Blackwater: An infiltration of peace
By: Michael Roytman
Tags: Blackwater, Military, Mercenaries, State Department, CIA

What is war? Jus ad Bellum, a just war, where a state defends citizens’ individual rights with force, Jus in Bello, where all war strategies are considered fair to get to the outcome, or Jus post-Bellum, a good result that would terminate the fighting. Regardless of its definition, war has been present since the dawn of humanity. In the modern world, the action of battling others over a disagreement isn’t monopolized by the state, as laissez-faire was able to create a market for the employment of force with the same capabilities as the state. World War II changed the way warfare was waged, and the way international diplomatic treatise was derived. As the United Nations sought to bind many governments into an organization to procure peace and sustain the global human rights framework, groups of veterans sought to create a new venture of selling their services for the highest bidder. The market demand grew, and new firms were created to keep up. Cutting-edge technologies and innovative means of destruction synthesized with different nations’ objectivist philosophies of upkeeping peace.

The State could now coexist with many other private entities that made violence for a price and even employ them to settle its duty. If it was the government’s role to police conflict, did it always require its troops’ sacrifice? War became a mediating justice method on far away fronts, so conflicts in developing countries would never come close to home. The major problem with the transfer of force to a private entity from a government is when it comes to administering justice in a war zone; there’s a lack of accountability and moral hazard. While soldiers fight for their country’s creed and are willing to die for the values that their flag stands for, contractors could point their barrel on anyone as long as they received a paycheck after their covenant is up, which raises ethical concerns. A particular incident in 2007 involving a private military corporation called Blackwater became a global travesty after innocent civilians were massacred because of a misconception in Baghdad, Iraq. However, in 2009 a district judge dropped Blackwater’s charges, and mercenaries participating in this slaughter were granted immunity and acquitted. Blackwater was just one out of many cases when military contractors abused power given to them for a more efficient solution to global conflicts. Unfortunately, by international and domestic ambiguous decrees, private security forces seem to be unregulated and lack the responsibility for their actions due to apathetic jurisdiction from their employers. The military-industrial complex in wealthy northern nations is the root of why politicians are inadequate in their ability to dole out justice on behalf of those violated by government-employed mercenaries.

Blackwater, now known as Academi, was started by ex-Navy Seals Erik Prince and Al Clark in 1997, who had envisioned a private facility to provide supplementary training to law enforcement and military organizations. In 1998, the two had built a 6,000-acre brick and mortar facility in the middle of the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina that contained indoor, outdoor, and urban reproduction shooting ranges, an artificial lake, and a driving track. After receiving their first contract from the U.S. government due to a terrorist attack on USS Cole, Blackwater, according to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, Federal contracts account for about 90 percent of Prince Group holdings’ revenue, of which Blackwater is a subsidiary. Blackwater has received more than $1 billion in such contracts — including at least one with the State Department for hundreds of millions of dollars awarded without open, competitive bidding since 2001.(1)

The War on Terror initiated by the Bush administration was a payday for Blackwater. Under Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, Blackwater was subsidized under the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Worldwide Personal Protective Services for “protection of U.S. and/or certain foreign government high-level officials whenever the need arises.” (2) Besides protective services, aka contract field teams, Blackwater offered several other services as a contractor. Logistics Civil Augmentation Program for contingencies and to leverage the existing civilian resources. G4 Worldwide Logistics Support, an integrated telecommunication system to relay data faster. Another critical feature was War Reserve Material, which was stockpiling munitions and military equipment in warehouses and transporting them to the battlefield to compliment the U.S. military personnel in the Middle East. In 2006, the State Department awarded WPPS Il, the second incarnation of its diplomatic security contract. Under this contract, the State Department awarded Blackwater and two other companies, Triple Canopy and DynCorp contracts to provide diplomatic security in Iraq, each in separate geographic locations. Blackwater was authorized to have 1,020 staff in Iraq under these contracts.

