PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War is Not Over — Just Privatized



Sol Invictus
08-22-2010, 09:24 PM
August 20, 2010

“My reaction is that this is just another media stunt, because what is not being reported as strongly as the final troop leaving Iraq is that we’re still leaving 50,000 troops in country, not to mention that the 4,000 who are leaving are being replaced by 7,000 security contractors, called “dirty gangs” by Iraqis. I think that basically what we have is just a recycling of forces in what effectively could be called a transferring of military duties from the US military into the hands of corporate paramilitary forces in Iraq.”

This appeared on Democracy Now (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democracynow.org%2F2010%2F8%2 F20%2Firaq_war_vet_camilo_mejia_us&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fredantliberationarmy.wordpress.c om%2F)

JUAN GONZALEZ: The news networks had hours of coverage of the so-called withdrawal throughout the day yesterday. Much of it was interviewing the troops coming home and their families. Well, we’re also joined by an Iraq war veteran, one you probably won’t see on CNN or MSNBC: Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía, the first US combat veteran to publicly resist the war.

Camilo Mejía served six months in Iraq in 2003 with the Florida National Guard. While on a two-week leave in the United States, he decided never to return. Mejía went into hiding to avoid redeployment and was classified as AWOL, or absent without leave. After five months on the run, he surrendered to the military at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and submitted a formal application for discharge as a conscientious objector. His application was denied. In May 2004, a military jury convicted him of desertion, and he was sentenced to one year in prison. He served nine months behind bars, prompting Amnesty International to declare him a prisoner of conscience. He wrote a book about his experience called The Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía. He is the former chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and he joins us now from Miami.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

CAMILO MEJÍA: Good morning, Juan and Amy.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Camilo, your reaction now to this so-called news of the withdrawal of the last combat brigade from Iraq?

CAMILO MEJÍA: My reaction is that this is just another media stunt, because what is not being reported as strongly as the final troop leaving Iraq is that we’re still leaving 50,000 troops in country, not to mention that the 4,000 who are leaving are being replaced by 7,000 security contractors, called “dirty gangs” by Iraqis. I think that basically what we have is just a recycling of forces in what effectively could be called a transferring of military duties from the US military into the hands of corporate paramilitary forces in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Camilo, as you see the coverage over the last twenty-four hours, first, you know, as one of the leaders of Iraq Veterans Against the War, do you think this is the right move, what President Obama is doing? And then, what are your thoughts, hearing, watching soldiers talking about their experiences?

CAMILO MEJÍA: I have not been really tracking the testimonies of soldiers about the alleged withdrawal of the troops. But I do think that it’s very troubling to see how the corporate media are covering this withdrawal, because very little to nothing has been said about the fact that we are privatizing just absolutely everything. Now we have the situation in Iraq where huge contracts are going to be given to these corporations to do what the US Army used to do, not that one is better than the other. I think there probably will be less accountability for private security contractors to be doing the job that soldiers, who are at least subject to be court-martialed, but are now going to be in the hands of people like Erik Prince and people like that.

We already have over 100,000 contractors in Iraq operating, many of them operating in the capacity of mercenaries. If you read the coverage by the New York Times, you realize that these are not just going to be security guards, these are going to be highly specialized former military personnel who are going to have the skills and the ability to operate radars, to go out there and find improvised explosive devices, so we’re talking about EOD personnel. You’re talking about people who are pilots. You’re talking about people who are going to be operating drones in Iraq. So this is not just people who are going to be bodyguards. You’re talking about highly specialized individuals who are going to be replacing soldiers from the US military and other special operations units within the Army. So, basically, it’s the privatization of a military occupation. It is what we’re witnessing right now, the transferring of military authorities and duties from the US military into corporate paramilitary forces.

AMY GOODMAN: Camilo, we have to break, and then we’re going to come back to you and have a debate on the issue of the DREAM Act. Camilo Mejía, first GI who served in Iraq to have publicly resisted the war. He’s with Iraq Veterans Against the War. He was imprisoned for almost a year for, well, what the military said was desertion.

