Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by nenothtu
Thanks for the insight once more friend .
Check this -
An article about Erik Prince being a cia operative , Note The Times is one of the better uk newspapers .
An "Operative" and an "asset" are generally two different things. I've no doubt he worked with the CIA just as stated - as a private contractor
putting together "unattributable" teams to do mayhem to AQ, but I'd imagine he pushed the boundaries of that charter or went beyond. One thing is
certain - he never found bin Laden. I reckon "unattributable" must be the new catchphrase for "sterile" or "plausibly deniable". Looks like that
went off the rails with his push for fame - can't be "unattributable" if everyone and their brother knows you're a big bad killin' machine with
tight ties to a government. Then they know WHICH government you're roped in with, and there goes your "unattributability".
My guess is that's why he was "partially outed" - specifically BECAUSE the competing firms have "nameless, faceless management teams". He got too
famous, never a good idea for a spook who wants to continue a cozy working relationship. So, in a way he WAS thrown under the bus over political
expediency, but I personally think of it more as ineptitude in the form of vanity. Same thing, really, but a different perspective on it.
Have you seen Jeremy Scahill' s research on blackwater?
Id like to know your opinions on this .
I couldn't find any factual inaccuracies in things I know or can surmise and extrapolate to through the logical extension of what I know, and so
must presume that the things I don't know which were presented are factually accurate as well in the videos. Some of it was irrelevant, but likely
accurate, like the allegations of "wife swapping". I don't much care what they do on their own time, so that makes that particular allegation
irrelevant to me.
The first video seemed to me to be trying to tie in all PMCs with Blackwater, trying to create an impression of the "universal mercenary" if you
will using Blackwater as his public face. While technically accurate as applied to Blackwater, it seemed to me to be applying spin attempts to create
that impression as a blanket view. That's not necessarily a BAD thing, it just pushes factual data dangerously close to the realm of "opinion", of
which everyone is entitled to his own.
PMCs are made up of individuals, and they will vary one from another nearly as much as the general population, considering the common thread of
"armed response" tightens that variation up a bit - just not as much as some would have one believe. Another layer on top of that is that each
different company exhibits it's own separate identity, and will handle things differently, just as individual people do.
Blackwater became the "rock stars" of the industry through self - promotion and trying to create a public image. That's bad business, really, when
one whose livelihood exists in the shadows tries to step out of them, he steps away from his bread and butter and into another realm entirely.
Blackwater in general, and Prince in particular, let that "stardom" go to their heads and ran with it - then have the nerve to complain that they
were thrown under the bus for that very fame that THEY sought to begin with.
Some other folks saw that "fame" (or infamy, depending on viewpoint), and a certain class of those wanted some of that for themselves. They, in
combination with Blackwater and detractors alike, made that fame happen, but it unfortunately has spread to be blanket opinion on all through that
effort, and there are some that never wanted it to begin with.
Some folks just want to jump on a bandwagon, and are glory hounds. That sort never realizes how ridiculous that glory can make them look, and then
wonder at the treatment they get. Another example would be "Bounty Hunters". I've worked with some of them in the real world, and the good ones
don't call attention to themselves. They could be ANYONE on the street. Their success actually hinges to a great extent on that anonymity. A couple
of years ago, I had to deal with some wannabe bounty hunters. They came to a place I was securing, all dressed up in their leather and studs like Dog
the Bounty Hunter, attempting to capitalize on that and grab their own share of fame and fortune. They talked all loud and proud about how they WERE
GOING TO do this and that, ignoring laws and doing as they pleased, and I think it may have hurt their feelings a bit when I sent them packing without
their quarry, and told them in no uncertain terms just how it was going to happen if they ever came back.
Same idea, different industry. Posers will be posers, and they'll get what they get when they run across someone who isn't impressed by impressions.
Fame isn't all it's cracked up to be, and Blackwater may have realized that too late. It's not necessarily the contractors' faults - some of the
Blackwater guys may be standup guys for all I know - but the fame the company sought has also attracted a class of posers, which hasn't helped them
any at all. Their quest for glory and recognition has worked against them. Try as they might to get back on track, they never will. You can't put
toothpaste back into the tube, and too many people are watching their every move.
I take my hat off to you bro , you know a lot about this issue .
I wonder if I can get a government contract just off of what I know? The old tendons and reflexes ain't what they used to be for action...
Imo the future of warfare looks bleak . Do you think the increased usage of techology such as unmanned drones will lead to a lower involvement of reg
soldiers in conflicts ?
I tend towards a jaundiced view of technology, mostly because so many extol it's virtues. Technology breaks, requires upkeep and maintenance, and so
will STILL require people to operate it. It can be defeated, and I already know of places and people right here in America who are "drone proofed"
regardless of the operators or operational parameters. Those drones haven't helped 'em much in the hunt for bin Laden, have they?
The problem with technological solutions to insoluble problems is that people tend to come to an OVER reliance on it. At that point, it becomes a
weakness, a liability rather than an asset. It's a fine thing, in it's place and within it's limitations, but that over reliance will kill ya.
I think they will TRY to limit human involvement in favor of machines, but there are just some things a machine can't do. I was watching a
documentary not to long ago about the development of a mounted robot machine gun, a little 3 or 4 foot long robot machinegun mounted on tracks with an
attached camera for target acquisition and aiming. It took me less than 2 minutes to figure out how to make that thing cease to exist, and at the very
best (from the operator's point of view) leave it crippled to motion and blind to vision. There are just some things people can do that machines
Besides, taking this to it's logical conclusion, if everyone has these things (and eventually everyone would) who are they going to hunt with them?
The opposition's machines? Will they have their machine call my machine so we can do lunch, and sign a truce so that our respective machines stop
disassembling each other?
Where does the pain of war that will make it stop enter the equation when it's only a machine, and you can just whip up replacements in a factory?
No, I think there will always be boots (and perhaps bots) on the ground. Even a tank, as big bad and awesome as it is, has dismounted infantry along
for the ride to provide flank security.
The "human factor" will never be entirely eliminated, in my opinion, and as long as people are involved, some of them will figure out and distribute
workarounds for the technological factor.