American politics
Democracy in AmericaErik Prince and the last crusade
Aug 6th 2009, 18:19 by The Economist | NEW YORK
.THE most recent allegations against Blackwater, the American security company, are lurid. Tasked with providing security for American officials in Iraq and Afghanistan, the company is already under investigation for shooting deaths in Iraq. Now two former employees are accussing Erik Prince (pictured), Blackwater's boss, of wanting to start a religious crusade against Muslims. In an affidavit lodged with a court in Virginia, one of the witnesses said that Mr Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe." The statement continues
To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.
Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis."
Mr Prince is further accused of trying to cover up Blackwater's misdeeds, which allegedly include profiteering and arms smuggling, by killing employees who tried to blow the whistle on the company.
It's quite a story; who knows if the juicier parts are true. I have no idea if Mr Prince is a murderer, or if he wanted to start another crusade. But as far as Blackwater's violence and lack of transparency go, this is not news. We may be shocked by the alleged motives, but we've known the results for some time. Here's part of a headline from a 2007 Los Angeles Times story on Blackwater: "House memo says guards in Iraq often instigate violence, cover up misconduct and skirt legal sanctions". Go back and read news reports on the company, like this New York Times piece:
Blackwater, based in North Carolina, has gained a reputation among Iraqis and even among American military personnel serving in Iraq as a company that flaunts an aggressive, quick-draw image that leads its security personnel to take excessively violent actions to protect the people they are paid to guard...
Today, Blackwater operates in the most violent parts of Iraq and guards the most prominent American diplomats, which some American government officials say explains why it is involved in more shootings than its competitors. The shootings included in the [State Department] reports include all cases in which weapons are fired, including those meant as warning shots. Others add that Blackwaters aggressive posture in guarding diplomats reflects the wishes of its client, the State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Still, other government officials say that Blackwaters corporate culture seems to encourage excessive behavior. Is it the operating environment or something specific about Blackwater? asked one government official. My best guess is that it is both.
Sending Christian crusaders to a Muslim country where you're trying to restore peace is what I would call a very bad idea. Perhaps that wasn't the case, but sending freelance soldiers into a country unbound by any laws is still a terrible strategy. It breeds a shoot first, ask questions later mentality. And for Blackwater, at times, it was more like shoot first, drive on. The latest allegations are shocking, but much of the story is not surprising at all.
