|
|
|
WELCOME! If this is your first visit to Your Lincoln Park.com Community Website & Forums, we invite you to become a registered forum member and share your ideas and comments in over 100 forum categories created to help make Our City of Lincoln Park one of the best downriver communities. Registration is FREE but required to post in many of the forums. Be sure to review our Privacy Policy and Forum Rules (TOS) prior to posting. Posts will be moderated for all members with 10 posts or less. |
|
|
#1
 08-24-05, 8:35 am
  |
|||||
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts/Thanks: 3,211/181 Thanked 129 Times in 86 Posts
|
|||||
|
Government-Corporate Warfare; End of Nation-States
THE WORLD’S FIRST GOVERNMENT-CORPORATE WAR AND THE END OF NATION-STATES AS WE KNOW THEM by Victor Thorn We hear reports that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is being protected from assassins in Kabul. Who is guarding him – the U.S. Army? No – he is being surrounded by a private military company (PMC) called DynCorp. This same private company also trains the newly formed Iraqi police force, while the Vinnell Corporation trains the Iraqi army and the Saudi National Guard. How about the huge military base in Iraq that houses our 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment – who built that – the U.S. military? No, it was constructed by Kellogg Brown & Root, an affiliate of Halliburton. How about the Baghdad headquarters of Paul Bremer – who protects him? Surely is must be our armed forces. But no, our commanders are safeguarded by a British private military company called Global Risk International. Even a significant percentage of our Stealth bombers, Global Hawks, and Predator drone aircraft are operated by PMCs, along with our advanced technological operations, intelligence, communications and logistics. With this eye-opening information in mind, someone may ask, “Wait a minute, what does our military do in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and other hot spots? Who’s really in control?” The answer may shock you, but guess who the second largest military force in Iraq belongs to. If you answered Great Britain with 9,000 men, you’d be wrong, for the next highest contingency of troops are constituted by PMCs – Private Military Companies. But before we explore this intriguing phenomenon that is reshaping how we view war, I feel a clarification is in order. The Center for Public Integrity defines a Private Military Company (PMC) as: “A Company that provides, for profit, services that were previously carried out by a national military force, including military training, intelligence, logistics and offensive combat, as well as security in conflict zones.” Yes, you read those words correctly. Warfare in the year 2004 is increasingly being carried out by corporate armies (or mercenaries as they were called in a bygone era). One of the primary reasons for this trend is that, worldwide, the size of government armies is shrinking. In the United States, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite being an ardent war-hawk, has cut over 200,000 military jobs, and says that he would like to outsource all armed forces roles except those for actual combat. This stance has angered many long-standing traditional generals (many of whom have been released from their duty), especially when they see that our military has dropped from 2.1 million active members in 1990 to 1.4 million in 2003. But American forces aren’t the only ones that have dwindled. Britain’s is at its smallest point since the Napoleonic era, while the Russian army was decimated by the fall of communism, and East Germany’s has significantly decreased since the Berlin Wall came down. Even Africa’s once strong forces aren’t what they were during the days of Apartheid. But if the actual size of our military is decreasing, how can we account for the billions of dollars the Bush administration is receiving from Congress? Well, naturally a substantial percentage is being funneled to the defense contractors, while other portions are earmarked for Homeland Security and rebuilding Iraq. But what the mainstream media isn’t revealing is the enormity of funds being forwarded to PMCs. In fact, the Department of Defense has entered into over 3,000 contracts with a dozen U.S. PMCs that total $300 billion. Peter Singer, author of Corporate Warriors: The Secret World of Corporate Mercernaries states that annual PMC global revenue now tops $100 billion. Although this figure sounds incredible, consider that PMCs now operate in over 50 countries, with Kellogg Brown & Root performing maneuvers in at least 18 different nations since the 1990s. Likewise, Alpha Firm (comprised of ex-KGB agents) operates out of Moscow, Sandline in the U.K., while Israel touts PMCs such as Levdan, Ango-Sedu, and Silver Shadow. This movement toward Private Military Companies has become so prevalent that a consortium has been formed – the IPOA (International Peace Operations Association) – to bring together all the MSPs (Military Service Providers). But, one may wonder, how does a firm get into the PMC business? The first step they must take is to register with the U.S. Government and get a license from the State Department. Once that is accomplished, they can either be employed to work with American troops; or, if they want to be deployed on foreign soil, they must get an export license from the State Department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls. With that paperwork, they can station their employees in the Middle East, or let them be recruited as operatives in one of the CIA’s paramilitary divisions. Knowing all this, the next logical question should be: who exactly are these Private Military Companies? The answer is very revealing, and somewhat disturbing, for we begin to realize that quite a few Fortune 500 companies are now in the mercenary business, including: Lockheed Martin with L-3 Communications, Halliburton with Kellogg Brown & Root, while the Virginia-based MPRI brags of having more generals in its employment than the Pentagon. Even British Petroleum hired a PMC to represent it in South America. But instead of mere generalities, let’s look at a few specifics. DynCorp, one of the undisputed leaders in this field, works in unison with the Kuwaiti Air Force, plus also received a $50 million government contract in Iraq where they hired 1000 ex-cops to train the Iraqi police. Their total federal contracts for 2002 totaled $2.1 billion. Following closely behind them, Halliburton’s Kellogg Brown & Root received $1.7 billion in federal money, while the Vinnell Corporation got $148 million to train the Iraqi Army. One of the most disturbing aspects of this phenomenon is that a substantial amount of this money was awarded through no-bid contracts. These multi-national companies (MNCs) then use their funds for mining and oil operations, technology & communications, military ventures or computers, or to protect their own factories and headquarters. This final concept – protection – has become a vital consideration for PMCs due to the level of violence they face, especially in volatile foreign countries. Two newsworthy examples are the recent bombing of a Saudi embassy where employees of the Vinnell Corporation were targeted and killed. In addition, a fall 2003 attack on the Gaza Strip led to the deaths of some Americans. It was assumed at the time that these were U.S. troops, when in fact they were employees of DynCorp. But these aren’t the only problems associated with PMCs. Military privatization also carries other issues: 1) National Security is now in the hands of an outside entity (proxy). 2) Less accountability in that a private company is less apt to answer Congressional questions or open their books to those they view as outside the loop. This notion is reinforced by Jason McIntosh, a spokesman for Science Applications, who said, “We refrain from talking about things our customers don’t want us talking about. That’s just good policy.” 3) The delicate balance of power which this country was founded upon will be circumvented, for Congress will have less input in military matters, while the Executive Branch (via the State Department and Pentagon) will rise in stature. In fact, by law, Congress doesn’t even have to be notified by the State Department that a PMC has been hired unless the contract is great than $50 million. Plus, if you think the CIA has carte blanche now; imagine if there is even less oversight in regard to hiring and operational practices. 4) Lastly, PMCs have no oath or loyalty to this country; only contracts as hired guns. In this sense, they’re not compelled to follow a military code of conduct (or any other, for that matter). An excellent case in point is DynCorp, whose employees have recently been involved in a sex-slavery fiasco, prostitution rings on foreign soil, and employment scandals with its female workers. Likewise, Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness has provided some compelling evidence of Kellogg Brown & Root’s association with known drug traffickers. Representative Jan Schakowsky says of this situation: “There is little or no accountability in the process of outsourcing. This is a way of funding secret wars with taxpayer money.” Colonel Bruce Grant of the Army War College concurs. “Privatization is a way of going around Congress and not telling the public. Foreign policy is made by default by private military consultants motivated by bottom-line profits.” These chilling words lead us to the crux of this issue. How is the security of our nation affected by the fact that the ability to wage war is no longer the sole possession of governments? Now, I’m not talking about street violence or terrorist acts; instead, I’m referring specifically to war being waged by our government (or any other). If this concept exists outside that commonly held arena, where will it lead the world? Regrettably, from my perspective, the overtones don’t bode well for the citizens of this country because, as many of us know, the United States is already being run by a consortium of international bankers, multi-national corporations, and secret societies. What if these entities build-up an enormous network of PMCs that is eventually able to challenge our Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force? Before answering, consider that our government is DEEPLY in debt … so deeply that there isn’t enough money in circulation to pay our way out of it. On the other hand, conglomerate banks and multi-national corporations are raking in untold billions in profits every year. In fact, they are precisely the entities that fund our debt and are in control of our purse strings. With that premise in mind, what would happen if these banks and corporations continued to merge (as has been the trend) and one day say to the U.S. government (or any other): Considering our current financial and military position, we really don’t need your taxes, your environmental laws, your host of regulations, or your Congressional oversight. All we really want you to do is keep collecting taxes off your citizens, then passing it along to us. If our government objects, the mega-New World Order corporate cabal could respond: We have all the oil wells surrounded with our PMC troops, and since you surrendered your right to create money in 1913, if you try to buck the system we’ll cut off your money supply and cripple you economically. Now keep collecting your taxes, keep the slaves in line, and keep bowing to do our will … or else! Now, what does “or else” mean? Well, being that OIL is the world’s largest industry and its essential lifeblood, what if the corporations seized control of them with their PMCs, and then used this as an extortion tool to gain governmental control of the world? Being backed into a corner, our duly elected leaders would have to seek revenge. Thus, it is conceivable that the world’s first official government-corporate war could be waged. Or, what if the corporate cabal simply usurped an existing country’s military force, like China’s? They could tell the Chinese that if they cooperated in this conspiratorial endeavor, they would be made the economic king-of-the-hill. Now, the moneyed elite already own China anyway in that they completely built them up and control them through their banks and industry. If you’re not convinced, look at China 20 years ago. It was nothing more than an impoverished, backward country. Now, since the Controllers made them the world’s slave factory, they’re a powerhouse, and if they tried to buck their masters, they’d pull the rug out from under them. And if the Chinese did decide to retaliate, who would they attack? There isn’t an individual country sabotaging them (like the U.S.), only a group of hidden financiers and industrialists who are extremely elusive, without national boundaries or sovereign citizens to protect. As you can see, the world has changed dramatically in regard to warfare, especially if a PMCs main goal is to make profits and push a corporate agenda rather than remaining loyal to a particular nation. Rear Admiral Hugh Edleston of the British Royal Navy sums up the situation perfectly: “There is a risk that things can get out of hand and these companies become small armies themselves.” Peter Singer echoes this sentiment in Corporate Warriors: “Governments are surrendering one of the essential and defining attributes of statehood, the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force.” Worse, people like Donald Rumsfeld and his other New World Order neo-cons are facilitating this transformation by selling out our country’s soul and strength to the PMCs. In a review of Corporate Warriors, Publisher’s Weekly said: “A much bigger problem is the risk of states losing control of military policy to militaries outside the state systems, responsible only to their clients, managers, and stockholders.” Those in favor of PMCs would argue that they are only providing a necessary evolutionary element to our new global world. But listen to how Managing Director Denis Fraser of ISEC Corporate Securities Limited describes this situation: “We have been described as the perfect balance between corporate ethics and military precision.” (Their motto, by the way, is “ethics in action.”) I don’t know about you, but as I read this quote, the first thought in my mind was: Corporate Ethics??? In a world full of Enrons, Halliburtons, Wal-Marts, and BCCIs, who in the **** is he trying to fool? Corporate ethics is the biggest oxymoron in existence today. Plus, he then mentioned military precision. Huh? The U.S. military is the least efficient and most over-bloated organization of all-time. When you combine these two concepts, the only thing I can see is more monumental problems for the everyday citizen. A PMC adherent may argue, though, that they are only allowed to legally