The Real Butchers of Baghdad
G.W. Bush and His Corporate Mercenaries
By Cheryl Seal
20 May 2004
The Bush administration is feigning shock and disgust over the
revelations of systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners. But there is no
doubt whatsoever in my mind that the White House was fully aware that
such crimes were being committed and by whom. Not only that, they
continually took steps to cover their own behinds should the matter
ever come up. I will make that case later. But first, let's take a
look at the group that is, I am certain, perpetrating, or engineering
the perpetration of, crimes against Iraqi civilians.
Soldiers of Misfortune
Mercenaries, of course, have a history that extends back into the
murkiest depths of human history. These are paid fighters -supreme
opportunists- whose only allegiance is to themselves and, more
loosely, to whoever signs their checks. Patriotism, honor, and
democracy don't enter into the deal. The primary focus of a mercenary
is getting the job done, by any means, and collecting their payoff.
In every war in the past 50 years in which mercenaries were deployed,
atrocities have been committed with an unfailing regularity. After
South Africa's apartheid government fell, thousands of former soldiers
and police were displaced -many of them brutal racists who had
committed torture and other abuses under Apartheid. Hundreds of these
people were hired to fight in various hotspots, from the Sudan and
Zimbabwe to Kosovo. Not surprisingly, many have since been charged
with atrocities committed while "fighting" in these places. In fact,
the problem of criminal activity by South African mercenaries became
such an embarrassment for the South African government that it passed
a law in 1999 banning South African citizens from acting as
mercenaries abroad. But most 'soldiers of fortune' and the companies
that recruit them consider themselves above any law and have simply
gone underground, working out deals via the Internet and thumbing
their noses at such laws.
Despite this dubious history, the use of mercenaries has become
increasingly popular in recent decades as western corporations (often
using the US military as their "point force") expand their operations
into resource-rich or strategically positioned nations that are
unstable and/or uncooperative. Many outfits, including the UK's
Sandline and Northridge Services Group or the USA's Blackwater
Security Consulting, act more or less as mercenary 'brokers,'
recruiting 'manpower' from anywhere they can find it, including South
Africa -despite the 1999 law. UK-recruited mercenaries have been
accused of atrocities in Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast, while Russian
mercenaries stand accused of participating in ethnic cleansing in
Kosovo.
While the Blair and Bush regimes try to play down the mercenary theme,
calling such people "civilian contractors," the BBC reports that "one
military source who wanted to remain anonymous [states that]
mercenaries were still very active and could command $10-20,000 a
month for their services." In fact, a company called Erinys with
offices in South Africa and the UK, which is operating illegally -not
even bothering to register with the government- won a huge contract to
protect the oil industry interests of western corporations in Iraq.
Mercenaries contracted by US corporations like Halliburton are
receiving a minimum of $100,000 per year. In true corporate style, the
accepted euphemism for mercenary brokers in the US is "risk management
companies." Makes it sound almost like Morgan Stanley, eh?
The four "civilian contractors" ambushed and brutally murdered near
Fallujah were in fact mercenaries recruited by a Blackwater Security
Consulting. Blackwater operates a 2,400-square-acre training facility
in Moyock, North Carolina. Even if the four murdered men were not
guilty of any crimes against Iraqis themselves, they most certainly
may have been the victims of 'guilt by association' with other
mercenaries who had committed crimes such as torture. That some
Blackwater recruits could be capable of committing such crimes is
beyond doubt: many are veterans of some of the most repressive regimes
of recent history. Among Blackwater's contribution to the Iraq war are
at least 60 commandos who worked for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet
and an untold number of former apartheid South African soldiers and
police. At least 1,500 South African mercenaries are now in Iraq -a
situation that clearly flaunts the 1999 law. Chile, alarmed by the
situation, is now investigating the recruitment of mercenaries. Add to
the quality of recruits the sheer numbers of mercenaries now in Iraq
-an estimated 15,000-20,000- and you have a recipe for humanitarian
disaster.
But mercenary recruiters have thrived with obscene vigor since Bush
took office. Since 2001, Blackwater's profits have increased by 300%.
Last October, Blackwater landed a $35.7 million contract to train at
least 10,000 sailors from Virginia, Texas and California each year in
the fine art of guerilla warfare (the Blackwater folks like to call
this "force protection" training).
There are already many reports that mercenaries in Iraq routinely act
in violation of International and US military laws governing rules of
engagement and conduct in a war and post-war occupation zone. For
example, the Army Times reported that mercenaries were using
armor-piercing, limited-penetration rounds manufactured by RBCD of San
Antonio. These bullets were banned by the US military because of the
horrific, unnecessary suffering and damage they inflict, such as
shredding internal organs. "The bullet is so controversial that if
[the mercenary], a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have
been court-martialed for using it," says the newspaper. "The
ammunition is 'nonstandard' and hasn't passed the military's approval
process."
