Literature Review

United States military doctrine normally has centered on the use of the capabilities of the U.S. military alone. Mercenary use has traditionally been a doctrinal option. With the rise of the Rumsfeld Doctrine, there has been a heavy increase of the use of private military contractors in U.S military operations. Many problems in military operations have been caused due to the use of outside private actors in U.S military operations. Among these is the issue of oversight. Where a U.S Marine carrying out an inhumane action will be promptly punished for his or her action, a mercenary under private U.S military contract does not necessarily answer to military law.
One of the earliest academics to bring up this issue was from Colonel Bruce Grant of the U.S Army War College. His study examined privatized military assistance as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. He examined a trend at the time of his writing in 1998, where private military firms were allowed to provide military assistance in various ways, be it in direct intervention or via training of foreign armies.
Grant asserts this phenomenon has developed without traditional congressional oversight or public knowledge. He furthers his argument by saying that this removes military expertise from public accountability and corrupts the U.S military. Furthermore, by relying on these private actors who are motivated primarily by profit, major problems can be caused that can detract from U.S foreign policy objectives.
Kenneth B. Moss follows a similar vein of analysis to Grant in his analysis of mercenaries. However, his analysis, unlike Grant’s, does not just cover PMCs alone, but rather blends them together in an extended analysis of the entire Iraq conflict as a reflection of the second Bush administration’s foreign policy. This analysis ties in many macro-scale facets not necessarily explored in PMC-centric works regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan war.
Paul R. Verkuil’s analysis of the privatization of military functions reflects an angle regarding a military’s responsibility to the state. In particular he argues towards an idea of the privatization of government functions such as the military threatening democracy in the United States. For Verkuil, this is mainly due the issue of accountability as a private corporate entity has no accountability to anyone but it’s shareholders.
Peter Singer reflects a similar view to Verkuil’s in his own work Corporate Warriors. However, he stays somewhat more professional and academic in his writing and delves deeper into the functional workings of the relationship between the military and the state. He argues about the oversight issues in light of the U.S. military’s increased reliance on mercenaries. Traditionally, militaries are a government force that are in service of the state, and therefore are accountable to its citizens. By relying on private militaries, the problem of oversight comes into play, as the primary loyalty of the fighting force is to their profit, not to the citizens of a state.
Phillip Gourevitch’s work on the conditions of Iraqi prisons, in particular Abu Grahib reflects a lack of oversight in current overall U.S. military operations in Iraq. While the analysis in this book is more focused on prisons in wartime the analysis of PMCs operating U.S. military prisons, helps illustrate the PMC’s inhumane actions. There are many instances in this book where PMCs not necessarily assigned to the prison stop by to help prison guards in torture of prisoners. On the whole, Gourevitch provides excellent recounting of particular incidents due to his journalistic style. However, there is little in the way of academic distance in his writing. He does illustrate the lack of oversight in an up close manner and analysis however not done by any other writer.
By comparison, Jeremy Scahill is somewhat more removed in his analysis. He covers the negative effects caused by a lack of adequate oversight on PMC operations in Iraq. Problems that have arisen have primarily negatively affected civilians within the mercenaries’ areas of operation. Unnecessary shoot outs and lack of distinguishing of civilians from viable targets have left a lot of civilians dead. Scahill’s analysis ends up being far reaching, but without being too broad.
Scahill delves deeper into the issue of lack of oversight going as far as to point out the unsupervised contracts being made by the mercenary firms and other actors. As profit is the primary motive, often operations given specific stipulations by the U.S military are not met, such as minimum equipment needed as well as recommended manpower for an operation. This can result in undermanned and underequipped operations due to the private mercenary firm wanting to reap the monetary savings for additional profits.
Diana Rasnor and Robert Bauman argue that the profit motive encouraged by mercenary firms overall are making the U.S. military weaker as an organization of the long term. One cited reason is that the higher contractual payoffs offered by a limited term PMC contract offer far more money in the short term than a long-term military salary. As a result, a lot of expertise is leaving the U.S. military and therefore weakening the overall experience structure. As such, future U.S. military operations may well be more reliant on private military firms that have drained the military of its expertise. Another side effect is that U.S. military operations will only get more reliant on PMC firms to get things done. In a sense, the current trend is likened to the Roman Empire’s reliance on mercenaries towards the end of its reign.
The Human Rights First publication on private military actors in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan area of operations lay out primarily statistical data regarding the human cost of using PMCs in such a vast scale. The general consensus is grim. However, this book also gives statistical data for mercenary operations dating back as far as the 1990s, showing a large body of data existed prior to the negative consequences of mercenary use where oversight was lacking.
In a similar vein, the HPG report on PMCs from 2008 narrows its scope on PMC operations, and looks towards their ability to help in humanitarian situations. The focus is less on emphasizing the lack of oversight, but rather showing the use of PMCs in helping keep security in warzones where humanitarian operations are being held. The report provides statistics showing the difference in security and effectiveness in humanitarian operations without PMC help.
Overall, the report seems somewhat more positive on PMCs in this aspect, as this is a specific style of operation PMCs are not really known for operating under. In this case, the oversight measure seems to be based purely on the PMCs having to rely on good public relations during a humanitarian operation in order to keep a good corporate profile. As far as the analysis goes, the humanitarian focus separates this report from other major works in the area of PMC studies.
In a similar vein there is Robert Young Pelton’s personal experiences with mercenaries as recounted in Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror. The engaging of mercenaries on a personal level brings about it a different viewpoint than most other books. Pelton notes the good and the bad that come with mercenary work for the operators he spends time with. In addition, he goes through some analysis of PMC history as far back as the 1990s with Executive Outcomes, and the larger issues that came with lack of oversight of a well financed private army. An example of this is his coverage and in depth investigation of the connections of former Executive Outcomes operators and their attempt to stage a coup in Equatorial Guinea. Pelton’s writing, is similar to Gourevitch’s in the sense that it presents a personal look at an aspect of PMCs. His analysis of Executive Outcomes operations and their broader connections to other events help illustrate the broader narrative of PMC history. However, he does little to bring in the broader scope of PMCs in the Iraq War, where Scahill and the Human Rights report succeed.





