Mercenaries for America

[RTFirefly]

CNN:

MOYOCK, North Carolina (AP) -- The four civilians who were killed and dragged through the streets of an Iraqi town Wednesday worked for a North Carolina subcontractor that is providing security in a hostile area of Iraq.

Blackwater Security Consulting provides security training and guard services to customers around the world. It is one of five subsidiaries of Blackwater USA, based in northeastern North Carolina about a half-hour's drive from the world's largest naval base in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Star (South Africa):

An army of thousands of mercenaries has appeared in Iraq's major cities, many of them former British and American soldiers hired by the occupying Anglo-American authorities and by com-panies who fear for their employees' lives.

The Guardian (UK), 12/10/03:

Private corporations have penetrated western warfare so deeply that they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon, a Guardian investigation has established.

While the official coalition figures list the British as the second largest contingent with around 9,900 troops, they are narrowly outnumbered by the 10,000 private military contractors now on the ground.

The investigation has also discovered that the proportion of contracted security personnel in the firing line is 10 times greater than during the first Gulf war. In 1991, for every private contractor, there were about 100 servicemen and women; now there are 10.

The private sector is so firmly embedded in combat, occupation and peacekeeping duties that the phenomenon may have reached the point of no return: the US military would struggle to wage war without it.

The Pentagon will "pursue additional opportunities to outsource and privatise", the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pledged last year and military analysts expect him to try to cut a further 200,000 jobs in the armed forces.

It is this kind of "downsizing" that has fed the growth of the military private sector.

Since the end of the cold war it is reckoned that six million servicemen have been thrown on to the employment market with little to peddle but their fighting and military skills. The US military is 60% the size of a decade ago, the Soviet collapse wrecked the colossal Red Army, the East German military melted away, the end of apartheid destroyed the white officer class in South Africa. The British armed forces, notes Mr Singer, are at their smallest since the Napoleonic wars.

The booming private sector has soaked up much of this manpower and expertise.

It also enables the Americans, in particular, to wage wars by proxy and without the kind of congressional and media oversight to which conventional deployments are subject.

From the level of the street or the trenches to the rarefied corridors of strategic analysis and policy-making, however, the problems surfacing are immense and complex.

One senior British officer complains that his driver was recently approached and offered a fortune to move to a "rather dodgy outfit". Ex-SAS veterans in Iraq can charge up to $1,000 a day.

And in Baghdad or Bogota, Kabul or Tuzla, there are armed company employees effectively licensed to kill. On the job, say guarding a peacekeepers' compound in Tuzla, the civilian employees are subject to the same rules of engagement as foreign troops.

But if an American GI draws and uses his weapon in an off-duty bar brawl, he will be subject to the US judicial military code. If an American guard employed by the US company ITT in Tuzla does the same, he answers to Bosnian law. By definition these companies are frequently operating in "failed states" where national law is notional. The risk is the employees can literally get away with murder.

Or lesser, but appalling crimes. Dyncorp, for example, a Pentagon favourite, has the contract worth tens of millions of dollars to train an Iraqi police force. It also won the contracts to train the Bosnian police and was implicated in a grim sex slavery scandal, with its employees accused of rape and the buying and selling of girls as young as 12. A number of employees were fired, but never prosecuted. The only court cases to result involved the two whistleblowers who exposed the episode and were sacked.

"Dyncorp should never have been awarded the Iraqi police contract," said Madeleine Rees, the chief UN human rights officer in Sarajevo.

Of the two court cases, one US police officer working for Dyncorp in Bosnia, Kathryn Bolkovac, won her suit for wrongful dismissal. The other involving a mechanic, Ben Johnston, was settled out of court. Mr Johnston's suit against Dyncorp charged that he "witnessed co-workers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased".

There are other formidable problems surfacing in what is uncharted territory - issues of loyalty, accountability, ideology, and national interest. By definition, a private military company is in Iraq or Bosnia not to pursue US, UN, or EU policy, but to make money.

The growing clout of the military services corporations raises questions about an insidious, longer-term impact on governments' planning, strategy and decision-taking.

Mr Singer argues that for the first time in the history of the modern nation state, governments are surrendering one of the essential and defining attributes of statehood, the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I'm honestly not sure what the real debate should be; I'm just surprised to not see it here already. But to me this extensive use of mercenaries is troubling on a number of levels, and I'm just starting to sort it out.

As part of the conservatives' "save tax dollars by privatization" approach, it seems to be a loser: these guys are expensive, far more so than our own grunts.

I can't imagine that their presence in places like Iraq makes our armed forces personnel very happy, especially given the disparity in pay. If you’re a Marine, would you go out of your way to save somebody making $500 a day to do a similar job to your own?

Like the Guardian article says, the mercs are only subject to local laws, but they tend to be used mostly in “failed states” where local law is a sometimes thing at best. Yet they have as much freedom as US, British, etc. soldiers to use their firepower as they see fit.

I worry about private firms having such a direct economic interest in conflict. I’m well aware that commercial enterprises have often stood to make a buck off war (the character of “Daddy Warbucks” from the Little Orphan Annie comic strip dates back to what, WWII?) But such firms have historically been satisfied with being able to build expensive equipment systems for the military, whether they get used or not. Firms providing armed security for Westerners in war zones need Westerners in war zones. And once a corporate concern finds a gravy train, it will fight with tooth and nail and lobbyists to preserve it. If this sort of thing continues to grow, it might well affect the choices we make out there, of where and how to get involved in the world.

