Blackwater's run for the border
Salon Dot Com (2007-10-23) Eilene Zimmerman
This Page: http://www.copswiki.org/Common/M213
Media Link: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/23/blackwater_border/print.html
The notorious security contractor has plans for a military-style complex near the U.S.-Mexico border. Critics worry the firm's "mercenary soldiers" could join the U.S. border patrol.
By Eilene Zimmerman
Oct. 23, 2007
There are signs that Blackwater USA, the private security
firm that came under intense scrutiny after its employees killed 17 civilians in
Iraq in September, is positioning itself for direct involvement in U.S.
border security. The company is poised to construct a major new training facility
in California, just eight miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. While contracts
for U.S. war efforts overseas may no longer be a growth industry for the
company, Blackwater executives have lobbied the U.S. government since at least 2005
to help train and even deploy manpower for patrolling America's borders.
Blackwater is planning to build an 824-acre military-style training complex
in Potrero, Calif., a rural hamlet 45 miles east of San Diego. The company's
proposal, which was approved last December by the Potrero Community Planning
Group and has drawn protest from within the Potrero community, will turn a
former chicken ranch into "Blackwater West," the company's second-largest facility
in the country. It will include a multitude of weapons firing ranges, a
tactical driving track, a helipad, a 33,000-square-foot urban simulation training
area, an armory for storing guns and ammunition, and dorms and classrooms. And
it will be located in the heart one of the most active regions in the United
States for illegal border crossings.
While some residents of Potrero have welcomed the plan, others have raised
fears about encroachment on protected lands and what they see as an
intimidating force of mercenaries coming into their backyard. The specter of Blackwater
West and the rising interest in privatizing border security have also alarmed
Democratic Rep. Bob Filner, whose congressional district includes Potrero.
Filner says he believes it's a good possibility that Blackwater is positioning
itself for border security contracts and is opposed to the new complex. "You have
to be very wary of mercenary soldiers in a democracy, which is more fragile
than people think," Rep. Filner told Salon. "You don't want armies around who
will sell out to the highest bidder. We already have vigilantes on the border,
the Minutemen, and this would just add to [the problem]," Filner said,
referring to the Minuteman Project, a conservative group that has organized civilian
posses to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in the past. Filner is backing
legislation to block establishment of what he calls "mercenary training centers"
anywhere in the U.S. outside of military bases. "The border is a sensitive area,"
he said, "and if Blackwater operates the way they do in Iraq -- shoot first
and ask questions later -- my constituents are at risk."
A spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied there are any
specific plans to work directly with Blackwater. And Blackwater officials say
the complex would be used only for training active-duty military and law
enforcement officials, work for which the company has contracted with the U.S.
But statements and lobbying activity by Blackwater officials, and the
location for the new complex, strongly suggest plans to get involved in border
security, with potential contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover,
Blackwater enjoys support from powerful Republican congressmen who advocate
hard-line border policies, including calls for deploying private agents to beef
up the ranks of the U.S. Border Patrol. Lawmakers supporting Blackwater
include California Rep. and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter -- who met last
year with company officials seeking his advice on the proposal for Blackwater
West -- and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who is sponsoring a bill to allow
private contractors such as Blackwater to help secure U.S. borders.
When questioned at a public hearing with the Potrero planning group on Sept.
13 about Blackwater West, Brian Bonfiglio, a Blackwater spokesman, said, "I
don't think there's anyone in this room who wouldn't like to see the border
tightened up." Blackwater currently had no contracts to help with border
security, Bonfiglio said, but he emphasized that "we would entertain any approach from
our government to help secure either border, absolutely." Bonfiglio was
responding to questions from Raymond Lutz, a local organizer who opposes the new
complex. (Lutz recorded the exchange and posted video of it on Oct. 12 at
.org.) Lutz also asked Bonfiglio if Blackwater West would be used
as a base for deployment of Border Patrol agents. "Actually, we've offered it
up as a substation to Border Patrol and U.S. Customs right now," Bonfiglio
replied. "We'd love to see them there."
Ramon Rivera, a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in
Washington, denied Bonfiglio's claim that the agency is entertaining an offer to
use Blackwater West as a substation. "I think that's just Blackwater trying to
sell themselves," Rivera said.
In fact, Blackwater has been selling itself for direct involvement in border
security at least since May 2005, when the company's then president, Gary
Jackson, testified before a House subcommittee. Jackson's testimony focused on
Blackwater's helping to train U.S. Border Patrol agents and included discussion
of contracts theoretically worth $80 million to $200 million, for thousands of
personnel. Asked by one lawmaker if his company saw a market opportunity in
border security, Jackson replied: "I can put as many men together as you need,
trained and on the borders."
The company has turned to powerful allies on Capitol Hill for support,
including Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and
a longtime proponent of tougher border security. Joe Kasper, a spokesman for
Hunter, confirmed to Salon that Blackwater officials sought guidance from
Hunter on getting Blackwater West approved for Potrero. Hunter met with Blackwater
officials in May 2006, at which time Hunter recommended the firm contact
Dianne Jacob, the county supervisor responsible for Potrero and one of five
supervisors who would vote on countywide approval for Blackwater West. Blackwater
officials then met with Jacob in May, and in June the company submitted its
proposal to the county, where it now must go through an approval process.
