Based on what I have seen on Goodreads maybe I should have read Corporate Warriors instead of this book because people have described that book as 'the quintessential book on the private security industry' but the reason I ended up getting this book was because the title caught my attention when I was perusing Amazon and decided to place an order. In a nutshell it is an interesting book that explores the aspects of the private security industry that has arisen since the Iraq War but I found that Pelton seemed to spend a lot of time simply telling stories and would only then spend a small amount of time outlining the pros and cons of this relatively new industry. Not all of his stories were bad, though most of the time he seemed to just waffle.

Now, the idea of private security is nothing new because there have been firms providing security for as long as I have known, but in an advanced democracy these firms (at least here in Australia) tend to be kept on a very short leash. As a private security contractor in Australia you simply cannot be trigger happy. For instance, while a bouncer at a night club (and they generally work on a contractual basis, though the proper term for them is a crowd controller) can break up fights and eject people, they have to do it in a way that they cannot open themselves up for prosecution or civil penalties (such as a lawsuit).

What changed with the Iraq War was that these firms began to operate in overseas jurisdictions with limited oversight. At this stage the American Army was not actually outsourcing the combat aspects of the assignment, but rather they were outsourcing security for dignitaries such as the UN and the pro-consul Paul Bremer. However, in a place that was as chaotic as Iraq, the normal restraint that can be shown in a Western Democracy would probably end up getting you killed. The concern is that there is limited oversight over their actions and even if they do get involved in a fire fight that they start, they can easily vanish with no repercussions.

The US army had been outsourcing operations for quite a while, and an economic way that is understandable. It is better to outsource the minor details of the army such as catering, maintenance, and even laundry services because it means you do not need to keep full time staff on the payroll. You only pay what you use. This is the same with security details because it frees up the troops for combat orientated roles and also, theoretically, keeps costs down. While they still have mess halls, I have seen films of the bases in Iraq where there are Pizza Huts and Subways on base which, I must admit, does offer better variety than the simple mess hall.

There are problems with that though, as Pelton points out. For instance, the idea of cost plus (being the cost of providing the service plus profit) may at first seem cost effective, but these costs can quickly spiral out of control. There is one incidence where there were at least four layers of cost plus contracts (that is the initial contract which is sub-contracted to another company who then sub-contracts to another company and so forth). This also applies to other areas such as cantering because the company that won the contract (on a no bid basis) then goes and sub-contracts out to another. Further, because corporations operate purely on a profit motive, and because the average soldier does not get a choice as to the provider the soldier wishes to use, there is no incentive to provide a quality product. If the company doing the laundry service does a rubbish job then the soldier is stuck with that. I have actually heard that soldiers were not allowed to wash their own clothes but had to use the contractor who charged the American government an inordinate price for the service.

Many of us think of private security contractors as earning huge amounts of money and living a high lifestyle, however Pelton blows that myth to smithereens. The people making the money are those that sit at the top of the food chain, that is the executives. While the contractor may be earning $600.00 a day, this is not steady income and there is no guarantee that their contract will be renewed after the next stint. Then there is the threat of injury and/or death, separation from their families, and the fact that their skills are not really transferable. Once they are back home the best they can get is a minimum wage security job, and even then only if they are physically capable. It is highly unlikely that they would be offered insurance, so the only thing that their families have to rely on in case of death is a small amount given by the US government (about $65000.00).

Naomi Klein mentioned in her book 'Disaster Capitalism' that the next bubble would the the private security bubble. I thought she was talking about Homeland Security but I suspect that she was talking about this industry. From what I gathered there are a lot of companies and once the war in Iraq is over (which I believe it technically is) there is going to be little to no work for these companies. I suspect that many of them have already folded, that is if they were not wound up beforehand and the executives made off with a tidy profit. However, many of these companies aren't listed on the stock exchange (Blackwater isn't) so I suspect most of the operators knew that this was only going to be a short term venture. By the way, Eric Prince, founder of Blackwater, as since left the company and the company has also changed its name twice so is no longer known as Blackwater.

