-Caveat Lector-
>From NewsMax.Com
> Soldiers R US: Corporate ArmiesDiane AldenSeptember 3, 1999
>
> In the 21st Century the American Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force will continue
> as the official organizations engaged to fight wars for the U.S., and will most
> likely be the primary executors of some of its foreign policy. Young men and
> women will wear the uniform and carry on a long, proud tradition of duty and
> sacrifice. For the most part they will be held accountable for their actions to
> the Pentagon, Congress, the Commander-in-Chief and to the people of the United
> States.
>
> Apart from their primary mission, they may serve as policemen around the world,
> as they have in Korea, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and other unstable and potentially
> violent countries. They will do their duty, even as the evidence mounts that
> they are overextended, under-funded, strategically challenged, undermanned, over
> bureaucratized, top heavy, in need of modernization and demoralized.
>
> However, the problems of the world may not wait for the day when the U.S.
> military is rebuilt. The free market and the policy makers have found another
> option in the brave new world order of the 21st Century; and hi-tech military
> hardware is only one of the visions evolving in this coming age. Another notable
> addition to the foreign policy arsenal is as old as the days of bronze and iron
> shields and helmets. The corporate soldier is the next development in this
> ancient game of power between nations.
>
> Forget Clark Gable as the handsome rogue in Soldiers of Fortune; forget John
> Wayne in Blood Alley. The new soldier of fortune may be wearing a three-piece
> suit, lugging a laptop, his ear perpetually attached to a cell phone. In
> countries around the world the soldier of fortune has incorporated and he is
> making big money fighting for the highest bidder, or for the most powerful.
>
> This concept of the hired gun goes back into antiquity. Mercenaries have been
> around since the ancient Greeks, into the Middle Ages and even during the
> American Revolution. The British used German soldiers — 30,000 Hessians — to
> supplement their ranks.
>
> But the modern mercenary force is no longer an unkempt, unprofessional band of
> soldier ‘wannabes’. They are, for the most part, well-organized former military
> officers and enlisted, from all ranks and nations, who operate out of fancy
> office suites in capitals around the world, including Washington, D.C.
>
> Ostensibly advisers and strategists, they also conduct warfare in places where
> official government armies will not go. In modern times, their special talents
> are being used in Africa, Saudi Arabia, the Balkans and in Southeast Asia.
>
> Recently, the Clinton Administration and the labor government of British Prime
> Minister Tony Blair have used mercenaries to augment the armed forces of their
> respective nations; Clinton in Bosnia and Blair in Sierra Leone.
>
> Russia has nearly 10,000 of these groups, which operate as security forces,
> protecting businesses and individuals. African strong men use mercenaries
> regularly to execute coups or institute counter-coups or to protect legitimate
> businesses in places where anarchy rules and there are no police forces. In
> Africa, mercenaries often operate with the tacit approval of the U.S. and
> Britain.
>
> The major "enterprises," or players, in the mercenary trade are the South
> African Executive Outcomes (recently renamed Lifeguard), the U.S. based Military
> Professional Resources Inc.(MPRI) and Sandline, Inc., of Great Britain. There
> are dozens of others but these three are the main players in the war games of
> the late 20th Century.
>
> Frequently calling themselves "security firms," they sell their battle expertise
> to whomever has the cash and offers the path of least resistance. Governments,
> individuals or companies pay big money and pave the way for these corporate
> soldiers by providing documentation, transportation, or legalizing their status
> as non-state associated soldiers; in most cases they operate outside national
> and international law.
>
> Controversial to say the least, these military organizations are coming under
> increasing international scrutiny as they expand and, from time to time, as
> their activities become an international problem.
>
> The largest and most influential of those based in the United States is MPRI.
> Ninety percent of MPRI's clients are in the United States, including the
> Departments of State, Defense, Joint Chiefs, Army War College, U.S. Army and the
> Department of the Interior, to name a few.
>
> Founded in the 1987 by former U.S. military officers, it has grown exponentially
> and currently employs at least 2,500 personnel worldwide. Among its first
> contracts was a deal negotiated through the U.S. Embassy in Angola. Officials
> familiar with the affair recount that the State Department helped to close the
> deal.
>
> The Angolan government of President Jose dos Santos had previously hired the
> South African firm of Executive Outcomes, which helped put the UNITA guerrilla
> army of Jonas Savimbi out of business. But the United States insisted that the
> new government of Angola hire MPRI, asserting that EO was merely a bunch of
> mercenaries in it for the money.
>
> MPRI's most important contract to date was the U.S. contract in Bosnia. At an
> estimated $50 million dollars, the objective of the contract was to integrate
> and build up the Bosnian army of Muslims and Croats, against the Serbs.
>
> The theory behind the effort was, the sooner the Bosnians were capable of
> defending themselves, the sooner the international troops could leave the
> region. Critics contend when Western troops leave, the Bosnian army will go to
> war over territory lost to the Serbs through the 1995 Dayton Accords.
>
> The US State Department and Defense Department hired MPRI, allowing the Croats
> to create a national army, which successfully ejected 150,000 Croatian Serb
> civilians from the country. This success brought lucrative financial contracts
> from Islamic countries elsewhere. It was with the help of certain Islamic states
> that funding for participation by the American firm was concluded.
>
> James L. Woods, a Washington defense consultant, says that, "If the
> international community cannot get its act together and help these countries
> keep themselves together and protect commerce and protect the citizenry, you're
> going to see more and more" [examples of private contractors doing the job].
> Woods suggested these enterprises could become stronger than some of the
> sovereign states they are hired to protect.
>
> Herbert Howe, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in the
> privatization of armed conflict in Africa, adds, "I think the major worry that
> everyone has about this sort of thing is, will these forces become a force unto
> themselves, kind of rogue elephants?"
>
> Another, and no less problematic, worry is that the U.S. Congress, which is
> supposed to have sole authority over whether or not the U.S. goes to war, is
> bypassed. It has no authority over military groups, which are not associated
> with the Pentagon.
>
> As of today, an administration can intervene anywhere without making an official
> U.S. commitment, and without worrying about the consequences of an enraged
> public when things go wrong, as they did in Somalia several years ago. The sight
> of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu underscored
> the aversion to risk which has become part of the U.S. military post-Vietnam bag
> of traumas.
>
> Being splattered all over CNN and the network nightly news might mean a replay
> of Vietnam era protest and subsequent rejection of the military. At present, the
> administration can haul out the old "plausible deniability" ploy to cover
> itself. In any case, the American public is kept in the dark while paying for
> everything.
>
> The British government under Prime Minister Tony Blair also has its hired guns.
> It’s most famous, or infamous, military force for hire is Sandline, Inc. One of
> the biggest scandals to rock the Blair government in recent memory involves
> Sandline and its actions in Sierra Leone. While Executive Outcomes was also
> involved, it was Sandline that was the focus of the scandal.
>
> In May 1997, certain general army officers of the tiny state of Sierra Leone
> seized control and began to murder the opposition. The governments of the world
> were unable to help stem the murderous rampage. In response, the UN declared an
> arms embargo with sanctions on Sierra Leone.
>
> At the same time, Blair and his Foreign Minister Robin Cook - with, at the very
> least, the tacit approval of the U.S. Department of State - asked Sandline to
> intervene. Additionally, International Monetary Fund monies were used to finance
> Executive Outcomes’ participation in the project, while the U.S. kicked in an
> undisclosed amount for operational expenses. Sandline, EO and a couple of other
> support organizations, as well as hundreds of locals, were able to overthrow the
> generals, restoring President Ahmad Kabbah to power.
>
> Recently, the connection of the Blair government to Sandline came to light and
> has rocked the labor government to its toes. In a recent article in the London
> Telegraph, journalist Christopher Lockwood recounted documentary evidence which
> links Sandline, under the leadership of Falklands Island veteran Colonel Tim
> Spicer, to the shipment of 35 tons of illegal war materiel to forces loyal to
> President Kabbah.
>
> Spicer maintains he was encouraged by the British Foreign Office to carry out
> this task. The government of Tony Blair tried to cover itself by its "ends
> justify the means" rule of thumb; the restoration of President Kabbah in Sierra
> Leone was deemed the greater good and besides "it all worked out." The teflon
> Prime Minister survived and with Kabbah back in power, plus concerned corporate
> interests more or less safe once again, there was only praise for the British
> role in the counter-coup. The only significant casualty seems to have been the
> rule of law, given this end-run around the British Parliament.