Rep. Filner says Potrero residents have complained to him that Hunter also
brought pressure locally for Blackwater West. "People in the area told me he
called the landowner [of the proposed site] to urge him to sell [to Blackwater].
I don't know that he did, but it wouldn't surprise me," says Filner. "That's
what people in the area are saying." (Hunter has ties to Potrero, which used
to be part of his congressional district; after a redestricting in 2001,
Potrero became part of Filner's district, which borders Hunter's district.)
Spokesman Kasper denied that Hunter called the landowner, whose identity
remains unclear. But Kasper also said that Hunter "supports Blackwater and other
private security contractors in Iraq, and he supports the training facility in
One specific concern Potrero residents have raised with relation to
Blackwater West is the high risk of wildfires in their part of the county -- a danger
on display the last two days as Potrero has been ravaged by fire along with
other parts of Southern California. Blackwater has in fact pushed as a selling
point that the complex would be a "defensible location" during wildfires. But
opponents, including Jan Hedlun, the only member of the Potrero Planning Group
opposed to Blackwater West, foresee danger rather than a safe haven. As Hedlun
wrote in a recent editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "residents state
they would not flee to a box canyon with one access point and an armory filled
with ammunition and/or explosives."
Ever since illegal immigration became a top issue for the Bush
administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, there have been growing calls for the U.S. to
bring private security companies into border enforcement. In September 2006,
the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington released a policy paper
titled "Better, Faster, and Cheaper Border Security," which urged Congress and
the president to beef up forces as fast as possible. "In particular," the report
said, "private contractors could play an important role in recruiting and
training Border Patrol agents and providing personnel to secure the border." Late
last month, one of the report's authors hosted a symposium in Washington for
an updated discussion on the topic, for which Rep. Rogers -- a proponent of
both Blackwater and DynCorp
International, another private security contractor
with personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was the keynote speaker.
On June 19 of this year, during a House subcommittee meeting titled
"Ensuring We Have Well-Trained Boots on the Ground at the Border," Rep. Christopher
Carney, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, acknowledged "it's no secret that CPB
[Customs and Border Protection] as a whole lacks the manpower to fulfill its
crucial mission." Robert B. Rosenkranz, president of the government services
division of DynCorp
, presented a plan for putting 1,000 DynCorp
employees at the
border in 13 months, at a cost of $197 million.
In May 2006, the Bush administration had called for a sharp increase in
manpower, at least with the existing federal force. President Bush then signed a
bill into law on Oct. 4, 2006, to boost the number of U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol agents on the ground by nearly 50 percent, from approximately 12,300 to
approximately 18,300, by the end of 2008.
But even such an ambitious increase would do little to stop the flow of
illegal immigrants, says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol
Council, which represents most U.S. Border Patrol agents. Bonner, himself a field
agent in east San Diego County, told the House subcommittee in June,
"Realistically, there is no magic number of Border Patrol agents required to secure our
borders and even if there were, it would certainly be much higher than the
18,000 proposed by the administration."
Scott Borgerson, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who
specializes in homeland security, says it makes sense that U.S. companies would try to
position themselves to fill gaps in national security with lucrative
private-sector solutions. "If I was running a company doing private security, it's
definitely what I would do," he says of Blackwater's plan to locate near the
In an Oct. 15 article in the Wall Street Journal, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince
said that the company now sees the market diminishing for the kind of
security work its employees have done in Iraq. He said that going forward the
company's focus "is going to be more of a full spectrum," ranging from delivering
humanitarian aid to responding to natural disasters. But priorities for the Bush
administration, including immigration and border security, could also figure
into Blackwater's plans -- as Salon reported recently, the company's
skyrocketing revenues during Bush's presidency are accompanied by the firm's close ties
with influential Republicans and top Bush officials.
Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said that the notion of Blackwater vying
for lucrative border security contracts is "merely speculation," and noted
that the location for Blackwater West is close to San Diego's military bases, a
major training market for the company. "But hypothetically," Tyrrell added,
"if the government came to us and needed assistance with border security, we'd
Borgerson says there is a role for private contractors in helping keep the
United States safe. "But certain jobs belong to trained U.S. government
officials -- men and women in uniform who have a flag on their sleeves," says
Borgerson, who was a Coast Guard officer for 10 years. "You recite an oath that says
you will defend -- not Congress, not the president, not even the people -- but
the Constitution. You don't sign that oath when you go to work for
Bonner, of the U.S. Border Patrol, remains skeptical about Blackwater
getting involved, and he says others in the upper ranks of the Border Patrol are
opposed to private contractors working alongside them. He sees potential problems
with both training and patrolling. The much higher pay likely offered to
private agents, for example, would threaten an already difficult-to-retain federal
force. "It will entice people to jump over to the other side," he says,
"especially if they don't have a long-term career in mind." Bonner also says it is
crucial to have a single training curriculum, and a single chain of command,
to help ensure effective and lawful operations. "This is a bad idea from so
many perspectives," he says of potentially privatizing the force.
The issue may be linked to broader problems the U.S. is currently facing
with national security. "If we weren't allocating a tremendous amount of our
resources in Iraq, we wouldn't have to outsource to companies like Blackwater,"
Borgerson says. While securing the U.S. borders is an important priority, he
adds, "I feel we shouldn't outsource our sovereignty."