operate within the confines of a particular country’s laws, and that they must be in the duty of that authorized government. In other words, the government in question must be established, and must be representative of that particular nation’s people. But what if a corporate cabal grows so strong that they refuse to follow a country’s laws? You don’t think that could happen? Maybe you should look into the concept of corporate arrogance sometime and see what they’re capable of. Or, what if a corporation outwardly declares war on a nation? (After all, that’s essentially what the Controllers did to Iraq in the guise of a war on terrorism, WMDs, and ridding the world of Saddam Hussein.) So, what if a consortium of corporations with well-established PMCs declares a certain nation to be their enemy? As the situation stands now, to operate, a PMC must be recognized by an established government. But what if they want to provide support for the “opposition”? Jesse Selber, author of an article entitled From Enemy to Peacemaker: The Role of Private Military Companies in Sub-Saharan Africa, wrote: “A PMC can legally provide support for insurgence only if the anti-government movement is recognized as valid and the government against which it is directed is considered illegitimate by the international commission.” Notice some of the key words in this passage. What if the international bankers, with their PMC armies, declare that, due to its overblown federal deficit, the Constitutionally-based United States government is no longer valid, and that a New World Order anti-government movement which promotes a fascist form of rule with strong socialist-leanings is now a valid alternative? In this sense, the PMCs would then be within their legal rights to fight against our present form of government, especially if they were sanctioned by an “international commission” like the United Nations. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. To understand the mind-set of these individuals, we’ll turn to Tim Spicer, head of Sandline in Great Britain: “At Sandline we maintain a strict, self-imposed code of conduct. We will only work for legitimate governments, those recognized by the U.N. We then apply our own moral template.” These words should send shudders of fear through every person reading this article; for once again it is the corporations, in unison with the U.N., who will ultimately decide which government is legitimate. And as we all know, the U.N.’s overall goals are drastically different than those of Constitutionally-based nationalists who want to preserve the sovereignty of our country. But being that the international bankers, multi-national corporations, and the U.N. are GLOBALISTS, they could at some point call our government illegitimate, thus justifying the actions of their PMCs. This, I suppose, is what they refer to as applying their own “moral template.” I don’t know about you, but I can say with certainty that the Globalists’ moral template isn’t the same as mine. If we ever reach the point of a corporate-government war, this final passage by researcher Jesse Selber could become hauntingly true. “Private corporations must operate within the regulatory framework of the host country. When this framework is in shambles and a government has collapsed, the private company takes on much more responsibility. They often maintain stability as well as basic security. These roles become further confused when the security force is paid with ownership in the business it is protecting and insidiously gains a stake in the outcome of the politics of the state. This is the type of mission creep that is regarded by some as neo-colonolization.” The buzzwords that leap out from this quote are enormously important, especially in terms of what could happen to a country if the powers-that-be decide to turn on them. What if a host country (i.e. the United States) is considered “in shambles” because of its economic situation, and due to decisions made by the financial elite, eventually “collapses”? Since the bankers and other investors “own” our country via our debt, their PMCs will have an “insidious stake” in gaining control of it. In the end, this “mission creep” as Selber calls it, may result in the ultimate takeover of not only our country, but all those who won’t readily fold into the New World Order’s imperialist goals. This scenario is certainly something to think about, especially when Donald Rumsfeld and his neo-con sidekicks continue to work in unison with their Controller-handlers to make Private Military Companies an Orwellian reality. source: http://69.28.73.17/issue2/corporate.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Witty. Funny. Profound.
|
|
 |
|
|
Advertise & Volunteers Business Yellow Pages In Honor of - Joseph "Smokey Joe" Lyson |
|
|
| Your City of Lincoln Park Community Website | Privacy Statement Review MMSi Copyright, Privacy, Disclaimers and Terms of Use Policies here. |
Linear Mode