The last chapter was particularly interesting because it was about the failed coup attempt in Equitorial Guinea that involved the son of Magaret Thatcher. I remembered that clearly because it involved the son of Margaret Thatcher. What I thought was odd was that Pelton was writing as if this coup was something new and something that had arisen from the Iraq War. In reality it is not. It was not so much like Executive Outcomes, a South African security firm that would be hired by African dictators to put down rebel forces, but rather a bunch of out of work special forces operatives that where brought together to get rid of a dictator and steal Equatorial Guinea's oil resources. Further, I don't actually think that it is all that ironic that they got caught in Zimbabwe. It is not that Mugabe would have particularly been concerned about some coup plotters, but what would have concerned him would have been the fact that the people pulling the strings behind the coup were all white. Okay, it all came about by accident, but for a guy that sought to evict all of the white farmers from Zimbabwe I highly doubt he would have turned a blind eye where a coup against an African government was being orchestrated by white power brokers.

This is one of the earlier Tintin albums before Herge had developed his full cast of characters (though this cast was regularly being added to with every album released). So far, the only regulars that appear (other than a couple of brief appearances by the Thompson Twins) are Tintin and Snowy, and even here Snowy doesn't seem to talk all that much. However, this is also the first appearance of the South American tinpot dictator General Alcazar and his South American country San Theodoros.

The story revolves around a small statue from a South American tribe that mysteriously disappears from a museum only to be replaced with a fake. It is easily seen that the statuette is a fake because the original has a broken ear (thus the title of this comic). Tintin's investigation into the theft takes him to San Theodoros where he gets himself arrested, but before he is executed, there are a series of revolutions and while drunk and screaming out 'Long live General Alcazar' he is adopted into the regime as the aide-de-camp to General Alcazar.

This begins the rather interesting series of events in this obscure South American country since Herge seems to be suggesting that revolutions occur every other day here, and this does not end until the final album Tintin and the Picaros. Obviously there is some commentary on the nature of many of these South American countries in that they tend to be politically unstable and generally change rulers at the shot of a gun. While it is exaggerated (a lot) it still reflects the instability of the region continent (though one can argue that there are external forces that are actively creating this instability).

Then we have the oil companies who side up with a certain dictator to attempt to squeeze concessions out of them. In this particular comic, there is believed to be oil straddling San Theodoros and its neighbour, and two companies are urging both countries to go to war so as they can gain concessions over the whole region. This is another interesting thing that Herge raises: a lot of modern wars seem to be instigated by corporate interests and it is the profit motives that drive them rather than any noble or just idea. We also see the arms dealer, working for Korupt Arms GMBH (a German company) who goes to the rulers of both countries to sell weapons to them. This stood out to me because shortly Herge was to end up living in Nazi occupied Belgium, and this suggests that the Nazi's were never really into reading because albums such as this could have certainly raised the hackles of Belgium's World War II masters.

This is an okay comic, certainly not one of his best, but then it is still early days in the development of the series. The two gangsters in this comic are actually a couple of nit-wits, they simply have no clue and are bumbling around attempting to find the statuette (and failing abysmally) and to add to this is the colonel turned insurgent that simply cannot seem to do anything right, let alone blow up General Alcazar.

I found this book on the shelf in the office of the Australian Greens when I was doing some volunteer work for them some time ago and they were nice enough to let me borrow it. At that time I was pretty much reading any book criticising the Bush administration and their adventure in Iraq. I also remember reading a really good book about the history of Zionism, and while I would love to write about it I, for the life of me, cannot remember the book's name. I think I might do a Google search to see if anything pops up.

Anyway, as is not surprising for a book on the shelf at one of the Greens' offices, it is about war profiteering, and in particular the alleged war profiteering that occurred in Iraq. War, in an of itself, is a very expensive and very risky enterprise, but success can bring huge rewards. Modern warfare can be even more lucrative, even if the country that goes to war ends up losing the war, and one of the reasons I say this is because in the end it does not matter whether the countries at war win or lose, the companies that produce the weapons always end up making their money. In fact I have read a book about how some companies (BAE) will actually arm both sides in a conflict and walk away with huge profits. There are also allegations to that extent during World War II, and one of the main reasons was because the United States, up until 1941 that is, was neutral, however when they entered the war, the Trading with the Enemy Act was invoked. However companies were still able to get around that, usually through third parties. Theoretically, a company that makes planes for the United States Airforce could not sell planes to Germany during the war, but what they could do would be to sell planes to a neutral country (such as Spain) who could then on sell these planes to Germany (though since Germany had its own weapons manufacturers, they really did not need to buy planes from America).

