trying to "win over" people to a more progressive view-point (something Reagan and to a much lesser extent Bush was able to do for a "conservative" viewpoint).  We can't expect the government to, for instance, legislate out an entire industry (the healthcare insurance industry) overnight, which is why no relevant candidate can actually propose this.

[ Parent ]
I've looked at his record (0.00 / 0)
If one is objective, there isn't much difference on the national stage or even his state record.

I am gay. His stances aren't more progressive than Clintons. He only gets a nod from me given the CLinton's history of throwing us under the bus. But, I am now under no illusion given the things you supporters are willing to put up with that he won't do the same thing. To expect otherwise is to set myself up for disappointment because I see you are incapable of holding his feet to the fire or bering objective about who he is.

Don't lecture to me about the best GE candidate. That's not what this about and its insulting (and has been for most of this cycle) to read people tell me this. No one who is objective believes you.

Please also don't tell me what we can't expect a president to do or not do. That's your self reference. You have no idea (if you were honest with yourself) with what's possible or not. Also stop throwing out over the top red herrings to justify yourself. Don't make shit up that you know you are just making up when I haven't said that to you.

[ Parent ]
Clinton? (0.00 / 0)
You asked why Obama doesn't meet my "progressive" principles. You said this was "an honest question".

I responded by listing a few of the things that Obama has said or done that don't conform to my idea progressive principles.

As has become quite common for supporters of Obama, you have answered by saying that Clinton isn't any better.

But Clinton was not the topic.

I also noticed that you did not offer a response to Obama's having said that Lieberman was working in "our" behalf. He thinks Lieberman is working in his behalf. Do you think Lieberman is working in your behalf?

You also didn't respond to the fact that Obama criticized Clinton for her vote on Kyn-Lieberman (a vote he missed) while he co-sponsored a bill that expressed the same aggressive militarist paranoia with respect to Iran.

Voting for the Patriot Act, which you dismiss with "please" - is an abomination from the point of view of a progressive.

You also ignore Obama's sponsorship of the polluting "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act" - an obvious pay-off to the Illinois coal industry at the expense of the health of the citizens of Illinois.

You denigrated my response by saying it was "weak". That's because these issues don't have the same meaning for you as they do for me. I was asked why Obama does not meet MY progressive principles. I told you. It is a partial list.

If Obama meets your standards for a progressive, fine.

The fact is that both Clinton and Obama are extremely conservative. These are the only two choices with which we have been presented. Their records are similar. But Obama has been celebrated by people on the left, and Clinton has received nothing but condemnation.

Personally, I think some of the reason for this is that it is still fashionable to express hostility to women, whereas racism - expressed in the negative - is no longer chic.

[ Parent ]
Try any one of these.... (4.00 / 2)
* Adopt single payer national health insurance  
* Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget  
* No to nuclear power, solar energy first  
* Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare  
* Open up the Presidential debates  
* Adopt a carbon pollution tax  
* Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East  
* Impeach Bush/Cheney  
* Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law  
* Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax  
* Put an end to ballot access obstructionism  
* Work to end corporate personhood

WTF. If you make exceptions and excuses for mercenary armies, you might as well make the "ticking bomb" excuses for rendition and torture.

Hillary and Obama are not progressives, and I can't believe the hypocrisy of the blind hatred of all things Clinton and the blind adoration of all things Obama.  If the netroots are suppose to be more informed and smarter than the "low information public", heaven help us all.  
 

[ Parent ]
Obama voted against cutting funding to Guantanamo (4.00 / 2)

This open left story from last thursday lays out how "progressive" Obama and Cliton both are....

Obama's weakest score: On human rights and civil liberties he's at 75%, and #42 out of 99. One reason: in 2005, he voted "no" on a bill to cut funding for a new $36 million maximum security prison at Guantanamo.

( Roll Call 93, HR 1268, Fiscal 2005 Supplemental Appropriations/Vote to Delete Funding for the Construction of a New $36 Million Maximum Security Prison at Guantanamo) Cuba. Apr 13, 2005.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/...

I meant talk left (0.00 / 0)
They tend to have a Hilary Bias but this article is well done.
[ Parent ]
Dont Mourn, Organize. (0.00 / 0)
It does not matter what position you have, or which President you elect.
Tomorrow you will organize around issues. Some days it will be to keep it from getting worse, some days it will be to keep it getting better.

And tomorrow too. I don't know what your most heartfelt issue is, but this one candidate isn't going to do it perfectly, you will need to organize again and again around issues that matter, and improve peoples lives and their own ability to organize.

And again the next day, as we work putting together the best organizing, the best candidates, the best campaign.

When he wins, no matter how good Obama is or isn't, there has to be, and will be, pressure in the street, in the halls and in the party and legislatures for the issues that will improve peoples lives and help them learn how to organize themselves, whether that is pressure for UHC or peace or rights or restoring democracy or climate change.

Crashing the gates 4 times a week, and twice on Saturday.

Im ok with that.

I think we can win that fight too. in fact...
Yes we can.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Supposed to be (0.00 / 0)
Crashing the Gate 3 times a week.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Why not every.... (0.00 / 0)

..........frikin' day!

I'm up for that. Every day do something, no matter how small, to pressure the fools and criminals in 'Versailles'.

Every day.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
I think organizing is democracy (0.00 / 0)
My reference to the book Crashing the Gate is a suggestion that we need transformative political insights, organizing, innovation and movements developed continuously. The book is about Dean and the internet and community involvement and insurgent political activity.

Becoming involved, organizing around issues, empowering communities and raising expectations is the path out of this mess, but are also the muscle and tendon of a democratic society.

That we did not have a fifty state strategy, we didnt organize everyone, we skipped over communities "that didnt matter" and that we let people be convinced that there was little we could do or expect - ("hey thats just the way things are") - that was a mistake.

I think an Obama Presidency creates space for organizing, exudes 'permission' to organize and create pressure, assumes an encouragement to form coalitions and make demands, because this is the community organizer presidency. It isnt a CEO presidency, not an "I'll handle it for you" presidency, this is a "..believe in your ability to make change" presidency. And we are, in our efforts to advance this transformative change with Obama, feeding the newly quickened expectations in the public. These are not false hopes.



--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Obama and Mercenaries | 51 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox