Hacker News Reader

I suppose your perception that the piece was slanted means you didn't read it, but it outlines very clearly a number of illegal or unethical actions Mr. Prince and others took including

- hiding his agenda from FSG which included violating U.S. defense export regulations, culminating in being stripped of control over operations at FSG

- failing to disclose to FSG that he had an ownership stake in Airborne while negotiating contracts with them as a representative of FSG

- as a part-owner of Airborne, actively encouraging the company to violate Austrian statutes on production and export of military-grade aircraft

...and more I'm probably missing, and that doesn't even take into account his failure to actually deliver to his "clients" as outlined in the piece.

Now if you have legitimate counterpoints in response to the items raised in the article, I'd love to hear them, but your comment is the textbook definition of a strawman. As far as I can tell this piece is just exposing the truth about who Erik Prince is, and you're right that he's not a Christian zealot out to wage a holy war: he is actually an opportunistic parasite who takes advantage of power imbalances in areas in crisis, manipulates organizations to further his own personal profit without any sense of right or wrong informing his decisions, and actively skirts legal restrictions around the world as he sees fit. He certainly doesn't come off as competent in any way.

If anything, the right-wing should be more concerned than the left that someone as ethically challenged as Prince is engaging in the activities he's engaging in--it makes them look even worse. Why are you being an apologist for this kind of scumbag?

> he provided the US government with unique capability that they desperately needed, and things would have probably been far messier if he hadn't been involved in Iraq.

I have many friends and family that have participated in Iraq II and Afghanistan. They see PMCs as morale destroyers. While they are getting paid E-4 rates, or higher, the PMCs are getting paid 4-5x that for doing the same damn job!

They've had to learn to do more with less while the PMCs show up with shiny new toys all the time. And if that wasn't enough they were getting calls or letters from home saying their benefits had been cut, allowances were down, etc. Then the DoD was "winding down" it's campaigns by replacing enlistees with even more PMCs. Suddenly, guys that wanted to make a career in the armed forces, and had planned to stay 10-20 years, couldn't re-up. In the end few of them felt they had no choice but to join Academy or Blackwater since job prospects back home were so meager.

They were making things so much better in Iraq the PM wanted them out of his country because of the unaccountability and civilian deaths directly attributable to them. Shooting civilians in the street is the first thing I think of when the word Blackwater comes up.

Your first three paragraphs are criticism of defence policy, not of PMCs.

What an Iraqi PM claims to want publicaly is likely to contain at least three levels of indirection, or the person filling the role wouldn't be qualified for the role.

Is there some statute I missed that declares that PMs should have ~3 mis-directions in everything they say, at all times? Or are they able to settle at two?

It would be much easier to declare where the misdirections are if you expect them, than to postulate the law that would make your syllogism work.

I know it wasn't your intention, but you just made the argument that a private company operates more efficiently and is better for the worker than the equivalent government entity... with money coming from the same taxpayer budget.

I don't think he made the argument that a private company operates more efficiently. They just make more money but that doesn't mean they are more efficient.

PMCs are also generally former SoF operators, who generally got out of the military with > E4 rank. I know, I was a 96U (UAV Operator) in OIF II and worked with a lot of SoF (Seals, Spooks, Delta, Rangers, Mercs/PMCs, etc). My experience might be different than your friends/family, but I saw them as a necessary evil.

While that is true I believe most of the PMC jobs are security and truck drivers. Something the US Army already does. Most PMC work is not as mercenaries.

If you were a corporal driving trucks making $30k and saw a contractor doing your job making $100k what would you think?

I would think the obvious thing. I signed up to serve, not to make a ton of cash, however I would not re-enlist and would become a civilian for better pay.

Note that is pretty much what I did after my 4 years were up sans the deployments!

That is noble of you but even you must have figured out most of your buds were in it for the job training and GI Bill.

I think those that wanted to reup were from high unemployment areas and were afraid to find out what they would do next.

But I don't have first hand experience. This is just relayed to me over BBQ and beer talk.

A couple counter points:

> America's use of PMCs is as old, actually older, than the country itself.

Yes, but the use of PMCs back in those days was largely because the colonies and the early nation couldn't muster a large enough military on its own. There's absolutely no reason the U.S. needs to use PMCs (at many times the cost). If there's a need for long-term need for specific skill-sets, the military can always add more MOSs that fill those needs -- or use any of the available official paramilitary organizations that it has at its command. That government run units weren't selected to fulfill those essential security functions implies a great deal about the function the State Department wished the PMCs to fulfill.

> Erik Prince is not some crazy Christian zealot out to wage a holy war;

The problem is that Erik Prince is those things, and his company (among many, or given the official available organizations at the government's disposal) was selected and continued to be selected is important.

As per other commenters, your argument appears to be with DoD policy and not with Blackwater.

What if he is? To run a mercenary corporation you are going to need a somewhat flexible set of morals or at least an "alternative" set of world views.

Is that any different than the Ceo of a pharmaceutical corporation that chooses to treat erectile dysfunction instead of real diseases? Or the CEO of a tobacco or alchohol company?

There are a lot of CEOs with kind of funky world views and opinions of themselves and rationalization about the "good" that their companies do. Being a bit sociopathic is almost a job requirement for them. Erik prince is in a nasty business and I'm not defending that but as portrayed it seems like he developed a world view that is somehow compatible with the work, that just seems like a normal ceo to me.

> chooses to treat erectile dysfunction instead of real diseases

If pfizer, in researching a drug to treat a heart disease[1], discovers a drug that treats a different bloodflow disorder, what is wrong with it offering that treatment?

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8466118.stm

How is erectile dysfunction not a real disease?

> There's absolutely no reason the U.S. needs to use PMCs (at many times the cost).

As long as the US does not reinstate conscription (the Draft), it will need PMC's to fill the gaps for military force.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-call-...

Or maybe they could, you know, fight a few less wars in countries that aren't even interested in what we have to sell.

> fight a few less wars in countries that aren't even interested in what we have to sell.

How? The next democratic candidate for the POTUS already has a global mindset for the US:

> In Clinton’s view, the apparent purpose of America’s existence is to lead the world.

http://www.theglobalist.com/clinton-in-the-bush-league-on-fo...

Under her view, you can't be the world's policeman without having to bust some heads.

What the Americans are doing with private contractors is one thing. But this business was going on in Europe (Austria, Bulgaria, San Marino, etc) where manufacturing weapons to be used in African civil wars is not considered acceptable (or legal). The article details shady business with convicted and/or wanted intenational arms dealers together with shell companies scattered in different countries. And doing that while effectively being on the payroll of Chinese investors who have vested interests in African civil wars (there's a lot of chinese investments going on in Africa).

It's pretty likely that the business surrounding the conversion of the aircraft will lead to criminal investigation and/or convictions in Austria after this exposé.

>America's use of PMCs is as old, actually older, than the country itself

That doesn't make it right.

The use of slaves is older than the country itself too...

It's the armies he's building around the world for various countries that has me concerned. I still think his style of business ought to be heavily regulated and accountable and currently it is not...that is a huge issue.

Their most infamous mistake (17 civilians dead, 20 injured at insourcing square) had nothing to do with government incompetence. They were found to have lied and covered up the mistake. Perhaps you should read scahill's account of it.

In the light of the above and many other incidents in Iraq your contention that things would have been messier is questionable to say the least, and your apologia for blackwater and Eric prince unfounded.

The article said nothing about Erik Prince being a crazy Christian zealot. But you're probably thinking of previous work by one of the authors of this article, Jeremy Scahill, who has written many other articles and a couple of books about Erik Prince and Blackwater.

The recent use of PMCs is odious and outsize, and it contributes to domestic problems like police militarization, treating protesters like terrorists, and overall brutality in policing. People like Erik Prince earned their reputation for evil. nobody is required to participate in massacres, torture, and other accoutrements of a war of aggression. Anyone who chooses to do so is culpable. Erik Prince is not just culpable, he is a willing enabler.

t. George W. Bush

When did being a war profiteer become acceptable?

And I know most of you don't think it as a necessary war. All I remember from Blackwater is open expense accounts, jet skis, the best hotels, the best of everything. Why--because they were getting paid a huge amounts, with weird accounting. 'Drive the cost up boys--the government will pay.' I might be confusing Blackwater with Halliburton? Again--too angry to go over that history again.

Yea--I know their were other players, and ultimately the government was at fault.

(Don't have the stomach this morning to provide any factoids.)

Erik Prince is actually a good guy. You have to waddle through the metric ton of shit leftist journalist write about him so it's understandable why people like to blame him.

It's funny how Prince gets the blame for what islamists have been doing for decades. Islamic imperialism existed before Prince, before the US and unfortunately unless LKY comes back from the grave with an armada it will continue to exist after we're long beheaded.