Viceroy:
a person appointed to rule a country or province as the deputy of the sovereign … [Dictionary.com]
Heard on MPR this morning in reference to the continuing US presence in Afghanistan. Given the definition and the tendencies of our current President, I should consider this word choice a trifle dangerous. Back in June, Common Dreams commented on the suggestion:
Displaying what one commentator called “sheer 19th century bloodlust and thirst for empire,” Erik Prince, founder of the private mercenary firm Blackwater, argued in The Wall Street Journal this week that the United States should deploy an “East India Company approach” in Afghanistan.
The country, he wrote, should be run by “an American viceroy who would lead all U.S. government and coalition efforts—including command, budget, policy, promotion, and contracting—and report directly to the president.”
Prince continued:
In Afghanistan, the viceroy approach would reduce rampant fraud by focusing spending on initiatives that further the central strategy, rather than handing cash to every outstretched hand from a U.S. system bereft of institutional memory.
Prince insists that these are “cheaper private solutions,” but such privatization would also be a boon for military contractors.
As one critic noted, it is hardly surprising that a “war profiteer sees profit opportunity in war.” Blackwater, the private military company Prince founded in 1997—which now operates under the name Academi—made a fortune off the invasion of Iraq. In 2007, a New York Times editorial noted that Blackwater had “received more than $1 billion” in no-bid contracts from the Bush administration; that same year, Blackwater contractors shot and killed more than a dozen civilians in what came to be known as the Nisour Square massacre.
Given the obvious misalignment of objectives between the private and public sectors, as we’ve discussed before, the larger proposal sounds like a non-starter to me – if, of course, this article hasn’t mis-represented it. In the radio proposal, the speaker (was it Mr. Prince?) suggested that the viceroy approach would require a person with several years commitment to the job, thus ensuring continuity in methods and goals.
Of course, ensuring is a strong word; it does, however, increase the probability of achieving that continuity. But, honestly, viceroy is a colonialist’s word, as the article also notes, and I would be highly dubious of not only the word, but the motivations behind someone who would use it.