Curtis24
08-22-2010, 09:28 PM
Yeah, I pretty much figured this out already but its nice to see it verified.
The whole point of the war was to create a military base in the heart of the Mideast, to secure the oil supplies of Iraq, and to secure the supplies of Iran and Saudi Arabia if necessary, so pulling all our combat troops out makes no sense.

Sol Invictus
08-22-2010, 09:36 PM
I saw Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155#) it blew my mind.

Psychonaut
08-22-2010, 09:48 PM
The whole point of the war was...to secure the oil supplies of Iraq...

Yeah, because the US government completely runs the Iraqi oil industry now. Oh wait, nevermind; that's not true at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#Energy)

Curtis24
08-22-2010, 09:59 PM
Yeah, because the US government completely runs the Iraqi oil industry now. Oh wait, nevermind; that's not true at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#Energy)

We guard the oil. American-born soldiers physically control the oil supply. Thus, it is ours, to influence as we see fit. The Iraqi companies that technically "own" the oil will obviously do what the American government tells them to, because if they don't, we can simply let someone else - someone who will obey us - seize control of the oil. Not that I see this as moral, its just the reality.

Psychonaut
08-22-2010, 10:01 PM
We guard the oil.

We do? From whom?


American-born soldiers physically control the oil supply.

Please demonstrate that US troops are currently have hands on involvement with the Iraqi oil fields.


Thus, it is ours, to influence as we see fit.

If that were true, would we not have engineered for all (or even a majority) of oil contracts to go to US companies?

Sol Invictus
08-22-2010, 10:07 PM
It's not the soldiers that secure the product it's the corporations who in turn hire private contractors to maintain it's control. The Military only worked to secure the oilfields during the initial campaign and that was to try and maintain it's infrastructure so that it could be handed off.

Curtis24
08-22-2010, 10:08 PM
Do you even need to ask who we're guarding it from? how about umpteen militia/insurgent forces in Iraq.

Furthermore, do you seriously think that the Iraqis themselves are guarding the oil?


The Iraqi army is not ready to take over responsibility from the Americans, its most senior general has warned, as the White House insists the US army is on course to end its combat role in the country by the end of this month.

Lieutenant General Babakir Zebari told a defence conference in Baghdad that the Iraqi army would be unable to cope without backing from US forces.

He suggested the Iraqi army would be incapable of assuming control for another decade.

"If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: the US army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020," he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/12/iraqi-army-not-ready-general

BTW the above article is dated August 12th...

This guy is the senior general of the Iraqi army. His comment implies several things: first, that the Iraqi army is not guarding Iraq government installations; second, that the U.S. is doing so; third, that this includes oil(afterall, it is the most important resource of the Iraqi government, so if their own government forces haven't "taken over yet"(exact words of general Zebari), then we must be guarding it for them).

As the original post of this thread explained, U.S. forces are still providing security in Iraq. The only change has been a transfer from the U.S. army to private U.S. companies.

Psychonaut
08-22-2010, 10:13 PM
The Military only worked to secure the oilfields during the initial campaign and that was to try and maintain it's infrastructure so that it could be handed off.

Handed off to whom? So far, private companies whose profits don't benefit the US or the US's elite.


Furthermore, do you seriously think that the Iraqis themselves are guarding the oil?

No. It's my understanding that security of the oil fields was taken over by the private security forces of the dozens of companies contracting these years ago. I assumed this was common knowledge.

Sol Invictus
08-22-2010, 10:20 PM
Handed off to whom? So far, private companies whose profits don't benefit the US or the US's elite.


Halliburton for one. You're right no benefit at all.

