Shadow Company: The rules of war have changed..."Thu Jan 25, 2007 16:10
SHADOW COMPANY: firstname.lastname@example.org
With over $100 Billion in annual revenues and 70000 employees in Iraq alone, the private military industry is booming, yet few civilians know anything about it. Shadow Company, a groundbreaking feature-length documentary, takes you deep inside this secret world that is changing the face of modern warfare. What are we really risking by allowing profit-motivated corporations into the business of war?
See Shadow Company and decide for yourself.
SEE MOVIE TRAILER:
Shadow Company, by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque, is the groundbreaking feature-length documentary that reveals the origins and destinations of these ...
According to Robert Young Pelton's upcoming book Licensed To Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror, there are now over 70,000 armed men working as security contractors in Iraq. As the US begins to draw down troops, private security companies will provide much of the muscle and steel in Iraq. Are these new hired guns an anomaly or the future of warfare? Should the US expand the use of private contractors as proxy forces or reign them in before they trigger more Fallujahs? Shadow Company, by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque, is the groundbreaking feature-length documentary that reveals the origins and destinations of these modern-day guns for hire. Critically acclaimed at the highest levels of Washington and Hollywood, Shadow Company presents the players, the facts and the opinions in a way that allows the audience to make up its own mind about a politically charged and complex subject. The film explores the moral and ethical issues "private military" solutions create for Western governments and the United Nations and addresses the risks of allowing profit-motivated corporations into the business of war.
OUR VIEW: Time for a civil debate
The Patriot Ledger, MA - Jan 24, 2007
It also would prohibit funding for any more troops, ban permanent US bases in Iraq and rescind the 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to use force in ...
GOOGLE: BUSH IRAQ CONTRACTORS
OUR VIEW: Time for a civil debate
By The Patriot Ledger
The new Democratic-led Congress heads toward its first vote on the Iraq war today, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee taking up a nonbinding resolution condemning President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops.
The Senate is well-positioned to conduct a civil and rigorous debate on our Iraq policy. The upper chamber, with its historical purpose and history of robust intellectual examination of the nation’s pressing issues, holds the ability to shed more light than the heat that often comes from the bigger, more populist, legislation-oriented House.
The time is here for U.S. senators to go on record with a statement about the American-made quagmire in Iraq and what to do about it. This must be done without the partisan rancor that has dominated the Washington debate over Iraq, and with the widest measure of support possible, to send a broad and unequivocal message to an increasingly isolated president and to a war-weary nation.
The resolution under debate states ‘‘it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq.’’ That question must be debated at some length and discourse, with an eye on emerging with a consensus from a high-minded deliberative body that reinforces what Bush’s own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and voters in last November’s elections have already said.
While the resolution is non-binding and largely symbolic, the Senate debate bears a potential importance and relevance that stands to be lost when the measure, if passed, moves to the larger and more rancorous House.
The potential for the measure to become a political football remains. Some Democrats want to go further by cutting money for new troops, while moderates in both parties want softer language, and Republican leaders have pledged to filibuster.
Everyone on Capitol Hill wants to get into the act. Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon is wary of the term ‘‘escalating’’ in the resolution and was working on a ‘‘constructive, nonpartisan resolution that expresses the opposition of the Senate to the surge.’’ Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Sen. Edward Kennedy want to cut money for new troops to prevent the deployments. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has a proposal that would cap troops at existing levels.
In the House, California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee - co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus - introduced a bill that would demand the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months. It also would prohibit funding for any more troops, ban permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and rescind the 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to use force in Iraq.
Such rhetoric and divisiveness isn’t going to result in a helpful way to end the war. Nor is the middle of a war the time to change presidential war powers. The nation looks to the Senate for a full and logical discussion to inform the national dialogue and fill a leadership void that has allowed one of the nation’s worst foreign policy blunders to go on.
Copyright 2007 The Patriot Ledger
Transmitted Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Trailers & Clips
1. Letters from Iraq - The Shadow Company trailer.
Having left a promising law career James Ashcroft gives us his first impressions of Iraq upon arriving to work as a security contractor.
Main Page -
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES