This is as controversial as it gets. I have mixed feelings about Erik Prince, who seems to be part of a power-hungry family which might reach high offices in future generations. Betsy DeVos is alreay Secretary of Education.
The successes of his private army against piracy is underreported and it stands to ask why the media is not telling us about it. The beef of the matter, however, is whether or not substantial parts of the military should be private.
The main reason for it which is only hinted by Prince, but it’s very obvious to careful listeners: We have over-regulated the forces. Is it possible that we accept enduring murder, kidnapping and mutilation because we don’t want to break some rules while engaging our enemies?
This leads me to a fundamental question: Why are we following the rules which we follow? This has a pseudo-religious dimension for many and is therefore not publicly discussed very often. Whether a rule or not is just was once determined by how G-d (or the pagan deities) was believed to view the matter. Society moved on to acknowledge our own responsibility in law making and we developed institutions like the modern parliamentary system.
International laws, however, are different. They were not produced through a generally accepted legal process. They are the results of backdoor deals. Particularly because of that intransparency they have gained a nearly mythical status.
It is taken for granted that we must find a serene gas attack (as ascribed to Bashar al Assad) morally worse than Boko Haram burning down entire villages with their inhabitants. Nobody suggests that the latter would require any military action from foreign militaries.
This brings me to the most obvious paradox of the elite narrative: If you agree to have international laws, you need a world police to enforce them. If you don’t want a world police to enforce international law, you cannot uphold international law. It is also very obvious that these never questioned international laws are only quoted selectively to advance one group or another. The world police is usually picked by the very country that sees an advantage in usurping the role.
We end up in a mess where everybody does what he wants, justifying it with backdoor deal rules which are religiously worshipped by the masses. At the same time all the smoke and mirror games produce a body of rules so rigid that countries seek private contractors to escape the overbearing responsibilities. It is like privatizing censorship to Facebook and Google. You can dodge rules by bringing the moron left and the moron right together behind the legal status of the organizations involved.
Wouldn’t it be better if we abolished international laws? Maybe we are better off reducing the rule book to two easy items:
- An attack on us or our allies will consistently lead to a measured military response.
- If your treatment of your people is objectively much worse than other countries’ treatment of their people, we will kill you.
First published on: