i disagree with the times' headline that blackwater's use of CS gas "raises questions." what questions could they be? instead, i see it as just another example of how using a private mercenary force that isn't subject to the controls on the u.s. military is a disaster waiting to happen.
the use of the gas is banned under an international treaty (and thus u.s. law because the u.s. has ratified the treaty), and the military will only use it in strictly controlled circumstances with specific authorization from the president or a high military commander. but blackwater can use it whenever it wants and so the company blinded 10 american soldiers at a checkpoint, risking their lives in the process.
the only question i see is why the u.s. continues to use companies like blackwater. but even that's not a real question. because the answer is obvious: the close relationship between the private contractor industry and the bush administration, plus the administration's blind faith in outsourcing even in circumstances where the outsourcing is more expensive than insourcing means that the u.s. will continue to employ these companies no matter how bad an idea it is.