Works Cited
Gourevitch, Philip, and Errol Morris. Standard Operating Procedure. New York: Penguin, 2008. Print.
-Grant, Bruce. U.S. Military Expertise for Sale: Private Military Consultants as a Tool of Foreign Policy. Carlisle: U.S. Army War College, 1998. Print.
-Human Rights First. Private Security Contractors at War: Ending the Culture of Impunity. New York: Human Rights First, 2008. Print.
-Moss, Kenneth B. Undeclared War and the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington D.C: Woodrow Wilson Center, 2008. Print.
-Pelton, Robert Young. Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror. 1st ed. New York: Three Rivers, 2007. Print.
-Rasor, Dina, and Robert Bauman. Betraying Our Troops. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.
-Scahill, Jeremy. Blackwater The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. New York: Nation, 2007. Print.
-Singer, Peter W. Corporate Warriors : The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. New York: Cornell UP, 2008. Print.
-Stoddard, Abby, Adele Harmer, and Victoria DiDomenico. The Use of Private Security Providers and Services in Humanitarian Operations. Publication no. 27. London: HPG, 2008. Print.
-Verkuil, Paul R. Outsourcing Sovreignty: Why Privatization of Government Functions Threatens Democracy and What We Can Do About It. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.

Plagiarism and ‘Appropriation’ are the Same Thing

Randy Kennedy’s recent article about Helen Hegemann describes her “free appropriation” of a fellow writer’s work. Kennedy points out that she describes her taking her colleague’s work not as plagiarism, but rather a “remix” entitled to her as nothing in and of itself is original, but rather authentic. I do not buy the explanation that having been born in a media saturated society, that it is her birthright to “remix” the works of others without some form of acknowledgement. If someone’s work is taken in any shape or form, some form of acknowledgement is required, otherwise it is simply plagiarism.
A recent case resembling the one above can be seen in Nick Simmon’s comic book Incarnate. The art in Simmons’ book panel for panel in most cases drew upon identical imagery seen in a popular manga called Bleach. Simmons cited having been “inspired by work [he admires]” and that his work was simply meant as homage to artists he respects.
Looking at the page above, this is but a small sample of the indicated series of “homages” throughout Simmons’ work. Plagiarism Writer Jonathan Baily writes that if this were a homage that “the similarities were too widespread and that there was no indication of such”. If inspiration or tribute were intended, the intended effect, then there was no obvious indicator of such as an artistic citation.
As Baily points out, there are ways to convey homage or tribute. The medium of comics in particular is rife with homage. An example of this can be seen in covers imitating iconic imagery, be it a famous panel, or even another comic cover. Homage or tribute can also be conveyed through parody. However, Simmons’ use of the images had no indication of homage at all. Rather the images were shamelessly taken out for use in his own book, without any sort of acknowledgement to Bleach. As shown in the above image, the transposition of both images together shows a direct taking of the original image for use, but in no way showcases any sort of homage.
Returning to the Hegemann case, the idea of the “birthright to remix” is simply preposterous. While there is a truth to her statement that there is nothing original but rather authenticity, there is a difference between outright taking someone else’s words and making one’s own take or interpretation on a subject. In Hegemann’s case, she outright had “blended large chunks of [her collegue’s] work into her own.” This similar to the case of Simmon’s fails to highlight an example of authenticity. How is it authentic to the author if it wholesale takes out the work of someone else? It fails to show what that author is truly capable of, and therefore is a weaker work for it.
The idea of “communal creativity” as Kennedy puts it in his article, can only ring true if those involved in the creative commune are okay with using one another’s ideas. Even then, there is a contractual obligation that is made, similar in case to any author of a work citing another. Any idea that the appropriation and blending of another person’s work as authentic in Hegemann’s words should be seen simply as a euphemism for plagiarism.




Works Cited
1) Baily, Jonathan."The Nick Simmons Plagiarism Scandal | PlagiarismToday." Plagiarism Today - Copyright, Content Theft and Plagiarism. 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .
2) Eve, Empress. "Nick Simmons Accused Of Plagiarism For Incarnate Comic; Publication Halted." Geeks of Doom. 25 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .
3) Kennedy, Randy. "The Free-Appropriation Writer - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 26 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .

Abstracts

Abstract for: Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill
Blackwater was not always a major player in US military contracting. It was not until the Iraq war in 2003 that Blackwater’s fortunes changed, with the advent of the Rumsfeld doctrine. The Rumsfeld Doctrine was conceived as a way to make the military cheaper, and more effective by relying on market forces. The reality as it would turn out was far from the theory. Iraq is the major case study within this book of the effects of the US military’s vast privatization by companies such as Blackwater. The primary motive for private military companies is profit, and as such, many corners are cut to attain lucrative US government contracts in Iraq. The overall examination in this book shows the interplay between privatized military organizations, their lack of effectiveness and the surge in violence in military operations in Iraq.

Abstract for: Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry by P.W Singer

Private military corporations are seen by governments as a means of saving money. Their use on a whole has increased to unforeseen heights in the last decade. The book explores two sides of the private military coin. On one hand there are the perceived benefits, such as hiring privatized specialists for particular problems, ensuring that the job be done effectively if the government does not have the means. Another advantage can be seen in the use of private military firms being of use in ending small scale conflicts. The negative aspects explored are economic in nature and tend to overshadow the positive aspects. Contractual issues more often than not arise, leading to many unfinished operations, without regard to the military needs at that moment, as being private companies, their loyalties go to their shareholders first. An even bigger problem is losing military policy to private actors such as PMCs, which can lead to the further degradation of a state. The book’s examination aims towards finding possible solutions to the use of PMCs, and their possible regulation.