>
> However, there is a sort of "what goes around comes around" ending to the story.
> Shortly after the Sierra Leone affair, Sandline was hired to do a job in Papua,
> New Guinea. The venture resulted in the capture and arrest of Colonel Spicer,
> who according to reports, was nearly executed for his efforts.
>
> In addition, the current government of Papua, New Guinea, i.e. Bougainville,
> does not want to pay the money the former government promised to Sandline.
> Consequently, Sandline brought suit against the government of New Guinea to
> recover payment. However, the government of President Bill Skate indicated it
> will be paid "when hell freezes over."
>
> In the last few weeks, Blair and Cook were rebuked in one of the most scathing
> verdicts ever issued by a select committee of parliament. As usual, the Blair
> government blew it off and, according to journalist Lockwood, the committee was
> greatly "irritated" because it had been forced into a long uphill battle to
> obtain documents and official papers in regard to investigating the scandal. The
> upshot of the report, couched in harsh and damning language, condemns the
> mind-boggling incompetence of the Blair government as much as it does the
> collusion to circumvent the Parliament.
>
> All this "stuff" going on at high levels in the U.S. and Britain makes both the
> Clinton and Blair governments look deceitful. Using private military firms to
> get around Congress and Parliament while creating policy and making dangerous
> commitments and becoming involved in non-critical areas of the world is
> mind-boggling.
>
> On the surface, this effort by the Clinton and Blair duo to streamline foreign
> affairs may make it easier for them to conduct a wily kind of foreign policy.
> However in the long run, it will beget a corporate-military nexus which at some
> point will challenge legitimately elected governments. In addition, it may
> produce corporate wars between states and inevitably involve the lawful military
> of the U.S. and Britain in those wars.
>
> The Clinton-Blair twosome continues to employ an "end justifies the means"
> national foreign policy - no matter how much lying, circumventing, or damage
> they do to national institutions. Now fat, dumb and happy, the U.S. and Britain
> may learn the hard way that the ends do not justify the means. It won't be long
> before Britain and the U.S. prove themselves to be the over-bearing,
> self-righteous, interventionist imperialists the European Union, Russia and
> China and others have always accused them of being.
>
> Additionally, all the energy expended in behind the scenes wheeling and dealing
> in the Clinton-Blair "third way" might better be used to update the U.S military
> and institute a massive effort to define foreign policy goals for the early 21st
> century. But perhaps more importantly, someone must define foreign policy
> limitations.
>
> In this regard, the veritable George Kennan, diplomat and statesman during the
> Cold War, recently emphasized that regardless of its status as the major
> superpower, the U.S. needs to develop some humility in what it can and cannot do
> on an international level.
>
> Furthermore, the use of mercenaries as a security force to aid business
> interests in shaky countries may be reasonable, however, turning them into a de
> facto arm of the U.S. government is not. Couple that with the thoughtless
> declaration that every administration since George Washington has been guilty of
> duplicity, and you still do not have an excuse or a sufficient reason to
> circumvent the Constitution or congressional authority.
>
> The continued reliance on the corporate military should be viewed with
> skepticism. While in some ways it may be more efficient, a military for hire is
> beholden to no one - except its paymaster. Privatization works in the private
> sector. However, relations between nation-states, especially in war, are not a
> private matter. That being the case, it is of great concern when, where and by
> whom, force of arms is used; and most of all, who decides it should be used.
>
> Strangely enough, one of the foremost and proper functions of government under
> the Constitution is to "provide for the common defense." Frankly, I don't think
> what is happening behind the scenes in the world of Clinton and Blair is what
> the founders had in mind.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Home · Free E-mail News · Columnists · News Links · Late Night Jokes
> Archives · Online Store · TV Talk Shows · Magazines · Chat · Classifieds ·
> Contact Us
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All
> Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
At NewsMax.CoM Store
> Videotape: Bill Clinton's Rise to Power
> Bill Clinton became the first president in the nation's history to fire every
> U.S. Attorney in the country. He was also the first president to summarily
> dismiss the FBI director. What could the reasons be for these unprecedented
> actions by a new President? This documentary examines the unseen life of Bill
> Clinton from his college days to the present . . . You must have this video
> which reveals new findings that have never been told!
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
