*Asia Times
Sep 28, 2006 *
For more information on our empire of military bases in Iraq, See:
Permanent U.S. Military Bases In Iraq: Permanent US Colony - Dahr Jamail
<http://leighm.net/blog/?p=151>
*Mini-gulags, hired guns and lobbyists
*By Tom Engelhardt
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI28Ak01.html
Last month a site of shame, shared by Saddam Hussein and George W Bush,
was emptied.
Abu Ghraib prison is the place where Saddam's functionaries tortured
(and sometimes killed) many enemies of his regime, and where Bush's
functionaries, as a series of notorious digital photos revealed,
committed what the US press still likes to refer to as "prisoner abuse".
Now, there are no prisoners to abuse and the prison itself is to be
turned over to the Iraqi government, perhaps to become a museum, perhaps
to remain a jail for another regime
whose handling of prisoners is grim indeed. The emptying was
clearly meant as a redemptive moment or, as Nancy A Youssef of the
McClatchy Newspapers put it, "a milestone" for the huge structure. After
all the bad media and the hit US "prestige" took around the world, Abu
Ghraib was finally over.
Of course its prisoners, who remained generally uncharged and without
access to Iraqi courts, weren't just released to the winds. Quite the
opposite: more than 3,000 of them were redistributed to two other US
prisons, Camp Bucca in Iraq's south and Camp Cropper at the huge US base
adjoining Baghdad International Airport, once dedicated to the holding
of such "high-value" detainees as Saddam Hussein and top officials of
his regime.
Camp Cropper itself turns out to be an interesting story, but one with a
problem: while the emptying of Abu Ghraib made the news everywhere, the
filling of Camp Cropper made no news at all. And yet it turns out that
Camp Cropper, which started out as a bunch of tents, has now become a
US$60 million "state-of-the-art" prison. The upgrade, on the drawing
boards since 2004, was just completed and hardly a word has been written
about it. We really have no idea what it consists of or what it looks
like, even though it's in one of the few places in Iraq that an American
reporter could safely visit, being on a vast US military base
constructed, like the prison, with taxpayer dollars.
Had anyone paid the slightest attention - other than the Pentagon, the
Bush administration, and whatever company or companies had the contract
to construct the facility - it would still have been taken for granted
that Camp Cropper wasn't the business of ordinary Americans (or even
their representatives in Congress) - despite the fact that the $60
million, which made the camp "state of the art", was surely Americans',
no one in the United States debated or discussed the upgrade and there
was no serious consideration of it in Congress before the money was
anted up, any more than Congress or the American people are in any way
involved in the constant upgrading of US military bases in Iraq.
While Iraq and future Iraq policy are constantly in the news, almost all
the US facts-on-the-ground in that country - of which Camp Bucca is one
- have come into being without consultation with the American people or,
in any serious way, Congress (or testing in the courts).
Camp Bucca is a story you can't read anywhere in the United States - and
yet it may, in a sense, be the most important American story in Iraq
right now. While arguments spin endlessly here at home about the nature
of withdrawal "timetables", and who's cutting and running from what, and
how many troops the US will or won't have in-country in 2007, 2008 or
2009, on the ground a process continues that makes mockery of the debate
in Washington and in the country. While the "reconstruction" of Iraq has
come to look ever more like the deconstruction of Iraq, the construction
of an ever more permanent-looking American landscape in that country has
proceeded apace and with reasonable efficiency.
First we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never
to label "permanent". (For a while, they were given the charming name of
"enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream
bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally
billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size
of US towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts,
Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are,
elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded.
Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first
"permanent US prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the
Bush administration is building what's probably the largest,
best-fortified "embassy" in the solar system, with its own elaborate
apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of
3,500.
If, for a moment, Americans stop listening to the arguments about, or
even the news about, Iraq here at home and just concentrate on the
ignored reality of those facts-on-the-ground, you're likely to assess
our world somewhat differently. After all, those facts being made on the
ground - in essence policy-put-into-action without the trappings of
debate, democracy, media coverage, or checks and balances of any sort -
are unlikely to be altered or halted in any foreseeable future by debate
or opinion polls in the US. All that is likely to alter them is other
facts on the ground - a growing insurgency, the deaths of Americans and
Iraqis in ever greater numbers, a region increasingly thrown into
turmoil, and maybe, one of these days, a full-scale, in-the-streets
reaction by the Shi'ites of Iraq to the occupation of their country by a
foreign power intent on going nowhere any time soon.
*A Bermuda Triangle of injustice*
Recently, speaking of the Bush administration's urge publicly to
redefine and so abrogate the Geneva Conventions, former secretary of
state Colin Powell said: "If you just look at how we are perceived in
the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu
Ghraib and renditions, whether we believe it or not, people are now
starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."
It's a comment not atypical of the present debate in Washington and
possibly of feelings in the country. The media play up the courageous
stands of Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and John
Warner in bringing us back to those "high standards". In the process,
the details of how much of what we can use in questioning whomever and
what modest protections prisoners might or might not receive in
America's offshore prison system are hashed out. But no matter what is
decided on any of these matters, in the real, on-the-ground world,
Americans' "high standards" are quite beside the point - the point being
the globally outsourced penal system being created.
For example, President Bush recently announced that the United States
was emptying other prisons as well - previously officially
unacknowledged "secret prisons" around the globe - of 14 "high value"
al-Qaeda detainees. "There are now no terrorists in the CIA program", he
said, though that is unlikely to be the actual case.
Looked at another way, however, that secret Central Intelligence Agency
detention system, which seems to consist of makeshift or shared or
borrowed facilities around the world, sits in place, ever ready for use.
It's not going anywhere and in the most basic sense it probably cannot
be shut down. Nor, it seems, are the almost 14,000 prisoners the US
holds in Iraq, the 500 (or more) in Afghanistan, and the nearly 500 in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, going anywhere. Even with Abu Ghraib empty and the
secret prison system officially emptied, nearly 15,000 prisoners are
being held by the US in essence incommunicado, most beyond the eyes of
any system of justice, beyond the reach of any judges or juries. In many
cases, as in that of Bilal Hussein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Iraqi
photojournalist, who has been held, probably at Camp Cropper, without
charge or trial "on suspicion of collaborating with insurgents" for the
past five months, even that most basic right - to know exactly why you
are being held, what the charges are against you - is lacking.
Whatever arguments may be going on in Washington over which "tools" or
"interrogation techniques" the CIA is to be allowed to use or over
exactly how the 14 al-Qaeda detainees just transferred to Guantanamo
will be tried, this set of facts-on-the-ground adds up to America's own
global Bermuda Triangle of Injustice into which untold numbers of human
beings can simply disappear. The "crown jewel" of America's mini-gulag
is, of course, Guantanamo. And again, whatever the fierce arguments in
the US may be about Guantanamo "methods" or what kinds of commissions or
tribunals (if any) may finally be chosen for the run-of-the-mill
prisoners there, one fact-on-the-ground points us toward the actual lay
of the land. A little-publicized $30 million maximum-security wing at
Guantanamo is now being completed by the US Navy, just as at the US
prison at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, there has been an upgrade.
In all-too-real worlds beyond our reach, everything tends toward
permanency. Whatever the discussion may be, whatever issues may seem to
be gripping Washington or the nation, whatever you're watching on TV or
reading in the papers, elsewhere the continual constructing, enlarging,
expanding, entrenching of a new global system of imprisonment, which
bears no relation to any system of imprisonment Americans have
previously imagined, continues non-stop, unchecked and unbalanced by
Congress or the courts, unaffected by the Republic, but very distinctly
under the US flag.
*Contractors and mercenaries *
And don't imagine that this is an anomaly, applicable only to
imprisonment abroad. Almost anywhere you look, the facts on the ground
tell a story at odds with what's important, what's real as we Americans
imagine it.
Let's take, for instance, what's now referred to as the Intelligence
Community (IC), a collection of at least 16 agencies, ranging from the
CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) to the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Consider then just one recent piece
about the IC by Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times, headlined "Spy
agencies outsourcing to fill key jobs".
As Miller points out, the overall intelligence budget has gone up about
$10 billion a year in recent years and for that we've got an upgrading
(or at least upsizing) of almost every one of those 16 agencies plus a
whole new, sprawling layer of intelligence bureaucracy headed by John
Negroponte, the intelligence tsar, who runs the new Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (not even included in the count
above). Miller reports another interesting fact-on-the-ground as well:
enormous numbers of private contractors are flooding into the IC.
"At the National Counterterrorism Center - the agency created two years
ago to prevent another attack like [that of] September 11 [2001] - more
than half of the employees are not US government analysts or terrorism
experts. Instead, they are outside contractors. At CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia, senior officials say it is routine for career
officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations
and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers - non-agency employees who
carry special-colored IDs."
At some clandestine CIA overseas posts such as Islamabad and Baghdad,
Miller reports, private contractors can make up as many as
three-quarters of the employees, while at home private contractors at
the CIA now also outnumber its estimated 17,500 employees. He concludes:
"Senior US intelligence officials said that the reliance on contractors
was so deep that agencies couldn't function without them. ‘If you took
away the contractor support, they'd have to put yellow tape around the
building and close it down,' said a former senior CIA official who was
responsible for overseeing contracts before leaving the agency earlier
this year."
