You break it you buy it.

"Officially, the company boasted of its forces "join[ing] the hurricane relief effort." But its men on the ground told a different story." (Scahill, 321)

What is happening here is that the Blackwater troops landed on home soil claiming to help out with Hurricane Katrina. The reality is that upon arrival, they did little to help and treated the wasteland of New Orleans like a playground. Their presence actually had a negative effect on New Orleans. Does anyone else see a problem here?

This really articulates a major problem with this type of task force; if something like this does happen and people know about it, how can you cover it up or defend yourself? The amount of trust given to this task force in order for them to have a massive budget, operate independently and have little restriction on what they do is colossal, and the fact that they abuse it is a kick in the face to everyone involved. You've got a bunch of children loose in a candy store, except this time there are ramifications extending past "you break it you buy it".

There are serious moral issues with this as well, which Scahill draws on to justify his thoughts on mercenary armies. He is drawing on peoples knowledge of how awful it is to kick someone when they are down, and on people's patriotism to create negative opinions on this event. Being Canadian I can't identify with this particular example, but worldwide people know that if your city is hurting, the last thing you will stand for is someone (who should be on your side!) furthering the damage. By both demeaning the task force and drawing on people's personal emotions Scahill forcefully imposes his opinion on the reader, which makes me wonder whether or not I should believe all that I am reading...

Unwarranted Celebration?

"The weeks after the Fallujah killings, Blackwater announced plans to build a massive new facility-a twenty-eight-thousand-square-foot-administrative building-on its Moyock property for its operations" (Scahill, 151)

Because of their "success" at Fallujah, Blackwater begins to expand. This raises the question of how this organization measures triumph. Furthermore, do the people paying for this force think that this is successful? The theme of secrecy and appearance vs. reality is really evident here, as all of this is going on without the majority of world forces having any knowledge of it. Furthermore, they seem to be operating on a basis of profit>morals and no one is questioning it until now.

The fact that this organization is able to take their increasing success through immoral means and turn it into a healthy profit without anyone knowing or questioning it is appalling. Anyone who has any hope at stopping it has their morals circumvented by a large paycheck, and I think that is one of the true messages Scahill is trying to put across.

A Powerful Paradox.

"The home where young Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater USA, gruew up sits along the sleepy banks of Lake Macatawa, an inlet of Lake michigan in the American Midwest. Trees shimmer along the edges of the driveway on a summer day; the sun glints peacefully off the lake." (Scahill, 1)

Upon re-examining the text, I found it interesting to note that Scahill chose to begin his book with such a serene image. The journey through Blackwater is one during which I was tormented by a concern of "if this went on without notice, what else could be happening". Because of this, Scahill's choice to begin his novel with a seemingly ironic statement, starting with this seemingly perfect world and then diving into the harsh reality is one worth examining. My belief is that although at first investigation it seems ironic, Scahill could be trying to portray the blissful ignorance in which we all live, emphasizing the fact that people try to block out the truths they don't want to hear. Upon re-examining the book you notice a very subtle yet always present idea that we are ignorant by our own will, and Scahill seems to scorn us for this mentality. I did not notice this until scanning through the text a second time, and I was being thorough on my first read-through so either I missed what was intended to be obvious, or he left it deliberately subtle for a reason I cannot understand.