The earlier incident when Blackwater was involved in publicised violence in Iraq, in Falluja, led to “an upsurge in violence” according to a report in the Independent (28/9/2007).
The US have persuaded the Iraqi government not to expel Blackwater after making a case that security would fall apart if they weren’t present. Yet civilian involvement in Iraq remains a focus of deep resentment among Iraqis who feel that their conduct remains unregulated as terms of engagement are undefined.
As far as Blackwater and other large companies are concerned if the huge contracts they have engineered cease then dividends will fall. So what is the case for ending the war with this logic? New Labour in Britain goes along with this as does the Tory opposition. As for the Lib-Dems who knows? They say they are against the war while in Birmingham they maintain the Tories in power, so what’s the choice? Gordon Brown gave the initial impression he would do things differently but as the days go by there are more and more similarities to Blair. If Brown wants to get British troops out of Iraq it is clear that it will not be an easy task. After withdrawal from the centre of Basra they were quickly re-engaged on the Iranian border. To keep America’s (and others) arms trade alive a new conflict is needed – and since World War II the US has been successful in keeping conflict going somewhere or other on the planet.

It is clear that the future of Iraq is being determined in Washington as a resolution is passed effectively partitioning the country. The bargaining counter is as ever the oil resources with allowance for each region, and some left over no doubt for the USA.
The Blackwater story indicates that not only is the war bad for the people of Iraq, but employees pf the likes of Blackwater and others and their families don’t come off lightly either. The beneficiaries of the dividends don’t give a damn. Why should they?