Curtis24
08-22-2010, 10:31 PM
No. It's my understanding that security of the oil fields was taken over by the private security forces of the dozens of companies contracting these years ago. I assumed this was common knowledge.

so where is your proof?
you asked for proof that the U.S. is guarding the oil, I gave some pretty damn powerful proof, that you didn't respond to. Go back and read that comment by the senior general of the Iraqi army who acknowledges that the U.S. military is sill providing security for the country.

furthermore, anything can be made to look technically real. technically, Iraq owns the oil and provides security for it. The reality - as articulated by General Zabari himself - is that U.S. forces, whether military forces or security firm forces, are doing the real security work.

Piparskeggr
08-22-2010, 10:43 PM
If I may just interject one historical note?

Protection of oil sources so that it can flow at market prices, beneficial to the US economy, has been a part of US national strategy since Dwight David Eisenhower was president.

He who later "mea culpa'd" with his "Military-Industrial complex" speechifying. Just a first sign that the creature got away from Doctor Frankenstein.

Psychonaut
08-22-2010, 11:45 PM
Halliburton for one. You're right no benefit at all.

Halliburton is largely owned by Arabs, no? But, yeah, as my original link indicated there are a several "American" companies that've been awarded contracts. But if this were really a war for oil, why would American companies currently not dominate oil export in Iraq? I wish we did just take over their oil exportation. Then we wouldn't be going broke trying to pay for the damn war.


I gave some pretty damn powerful proof, that you didn't respond to.

With good reason:

¬ ( [securing Iraq] ⇒ [securing oil fields] )

You constructed an implicit syllogistic fallacy. Of course the Iraqi Army has trouble securing the whole country; this is not news. He, however, mentions nothing specific about the oil zones, which was our point of contention, right? Most are not under the watch of either the US military or the Iraqi military. They are guarded by private security contractors such as Facility Protection Services and Erinys Iraq Ltd. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/fps.htm)

Sol Invictus
08-23-2010, 06:04 PM
Halliburton is largely owned by Arabs, no? But, yeah, as my original link indicated there are a several "American" companies that've been awarded contracts. But if this were really a war for oil, why would American companies currently not dominate oil export in Iraq?


Halliburton is still American owned. Dick Cheney is still getting his cut, although the current CEO is moving to Dubai, I am not sure if this is expansion as he says or if it's an outright transfer. Anyway, American corporations are not the only ones who are "in" on the plunder and they're certainly not the most powerful. Then again there's been so many mergers and transfers of ownership with from within the U.S oil companies (BP, Shell etc) it's hard to keep track of who owns what. It's not exclusively for oil since this is just a warspoil, but corporations and their owners, both foreign and American directly benefit from this. By and large this is a Trilateralist, CFR, and Globalist imperative that transcends nation-states and is more concerned about foreign, multinational corporations and their interests. You should elimate the concept of the Nationalist kind of thinking when it comes to understanding these people and their goals. It's neither in the interest of the people or the state besides measures set in place to maintain their perpetual existence thanks soley to the war on terror, of which Iraq is a part of. It's multi-faceted. To say it's only for one thing or another is false.

ikki
08-23-2010, 06:37 PM
intresting... guess iraq is now owned by the military corporation...

Curtis24
08-23-2010, 08:31 PM
Halliburton is largely owned by Arabs, no? But, yeah, as my original link indicated there are a several "American" companies that've been awarded contracts. But if this were really a war for oil, why would American companies currently not dominate oil export in Iraq? I wish we did just take over their oil exportation. Then we wouldn't be going broke trying to pay for the damn war.



With good reason:

¬ ( [securing Iraq] ⇒ [securing oil fields] )

You constructed an implicit syllogistic fallacy. Of course the Iraqi Army has trouble securing the whole country; this is not news. He, however, mentions nothing specific about the oil zones, which was our point of contention, right? Most are not under the watch of either the US military or the Iraqi military. They are guarded by private security contractors such as Facility Protection Services and Erinys Iraq Ltd. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/fps.htm)

But this only bolsters the original argument of this thread: the U.S. is still providing security for Iraq - and by extension, Iraqi oil supplies(Yes, securing Iraq and securing oil fields are the same thing) - through private companies.