The same could, of course, be said of the US military, which is quite
literally incapable of existing today without its private contractors
such as Halliburton's KBR, nor could its wars be carried on without the
proliferation of hired guns - mercenaries - who are now a given in any
such situation. This transformation of the military into first an
all-volunteer, then an increasingly privatized as well as outsourced,
and now an increasingly mercenary institution is another
fact-on-the-ground, another building block to America's future.
*A reality built on fear *
Around all such "facts", of course, ever more entrenched and ever more
expansive sets of interests arise: companies to organize the private
contractees, or to deal with the outsourcing, or to handle contracts and
construction work, not to speak of whole worlds of consultants,
specialists, and lobbyists.
This is a reality that no future US administration, nor any
better-empowered Congress, would be likely to reverse, no less erase,
any time soon. No matter how the details of the argument about NSA
spying turn out, for example, it's in essence a given that the National
Security Agency will continue to grow and make itself ever more
available in ever more ingenious ways, trolling ever more extensively in
communications of every sort. These are the facts being established on
the ground, while in Washington they argue over the (sometimes
significant) details and the media focus their main attention on all of
this as the essence of the news of the day.
Take for example the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), yet another
sprawling, ill-organized, inefficient bureaucracy established after
September 11 and not likely to do anything but grow in our lifetimes.
Around it has sprung into existence an anti-terrorism homeland-security
industry (thank you, Osama bin Laden!) of staggering proportions. "Seven
years ago," writes Paul Harris of The Guardian, "there were nine
companies with federal homeland-security contracts. By 2003 it was
3,512. Now there are 33,890."
Think about that. They are there to divide a terrorism/security pie that
has, since 2000, resulted in about $130 billion in contracts and now,
according to USA Today, is a $59 billion a year business globally - one
based on that surefire best-seller, fear, whose single major customer
is, of course, the DHS.
Not surprisingly, around those 33,000 companies has sprung up a whole
network of Washington-based lobbyists (including the lobbying firm of
John Ashcroft, the previous attorney general, the Ashcroft Group), a
plethora of security conferences and trade magazines; in short, the full
panoply of a thriving business world. Already at least 90 officials have
left the Homeland Security Department to become lobbyists or consultants
in the business that surrounds it, including Tom Ridge, the first head
of the department. After only five years, the homeland-security
business, according to USA Today, has already eclipsed "mature
enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue".
These are truly facts on the ground, and no discussion in Washington of
homeland security is likely to shake them much. An industry tracker,
Homeland Security Research, points the way to one possible future on
which Americans are never likely to vote. "A major attack in the United
States, Europe or Japan could increase the global market in 2015 to $730
billion, more than a twelvefold increase."
Or consider the Pentagon's Northcom - United States Northern Command,
now responsible for "the continental United States, Alaska, Canada,
Mexico and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical
miles", including the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Before
October 1, 2002, there was no Northern Command. Less than four short
years later, it's not only up and running but has multiple missions.
It's preparing for the next hurricane (since we already know the Federal
Emergency Management Agency can't do the job), deploying forces to
battle wildfires in the west, and getting ready for an avian-flu
pandemic. And don't think for a moment that where an institution springs
up (especially one with a budget like the Pentagon's behind it), a world
of on-the-ground realities doesn't arise as well. Just as it will when,
in the near future, the Pentagon redivides its imperial domains by
creating a new Africacom (United States Africa Command), supposedly to
"anchor US forces on the African continent" - a decision that will be
sold around town based on "terrorism security threats", but will in
essence be about energy flows and oil (see America's Africa Corps
<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI21Aa01.html>, September 21).
Each new structure like this, each decision, will result in new facts on
the ground, new flows of money, and new sets of private contractors.
These are increasingly the crucial realities of our world - and it's not
the world of a republic. It's not a world of checks and balances. It's
not a world where even a change of ownership in one or both houses of
the US Congress in November would prove a determining factor. It's not a
world where people out there are just "starting to question whether
we're following our own high standards". It's distinctly not the world
as we Americans like to imagine it, but it is the world we are,
regrettably enough, lost in. It's the world created not just by a
commander-in-chief presidency, but by a Pentagon-in-chief-dominated
government, and by a corporation-in-chief style of imperial rule.
It is a world striving for permanence, which doesn't faintly mean that
it's permanent - not in Iraq and not here. But it might be helpful if we
began to register more fully not just the latest flurry of whatever
passes for news, but the facts-on-the-ground that are, every minute,
every hour, every day, transforming our lives and our planet.
/*Tom Engelhardt *is editor of Tomdispatch <http://www.tomdispatch.com/>
and the author of/ The End of Victory Culture. /His novel, /The Last
Days of Publishing, /has recently come out in paperback. /