Based upon their tours of duty, private security contractors received significant backlash from their “commanding” officers in charge of the stationed troops. While they operated under the State Department’s stature, operators were often called out for their lack of discipline and utter recklessness when it came to engagement. “Many of my peers think Blackwater is often times out of control,” said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. “They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by.” (2) This behavior could be a worthy explanation for Blackwater’s accidental massacres of civilians in the line of duty. In 2007, a convoy of Blackwater contractors opened fire on a group of civilians and Iraqi policemen after mistaking them for hostiles in Nisour Square, Baghdad, resulting in 17 civilian casualties, with at least 14 of which were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security.(3)

Nisour Square massacre brought the media attention to the travesties of defense contractor employment. After the incident, the Iraqi victims’ families filed a lawsuit against Blackwater under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The case was transferred to the United States Department of Justice in December 2008, which indicted 5 Blackwater contractors on manslaughter charges. However, despite the trial processions set for 2010, the charges against Blackwater were dismissed by a district judge based on the Fifth Amendment and “tainted evidence” presented in the investigation.(4) The testimony brought forward by the personnel derived from criminal prosecution could not be used because they received immunity under their government contract. Due to the termination of their contract, only independent evidence could be considered incriminating in the case. (5)

In the face of the law, 17 innocent casualties were dismissed as insubstantial to receive retribution. Not only were the murderers acquitted, but Blackwater continued to receive funding from the State Department. “In the years following the events of 2007, we reviewed our practices of managing contractors and made improvements to increase oversight and ensure that operational control remains with direct-hire State Department employees,” a State Department spokesman said when asked why Blackwater continued to receive contracts. “Though we must always ensure that competitive contracts remain fair and open, the safety of our personnel is the highest priority, and we always take into account the past performance and abilities of each contractor.” (6) In 2008, once Obama came into office, he set aside over half a billion dollars on Blackwater and its associate entities, despite the criticism of the firm’s previous actions by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration pledged to improve the quality of supervision and auditing expenditures, employment, and commission. However, the general message behind his first reforms in office was that private security contractors were integral to the U.S. armed forces, and they were fully integrated into the military.

Despite their heinous crimes against humanity, private military companies such as Blackwater have been hybrid organizations that have penetrated deep into military institutions in governments worldwide. The human capital consolidated in the most-high ranking positions is usually composed of senior intelligence officers who leave government positions with insider information to receive more profit. Journalist publications have used the term “revolving door” to describe senior officials’ phenomenon veering from their state jobs into the private sector. Take, for example, vice chairman of CIA, J. Cofer Black. First responsible for the Counterterrorism Unit, he became George W. Bush’s official briefer. Later, he moved on to the State Department, where conveniently he handed out defense contracts to Blackwater in 2003 for security provisions during the 2004 Olympics. Shortly after being accused of using inhumane torture techniques on prisoners, he left the State Department for Blackwater.(7) Black was just one of four President Bush’s Cabinet members that pursued private sector opportunities with a multi-million dollar salary.

Aside from recruiting government employees, private military companies have also become avid lobbyists to shift the government’s budget towards themselves. The Center for Responsive politics summarized that for the fiscal year 2020, the total spent on defense lobbying was 112 million dollars, with 219 firms indoctrinating 684 government employees to their benefit. (8) However, lobbying reports are ambiguous and only require to state the organization’s basis, instead of a specific federal agency or legislation that they might be targeting. Lobbying has gone as far as paid advocates of firms can now head committees. Congressman Devin Nunes (R‑CA), the House Intelligence Committee chair from 2015 to 2019, was a paid representative of Academi(nee Blackwater). He earned a salary by peddling the corporation’s influence in Congress. PMCs’ derivative actions in Congress compromise the United States’ financial security, resulting in further deficit spending instead of proper allocation of the national budget.

Defense contractors found loopholes in the U.S. government’s system, allowing them to receive contracts and flourish as democratically represented entities. Furthermore, PMC operations continue worldwide without taking responsibility for their actions because they don’t have to make amends under common international law. The United Nations passed important legislation in the 1949 Geneva Convention, which goes into the global human rights framework. The convention made sure to dictate a moral norm for civilians’ treatment during times of war and created a normative for negative human rights that cannot be violated under any circumstances. (9) An addition to the Geneva Convention in 1977 called Protocol I, specified protection of victims of international conflicts, and under Article 47 confirmed that mercenaries of all sorts of wage war for its amenities of profiteering. The United States, as a beacon of liberty and global democracy, was not a signatory of that Protocol. Additionally, in 1989, the UN hosted Mercenary Convention formally condemned the use and financing of mercenaries, which neither the United States nor any other NATO country was a signatory. The United Nations Security Council ensures international peace and security under the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute. Whenever it distinguishes a notable violation, it extradites the indicted criminal to the ICC to be prosecuted. George W. Bush resisted complying under stature because he understood the transgressions his administration’s contractors made against the humanitarian law and opposed the extradition of U.S. nationals who were the primary backbone of Blackwater’s security force. (10)