However, as I mentioned above, this book deals predominantly with the Iraq War. There are a few things that were of interest in this book, one of them is the idea of what they call 'the Revolving Door'. This is when members of the corporate elite, people like CEOs and other executives, go from their corporate posts into government posts, and then back into corporate posts. Theoretically there is nothing really wrong with this namely because the captains of industry tend to have the skills and the experience to be able to run a country. Namely, if one can run a multi-billion dollar enterprise (and some of the companies have bigger turn overs than a lot of countries) then one is probably in the best position to run a government department, or even a country. However, the concern is that with their corporate ties they are able to manipulate government decisions that benefit themselves and their companies.

For instance, Richard Cheney and his Wife were both shareholders and executive directors of Halliburton, an oil infrastructure company, and even while in government, they still held shares in the company and as such directed a lot of contracts towards Halliburton so as to increase the company's share price, and in turn their private wealth. This is corruption pure and simple. A similar thing occurred here in South Australia. One of our former premiers held shares in Motorola, and while premier was directing contracts towards Motorola. When this was uncovered he lost his position, and come the next election, his party went on to lose.

There have also been other allegations directed at Halliburton, such as overcharging and performing substandard work. One particular incident involved laundering the uniforms of the American Military. The company charged huge prices and the uniforms pretty much came back in the same state. Further, when soldiers decided to do their own laundry they were disciplined and told that they must send their uniforms to the proper laundries. Then there are the allegations that if the trucks that were leased to the army broke down, or even suffered a scratch or a flat tyre, then the entire truck would be scrapped. Some suggest that this is normal policy, and personally I can't say otherwise.

It seems that the US is moving more and more towards using private companies to provide services to the military such as food facilities, and once again there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. If the purpose of the army is to wage war, then to remove all aspects of the army that are not needed and can be performed better by companies that specialise in such services frees up resources. This has been the case for a while, particularly with things such as tanks, planes, and trucks. These days the military does not build its own hardware, but rather makes orders to the various companies to produce them. Granted, there was a time when the government would build all of the army's hardware, but with advances in technology this simply is no longer feasible. However, in Australia, that still does happen, with the government establishing corporations, such as the Australian Submarine Corporation, to build hardware.

The other thing that happened with the invasion is that a hostile government was removed and a friendly government established, which means that the country is now opened up to trade. Not only that but there is also the need for rebuilding, and surprise, surprise, American companies are offered the rebuilding contracts, among other things. Obviously with oil being Iraq's main export, there was a lot of work that Halliburton could perform, and guess who got the contract. However I guess that war and plunder are different these days than previously. For instance, when Iraq was invaded, the central bank wasn't plundered and the gold in its vaults wasn't taken back to the United States. However, while the army wasn't doing the plundering, the population certainly was, and while there were short term benefits, the eventual cost still hasn't been fully counted or considered.

I should open by suggesting that this book was not actually written by Naomi Klein, and I am glad that I checked up on this before I wrote this review. The main reason is because it originally was supposed to be an essay that Klein wrote on the Iraq War, however the problem was that the essay that she wrote was free, and also she was writing the [book:Shock Doctrine] at the time which included everything that the essay contained, but in a much more expanded format. I can understand this namely because the Iraq War is really only one element in Klein's criticism of US foreign policy, and it is probably easier to understand the nature of the war in this larger context. As such the publishers included other essays in the work, however it appears that they decided to keep the name, and Klein's authorship on the book, most likely for sales purposes.

Now with this out of the way I will discuss the war further, though I would suggest looking at my commentary on The Shock Doctrine because, as I have mentioned above, this is only a small part of US foreign policy. However the war was probably one of the pivotal events that raised the awareness of US policy not just within groups in the United States, but throughout the world. In fact there was quite a lot of opposition to the war to the point that NATO would not even become involved (namely because France and Germany were blatantly opposed to the war). As such a new alliance, the Coalition of the Willing, was formed to fight the war. This coalition, though, was really only formed from the United States and England, with a group of small, almost insignificant, nations involved (and yes, I will include Australia among them).

As I look back at the events leading up to the war it really angers me at the almost blasé attitude that the leaders of the United States and England took towards the conduct of this war. Their main argument for war was to disarm Sadam Hussein, but as it turned out there was no need to disarm him because he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, though one can argue that a baseball bat is a weapon of mass destruction. Then there was the argument that he was connected with Al Qaeda, which, once again, was absolute rubbish. However, after the fact, when it was discovered that neither of these presumptions turned out to be true, they fell back on the argument that he was a tyrant that needed to be removed. Hey, there are a lot of tyrants out there, and quite a few of them are in the pocket of the United States.