Intellectual Autobiography

I am a recent graduate of Fordham University’s Political Science program. While working on my bachelors in Political Science, I focused on international politics and political economy. During my time spent at Fordham, I was also an active member of Fordham’s Film and Television Production club, where I worked on a number of different projects culminating in a short film my senior year. My goal in the media studies program at the new school is to learn how to make and produce film in tandem with political discourse.

While I cannot retrace my earliest interests in either the social sciences or film, I feel I can at least retrace my interest in the media studies program. My initial interest in probably came from a creative standpoint. I wanted to study film when I graduated from college. However, I still wanted to pursue Political science, as it was my undergraduate major.

My studies in Political Science started initially from an economics perspective. I was primarily interested in economics, but found myself drawn less towards economic models and more towards why politics affected events the way they did. Being from a primarily international background due to my childhood in West Africa, I focused on international affairs as my area of study within Political Science.

War in relation to politics in particular has been of interest to me. Part of this may be due to my experiences of having lived through a coup d’etat in 1999 when I was still in West Africa. Additionally, I grew up in a fairly international community, so many of my friends whom I grew up with at some point or another had escaped from a nation affected by war. This has manifested itself in many ways during my undergraduate studies, primarily during my studies on military affairs in the U.S government and the growth of the private military contracting industry within the USA and abroad.

As far as creative pursuits, the primary creative outlet I had throughout college was in creative writing. However, I participated as a member of the Film and Television production club on campus. This membership culminated in the making of a short horror film my senior year.

Initially after graduation I was caught between wanting to pursue either film school, or get masters in International affairs. I was torn in that I wanted to pursue both. The ability to blend both these fields together is what attracted me to the New School.

I do not really have any specific questions of which I would like to approach yet, but I have several areas of interest I am hoping to address while I am in this program. I would like to see to what extent different media affects political discourse, whether it is through propaganda or coverage of important events. It goes without saying; I’m also looking forward to making my own documentaries and films along the way.

As far as inspirations go, I admire a few figures in history. One of my prime inspirations is Bruce Lee. As a philosopher he emphasized the idea of learning as much as you can, but emphasizing the idea of throwing out the ideas that do not work for you and coming up with something new. This was reflected in his martial philosophy of Jeet Kune Do, where he took techniques from many different traditions, but tried not to systematize his martial art, for fear of it never evolving.

Another man I respect and admire is Leonardo De Vinci. As the quintessential Renaissance man, he was adept at whatever he did. I admire him for the gusto at which he pursued all his interests, never getting pigeonholed into one specialization.

As far as people that inspire me, my chemistry teacher from high school, Mr. Jude Ndambuki inspires me the most. He grew up in Kenya, in a poor family. His father died when he was six. The one thing his father emphasized to him before his death was to keep studying. As a child, through adulthood, Mr. Ndambuki would study under the moonlight as he had no electricity in his village. He would walk 3 miles and back to school every day. His perseverance and drive led him to become a teacher in the United States. He also started a foundation to donate computers and supplies to schools in Kenya, to help children there achieve what he has. Whenever I feel I am not up to a task, I look towards his life story and it inspires me to push forward.

---

[1] Picture taken from BlackWater: The Story of the Most Powerful Mercenary Firm in the World by Jeremy Scahill 1^st edition, 2007

[2] Picture taken from Dormitory Dvd copyright 2009

[3] Mr. Jude Ndambuki, picture courtesy of www.hkenyaproject.org

First Post Introduction

Hello,
My name is Rishi Gandhi. I am a Media Studies student at the New School in NYC. I am using this blog as a method of posting my assignments up for my Understanding Media Studies course. I hope that over the course of this semester that I am able to build upon this blog and use it for more beyond this course.
be seeing you,
R.G