Giving hired killers a bad name 

One of the most notorious beneficiaries of the most privatised war in history have been the Blackwater corporation. They call themselves private security providers, many others refer to them as Bush’s Praetorian Guard; we’ll keep it neutral and call them corporate mercenaries. It’s not like that isn’t bad enough, and a long list of atrocious scandals from Afghanistan to New Orleans has got them quite a reputation.

Last week they caused more than a little embarrassment to their paymasters by perpetrating one massacre too many in Iraq, causing the Iraqi Interior Ministry to ban them from the country. The embarrassment came four days later when, despite promises to “take it very seriously”, the U.S. Embassy decided it needed Blackwater more than it needed even a paper-thin pretence of Iraqi sovereignity, and their services were retained. Still, what was the most that could have happened? The same money paying the same mercenaries to do the same things under a different logo; why bother?

Today, however, the Iranian Mehr News Agency broke a potentially far bigger story (h/t Naj):

… and now Blackwater has been accused of gunrunning in Iraq.

A company source acknowledged that two Blackwater employees were fired for buying guns with Blackwater money and selling them without the consent or knowledge of the company, but did not say where the arms were bought and sold.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Raleigh, North Carolina is currently investigating individual Blackwater employees — not the company — for illegal weapons deals.

Lack of accountability has been a recurring theme in the privatisation of war, and we can already see how this story could be spun: a bad apple or two besmirching the name of a good amoral corporation, but it should be huge news.  Personally I’m not that scandalised by the idea that a fraction of the astronomical sums that are still being appropriated to fight the war might end up in the wrong hands, as these may well be the hands of not bad people looking out for Iraqi interests, which is more than can be said for many of the right hands.  However, who pays for the weapons that attack American troops is a big deal these days.

As Naj points out, more unsubstantiated accusations are still coming out against Iran all the time and the latest, with the Taleban as would-be beneficiaries, are particularly absurd - but patently ridiculous as the accusations are, the unspoken assumption that if they were true then an attack would be justified is rarely challenged.  If we do accept that assumption, then I guess we should be lobbying Bush and Cheney to attack themselves (not that there aren’t plenty of reasons to do so anyway).

Speaking of double standards: that Syria incident

In the week that has followed the Israeli air strikes in North-Eastern Syria, both it and the commando raid a few weeks previously (note, incidentally, how the raid is described as “daring” rather than, say, “illegal”, or “unprovoked”, and how both links that came up tops in my google searches point to media owned by Murdoch) have been explained by fears of a potential Syrian nuclear weapon.

This is, of course, preposterous.  There is one nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East (not counting the Anglo-American presence, of course), and that country is Israel.  Aside from - or perhaps because of - its status as overwhelmingly the best armed, Israel is far and away the most aggressive nation in the region (again, possibly excepting the Americans - if that distinction is still meaningful), frequently acting against its neighbours with impunity.

Most Arab leaders have come around to the idea of cooperating with the all-powerful Zionist state to the detriment of the Palestinians (and Lebanese, and Iraqis, and Syrians, and whoever else’s turn it is to be attacked), but as this incident - as well as the tired Axis of Evil rhetoric - shows, Syria still needs to think about defending itself.  It is unthinkable that Syria catch up with Israel in the arms race the latter has started, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable for it to avoid falling so far behind as to risk more Israeli aggression.

The Syrian ambassador said as much on Thursday to the IAEA, an organisation of which it was recently elected co-chair and through which it, along with staunch U.S.-ally Egypt, is currently lobbying for a resolution against Israel’s nukes.  However, if Syria is in danger of needing the bomb, it is far from wanting it.  Like Iran but unlike Israel, which operates in extralegal secrecy, Syria is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty - and its government is one of those advocating a Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone in the Middle East.

So the story, in short, was this: a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, refusing any international supervision, commits an act of aggression against a weaker, IAEA and NPT member, staunchly pro-disarmement country - and this is spun as a positive step for averting nuclear armageddon.