Since the prison torture scandal broke, it has, emerged that military
contractors -i.e., mercenaries hired by the Pentagon- have been
engaged in the torture of prisoners, including those at Abu Ghraib
prison. War crimes expert Gary Solis of Georgetown University says the
only reason he can think of that US military would use mercenaries for
such a 'delicate operation' is that there are too few real military
people available. Solis says that so many critical positions have been
eliminated from the military, that when they do need trained
specialists, they simply don't exist. All that are available, says
Solis, are "trigger pullers." Worse, the mercenaries hired by the US
military are not only being paid up to three times more than honest US
soldiers subject to military law, but are being paid by taxpayers.
But while Solis suggests that the problem can be traced directly back
to Bush's failure to plan for any contingency in Iraq except happy,
warmly welcoming Iraqis, great weather, and no loss of basic services
(despite the targeted bombing out of water treatment and power
facilities) I say this is wishful thinking. Bush never planned to use
a larger military force in Iraq. He was no doubt assured by Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and other 'advisors' that 15,000 or so brutal
mercenaries roaming the countryside as "support personnel" would be
more than enough muscle to keep Iraqis in line. After all, that tactic
had worked for Cheney in Burma, for Kissinger in Indonesia and Chile,
and for Rummy in the Iran-Iraq conflict.
Bush's Premeditated Complicity in the Abuse
Since the scandal broke, observers have been calling for
investigations, for war crimes charges, for court martials. What most,
in their blissful ignorance don't know, is that Bush and Co. made sure
well ahead of time that its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq would
escape accountability. >From the day Bush and his pals commandeered
the White House and set their sights on Central Asian oil
(simultaneous events), they have worked to maneuver into place all the
corporate-style blocks to accountability available to them. First, to
evade the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan, Bush never formally
declared war. Instead, he claimed that the US bombing and invasion was
part of the "war on terror" and that the war on terror did not
constitute a "real war" under the Geneva Convention. This twisting of
international law and morality outraged many international law experts
and human rights advocates -an outcry kept conveniently out of nearly
all the US media.
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch said, "to say
that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war on terrorism is
particularly dangerous, as it is all too easy to imagine this
'exception' coming back to haunt U.S. forces in future conflicts." How
right he was! Bush used this "interpretation": of what constitutes war
to justify the indiscriminate round up of Muslims and their shipment
to Guantanomo Bay's infamous Camp X-ray, where they have been held,
protected by no laws, regulations or basic sense of "moral right" ever
since.
Next came Iraq. Has no-one stopped to wonder, especially now with
20/20 hindsight, why, in July 2002, just as George Bush was first
publicly rattling his saber towards Iraq, he also announced that he
would not sign onto the International Criminal Court? This move was
designed to place the US beyond prosecution by the international
community for crimes such as those committed in Abu Ghraib prison.
It is quite obvious Bush anticipated the need for this preventive
measure. Even if he could dodge the Geneva Convention bullet, Bush
knew that there are several internationally recognized laws that are
supposed to be observed both during and after a war in an occupied
country. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and which the United States ratified in 1992,
provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Also in force at all
times is the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the UN Standard Minimum Rules on
the Treatment of Prisoners to which the United States became a party
in 1994.
In addition, Article 3 of the International Convention states that "A
mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who
participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of
violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of
the Convention." Knowing that mercenaries were going to be on the
scene, Bush knew he had to cover his *****. So what seemed like an
inexplicable act of arrogance back in July 2002 (his failure to
acknowledge the International Court) now clearly seems a simple
cynical act of "preemptive self defense."
To attack Iraq so soon after Afghanistan, Bush had to trump up a
sufficiently compelling pretext -thus he settled on WMDs. To rally the
American public and "coalition forces" behind him, he also had to make
it the war "official." However, he made sure that the war's "official"
status lasted as short a time as possible. Thus, on May 2, 2003,
before the heaviest fighting had even begun, we find our
vulture-in-chief parading the decks of an aircraft carrier declaring
an end to major conflict. As a result, everything that is going on in
Iraq today is beyond the touch of the Geneva Convention. During an
interview with NPR's Cheryl Corley on May 2, 2004, war crimes expert
Gary Solis of Georgetown University stated that even the most horrific
and systematic abuse of prisoners, even those committed at a military
run facility like Abu Ghraib are not war crimes. Why? Because, says
Solis, anyone captured after Bush declared an end of major conflicts
would automatically lose their prisoner of war status under the Geneva
Convention. They would instead be classed as "insurgents."