I have spoken elsewhere on the stubborn and disrespectful attitudes of members of the far right, and while they still try to bambozzle us by saying that Bush will be looked upon in history as a great president, I suspect that when we do look back on it we will remember him for two disastrous wars and an economic collapse. It is interesting that the anti-Bush books that I read indicated his complete inability to manage a financial system, and once again this proved to be true when Lehman Brothers collapsed and Bush proceeded to bankrupt America by shifting $700 billion dollars over to the banks. It has been termed as the biggest bank heist in recorded history, and it is something that I will continue to uphold, and surprise, surprise, it didn't actually solve anything, except bankrupting America, and socialising the debts. It is interesting that people who promoted the wonders of a free market economy threw out the rule book at this time and bailed out failed institutions. There is the argument that by allowing them to fail would have set off a much worse financial crisis, but as far as I am concerned it has likely only delayed the inevitable. This, however, is still to be seen.

One of the things that came out of this book was the purpose behind the invasion of Iraq. It is clear that it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, or with removing a tyrant, but rather a resource grab. America needs oil to survive, and you will be surprised at how reliant our economy is on oil. When the Middle East turned off the taps in the 1970s the economy of the United State ground to a halt. However, they attempted to tell us that what they wanted to do was to turn Iraq into a modern capitalist society. However this would have all been a lie because the only people that would have benefited from this new Iraq would have been US corporations. It was supposed to be the shock doctrine in operation, with people going to sleep with one government and waking up with another, and then walking out to find a brand spanking new capitalist utopia filled with McDonalds, Apple Stores, and Foot Lockers (with probably a few Westfields thrown in).

However that never happened. It just goes to show how blind and foolish the planners of the war were. As it happened, when Sadam fled and the army disbanded, law and order broke down and a period of sustained looting broke out while the US army looked on, helpless. Once the dust settled, they once again thought they were in control, until a truck filled with explosives was parked outside the UN headquarters and detonated. That one attack signalled the beginning of a six year long insurgency that is still going on in parts. After about a year Iraq was on the verge of a civil war, with the Sunnis and the Shiites battling it out for sovereignty over their regions. Elections were held, but a Sunni boycott left parliament in control of the Shiites, so suddenly lots of boxes were lost. They want democracies, but only democracies that elect governments that they like. If the people elect a government that they don't like then democracy has failed. That is not a democracy, or if it is a democracy, it is only one in name only. It is more like an imperial state in which the leaders are hand picked by the Imperial overlords, but the way Napoleon set up his Republics in Western Europe.

Then there are the no bid contracts, handed out to select corporations that happened to have a connection to the government. That is more than just war profiteering, that is corruption. One of the companies that benefited big time from the war was Halliburton, a company in which Vice President Dick Cheney was president, whose wife still sat on the board, and between them they owned a substantial interest. The Iraq War was also one of the first modern wars fought using private contractors. Not only were many of the duties of the army contracted out to private corporations (with Halliburton picking up the most juicy contracts) but the US army was supplemented by mercenaries. These mercenaries, surprise, surprise, were not subject to the laws of the United States, and were also paid substantially more than the US soldiers.

The US, during this time, faced desertions from its army, conscientious objectors, and much like during the Vietnam era, many were fleeing over the border to Canada. Recruitment dropped and thus the national guard, normally set aside for defense of the homeland, was sent over to Iraq to supplement dwindling forces. Further, the soldiers on the ground found that their leave time was cut back, as was their pay, and their deployment time extended. No wonder troop morale was very low, and Donald Rumsfeld simply did not acknowledge or appreciate the situation that they were facing. It is all well and good to sit in your high castle, but if you abuse the people that you are ruling, sooner or later there is going to be a revolt.

Oh, and for those brain dead morons who are trying to claim that the Iraq War brought about the Arab Spring, think again. Iraq did not become a peaceful and wealthy land that was a beacon to the rest of the Middle East. No, instead it because a war zone where revenge killings were rife, minorities persecuted, with the population dwindling, and a shift to extremism. No, the Arab Spring was completely the opposite, and it probably had a lot more to do with Western ideas slowly filtering into the region than a failed war led by an incompetent and corrupt president (who, surprise, surprise, actually has warrants out for his arrest in some countries).