Government contracting work to private businesses has become increasingly common. A prominent contractor was Blackwater Worldwide, now Xe Services. Although contracting is justified as a means to increase the capacity and efficiency of providing public services, it can threaten democratic transparency and accountability. The article illustrates the concerns of some legislators about the conduct of Xe Services in the defense and national security arena. When you read the article, consider these questions: Is contracting out of government work really more efficient?; Are contracting practices as transparent as they need to be in a democratic society? ; Can contracting out sometimes undercut public policy goals?; and Who benefits from contracting out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/world/middleeast/04blackwater.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When one reads the article, the answers to the questions posed becomes readily apparent.
ReplyDeleteThe use of contracted military services is hardly more efficient, and to assert such a position is to obscure contractor’s function in military engagements. They are not more efficient, for multiple simple reasons. A) Since they do not fall under the direct authority of the government, like the armed services, they are in need of additional oversight, least of all because they have been known to engage in activities not normally sanctioned by a single organized military force, i.e. massacres. The one involving the seventeen civilians is not the only one. B) Their primary purpose is to make money, not to safeguard the weak, or whatever it is our military purports to do these days. The reason taking part in a military venture to make money does not simplify things is that instead of approaching the venture with one unifying goal that is present throughout your organization, in this case the military trying to stabilize Iraq, you have multiple elements working towards different ends with different means. It’s a very basic organizational flaw to assert it simplifies things.
Though I would suspect no one involved in these contracts on either end seriously believes that this is a way to simplify things.
No, this is moneymaking venture pure and simple. Xe or Blackwater or which ever other alias they currently employ are involved in these operations to make money via government contracts, and the government/ military are seeking to cut their already monumental costs by contracting out smaller tasks to private corporations.
Moving on to the second question, I would assert this is not merely a question we need ask of contracted military firms, but of our military operations as a whole, though that’s just me, so I will stick to the question. I do not believe that our contracting practices are as transparent as a democratic society demands, not because of any specific flaw within the organizations awarding and being awarded contracts, but because of the very nature of this system. Theoretically the United States military is held accountable by its own institutions and the US gov't, which in turn is answerable to the citizens of this country, as per our democratic process. Now to insert a private entity, acting under loose guidelines towards broad goals, which essentially oversees its operations into this mix, and expect the level of transparency that is our due, though seldom granted, does not add up. Now take for example Abu Ghraib and the massacre mentioned in the above article. While both are fairly well known incidents, let us recall which trial was carried out within the public eye, and the details of which, though long covered, were eventually unearthed? Indeed when the story about Blackwater broke, the only legitimate consequence was a loss of contracts for the industrious Blackwater, who luckily divided their activities into separate operations, renamed themselves and resumed activities as usual. Though we were promised an investigation, and punishment, these things were largely carried out, outside the public eye. While the military’s handling of Abu ghraib is hardly laudable at the end of the day they are held far more accountable than private entities.
I know I have probably now written more than anyone will care to read, so I will be hasty with the last two and my conclusion. We are asked can contracting sometimes undercut public policy goals? Yes. Our stated reason for invasion, yes I said invasion and not liberation of Iraq, was to promote democracy and make the world a safer place. Now I pose a question in response, what element of this purpose is fulfilled by enabling the use of private firms to use deadly force in what traditionally are matters of state? What part of our public image is aided by private groups looking to make a profit out of one of man's greatest failings, war, engaging in acts of extreme and unnecessary violence all while under the sanction of our government?
As for the last question, it’s pretty clear. The firms being awarded the contracts and perhaps the military are the only groups benefiting from this. It certainly wasn’t Iraq, or her citizens, it is not the united states citizen, to whom these groups bear no responsibility to answer unto him for their actions, nor is the world community aided by having government sanctioned, privately run military groups awarded the right to act with impunity in other countries.
ReplyDeleteIn summation I would like to pose one last question. Can anyone who seeks to profit from war, and engage in it and all its horrors for monetary gain be expected to be transparent, to even attempt to act on the behalf the nation they represent, and the world at large? Or are these persons we should be extremely wary of, and hold in the highest disdain?