There is no doubt that Bush knew that the Pentagon and US corporations
in Iraq were planning to use mercenaries extensively. Not only that
but, Bush and Co. knew what sort of means these mercenaries would use
to "quell resistance" and welcomed it. An extensive report of abuses
at the Abu Ghraib prison was sent to the Pentagon in January. The Red
Cross now says they had been in touch with the Coalition over prisoner
treatment at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere since March 2003 at the war
onset -not just calling attention to abuses but recommending changes.
Yet Myers claims he never even saw the "official report," nor did Bush
or Rumsfeld until much later. But again, this is merely a slippery
corporate ploy to elude accountability. Not seeing the report and not
being aware of its contents are two different things. I am sure that
it was prearranged by team Bush that any reports like that were NOT to
be acknowledged or passed on beyond a certain point in the chain of
command. Just as certain pieces of information on terrorist activity
before 9/11 were not passed on beyond a certain "checkpoint," This way
Bush, Cheney and the Bush cabinet could later honestly claim they
never saw them. That they knew the contents, however, seems quite
certain.
On May 7, 2004 Rumsfeld stated on record and under oath that as soon
as the Pentagon learned that abuses were going on that they took
"immediate steps" to correct the situation. Yet it was not until May
8, 2004 -the day after Rumsfeld testified -that Lynndie England, the
soldier shown in several Abu Ghraib photos abusing prisoners, was
charged with any crime. This is "immediate action"? Meanwhile, the 37
mercenaries who worked as interrogators at Abu Ghraib and without
doubt were the orchestrators of the abuses, have yet to be charged. I
am betting that at least some of these mercenaries are 'graduates' of
the Pinochet regime or some other former dictatorship.
Need more evidence? Just days before the abuse of Iraqi civilians
became public knowledge, Bush nominated John Negroponte to be the
ambassador to Iraq. Negroponte, as Bush was quite well aware, was
widely believed to have Okayed and then systematically covered up, the
systematic torture and murder of prisoners in Honduras. (see links to
the Baltimore Sun investigative report below). What better man to have
on the job in Iraq if you are running a banana republic-style
operation? With all of the gifted seasoned diplomats around to choose
from, Bush chose a known accomplice to torture and murder.
The techniques being used on the Iraqi prisoners are disturbingly
similar to those used by the CIA in Central America -including
Honduras under Negroponte's watch. A CIA training manual declassified
under the Freedom of Information Act in 1997 details torture methods
used against "insurgents" in Central America in the 1980s. Human
Resource Exploitation Training Manual, 1983 and a CIA Vietnam-era
training manual called KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, July
1963 both taught the same method of torture being used in Iraq by the
US right now: stripping suspects naked and keeping them blindfolded.
Dark, windowless interrogation rooms with no toilet. The 1983 manual
advises an interrogator to "manipulate the subject's environment, to
create unpleasant or intolerable situations". The manual suggests that
prisoners be deprived of food and sleep, and made to maintain rigid
positions, that they be threatened with rape or death and that their
families be threatened. In its 1995 investigative report on Negroponte
in Honduras, the Baltimore Sun reported that "Ines Consuelo Murillo
was tortured by a secret Honduran military intelligence unit called
Battalion 316. Her captors tied the 24-year-old woman's hands and
feet, hung her naked from the ceiling and beat her with their fists.
They fondled her. They nearly drowned her. They clipped wires to her
breasts and sent electricity surging through her body." Sounds
sickening familiar now, doesn't it? (see bibliography below).
Last but not least, evidence that Bush knew and promoted heavy-handed
tactics in Iraq can be found with just one glance at the people with
whom he has surrounded himself. Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Richard Myers, Condolezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz -all served in the US
government at the height of the power of some of the most repressive
US-backed regime, including Pinochet and Saddam. In fact, many of the
same crimes being committed in Iraq were committed by Halliburton
mercenaries in Burma while Cheney was CEO. The Institute for Public
Accuracy reports, "Cheney's Halliburton also profited enormously from
projects around the world that have been widely condemned for
horrendous human rights abuses and massive environmental destruction.
The numerous examples include doing business with the notorious Yadana
pipeline project in Burma -an environmentally damaging project on
behalf of which, according to a US federal court, egregious human
rights abuses were committed, including murder, torture, rape, forced
labor and forced relocation."
In short, the evidence that Bush knew about and condoned, if not
promoted outright, abuses of Iraqi civilians is screaming at the
American public, which has, alas, so far chosen to turn a deaf ear.
.
|