PMCs seem to be untouchable to international laws directly but can face prosecution by their domestic employer. The problem of undertaking the liability of war crimes in the United States is that employment of defense contractors is listed under Foreign Military Sales by the Department of Defence. That means that the country’s security forces are dispersed in, signs a legal agreement approved by the Secretary of State called Letter of Offer and Acceptance. This agreement dictates that since the State Department has entered into an accord with another country, it is within the public information realm to inquire about the budget’s expenditure or revenue. Regardless of whatever legal consequences it might bring on, mainly if that money is generated or spent on mercenaries unless the President deems it classified. However, after the ratification of the Freedom of Information Act in 2002, companies that received contracts could challenge the release of information regarding their practices, which restricts the transparency of moral conduct that IGOs have been trying to enforce.(11)

Lax restrictions of defense contractors’ operation could be used to their advantage by countries whose intent behind mercenaries might be to facilitate coups and impose regimes on weaker nations to their benefit. This past year an ex-Green Beret trained volunteers in Venezuela for an uprising squashed by Maduro’s forces. Jordan Goudreau was the founder and CEO of a private security firm called Silvercorp USA, confirmed in an interview that the State Department was well-aware of his operation Gideon in Venezuela and promoted him at the highest level. (12) There was no record showing the contract under Foreign Military Sales, which makes it conspicuous that funding towards armaments and human resources was disclosed and secretly written off. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 prohibits using money by an American business to influence the capabilities of enforcement to omit certain violations.(13) This Act could be applied to foreign commerce, which the FMS is subject to, hence indicating an illicit transaction that would influence the Venezuelan government by toppling Maduro and installing a president that would be beneficial to U.S’s trade policy.

Overall, private military companies’ existence already violates the premise of critical human rights laws because their existence implies that by definition, war can be waged regardless of its outcome and the casualties. Powerful proprietors allowed Blackwater’s services to continue uninterrupted in the legal framework that absolves them from being punished for the felonies they may commit in the line of duty. On the other hand, politicians seek to benefit from senseless killings because they care about the stake of their financial welfare, rather than the ethical behavior of mercenaries who exacerbate humanitarian crises. The military-industrial complex promotes crony capitalism instead of creating competition in a market that needs change. Blackwater has become a defense contractor’s poster child, which paid no consequences for its crimes, aside from a rebrand. During the War on Terror, its employment seemed to relinquish a government’s duty to have a formal reason for participating in the conflict. Now, thousands of soldiers of fortune seek peacekeeping contracts, which has turned into peacewithering.

Citation List

(6) Anon. 2014. “Blackwater Awarded over $1bn from State Dept. since Threat on Investigator’s Life.” RT International, 11 July, www.rt.com/usa/172156-blackwater-contracts-threat-investigator/.

Anon. 2008. Blackwater USA: Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, October 2, 2007, U.S. G.P.O. pp.7–8

(3) Broder, John M. Broder M., and David Johnson. 2007. “F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Nov. , www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html.

(11) Isenberg, David. 2009. Private Military Contractors and U.S. Grand Strategy, PRIO Report, 1. Oslo: PRIO.

(12) Korso, Tim. 2020. “Head of Silvercorp USA Claims White House Officials Knew About Planned Coup in Venezuela.” Sputnik International, Sputnik International, 31 Oct. , sputniknews.com/latam/202010311080939457-head-of-silvercorp-usa-claims-white-house-officials-knew-about-planned-coup-in-venezuela/.

(8) OpenSecrets, 2019. “Top Spenders,” www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/sectors/summary?cycle=2019.

(4) Perez, Evan. 2011.“Appeals Court Revives Blackwater Case.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 22 Apr. , www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703521304576278921617509908?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1.

(2) Raghavan, Sudarsan, and Thomas E. Ricks. 2007. “ Private Security Puts Diplomats, Military at Odds.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Sept. , www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502675_pf.html.

(13) Rodrik, Dani. 1997. “Has Globalization Gone Too Far?” California Management Review, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 47., doi:10.2307/41165897.

(10) Sparke, Matthew. 2009. Introducing Globalization, Blackwell Pub., p. 206.

(9) Straus, Scott and Driscoll, Barry. 2018. International Studies. Ch. 8: Human Rights, pp. 208–231

(7) Van Heuvelen, Ben. 2011. “The Bush Administration’s Ties to Blackwater.” Salon, Salon.com, 25 Sept. , www.salon.com/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/.