Or so says the Senator from Illinois, whose security in Afghanistan was provided by the much maligned firm.

Sen. Barack Obama has not been a fan of private police like Blackwater in war zones, and some news outlets even reported that they were spurned for his trip last week to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate’s security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What’s more, Obama was overheard saying: “Blackwater is getting a bad rap.” Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company’s supporters hope.

Hat tip: Protein Wisdom

Now to put Obama’s recent observation in context. His official Senate website features a number of op-eds disparaging the private security firm. In one from the Chicago-Sun Times the group is likened to a “rogue militia” group:

Contractors shouldn’t be rogue militia, roaming the country shooting without justification and without consequences. This is especially true since the federal government has apparently hired out the Iraq war right under our noses: There are nearly as many private military employees there as troops.

In the same article the administration is also chastised for relying on a “shadow military.” Another featured op-ed, this time from the LA TImes, declares that such contractors should not be tasked with providing security to American diplomats.

But Congress should also debate the overarching issue: Which military and security functions should be outsourced in the first place? And which pose the potential to harm the national interest if delegated to the private sector? The traditional standard was that “mission critical” functions — jobs that would lose the war if botched — shouldn’t be outsourced. What little is known about the Pentagon’s use of security contractors indicates that standard is obsolete. But what should the new criteria be?

The Blackwater debacle suggests that at the very least, outsourcing the protection of U.S. diplomats operating in war zones — a national security imperative — is a bad idea.

Does Barack Obama support these views? If not, why are they featured on his website? If so, how does he reconcile such statements with his recent adventures? Having found that the group is getting a “bad rap,” is he also willing to admit his culpability in making that so?

In a speech from October of 2007 featured on Obama’s campaign website (which curiously lacks a search function), he stated, “We cannot win a fight for hearts and minds when we outsource critical missions to unaccountable contractors.”  Does this mean that, by accepting the security of Blackwater, Obama has contributed to our supposed inability to “win a fight for hearts and minds?”

We need to decide which war on a generic description is more important, the “war on drugs” or the “war on terror”? Since the collapse of the Taliban, opium cultivation has sky-rocketed in Afghanistan, as locals seek to build a wealthy future. The coalition response has been to attack these fields, burn them, and otherwise discourage this activity. These efforts have been massively unsuccessful:

Afghanistan’s 2007 opium poppy cultivation could expand again after last year’s record crop, the U.N. drug agency said Monday, underlining the weakness of an international-backed drive against the country’s booming narcotics trade.

. . . “This winter survey suggests that opium cultivation in Afghanistan in 2007 may not be lower than the record harvest of 165,000 hectares in 2006,” UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa wrote in the report’s preface.

Last year, opium cultivation rose an alarming 59 percent, deepening fears that Afghanistan is rapidly becoming a narco-state. Officials say Taliban militants protect southern farmers and tap drug profits to fuel their insurgency.

One of the most important factors in determining whether an attempted regime change is successful or not is the support of the populace. If the people offering the new government legitimacy and trust in its abilities, it will be successful. If support for the old guard continues, however, it will threaten and possibly topple the new regime before it can ever get off the ground. This is what we now face in Afghanistan, and it is entirely unnecessary. Our fight against opium has encouraged farmers to turn to Taliban thugs for protection. In return, they get drug money to fund their attacks on coalition forces.

We need to tell farmers that their opium cultivation will be tolerated for the time being, but an affiliation with the Taliban will not. Burn those fields that are supporting terrorists, leave alone those that are not. For the time being, the incentive structure will serve to lessen Taliban influence on the populace. Then, after the fledgling Afghani government has established itself, efforts can be made to turn opium fields into non-narcotic production, such as wheat. But as long as we prioritize the war on drugs, we will be in grave danger of losing the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Coming as a shock to absolutely no one who understands the nature of our enemies, Pakistan’s repeated appeasement of jihadists has had disastrous effects.

The policy of “appeasement” had allowed militants to regroup and rearm, said leading global policy think-tank the International Crisis Group.

. . .Pakistan signed controversial peace accords with militants in the semi-autonomous tribal areas of South Waziristan in April 2004 and in North Waziristan in September 2006.

The deals - intended to end violence between militants and Pakistani troops - increased friction between Afghanistan and Pakistan, two key allies in the US-led “war on terror”.

. . .The report said Pakistan’s policy of releasing militants, returning their weapons and allowing “foreign terrorists stay on a promise to give up violence” had stoked instability on both sides of the border.

“This has given pro-Taleban elements license to recruit and arm, resulting in a serious increase in cross-border attacks against US, Nato and Afghan forces.”

Related Posts: Pakistan Release 2,500 Terrorists
With Friends Like These

In what can only be considered a major setback in the war against global jihad, Pakistan has released thousands of jihadists who will now, no doubt, return to the battle field.

In what could be the most troubling development in the War on Terror since it began, Pakistan has released nearly all of the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists it has had in custody since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Since the invasion, Pakistan has taken into custody thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters. But with Pakistan?s inability to defeat or control the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance on the Pakistani side of the Afghanistan border, Mushrraf has ceded land, arms and now all terrorists held prisoner.

The Telegraph cites Pakistani lawyers who claim that the Pakistani government has ?freed 2,500 foreigners who were originally held on suspicion of having links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban over the past four years.? This number includes virtually all al-Qaeda prisoners in Pakistan?s custody, including those held for the beheading of Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Pearl.

. . .It was indeed previously mentioned that Pakistan was releasing Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists as part of the North Waziristan deal, but no one expected a wholesale release of nearly all imprisoned since as long ago as 2001.

. . .This is a nuclear power that is currently ceding swaths of its own territory to Islamic terrorists with a global reach. Seemingly in an effort to seek personal peace, its secular leader is returning thousands of able, experienced and trained terrorists to the hands of an encroaching enemy with violent religious motivation. Yet the bulk of Pakistan?s professional army stands watch over the Indian border or waging an intense and bloody war for control of Baluchistan?s natural resources. al-Qaeda seeks to control something else.

Pakistans status as an “ally” is becoming increasingly flimsy. It’s going to be very difficult to win this war by ourselves. But so far no one else seems interested in fighting it.