Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Outline: The Case for Private Armies?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:17 PM
Original message
Outline: The Case for Private Armies?
The nature of military conflict and action: from post-Athens onward, monarchies put lands and nations in private ownership. Armies were raised by vassals who took oaths of loyalty to the land-owner - King - and in turn, paid their own armies, often with land grants or other titles. General population was not directly involved in the fighting, although many paid the price in raids, especially during the dark ages of Western Europe.

Most wars were about land grabs.

Nothing much changed until long after the American Revolution, when democracy demanded popular support for a war. When a war is against a true aggressor, such as Hitler, AND one of his allies drop bombs on our military bases, especially within our national boundaries, support is easy to raise.

Corporations that wish to expand in countries outside of the US meet resistance and agitate for battle and drum up support through the media outlets they own. Two types of corporate interest wars: land grab for resource exploitation; forced economies/markets for trade. In neither case does corporation wish to occupy.

In the past century, as various forms of representative governments have spread, two types of occupied territories have risen; Westerners accustomed to letting designated armies do the fighting (and got run-over), and insurgencies where members of the population involve themselves voluntarily.

In the modern era, among Western and advanced civs, war is increasingly about economy and not land-grab.

War driven by corporations.

Propose: let the corps hire their own armies, as much as they want.

In the Iraq example, the nationwide taxpayer expense of hundreds of billions of dollars was spent to most benefit the comparatively few stockholders.

Instead of sending the US army, spending taxpayer dollars to treat the wounded in VA hospitals, allow private corporations to hire, contract (collectively or otherwise) payments and benefits.

Even if the Iraq invasion had been successful, the likelihood of gas price reduction would be little. Before the Gulf War, average price of gas was between $1-$1.15 for regular. During that war it climbed to approx $1.60; after, reduced, but never went down to its pre-GW levels.

Granted, Iraq output was not what it was prior to the war due to sanctions/infrastructure.

So, the increased profits still go to the corps. Meanwhile, govt taxes remain the same.


There is still need for a national militia, in the case of invasion, in which we become the insurgency. Landowners will have the highest motivation to fight for the home territory. Suggestion: two years required military service for all young adults, then weekend warrior type activities for a period of ten years.

Summation:

Western-style trained government militaries, schooled in warring upon designated warriors are not capable of winning in the face of a popular insurgency or other uprising without committing crimes against the Geneva conventions. Let the corps, who have the highest motivations for military struggle in other nations and stand the most benefit shoulder the burden of the costs.
Knowing the cost of fighting an insurgency, it would be in the corps' interest to quickly find a replacement government which would be friendly towards their business interests and capable of providing the necessary leadership to keep the citizenry at peace. Although that may give rise to another Pinochet, I'm convinced there will always be Pinochets and am tired of having to personally fund them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. You mean feudalism. Been there. Done that. Abolished it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. And Yet, It's Making a Comeback
Only with corporations instead of squires.

If that's the way corps want it, they should have to pay the price for these wars of economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Actually there are many mercenaries in Iraq already
They are called Private Military Contractors (PMCs) nowadays to avoid the bad name of the past. In fact their name was so bad that they were officially outlawed under Article 47 of the Geneva Convention. Bascically the name has been changed, but the game is still the same, and it's a very big market:


Since 1994, the U.S. Defense Department has entered into 3,061 contracts with 12 of the 24 U.S.-based PMCs identified by ICIJ, a review of government documents showed. Pentagon records valued those contracts was more than $300 billion. More than 2,700 of those contracts were held by just two companies: Kellogg Brown & Root and Booz Allen Hamilton. Because of the limited information the Pentagon provides and the breadth of services offered by some of the larger companies, it was impossible to determine what percentage of these contracts was for training, security or logistical services.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/report.aspx?aid=148


They are not only used to protect corporate interests, but are often used for the dirty work which the army cannot be. For example: some of the interrogators in the Abu Ghraib prison were civilian contractors provided by Titan and CACI.

It is not clear how many PMCs are in Iraq. The estimates varies between between 25000 - 48000 ( http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/... )

The biggest problem with mercenaries is that they are unreliable.


The mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and if anyone supports his state by the arms of mercenaries, he will never stand firm or sure, as they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, faithless, bold amongst friends, cowardly amongst enemies, they have no fear of God, and keep no faith with men

- Machiavelli, The Prince (1513)


And that is exactly what is happening in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Example of their unreliability. Algerian Independence war
The Algerian War of Independence was fought against France between 1954 and 1962, because it was a very bloody war, the French relied heavily on the Foreign Legion for the dirty work, because they are known for their ruthlessness. In a way the French Foreign Legion is a form of mercenary since it only employs criminals who have nowhere to go and this is their only way to freedom.

They were in charge of burning down villages and killing all inhabitants and a group in the Foreign Legion liked it so much, that they deserted in 1961 when France started to negotiate peace with Algeria. The First Parachute Regiment rose against the government and declared themselves masters of the territory they had conquered, changed sides and started a putsch against Charles de Gaulle. ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916175... )

In the meantime Iraq is filled with ex-foreign legionaires because they are the best for the dirty work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. correction
"In a way the French Foreign Legion is a form of mercenary since it only employs criminals who have nowhere to go and this is their only way to freedom."

no, that's not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_foreign_legion#Disb...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Most of the people in the legion have nowhere to go
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 06:16 PM by DrDebug
It was actually founded as an alternative to the existing mercenary armies (see the Time article above). The only reason why people enlist in the legion is because if you survive, you'll become a French citizen without any questions asked. And therefore it is usually the last refuge for people who have committed serious crimes and have a chance to flee to another country legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. That's not the same as the statement I replied to...
You stated that the FFL only employs criminals. That's not the case. Though I might think what you justed posted to be closer to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Works For Me
It's either going to be mercs or our soldiers getting IEDs in the face. I'd rather it were them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. agreed
we have the HQ of Blackwater scum here in our backyard
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Corporate-World, here we come...
Sorry, but this is a dumb idea. You're advocating that we hand over to soul-less corporations the power to wage wars of aggression for greed's sake. You can say that's what we're doing in Iraq now, but only because of deception. This "solution" is like saying "ooh, my bath water is too warm-- so I should make it BOILING hot!"


"Knowing the cost of fighting an insurgency, it would be in the corps' interest to quickly find a replacement government which would be friendly towards their business interests and capable of providing the necessary leadership to keep the citizenry at peace. "

Just 'cause it's in your best interest to do something doesn't mean you're capable of doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. We're Already There
Soulless corporations DO have the power to wage wars - what do you think Vietnam was all about? What do you think Iraq II is all about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Your "solution" is to give up
Corporations controlling even part of the decision-making about whether to go to war is an evil that we should fight. You are advocating that we give up and let them take over even more of our society. That, sir, in the war against soul-less corporate greed, is surrendermonkeyism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. No, Not At All
I am advocating putting corporations in a position where they will be visibly responsible and, from a world-PR perspective, held accountable for their adventures in capitalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. reveal the puppet-masters I guess,
Ok, but the problem I have with that is that if you give corporations the power to raise armies and occupy territories, then they don't have to care about bad PR. They will be above the law and above public reproach. You could try to boycott them I suppose, but that doesn't work very well against a monopoly. And some corporations don't sell anything directly to the people anyway-- they cater to governments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. He's simply stating what the analysts have said. Mercenary armies are the next step.
In an era where the US government is either unwilling or unable to defend a corporation's profit margins in foreign countries, corporations are increasingly contemplating the use of mercenaries to fulfill the role once played by the US Army and the Marines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Thanks. And I'm a She
It's difficult to take someone saying my analysis is faulty seriously when that person can't be bothered to think through how to find out my gender, on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. ok, madam. And your solution is still faulty. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
10. Corporations are growing to the extent that they are becoming feudal manors in themselves
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 06:21 PM by Selatius
It stands to reason the next step would be for them to form mercenary armies outside the purview of the armies of the central government. If the US government won't commit its troops to defending corporate interests, there will be a temptation for corporations to contract mercenaries to protect their claim to capital and land.

When the markets are under the death grip of only a few barons of industry and a few shareholders with their corporate empires and corporate fiefdoms, you do not have capitalism. You simply have feudalism in modern form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yes, Exactly
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 06:58 PM by Crisco
I once found myself arguing (in another place) with someone who was cheerily defending GM/GE. One of his points was, to have the maximum benefit of worldwide distribution, independent farmers must be eliminated. It wasn't an idea he came up with on his own, I've no doubt it was some dogma he picked up in one of his bio-engineering classes.

How much more blatant can it get than that?

And anyway, insurgents aren't exactly following the Geneva conventions. I'm not sure I blame them. In the era of representative governments, the instinct to defend the homeland is strong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Which may be exactly why *ss is doing everything in his power to
destroy the military. I would be very afraid of a military that was controlled by the private sector. Who would protect us from them. We would not be able to vote for competent leaders in the private sector. There is too much danger to do that. If you think the corporations are taking our freedoms away from us now what do you think would happen when the military is no longer part of the government that swears to uphold our Constitution, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Honestly, I don't see what's so hard to comprehend...
about the argument "giving corporations more power (and armies) is a BAD thing!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. They Already *Have* the Power
Look at the boards of directors, the ownership of GE and Boeing, shipping concerns and so on, and the MSM. It's incestuous.

