The role of corporate enterprise in military operations is substantial, especially in the United States. However, recent experiences and claims by such contractors as BlackWater USA show that corporations cannot entirely replace a joint military force, nor should they be expected to. In essence, there is a commercial value to peace- however, in any case, especially a case involving genocide, commercial value should be the last of any government’s concern. To “stop the killing” a corporation would have to be asked to deploy itself into a full scale civil conflict and defeat or fight to a stand-still one or more of the multiple engaging sides. In Sudan, this would include the Sudanese government. That would likely eliminate the Sudanese government’s willingness to allow (more) mercenaries into the country’s borders. Furthermore, a corporation, even one as large as Blackwater, cannot be expected to provide the infrastructure and supervision that the United States or the UN could provide. Expecting them to be honest and expecting them to be regularly inspected and checked throughout a hundred thousand-plus square mile warzone, with multiple sides, and amidst millions of people on the move, is in my view an unrealistic concept.
Furthermore, it is dishonest to say that the West does not care about Darfur. The complex atmosphere in Darfur bring into line the questions of ethnic self-rule, geopolitics and the idea of unilateral intervention, not to mention national sovereignty.
In recent TV interviews and books, these “ruthless humanitarians” include the majority of Defense Dept. brass and Chiefs of Staff, (including generals training the Iraqi military and in the Horn of Africa) who point out that the United States and the United Nations are in the process of re-training their forces from being combat-ready to peace-keepers as well-and that while the time it takes the government to adapt is far slower than a corporation, the governments have the endurance to make the efforts work.
While I applaud the urgency of the author’s arguments, I find the methods are misrepresenting of the United States and international community. He also places a very solid faith on the insubstantial foundation of corporate ability to act as police-men in a complex war-zone, much less police themselves.

The role of corporate enterprise in military operations is substantial, especially in the United States. However, recent experiences and claims by such contractors as BlackWater USA show that corporations cannot entirely replace a joint military force, nor should they be expected to. In essence, there is a commercial value to peace- however, in any case, especially a case involving genocide, commercial value should be the last of any government’s concern. To “stop the killing” a corporation would have to be asked to deploy itself into a full scale civil conflict and defeat or fight to a stand-still one or more of the multiple engaging sides. In Sudan, this would include the Sudanese government. That would likely eliminate the Sudanese government’s willingness to allow (more) mercenaries into the country’s borders. Furthermore, a corporation, even one as large as Blackwater, cannot be expected to provide the infrastructure and supervision that the United States or the UN could provide. Expecting them to be honest and expecting them to be regularly inspected and checked throughout a hundred thousand-plus square mile warzone, with multiple sides, and amidst millions of people on the move, is in my view an unrealistic concept.
Furthermore, it is dishonest to say that the West does not care about Darfur. The complex atmosphere in Darfur bring into line the questions of ethnic self-rule, geopolitics and the idea of unilateral intervention, not to mention national sovereignty.
In recent TV interviews and books, these “ruthless humanitarians” include the majority of Defense Dept. brass and Chiefs of Staff, (including generals training the Iraqi military and in the Horn of Africa) who point out that the United States and the United Nations are in the process of re-training their forces from being combat-ready to peace-keepers as well-and that while the time it takes the government to adapt is far slower than a corporation, the governments have the endurance to make the efforts work.
While I applaud the urgency of the author’s arguments, I find the methods are misrepresenting of the United States and international community. He also places a very solid faith on the insubstantial foundation of corporate ability to act as police-men in a complex war-zone, much less police themselves.