Take a Lesson From Machiavelli

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a treatise for Lorenzo de' Medici offering him advice as to how to rule should he come to unite the city-states of Italy. Il Principe, or The Prince, soon became a classic example of 16th century thought which went on to inspire numerous rulers such as Charles V, Catherine de' Medici, Cardinal Richelieu, and Frederick the Great.

What was special about The Prince was that it used history, not theory, to provide examples as to how a monarch should rule over the people. It also laid no claims to virtue. Asking the famed question whether it is better to be feared or loved, Machiavelli simply stated that to be loved was nice, but to be feared was better; a conclusion which dozens of dictators have also reached since the original publication of The Prince.

All this aside, the United States government would be wise to remember one important lesson from Machiavelli, especially given the recent news regarding the activities of Blackwater USA. Said Machiavelli:

"Mercenaries...are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful...The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you."

Two days ago it came to light that the mercenaries of Blackwater are guilty of ultra-violent misconduct in Iraq. For the last five years they have gotten away with manslaughter, assault, and illegally importing over 900 automatic weapons into Iraq without the proper permits. The United States Justice Department has done everything in their power not to charge Blackwater, even telling Congress they have no legal jurisdiction over the company. However numerous voices in and outside Washington are calling for Blackwater to be held accountable, though there is no guarantee that any actions will be taken against them.

Sadly, I'm of the opinion that no charges will be brought against them. Why? Because the US government needs Blackwater if they are to continue their war in Iraq.

The armed forces of the US have been suffering from dwindling numbers for years and with an increase unlikely in the decade, many inside the Pentagon will be wondering how long they can continue to sustain a volunteer army. Some will say the answer is to reinstitute the draft, however this is unlikely as it would be political suicide for any politician who supports it. The other option would be to continue the employment of mercenary organizations like Blackwater, which have already shown a complete disregard for human life in the name of collecting a paycheck. Still, all is not lost. There is a third option: stop fighting unnecessary wars and bring the boys home.

The Obama government is sure to focus more on infrastructure than flexing muscles on the global stage. As Obama and his aids search for ways to pull out of Iraq, they should consider terminating their contract with Blackwater and any other organization that kills for money. These organizations could care less about the health and well-being of the Iraqi or any nation within which they operate. All they care about is surviving battle so they can collect their paycheck, a very dangerous situation when you think about it. Would you trust a babysitter to watch your child if they knew you were going to pay them no matter what they did? Probably not. Then why would we trust our nation to babysitters toating sub-machine guns?

Eventually Blackwater will ask for more money or they will become a greater liablity than they already are. What will we do when they go to far? What will we do when they ask for money we don't have? The possible answers could range anywhere from leaving Iraq in a state of disarray, to taking control of sections of the country and holding them for ransom; the outcomes are numerous and equally horrible. There is only one option: scale back in Iraq, then get the troops home and end our relationship with Blackwater. Its the only way we can save face, distance ourselves from mercenaries and stop promoting the kind of blood tainted politics that we claim to fight against. If we don't take this course, who knows what could happen or what we will be held responsible for.

As I've said numerous times, the greatest problem with our nation is doubt. We always seem to convince ourselves that certain outcomes will never happen. This needs to change and taking a stance on Blackwater would powerful signal from the new government that we are privy the possibilities of the future and we do not want to be associated with blood-money.

He may have inspired some of the meanest bastards in history, but Machiavelli knew mercenaries were a bad idea. It's about time the US realized that too.

--Mr. FDR

Media Botches Coverage on US-Taliban Negotiations

"U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afgan Unrest"

This was the headline Wednesday morning in one major U.S. newspaper (link). The story, only deemed front-page news by The Wall Street Journal, explains how Gen. Petraeus backs an effort to talk with certain elements of the Taliban in order to quell some of the violence and destabilization in Afghanistan. The classified recommendation advises the Afghan government lead the negotiations with the "active participation of the U.S.," which we know what that means...mainly that the U.S. would have a major roll in the negotiations though we probably would never know to what extent.

Still while we also don't know which direction the Bush Administration will take in the final weeks of its existence, it should be noted that the recommendation is supported by a man (Petraeus) who used a similar tactic to recruit Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, thus lowering the violence in Iraq. This makes the recommendation popular no doubt among many supports both within and outside the party, which in turn makes it a very real possibility. On the other hand however, many have argued that by arming the Sunnis of Iraq we are only leaving the door open for outright civil war once our soldiers do finally leave the country. Which begs the question of whether or not negotiations with the Taliban will lead to a similar result.

Frankly though, I don't care. Why? Because I'm more upset that this story was not covered by any of the other leading papers in the country. The fact that the Bush administration is considering this proposal only serves to highlight how hypocritical, damaging, and irrational their policies have been over the last eight years. The news should have had a field day with this story, and yet they said nothing! Opting instead to report on the world series, stocks, and gas prices.

This tiny nugget of information serves only as a stark reminder that if the government isn't controlling what information you have access to, the media is. I encourage all readers of this blog to read (or at least browse) multiple publications each day to ensure the maximum amount of exposure is obtained. It only takes fifteen minutes a day, which is well worth it considering how much it will improve one's understanding of issues and the world at large. Try it out.

Here are just a handful of publications you can bookmark to get started:

The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
USAToday
Time Magazine
Newsweek
The Nation