It all started to go down hill when Corporations became protected under the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment as “Natural Born Citizens” this gives them the right the petition the government and all other rights of an individual citizen.

It was not always like this, i go into much more detail in my article here:
http://www.upfordebate.us/story.php?title=corporate-america-the-real-enemy-of-the-state-1

I take an early look at the history of corporations in America and give a few different examples from the modern era. I thought you might want to take a look at this. Thanks for the good read.

After he had retired from the army, President Clinton appointed him from 1996-2001 as the
Tsar of drugs. Some say that he was involved in illegal drug trade to finance death squads in Colombia. You may remember that Dyncorp, the infamous defense contractor was
also working in Colombia.

In 2000,McCaffrey was elected on board of directors in Dyncorp! Who else was on board Dyncorp? Retired General Anthony Zinni, who was the “hero” of Clinton’s Desert Fox in 1998 where Iraq was bombed to wag-the-dog the scandal of Monica.

Dyncorp now has the following managing directors among others, but pls. remember the names:

Ret. Gen. MacCaffrey
Ret.Gen. Zinni
Ret.Gen. Richard E. Hawley (of air force)
Ramzi M. Musallam
Robert B. McKeon

Dyncorp joined Mcneil Technologies, which also has on its board of directors:

MacCaffrey, Zinni, Hawley, Musallam and Mckeon.

Both companies, Dyn. and Mcn. have a mother company which was established in 1992 under the name of (Varitas Capital).Who are its managing team? Do I have to repeat? MacCaffrey, Zinni, Hawley, Musallam and Mckeon.

Now Dyn. and Mcn. merged and produced in 2006 a baby company called “Global Linguist Solutions”. The director is the same General McCaffrey. since 2007 this company was in charge of providing the US army in iraq with: traslators, spies, and prostitutes.

This is the profiteering pattern.

She told me that when she looked up in the internet for Iraqi tribal maps, she found all kinds of such maps, so why that man was so desperate to buy “thematic” maps?

I have not only read LICENSED TO KILL, I use part of it in my course (http://newimperialism.wordpress.com/), and coincidentally I have even argued in class that much of what you do in that book is anthropological, and at the very least if an anthropologist were to research the same actors and phenomena, and write up the ethnography in a publicly accessible fashion (for a “general audience”), I ask students how the work of an anthropologist would have been any different.

Now that I have paid my dues, I can get back to attacking your message :D

You think my terminology is a little “cinematic”? That’s interesting, because I am referring to actual documented happenings. Perhaps you mean life imitates art, and in this case a very horrific art. What these companies “actually” provide to their clients, varies considerably, and is wide enough to include exactly what I listed, and again, that has been documented. It is not an empty assertion.

“Their work takes them into violent, chaotic situations”

Oh boo hoo hoo Robert. Their work is what brings the violence and chaos into the situation! I just watched this particular clip of Blackwater at work in Iraq, last night:

Sorry, what was that about the chaos and violence? This looks like some armed punks on drugs living out a real life Grand Theft Auto video-game fantasy.

As for “the polarized viewpoint and lawless nature of the ‘enemy’” — I have no idea about what the heck you are selling here. You mean people fighting violent invaders have a “polarized” position…what, you mean all on their own, resulting from the way they were socialized, or their genes, and not because of an understandable reaction against conquerors? And lawless…I cannot take that seriously when the invaders made it their mission to demolish their lawful governments.

As for the corporations I listed being “both legal, moral and staffed by people that individually you would have no problem with” I am now certain that you have misunderstood me. First, it’s not about individual persons, and second, as collectivities engaged in a particular systemic phenomenon, yes, I very much have a problem with them, and with those of us in academia who are responsible for militarizing our own institutions.

“I would love to see a more formal anthropological view of the contracting world” — then please read Roberto Gonzalez, who inspired much of this work, got the ball rolling. If by more formal, you mean older and traditional, then we enter the realm of interest group politics and the works of Abner Cohen and others, tied to studies of social conflict by Max Gluckman, and crossed with political economic anthropology of the sort produced by Eric Wolf and Jonathan Friedman.

No it doesn’t Max, I think your terminology is a little cinematic when compared to what these companies actually provide their clients.

I spent three years and much of my book “Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns In The War On Terror” exploring this exact concept. I suppose in your vocabulary I functioned as a mercenary researcher or “unlicensed” anthropologist to satisfy my curiosity about what I correctly identified as an important trend. :))

What I found is very similar to the question: “Are people inherently good or bad?” It really depends on social dynamics, peer pressure, self interest etc. The vast majority of individuals who work for these corporations have been trained, vetted and often commended by the military. Perhaps more so than in most corporations or in civilian capacity.

Their work takes them into violent, chaotic situations in which the inherent activity is prone to stress and failure. Add to that tribal and cultural ties to the serving military and the polarized viewpoint and lawless nature of the “enemy” and their working environment (bad vs good) there is often a blur.

Should a corporation (which is legally a separate person) have a position on the “enemy”, engage in violence or cause harm to people. Legally no. But Bremer conveniently created a loophole for many corporations to do exactly that without penalty. Things have changed (just review all the recent lawsuits and the demise of Blackwater) but I would no corporations you have listed are both legal, moral and staffed by people that individually you would have no problem with.

Also there is the basic quality standards of demand vs supply. There are only so many qualified people for certain and jobs and if demand exceeds supply…standards drop.

And of course there is always the question Why not apply your skills on this “tribe”? I would love to see a more formal anthropological view of the contracting world :)

I think if you read my book you would see there is unexplored and fertile territory there

best

RYP

“If I was to put together a social network matrix of every member of the AAA on one side, and any government, private corporation, military or intelligence agency on the other, what do you think the odds are that there will be more associations than not.”

Since the focus of the article is on the military and intelligence, I would say you should go ahead and try to prove your point with factual evidence, rather than speculative hypothesizing. You also need to specify, when saying “more associations”, to what it is that you are comparing AAA members. Will there be as many associations between every AAA member and military-intelligence-corporations, as there are between HTS social scientists and such corporations? I would think the answer is obvious: no.

One has to also keep in mind that the criticisms offered here, or by the NCA, against HTS, are by no means out of step with the AAA…which is why the AAA has rejected HTS as both unethical and not a legitimate exercise of anthropology. Start with that basic fact, and do not pretend like we are back in 2007 and the debates have only just started. Some debates have been brought to a conclusion, and it’s a conclusion of the AAA membership against HTS.