Live and Let Spy

Al Qaeda's most recent video release was accompanied in the media with comments from IntelCenter, a company that provides intelligence services and products, offering packages for federal government agencies, state and local government agencies, and corporate consumers.

In an interesting comment in the About Us page, CEO Ben N. Venzke writes:

It is impossible to prevent every act of terrorism. We are no sooner likely to wipe it out then we are to rid the world of hate and crime.

This comment does make me wonder what the mission of the War on Terror is. We are told it is not going to end anytime soon. That's an understatement; as long as there are people on Earth, it is reasonable to assume there will be hatred and violence and crime -- and don't take Yankee Doodle's word for it; read the comments of your consultant! There will also be politics; and where all those ingredients mix, there will be terrorism. Consequently, either the War on Terror goes on forever, or it ends someday and by default Terror wins.

Our primary client base is comprised of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the US and other allied countries around the world.

I can understand why some allied countries may need to contract out their intelligence operations. They may not have much of an intelligence apparatus, and, what they do have may be tailored to spying on their own citizens.

But why would the US Government need the services of these rent-a-spooks? The US Government has such a large intelligence apparatus, consisting of many different agencies; although they are intended to do slightly different jobs, there is in fact redundancy. And, one would hope they would be providing assistance as needed to state and local governments. If the US Government doesn't have enough of the right kind of resources for a war they know will go on for a long time, then they need to develop those resources in-house: hire the appropriate analysts, interrogators, translators, etc. Why, five and a half years into the War on Terror, are they still contracting all this out?

From UK's The Guardian in 2004, when the Abu Ghraib scandal was breaking:

Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation.

The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees.

According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon.

Notice the "M"-word: these contractors and consultants in the security industry are basically mercenaries.

The US army confirmed that the general in charge of Abu Ghraib jail is facing disciplinary measures and that six low-ranking soldiers have been charged with abusing and sexually humiliating detainees.

Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.

One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

These mercenaries operate "without legal accountability" and "military law has no jurisdiction over" them.

Hired guns from a wide array of private security firms are playing a central role in the US-led occupation of Iraq.

The killing of four private contractors in Falluja on March 31 led to the current siege of the city.

The actions of these mercenaries are resulting in battles that our uniformed service personnel then have to fight, and those actions are resulting in ill-will among the civilian population which only prolongs and intesifies the war.

Why is this allowed?

From Possible Interrogation Contractor Influence Cited In Senate Vote by Elaine M. Grossman June 24, 2004, which had been reprinted from Inside Washington:

Two defense contracting companies that provide interrogators or translators to the Army have strongly favored the Republican Party in their political donations over the past year and a half, according to data reviewed by Inside the Pentagon.

Military contracting expert Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution believes industry influence played a role in defeating proposed Senate legislation last week that would have banned private contractors from conducting or translating detainee interrogations at U.S. military installations. The legislation was introduced after a CACI International interrogator and two linguists associated with Titan Corp. were implicated in the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

The article then goes on to detail how much money was flowing to politicians, especially Republicans, from these contractors.

There's big bucks to be made in the counterjihad.

Indeed, the profit incentive is at the very heart of the issue. If the War on Terror were ever suddenly over, if ever we suddenly won it, what would all these people do? Where would they make their money?

It is in their best economic interests to fight the war, but NOT to win it. In fact, it is in their best economic interests to prolong and intensify the war, by alienating and angering the people of Iraq, for example.

It's a gravy train for them, one where they can leach off government contracts, knowing their client will pay them, and will pay them at a competitive rate. Why would anyone want that to end through something as silly as a victory?

Don't work yourselves out of a job, guys!

Again from IntelCenter's About Us:

May we be ever vigilant and never lose our clarity of purpose in this gravest of conflicts.