Finally, I’m really, really uncomfortable with the morality of private firms profiting by a deliberate and more or less uncontrolled (as in, well beyond the reach of OSHA!) risking of lives of their employees. Again, there have always been unsafe jobs out there. But whether it’s coal-mining or working on power lines, societal pressure has forced changes over time to make these jobs safer. And as our society has moved away from jobs involving physical labor, new jobs are usually much safer than the old ones. This is an exception on both counts: it’s new and it’s dangerous, and there’s no way to regulate the danger.

I realize that's a collection of disjointed thoughts and concerns, rather than a stand in a debate. But I wanted to know people's thoughts on this, which would hopefully clarify my own thinking a bit.

[Karmagun]

Don't know if this helps clarify your thoughts, but the origin of the word 'soldier' comes from 'soldo' i.e. coin or money.

The use of mercenaries in the way that you described is, in a way, going back to the roots of what it meant to be a paid, professional fighter before the appearance of the nation-state. It was normal for city-states and local lords to employ their own mercenaries to employ in warfare. Today, we view any fighter that does not belong to a nation-state's official army as a dubious character.

Can't explain why, but the first word that came to my mind reading your OP was 'post-modernism'.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

[
I'm honestly not sure what the real debate should be; I'm just surprised to not see it here already. .

Possibly because many people just aren't aware that there are mercenaries in huge numbers in Irak. At least, it was true for me. I discovered it only two weeks ago or so, and it came as a surprise.

[Unregistered Bull]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Possibly because many people just aren't aware that there are mercenaries in huge numbers in Irak. At least, it was true for me. I discovered it only two weeks ago or so, and it came as a surprise.

I wonder if how well they treat the populace and/or how much they might side with one of the many factions might have contributed to the incident in Fallujah?

[Zagadka]

I find it curious how there is a quiet spell coming from the government over this. I mean, even the media. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the deaths this week were referred to as "contractors" in every single article I saw on it.

I've seen the argument that they are being used for security on oil wells and the like, and this makes sense given that the plan is to withdraw our presence shortly... I dunno. I'm still not sure how it even sits with me.

[Jojo]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the deaths this week were referred to as "contractors" in every single article I saw on it.

Yes, they were called "private contractors". I thought they were engineers or something.

I agree this doesn't bode well if the "official" army leaves in June but an "unofficial" army stays in order to impose the pax americana.

We might just get away with this whole Iraq adventure but only if we get the hell out of there, completely, as soon as possible.

[Karmagun]

Originally Posted by Jojo

We might just get away with this whole Iraq adventure but only if we get the hell out of there, completely, as soon as possible.

Yes, we will, but what about them?

Please disregard. No hijack intended.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Jojo

I agree this doesn't bode well if the "official" army leaves in June but an "unofficial" army stays in order to impose the pax americana.

This is what worries me. I can see a situation where Iraq is left largely in the control of private industry, which won't sit well when we leave. I mean, one year is hardly enough time to start up an independent government, and I haven't seen much of anything to indicate that a government even exists there yet. The whole situation leaves me incredibly uneasy, and I don't know how much you'd have to pay me to be a mercenary there after the US forces officially leave.

At this point, our government had better be busting its ass off to convince us and the world that it will leave behind a functioning state. They already have Afghanistan as a mostly black mark on their record, and the situation in Iraq... I don't want to have us have to go back there conveniently in October.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Jojo

Yes, they were called "private contractors". I thought they were engineers or something.

I agree this doesn't bode well if the "official" army leaves in June but an "unofficial" army stays in order to impose the pax americana.

We might just get away with this whole Iraq adventure but only if we get the hell out of there, completely, as soon as possible.

The US army is leaving in June? I don't think so! I think they will be in Iraq for many years to come. What they are trying to do is make an appearance of handing over authority to a puppet government who will, obviously, ask American forces to stay. But no matter what happens I am quite sure American forces will remain in Iraq for years to come. That was the whole point of the invasion: to secure bases in the region and military control of the area.

What I think may happen is that the military retreat to their bases and leave as much as they can for the mercenaries to deal with. "contractors" being killed does not have the bad PR of GIs being killed.

[Jojo]

The US army is leaving in June? I don't think so! I think they will be in Iraq for many years to come. What they are trying to do is make an appearance of handing over authority to a puppet government who will, obviously, ask American forces to stay. But no matter what happens I am quite sure American forces will remain in Iraq for years to come.

I agree. What I meant was they will withdraw to self-contained bases and no longer be responsible for policing the streets or directly deciding the countries policies (foreign and domestic).

That was the whole point of the invasion: to secure bases in the region and military control of the area.

Among other things.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by sailor

What I think may happen is that the military retreat to their bases and leave as much as they can for the mercenaries to deal with.

I expect you're right on that count.

"contractors" being killed does not have the bad PR of GIs being killed.

I think it's actually got worse PR, since what comes to mind is some civilian over there to get the schools or the electrical system running. But we're talking well-armed, well-paid private security/militia. If the papers said "four mercenaries got killed", it definitely wouldn't tug at people's heartstrings as much as "four civilian contractors were killed."

[sailor]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If the papers said "four mercenaries got killed", it definitely wouldn't tug at people's heartstrings as much as "four civilian contractors were killed."

That is why the US government, and many press reports are calling them "civilian contractors". It is the same line of deception.

It is quite shameful and there is a reason privateering was outlawed.

The whole thing stinks because in fact the mercenaries answer to no one. The armed forces have a minimum of discipline and control but the mercenaries are pretty much out of the loop of any authority but themselves.

It is ironic that the US government, who has condemned so much "illegal combatants" who were not wearing uniforms or meet other requirements of the Geneva Convention, is now allowing and sponsoring this kind of thing.

While I feel a certain sympathy for the soldier who is sent to Iraq, I have much less sympathy for the "civilian contractor".

[El_Kabong]

I find it curious how there is a quiet spell coming from the government over this. I mean, even the media. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the deaths this week were referred to as "contractors" in every single article I saw on it.

Yeah, something smells a bit funny here. It was just today, for the first time, that I read that the 'civilian contractors' were actually security guards, and specifically ex-Marines and SEALs.

Lest I be misundertood here, I am in no way suggesting that the killings were anything other than a wholly-unprovoked attack on a target of opportunity, nor do I have any information to indicate that the contractors were doing anything other than, well, providing security.

As an aside I worked offshore in Angola for a bit in the mid-90's, when the war there was winding down, and IIRC Luanda was insecure enough that Elf Aquitaine, which had a considerable presence there, would not let their employees go into town from the company compound without an armed escort. The escorts were ex-SAS and Foreign Legion, to my recollection. Also, each time I took the the Air France flight Paris-Luanda, there always seemed to be more than a few beefy, crewcut lads aboard who were definitely not your usual missionary or oilfield types.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind hearing considerably more from the press about the current state of privateering in Iraq.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by sailor

That is why the US government, and many press reports are calling them "civilian contractors". It is the same line of deception.
.

Wait a minute. I was talking above about the presence of mercenaries in Irak in general. But are there evidences that the particular people who get killed a couple day ago were mercenaries rather than civilians?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, this certainly sheds a different light on the mob killings.

I was entirely under the impression that "civilian contractors" meant civil or industrial engineers or urban planners or something.

I'll be watching this thread very closely.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Wait a minute. I was talking above about the presence of mercenaries in Irak in general. But are there evidences that the particular people who get killed a couple day ago were mercenaries rather than civilians?

See post #84 and following in this thread. Plenty of cites.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, this certainly sheds a different light on the mob killings.

I was entirely under the impression that "civilian contractors" meant civil or industrial engineers or urban planners or something.

I'll be watching this thread very closely.

I really don't see how. It seems perfectly ok to me for companies to hire private security personal to protect their assets.

Is "mercenary" even the right term? These aren't hired soldiers or Hessians. They are former soldiers who are serving as security guards, bodyguards and consultants. If you are doing business in a war-zone or other high risk area, it makes sense to hire guards and experts a little more competant than fat Oppie the 60 year old Walmart security guard.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I really don't see how. It seems perfectly ok to me for companies to hire private security personal to protect their assets.

And it seems perfectly OK to me for the enemy to consider them as valid and legitimate war targets. There is no way around it. It is a war zone. These people are armed and fighting for one side. They are legitimate targets for the other side. Furthermore, "contractors", as they are not part of the armed forces, are not protected by the Geneva convention. From the POV of the resistance they are "illegal combatants".

The US government calling them "civilian contractors" is an attempt at misinformation. They want people to think these were civil engineers "helping" rebuild Iraq whereas the only reason they are in Iraq is to use force. If you live by the sword you better be ready to die by the sword.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by msmith537

I really don't see how. It seems perfectly ok to me for companies to hire private security personal to protect their assets.

Is "mercenary" even the right term? These aren't hired soldiers or Hessians. They are former soldiers who are serving as security guards, bodyguards and consultants. If you are doing business in a war-zone or other high risk area, it makes sense to hire guards and experts a little more competant than fat Oppie the 60 year old Walmart security guard.

Yeah. That's the ticket. These guys are just more competent versions of the Walmart security stiffs.

Soldiers of Good Fortune
By Barry Yeoman
May/June 2003 Issue

Because the Geneva Convention expressly bans the use of mercenaries -- individual soldiers of fortune who fight solely for personal gain -- private military companies are careful to distance themselves from any associations with such hired guns. To emphasize their experience and professionalism, many firms maintain websites brimming with colorful PR material; the industry even funds an advocacy group, the International Peace Operations Association, which portrays military firms as more capable and accountable than the Pentagon. "These companies want to run a professional operation," says the group's director, Doug Brooks. "Their incentive is to make money. How do you make money? You make sure you don't screw up."

When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them -- and the government -- from public scrutiny. In 2001, an Alabama-based firm called Aviation Development Corp. that provided reconnaissance for the CIA in South America misidentified an errant plane as possibly belonging to cocaine traffickers. Based on the company's information, the Peruvian air force shot down the aircraft, killing a U.S. missionary and her seven-month-old daughter. Afterward, when members of Congress tried to investigate, the State Department and the CIA refused to provide any information, citing privacy concerns. "We can't talk about it," administration officials told Congress, according to a source familiar with the incident. "It's a private entity. Call the company."

The lack of oversight alarms some members of Congress. "Under a shroud of secrecy, the United States is carrying out military missions with people who don't have the same level of accountability," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leading congressional critic of privatized war. "We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country."

Private military companies emphasize their patriotism and expertise, positioning themselves as a sort of corporate battalion staffed by ex-soldiers who remain eager to serve their country. Military Professional Resources Inc., one of the largest and most prestigious firms, boasts that it can call on 12,500 veterans with expertise in everything from nuclear operations to submarine attacks. MPRI deploys its private troops to run Army recruitment centers across the country, train soldiers to serve as key staff officers in the field, beef up security at U.S. military bases in Korea, and train foreign armies from Kuwait to South Africa. At the highest echelons, the Virginia-based firm is led by retired General Carl Vuono, who served as Army chief of staff during the Gulf War and the U.S. invasion of Panama. Assisting him are General Crosbie Saint, former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe; Lt. General Harry Soyster, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency; and General Ron Griffith, former Army vice chief of staff.

[madmonk28]

I am working on a USAID funded project in Iraq and we also use security guards like these guys. Blackwater provides security for people like Bremer and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) staff. Blackwater is supposed to be the best and they use ex special forces.

There are a lot of these companies floating around Baghdad. some of the guys we use are Serbs who joined the French Foreign Legion. I spent a lot of time in Kosovo and I got to tell you, I'm not to thrilled to be working with guys who probably are hiding out from a war crimes tribunal somewhere.

I undestand why people use them, security is a real concern and it is crazy scary. I've been shot at, my hotel has been hit with mortars, RPGs and I've been too damned close to two car bombs. These big guys in flak jackets with MP5s make people feel safer, but in my opinion they make us less safe.

Also, a lot of these guys out here are not ex spec. forces, but wannabe types. They think they know wtf is up, but you know what? This is my third f'ing war.

When we go through an intersection, they raise their weapons and aim them out the window into the faces of startled Iraqis. We drive these gross suvs that look like Bremer himself is coming through town.

Part of the problem is that there are too many expats here who have never worked on an aid project before. they don't know that this isn't normal, and in the opinion of a lot of the veterans such as myself, unsafe.

I believe it really undermines our mission, makes us look like occupiers when most of us work on projects that strive to be apolitical, and give the terrorists what they want: for the aid community to retreat into their compounds and keep their heads down.

Things changed a lot here since last summer. When I first came here, we had security but it was low key. I drove myself and another person from Basra to Baghdad. We didn't have any security or guns with us.

After they blew up the UN, the Red Cross and ambushed IOM and Red Cross convoys in Hillah, these people who haven't done this kind of work before started to get freaked out (understandably) and more and more of the budget started going to security. Now this environment exists where if you say, I think I should go by myself in a local car, these wannabes look at you like your some naive kid, once again THIS IS MY THIRD WAR.

These guys love to point to the murder of Fern Holland http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006186.php as an example of why they are necessary because whe went out in a local car without gunmen. But Fern had to ignore the security because it was so ridiculous. She couldn't pull up to a safe house for battered women with 5 SUVS bristling with gunmen, it wouldn't remain a safe house for long. She knew what chance she was taking

Sorry for the length and passion of this post, but these guys are really chafing my ass. I don't fault anyone here for worrying about security, I admit I get scared, but sooner or later we are either going to have to leave, or tell these gunmen to tone it down, back off and let us do our job.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by sailor

And it seems perfectly OK to me for the enemy to consider them as valid and legitimate war targets. There is no way around it. It is a war zone. These people are armed and fighting for one side. They are legitimate targets for the other side. Furthermore, "contractors", as they are not part of the armed forces, are not protected by the Geneva convention. From the POV of the resistance they are "illegal combatants".

How are they "legitimate targets"? They aren't attacking anyone. AFAIK, they aren't actively engaged in any fighting. By your perverse logic, any civilian in a combat area is a legitimate target even if he is just defending his home from looters.

[London_Calling]

Because they're part of the occupying empire army i.e. paid by the empire army to occupy ?

[sailor]

Originally Posted by msmith537

How are they "legitimate targets"? They aren't attacking anyone. AFAIK, they aren't actively engaged in any fighting. By your perverse logic, any civilian in a combat area is a legitimate target even if he is just defending his home from looters.

They are there to assert rights by force and to deny the enemy by force the capability to assert those rights. It's called war. Their purpose is to deny the enemy the capabilty of asserting their claimed rights. They are ready to use deadly force against the other side. I can't see how the other side cannot shoot them. They have no legal right and their only right derives from the use of force. That is what war is. They are clearly fighting in a war for one side. If not they would not be in Iraq. Their only business in Iraq is to fight for one side.

If you want you can believe they are there to "help in the reconstruction" but I believe that is BS. they are there to use force, to fight and to deny the iraqi resistance the capability of asserting their control. The Iraqi resistance do not want these people there and these people are there by virtue of the use of force. They should be prepared to have force used against them.

Reminds me of "Hello, I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you". yeah, right.

Hello, I'm a "private civilian contractor" and I'm here to help you so get out of my way or I blow your brains out.

[madmonk28]

These guys provide security to people working in Iraq. In my opinion they are too heavy headed, and create the wrong impression, but I have never seen them do anything other than do just that, provide security.

Clearly the insurgents consider any foreigner or Iraqi working with foreigners to be legitimate targets. They have intentionally killed members of the UN and the Red Cross, so any distinction here about who is a legitimate target is beyond moot.

[Alan Owes Bess]

Have any of these private contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer, indulged themselves in killing the locals? I'm sure we'd have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened.

Is it really OK to approve the locals killing the contractors simply because the contractors had military training? And, to the person who dragged this in, none of them were Foreign Legion Serbs or wannabes.

What is so misleading about use of the term contractors? Their job description was in every report I have read, and they were certainly not attached to the military or, as far as I can tell, able to access information from the military.

What's wrong with hiring security types in a high-risk security zone?

Admittedly, in this instance they did not have enough firepower to defend themselves adequately, but they probably weren't expecting an attack sufficiently powerful to take out an AFV or two.

Originally posted by madmonk28

In my opinion they are too heavy headed, and create the wrong impression

You have worked out the motive in this instance to your satisfaction then, have you?

[sailor]

Originally Posted by madmonk28

These guys provide security to people working in Iraq. In my opinion they are too heavy headed, and create the wrong impression, but I have never seen them do anything other than do just that, provide security.

Clearly the insurgents consider any foreigner or Iraqi working with foreigners to be legitimate targets. They have intentionally killed members of the UN and the Red Cross, so any distinction here about who is a legitimate target is beyond moot.

The USA invades Iraq and installs an occupying authority to govern the country. They sell the assets of the country to foreign firms, they do all sorts of things which the Iraqi people have no say in. The insurgents do not recognise this authority. The "contractors" are there by authority of the occupation government which the insurgents do not recognise. The whole purpose of war is to settle who can control those assets and territory. To go in there and say "I am a civilian and I am not part of the fight " is ludicrous when what you are doing is working for one side. Let's get real here. The "private, civilian, consultant, contractors" are armed and are working to assert rights claimed by the occupying power. The resistance does not recognise those rights or authority and they are fighting for their side.

The sentiments of the Iraqi people were quite clear in the video footage. They, obviously, prefer the "contractors" stay out of Iraq. I am sorry but I have little sympathy for these "contractors". They have chosen to live by the sword and they should be ready to die by the sword.

[madmonk28]

Sailor, Irealize we are getting off topic, but I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for the war and of the occupation. I believe the reasoning behind the war are much more nuanced, but this is getting away from the OP. For the record, I was not a supporter of this war, more accurately, I was not a supporter of the way this war was prosecuted by the Bush admin. I am also troubled by the methodology of the reconstruction/aid processes this administration is using.

It is completely inaccurate to say that the actions of a mob in Fallujah represents the will of the Iraqis. Fallujah is in the heart of Saddam territory, he has some fierce supporters there. It might be accurate to say that in Fallujah, they don't want us there, but I think it is far too extreme of a community to represent the entire nation of Iraq.

BBC conducted a poll that showed that most Iraqis favored a continued coalition presence and are glad that Saddam has been removed. Last night, I sat around smoking a nagilla with a bunch of Iraqis talking about the war and Saddam's removal and they were glad it happened. In my experience the majority of people I meet are glad to have "contractors" such as myself working there. I wouldn't be here if I thought otherwise.

I read the security report for what happened in Fallujah. I believe that the next SUV carrying foreigners coming down that street in Fallujah would have been attacked. Something like that could very easily happen to me. I am here trying to organize a national association of disabled people in Iraq among other things. Last summer I was delivering supplies to Iraqi schools. I assure you the people I met were supportive of our work, but I am working on a US funded aid contract and am thus a "contractor." Do I deserve to be ripped apart and have my body pulled behind a donkey cart? Should my wife have to see me lying in the street stripped and burned? Am I a legitimate target?

As for not having sympathy for the "contractors" butchered in Iraq, how can you not have sympahty for ANYONE killed in that way? They had wives, girlfriends, kids, and dreams. They were people and they died a horrible death. What is to be gained by not having sympathy for them?

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Alan Owes Bess

Have any of these private contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer, indulged themselves in killing the locals? I'm sure we'd have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened.

The mere fact that you are ignorant of events does not constitute any kind of proof that said events did not occur.

Global security firms fill in as private armies
15,000 agents patrol violent streets of Iraq
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 28, 2004

A group of American construction executives was traveling in a convoy down a palm-lined highway 30 miles north of Baghdad one January day when gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades suddenly exploded everywhere.

Private security agents riding with the convoy fought off the attackers in a hail of gunfire. Two of the agents died, as did an unknown number of guerrillas.

The bloodshed was not publicly reported at the time, and the agents' employer, the Steele Foundation of San Francisco, drew a cloak of discreet silence over the incident to protect its clients' identity.

Iraq's mercenaries: Riches for risks
By Clare Murphy
BBC News Online
Thursday, 1 April, 2004

The field of private security is unregulated, and alongside the more reputable companies, gun-slinging, cowboy contractors - whether foreign or Iraqi - are reported to be setting up shop Iraq.

Established companies dislike competition from smaller entrepreneurs, but also worry that their reputations may be damaged by the gung-ho approach of some of the newer firms.

The lack of regulation means mercenaries can often act with impunity.

Stories abound of heavy handed and trigger-happy behaviour. There are reports that some private security companies claim powers to detain people, erect checkpoints without authorisation and confiscate identity cards.

[Alan Owes Bess]

Originally from Desmostylus

The mere fact that you are ignorant of events does not constitute any kind of proof that said events did not occur.

The mere fact that you cannot tell the difference between an interrogatory and a declaration of fact does not prove that you left school in 8th grade (when you eventually achieved compulsory school leaving age) to become an apprentice tree lopper. It is merely an indicator that something similar to that scenario happened, on the balance of probabilities, of course.

Part of my question was:

Have any of these private contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer, indulged themselves in killing the locals? I'm sure we'd have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened.

The links you provided indicate no malfeasance on the part of the security guards involved (ie. indulged themselves in killing the locals).

[sailor]

I am working on a US funded aid contract and am thus a "contractor." Do I deserve to be ripped apart and have my body pulled behind a donkey cart? Should my wife have to see me lying in the street stripped and burned? Am I a legitimate target?

madmonk28, I have great admiration for anyone who tries to help human beings and you deserve it and have it but the fact is that the USA has created a state of war and in war shit happens. US forces have killed plenty of innocent civilians who were innocent bystanders or who were just trying to their jobs. Shit happens in war. It is inevitable. The war was started by the USA and the status is maintained by the USA who refuses to take measures like transfer authority to the UN or to allow Iraqis greater say in their affairs. It is war and it was started and is maintained by America. And then, not all civilian organizations there are goodwill nonprofits. There are plenty of companies there who are just out to make a profit. US forces have killed news reporters who were just doing their job and have never given a satisfactory explanation other than "it's war and shit happens".

If you are in Iraq doing strictly neutral humanitarian work then you have all my sympathy but it is a fact that it is a war zone where the authority is in dispute. The fact is that the insurgents do not recognise the authority under which you operate. Would the US authorities allow strictly neutral organizations to operate? I doubt it. I mean organizations which would equally recognize or not recognise the authority of the USA and of the insurgents and who would obtain safeconducts from both. I doubt it. Does your organization deal with the insurgents as an authority? I bet it doesn't. In fact they are asserting the authority of the USA in the country and the fact that it is for humanitarian purposes does not change that. Not to mention that most of these commandos are providing security for companies who are there to make a profit. Or, maybe if you are an Iraqi, "for the expoliation and stealing of Iraqi wealth". It all depends on the POV.

I have no good answers except that any idiot knows that war is a mess where shit happens and therefore the one who starts a war is responsible for the consequences. The answer that the solution is to not resist is not acceptable to me. The solution was to not attack in the first place.

This mess was foreseeable and the price is either (a) not acceptable, in which case the invasion should not have been done, or (b) acceptable as the price to be paid for the ends to be achieved, in which case, well, you just pay the price.

As for not having sympathy for the "contractors" butchered in Iraq, how can you not have sympahty for ANYONE killed in that way? They had wives, girlfriends, kids, and dreams. They were people and they died a horrible death. What is to be gained by not having sympathy for them?

The fact that you have a family does not entitle you to go into a country uninvited and shoot people and if you are going to do that then you have to be prepared to have them shoot back. These people are mostly there fighting to protect American interests in exchange for money. In my view they are legitimate targets. And anyone who goes to Iraq these days should be aware that he is risking his life. That is just a fact. The Iraqis have a reason to be there because it is their home but foreigners are meddling in the country uninvited. Those who go to provide humanitarian help are admirable, but they are in a war zone.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Alan Owes Bess

What's wrong with hiring security types in a high-risk security zone?

Nothing. Just don't be surprised when they get killed.

I just don't know what there is to understand. These people are operating under the authority of the US authority which the resistance does not recognise or accept. They are providing military force to protect and further the objectives of the occupation authorities. Any way you look at it they are legitimate targets just as if they were in US Army uniform as they are doing the same job. You can't just say they are civilians and conclude they are not targets. In fact, they are fighting for one side. They are armed combatants. No way around that. Their only purpose there is to use force against the Iraqis who may dispute their capacity to operate.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by sailor

They are there to assert rights by force and to deny the enemy by force the capability to assert those rights. It's called war. Their purpose is to deny the enemy the capabilty of asserting their claimed rights. They are ready to use deadly force against the other side. I can't see how the other side cannot shoot them. They have no legal right and their only right derives from the use of force. That is what war is. They are clearly fighting in a war for one side. If not they would not be in Iraq. Their only business in Iraq is to fight for one side.

What claimed right? The right to act like savages? Your argument is completely absurd. If civilians like the Red Cross go in and try to feed the refugees of a war they are "legitimate" targets?

Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, there are plenty of people with legitimate business is a lot of places that are pretty dangerous. As long as there are terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, organized criminals, petty warlords and other shady dudes, there will be a real need for trained security guards who can actually whoop ass.

Originally Posted by sailor

If you are in Iraq doing strictly neutral humanitarian work then you have all my sympathy but it is a fact that it is a war zone where the authority is in dispute.

I tried to sign up for one of those Peace Corp tours of duty in St Lucia and Cancoon but they kept wanting me to go to all these shithole countries where there war wars and stuff.

Originally Posted by sailor

Reminds me of "Hello, I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you". yeah, right.

Yeah..damn them for stealing our money and squandering it on schools and roads.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Alan Owes Bess

The mere fact that you cannot tell the difference between an interrogatory and a declaration...

I can tell the difference. If you were actually asking a question rather than making a claim, you wouldn't have said "I'm sure we'd have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened".

Originally Posted by Alan Owes Bess

The links you provided indicate no malfeasance on the part of the security guards involved (ie. indulged themselves in killing the locals).

Adding "malfeasance" is a weasel on your part. It wasn't part of your initial false claim that no killing took place.

You're now attempting to claim that even though they obviously did shoot and kill Iraqis, it's OK.

[Rashak Mani]

Funny I see as more alarming the fact that the US is probably spending more money in these guys in order to avoid political fallout from sending in more troops...

... and the fact that these mercenaries might be easily used elsewhere and without congressional approval or knowledge. It means they get to put private armies without really making it public.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by msmith537

What claimed right? The right to act like savages?

What is your opinion of the killing by US forces of reporters of different nationalities who were covering the war and who were no threat to US forces?

Your argument is completely absurd. If civilians like the Red Cross go in and try to feed the refugees of a war they are "legitimate" targets?

Does the Red Cross go into a country under the authority of only one side and with armed escorts? I don't think so. I think they go unarmed and take no sides. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, there are plenty of people with legitimate business is a lot of places that are pretty dangerous. As long as there are terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, organized criminals, petty warlords and other shady dudes, there will be a real need for trained security guards who can actually whoop ass.

This is about Iraq, a country in war, not about Walmart security.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Funny I see as more alarming the fact that the US is probably spending more money in these guys in order to avoid political fallout from sending in more troops...

... and the fact that these mercenaries might be easily used elsewhere and without congressional approval or knowledge. It means they get to put private armies without really making it public.

Reminds me of Iran-Contra. The government is violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by sailor

have no good answers except that any idiot knows that war is a mess where shit happens and therefore the one who starts a war is responsible for the consequences. The answer that the solution is to not resist is not acceptable to me. The solution was to not attack in the first place.

This is about five kinds of nonsense. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who fervently opposes the war, but this is a simplistic analysis that insists all the blame must be laid at the feet of only one party. Clearly in this situation there are multiple groups of bad guys, multiple culprits; showing malfeasance on the part of the US in no way excuses the actions of those who ambush and kill people in the streets.

The fact that you have a family does not entitle you to go into a country uninvited and shoot people and if you are going to do that then you have to be prepared to have them shoot back.

You DO realize, don't you, that many of the anti-US forces in Iraq are Saudis who went into the country uninvited and are shooting people, right?

Though a war comprise a million acts of barbarism, that is no excuse for committing the million-and-first act.

**********

As to the OP, I only heard about the mercenary status of these guys this morning, too; I wonder if the military has been releasing information slowly. NPR did some short bio bits on the guys who were slaughtered, and it sounded like they were really stretching to say nil nisi bonum about the mortuis. I'm keeping my ears up.

Daniel

[Alan Owes Bess]

Post #25 from yours truly:

Have any of these private contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer, indulged themselves in killing the locals? I'm sure we'd have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened.

A later follow up from Desmostylus

It wasn't part of your initial false claim that no killing took place.

Nowhere did I claim that no killing took place. See my quote above. The falsehood is entirely ……

As far as I can ascertain, even from all of your links, none of the gunfire from the private security guards in any of the events described could be described as the guards “indulging themselves” – see my quote - in killing the locals. It seems pretty much self defence to me, and only marginally successful, at that.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

As to the OP, I only heard about the mercenary status of these guys this morning, too; I wonder if the military has been releasing information slowly.

I'm not questioning when you first heard about it, but the information about who they were was available right from the start. The NYT, Reuters, etc. identified the company they worked for, Blackwater, right from the start on 31 March. It was a simple Google on the word "Blackwater" to identify them as mercenaries. That's how I found out, and I'm sure some reporters thought of that, too.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Desmostylus

I'm not questioning when you first heard about it, but the information about who they were was available right from the start. The NYT, Reuters, etc. identified the company they worked for, Blackwater, right from the start on 31 March. It was a simple Google on the word "Blackwater" to identify them as mercenaries. That's how I found out, and I'm sure some reporters thought of that, too.

That makes sense; when I first heard about it (mostly on NPR), they left those details out, giving me the impression that they were engineers or something.

Daniel

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

This is about five kinds of nonsense. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who fervently opposes the war, but this is a simplistic analysis that insists all the blame must be laid at the feet of only one party. Clearly in this situation there are multiple groups of bad guys, multiple culprits; showing malfeasance on the part of the US in no way excuses the actions of those who ambush and kill people in the streets.

No, I am not saying that. I am only saying that when you unleash a war this kind of shit is foreseeable and you must have overwhelming reasons before you start a war.

Let me give you another example. I am sure there have been plenty of abuses and crimes committed by individual American soldiers. Some have been prosecuted as they should be and others have been covered up or never discovered. I have never made a point of harping on this or painting American soldiers as bad people. THey are humans like anyone else and when put under extreme circumstances some humans snap and do bad things. They are bad and should be prosecuted but I am not conderned with that any more than i am concerned with individual barbarities committed by the other side. My concern is that GWB *knew* this would happen on both sides and still launched the war. I am looking at the big picture. The individuals who did wrong are just part of the bigger picture for me. I am not interested in arguing about US sargeant X who committed war crimes because that is foreseeable in a war and part and parcel of war.

You DO realize, don't you, that many of the anti-US forces in Iraq are Saudis who went into the country uninvited and are shooting people, right?

Yup. you *do* realize the US forces consider them legitimate targets, don't you?

Though a war comprise a million acts of barbarism, that is no excuse for committing the million-and-first act.

I agree, but killing guys who are armed and ready to fight does not seem to me like anything but fair and square fighting. They were not the Sisters of Mother Theresa. They were bad ass guys armed to the teeth and ready to kill. Sorry, what goes around comes around.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Alan Owes Bess

Nowhere did I claim that no killing took place. See my quote above.

I can't help it if you can't even parse your own sentences.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by sailor

No, I am not saying that. I am only saying that when you unleash a war this kind of shit is foreseeable and you must have overwhelming reasons before you start a war.

I agree entirely.

I agree, but killing guys who are armed and ready to fight does not seem to me like anything but fair and square fighting. They were not the Sisters of Mother Theresa. They were bad ass guys armed to the teeth and ready to kill. Sorry, what goes around comes around.

Ain't no such thing as "fair and square fighting." This ain't a game; the losers aren't coming back. The fact that they were armed in no way lessens the human tragedy of their death.

(nor, it should be obvious, is the reverse true: the deaths of fighters on the other side should be equally mourned)

Daniel

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

This ain't a game; the losers aren't coming back. The fact that they were armed in no way lessens the human tragedy of their death.

(nor, it should be obvious, is the reverse true: the deaths of fighters on the other side should be equally mourned)

I agree 100%. Every single human death is a tragedy. Every single one. The US soldier who is killed is as much a victim as the Iraqi fighter who is killed. At that level of analysis they are all victims but if I have to distribute my sympathy, the Red Cross worker who is trying to alleviate human suffering has more sympathy from me than the armed thug who is ready to kill for money. The US soldier and the Iraqi fighter, both of which believe they are fighting for their countries, both have my equal admiration. The fact that I disagree with the decision to start the war does not diminish the fact that the US soldier is doing his duty and deserves admiration and gratitude. It is just very unfortunate that someone started the war which put these people in a position where each one sees the other as an enemy to be killed.

The mercenaries though are there selling themselves for money. They will kill to protect Halliburton or whoever they are paid to protect. In my sympathy scale they are lower down than the others.

[London_Calling]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Funny I see as more alarming the fact that the US is probably spending more money in these guys in order to avoid political fallout from sending in more troops...

The US doesn’t have the troops to spare - it would have to take them from somewhere else they're also 'needed'. That’s why it’s paying for these people and sending in (several) tens of thousands of National Guard and 'weekend warriors' on this rotation.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by sailor

The mercenaries though are there selling themselves for money. They will kill to protect Halliburton or whoever they are paid to protect. In my sympathy scale they are lower down than the others.

Are you so sure? Isn't it possible that they're there because they believe in the group they're protecting? If, for example, the mercenaries were protecting madmonk's work, isn't that a noble thing for them to do?

Frankly, if I'm going to distribute my own sympathies, the people protecting aid workers get more sympathy than the people killing aid workers or the aid workers' protectors.

Daniel

[Alan Owes Bess]

Well, what have we here?

AOB

Have any of these private contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer, indulged themselves in killing the locals? I'm sure we'd have all heard about it by now if it had ever happened.

Des

It wasn't part of your initial false claim that no killing took place.

AOB

As far as I can ascertain, even from all of your links, none of the gunfire from the private security guards in any of the events described could be described as the guards “indulging themselves” – see my quote - in killing the locals. It seems pretty much self defence to me, and only marginally successful, at that.

Des

I can't help it if you can't even parse your own sentences.

And yet, you insist that I falsely claimed that I claimed that no killing took place.

Maybe you should stick to your chosen profession of tree lopping. An honorable profession, I might add.

Did I call it right on that?

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Are you so sure? Isn't it possible that they're there because they believe in the group they're protecting? If, for example, the mercenaries were protecting madmonk's work, isn't that a noble thing for them to do?

Frankly, if I'm going to distribute my own sympathies, the people protecting aid workers get more sympathy than the people killing aid workers or the aid workers' protectors.

Daniel

As I said, in my view these mercenaries are operating under US authority and asserting US authority. They are combatants. No more and no less.

Organizations which are impartial should not be using armed forces to protect themselves and I do not believe the Red Cross does this. Or do they? If you are going to use armed force then you should be prepared to have armed force used against you.

I think the US government is doing a good job of confounding the issue by calling them "civilian contractors in Iraq to help rebuild the country". The fact is they are asserting American authority there. No more and no less. They are combatants who operate under American authority and who assert American authority and deny authority to the insurgents. A truly neutral organization cannot be operating under the authority of one side. They are American mercenaries there to assert American authority. They are willing to kill to assert that authority and they are fair targets.

If they are guarding a refinery or a bank and you tried to force your way in, they would kill you. The fact that they are not at the moment doing that does not diminish their condition as legitimate targets just as an enemy fighter is a target while he is not actively fighting. American forces will kill insurgents even if they are sleeping because they are ready to fight the next day. These guys might have been in church for all I care. They are American forces asserting American authority. That is their job and purpose.

[Desmostylus]

AOB: Look. Your argument only makes sense if the word "indulge" necessarily implies wrongfullness. The dictionary disagrees with you.

Quit whining. Contribute something sensible or go away.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by sailor

As I said, in my view these mercenaries are operating under US authority and asserting US authority. They are combatants. No more and no less.

Organizations which are impartial should not be using armed forces to protect themselves and I do not believe the Red Cross does this. Or do they? If you are going to use armed force then you should be prepared to have armed force used against you.

Am I understanding you right, that impartial forces should be perfectly willing to be exposed to the bullets of folks who have shown themselves willing to kill impartial forces?

That don't make no sense to me. Folks doing good work don't need to be martyrs in the process.

Daniel