Right now, they can beat the war drums and send us to war across oceans. And they don't have to take on any responsibility for their actions. "It's in the country's interest." We're in a feudal state in this regard and many others, and people don't recognize it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. How far do you think we would get if we tried to demonstrate
against a war run by a public entity? Or even wrote articles like we see here at DU? We would disappear and Helliburtin would get a very big contract to enlarge Gitmo. They have a lot of power but not total power thanks to our Constitution, etc. That is what we have been fighting to preserve ever since regun was elected. That feudal overlord had total power to decide who lived and who died.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. Corporate Government...
Oil Companies in Iraq:
A Century of Rivalry and War
By James A. Paul
Global Policy Forum
November 2003
Close Personal Ties between Companies and Governments

Given the close political relations between the oil companies and their governments, it should be no surprise to find close ties at the personal level binding companies and governments together. The career of Allen Dulles serves as a case in point. He began as a US diplomat in the Middle East and rose to be chief of the Near East section of the State Department. In the early 1920s, he led the campaign to win US oil firms participation in Iraq. Later he served as a corporate lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell, New Yorks leading counsel for the oil industry. After wartime intelligence service, he was named head of the CIA by President Eisenhower. As CIA chief, he arranged for the overthrow of Mossadegh, winning a place in Irans rich oil fields for US firms. In every assignment he consistently served company interests.21

Max Thornberg came to the US State Department as senior petroleum advisor in 1941, directly from Bahrein Petroleum, a joint venture of Standard Oil of California. Thornberg operated nearly independently of his government superiors. He continued to receive his company salary, informed company executives of private government meetings and actively promoted company proposals. He apparently could not conceive of a conflict of interest. Having worked in the industry his whole life, he thought of industry goals and those of the US government as being identical.22

The administration of President George W. Bush represents an especially close set of personal ties between the oil companies and the government at the very highest level. The president and his father were both longtime industry insiders from Texas and chief executives of their own oil companies. Other oil figures at the top of the administration include Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, the nations largest oil-services company, and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice, a former director of Chevron Texaco, after whom the company named one of its supertankers. These very visible figures give the administration its peculiarly strong oil flavor. In the earliest days of the administration, they promoted a number of striking industry-favorable policy decisions, such as the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, the ouster of the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the elaboration of a strongly pro-oil national energy plan.

In the UK, close ties likewise bind companies and successive governments together, The government even held a majority stake in BP, with seats on the board, until 1987. By contrast to the United States, where the oil companies are first among such peers as General Motors, Walmart and Citigroup, in the UK, oil giants Shell and BP tower far above the next tier firms like British Telecom, Unilever and ICI.23 From such heights, UK oil executives speak almost as unofficial members of government. In recent years, a number of personal ties stand out, especially the close friendship between Prime Minister Tony Blair and BP CEO John Browne (Lord Browne of Maddingley). The Blair-Browne relationship was so close that wags in the press called the company Blair Petroleum, though it would have been more accurate to say that Blair was the BP Prime Minister. At least a dozen BP executives held government posts or sat on official advisory committees, including Brownes immediate predecessor David Simon (Lord Simon of Highbury). Simon had stepped down as BP CEO to serve as Blairs unelected Minister for European Trade and Competitiveness from May 1997 to July 1999.24 Later on, Tony Blairs longtime friend and personal assistant Anjl Hunter, director of government relations and known as the gatekeeper in Downing Street, joined BP as head of public relations in the summer of 2002, just as the war was actively brewing.25

After a century of closely-combined action on the global stage, company chieftans and government leaders see their relationship as cooperative and thoroughly complementary. In April, 2003, shortly after the war in Iraq, Lord Browne responded tartly to critics by saying: It is quite ethical and appropriate for a global company, based in the UK, to be supported by the British government.26 He did not, of course, go into the details.

Seven Oil Wars to Control Iraq

Before coming to the Iraq war of 2003, we will review the modern history of conflicts over Iraq. There have been a total of seven wars in the past ninety years, all closely related to oil. What follows is a thumbnail sketch of those conflicts, to suggest the constant military struggle over this oil-rich territory. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003compa...

List of PMCs
3D Global Solutions, AD Consultancy, AGS, AMECO, 3S Security Support Solutions, Aegis Defence Services, AirScan Inc., AKE Limited, Al Hamza, American International Security, Anteon International Corp., Applied Marine Technology Inc., ArmorGroup International PLC, Ayr Aviation, Babylon Gates, Ben Tal, BH Defense LLC, Blackheart International LLC, Blackwater USA, Blue Hackle Limited, Britam Defence, Ltd., CACI International, Canine International, CastleForce Consultancy, Ltd., Carnelian International Risks, Centurion Risk Assessment Services, Civilian Police International, LLC, Cochise Consultancy Inc., Combat Support Associates, Ltd., Control Risks Group, Crescent Security Group, CTC Training, CTU ASIA, Cubic Corporation, Custer Battles, Defence Systems Limited, Demming Enterprises International, Ltd., Diligence, LLC, Double Eagle Management Company, DS Vance Iraq, DTS Security, DynCorp, Edinburgh Risk, Edinburgh International Security, Ltd., EODT Technology, Inc., Erinys International Ltd., Evergreen International Aviation, Excalibre, Executive Outcomes, Executive Solutions International, Falcon Group, Genric, Ltd., Greystone, Ltd., Global Marine Security Systems Company, Global Options, Inc., Global Strategies Group, Golan Group, Group 4 Securicor, Hart Group, Henderson Risk, Ltd., Hill and Associates, Homeland Security Corporation, ICP Group, Ltd., International Charter Incorporated of Oregon, ISEC Corporate Security, Ltd., ISI Security, J-3 Global, Janusian Security Risk Management Ltd., Keenie Meenie Services, Kellogg Brown and Root, Kroll, Inc., Levdan, Ltd., Management and Training Corporation, Main Street Supply & Logistics, Medical Support Solutions, Ltd., Meteoric Tactical Solutions, Meyer and Associates, Military Professional Resources Inc., Mushriqui Consulting, MVM, Inc., NAF Security, Neareast Security, New Korea Total Service, Northbridge Services Group, Ltd., Pistris, Inc., Olive Group, Omega Risk Solutions, Optimal Solution Services, Orion Management, OSSI-Safenet, Overseas Security and Strategic Information, Inc/Safenet - Iraq, Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc., PSI International, PSD Training, PWC Logistics, RamOPS Risk Management Group, Reed, Inc., Ronco, Rubicon International Services, Ltd., Saladin Security, Sandline International, SCG International Risk, Science Applications International Corporation, Securiforce, Security Applications Systems International LLC, Select Armor, Inc., Sentinel, SGS, Silver Shadow, Smith Brandon International, Southern Cross Security, Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group, Special Ops Associates, Steele Foundation, Sumer International Security, Tarik, THULE Global Security International, Titan Corporation, Toifor, Triple Canopy Inc., US Investigations Services, Unity Resources Group, USA Enviromental, Vinnell Corporation, Vinnell Brown and Root (VBR), VIP Investigations & Protective Services Inc., Wade-Boyd and Associates LLC, Whitestone Group, WVC3 Group, Inc. http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?titl ...

"The Freedom of Information Act applies to "agency" records. Contractors, in this context, are not "agencies," even where they perform decisional roles. Similarly, government officials are subject to a body of conflict of interest provisions, pay caps, limits on political activity, and labor rules that do not similarly constrain contractors who perform similar, even the same, work."
* "In April <2002>, the Army told Congress that its best guess was that the Army had between 124,000 and 605,000 service contract workers. In October, the Army announced that it would permit contractors to compete for "non-core" positions held by 154,910 civilian workers (more than half of the Army's civilian workforce) and 58,727 military personnel." <12>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4901786.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 April 2006, 09:48 GMT 10:48 UK
Iraqi death squads 'not police'

Iraq's interior minister has admitted death squads and other unauthorised armed groups have been carrying out sectarian killings in the country.
But in a BBC interview, Bayan Jabr denied allegations that these groups were linked to his ministry.
Mr Jabr blamed the proliferation of civilian security companies and licensed protection agencies used by other government ministries.

'Out of order'
In his interview with the BBC, Mr Jabr said despite appearances, those involved in recent attacks were not genuine police officers.
"Terrorists or someone who support the terrorists... are using the clothes of the police or the military," he said.
He said problems also stemmed from the existence of non-governmental security agencies like the Facility Protection Service, an armed force set up during the US-led administration of Iraq in 2003 to guard official buildings.

Mr Jabr called the 150,000-strong FPS "out of order, not under our control". He also implicated the involvement of about 30,000 civilian security guards operating in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4901786.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek /
The Salvador Option
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:59 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2005

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagons latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we cant just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last Novembers operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgencyas Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the timethan in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administrations battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a successdespite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal.


A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
By Steve Kangas
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictators security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 19th 2017, 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC