Heh, nice one! Fuck these non-American bastards!
I think that’s total contractors associated with the war, including:
The number of paramilitary/gun-toting contractors is much lower - I think 7,000 to 15,000 is the number given in Fiasco, which was published a year or two ago. The 20-30,000 security contractors given upthread doesn’t sound outside the range of possibility for just the ones toting guns.
Or the Oscar wrap-up edition of EW Magazine!
“I don’t want to come right out and say the insurgents in Tikrit have the worst fashion sense in the world (it is, after all, a very big world), but mismatched boots and AK-47 straps aside, those cammos make their butts look absolutely HUGE!”
That very well could be the same incident. I was told it happened in a parking lot and that Blackwater got him out of the country before there could be an investigation. Like I said, it happened after I left the party. To give you an idea of their reputation, I remember one time when they go a helicopter shot down in Baghdad and we thought it was funny as shit.
Here’s a Frontline that deals extensively with the issues of private contractors in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/
The military has had problems with private contractors, especially the active, gun-toting ones a number of times. First, they’re unstable actors that are not tightly reigned by a traditional military command and control structure backed up by the UCMJ and a threat of life imprisonment turning big rocks into small ones in Levenworth, Kansas.
Not only do they piss off Iraqis on many occassions, but they get themselves into trouble requiring extensive efforts and resources from the army. For example, in the film, the USMC commander tasked with invading Fallujah states that his planning for invading the city in a time and manner of his choosing was interupted by the killing of those four intractors infamously pulled from that burning white SUV and hung from a bridge. That incident is discussed in, “Citizens in a Warzone.”
Also, contractors cause morale problems for US troops. A Specialist can look at a private contractor and say, “hey, this guy has the same background as me, basically does what I do, pulls three to four times the salary, gets to run around like a gun-toting hick without answering to the officers I answer to, and can pack up and leave for home whenever they damn well feel like it. By signing up for the army, I got screwed.”
At the same time, the army is also currently structured to heavily depend upon private contractors. With the army so periously stretched as is, to suddenly take on all of the rolls currently filled by private contractors would place an absolutely enormous stress upon the remaining available units.
Maybe for the next war…
How are they ‘mercenaries’? That’s a very loaded term. They are armed security personnel working in a foreign country. If that makes them mercenaries, then is a Brinks guard a mercenary? How about an armed guard in a bank? A private security crew hired to protect a CEO?
A mercenary is typically defined as a soldier hired to fight a war on behalf of a foreign government. That’s not what these guys are doing. They aren’t launching attacks against an enemy. They aren’t mustering with foreign soldiers. They are people typically hired to protect civilian workers from other countries who are contracting in Iraq. That doesn’t make them mercenaries.
I’m not even sure why anyone thinks they are bad guys. And if all the private security contractors are kicked out of the country, is it just tough noogies for say, an engineer with Siemens repairing a power station? Or should foreign investment just fade away and leave Iraqis in the dark? Or what? Just what do you want to have happen here?
That is the secondary definition. I believe the primary definition is “Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.”
Sam: I think people are saying that the ones flying off half-cocked and killing civilians should be kicked out of the country. And if an outfit is found to have a significant number of untrained, trigger happy yahoos, then maybe that whole outfit should be kicked out. I can see that the in-country military types might look down on the private security folks, and maybe some of that is sour grapes since the private security guys make a LOT more money. But when one of those guys gets hustled out of the country after killing some civilians, it does tend to look bad for the others, too. Is that fair? Maybe not, but we all know that life ain’t fair, so you gotta play with the hand you’re dealt with.
Oh, and when we find that State Dept is using private security for protection instead of regular military, one wonders if maybe we’re stretched too thin in that country.
Well, they’re armed personnel working in a foreign country who aren’t a part of the armed forces. That’s about as good a definition or “mercenary” as you will find.
International law exempts Blackwater personnel from mercenary status because international law specifies that an illegal mercenary is not a citizen of a nation partaking in the conflict. That makes sense, legally. I would assume that Blackwater employees are American citizens, so technically their use is not a war crime, but they sure come up close to the line.
Or, for that matter, highly trained trigger happy yahoos.
Seriously? Do Brinks guards have immunity from prosection? They are an armed force hired by and operating under the auspices of an occupying power, not subject to the laws of the country within which they operate.
It’s an interesting question whather they are subject to ANY law whatsoever – perhaps the only enforcement mechanism available would be some kind of penalty clauses in the Blackwater contract.
Doea anyone know if the Blackwater contract with the United States is a public document? Somehow I doubt it, but I would like to be wrong about this.
In the context it’s used here, that is not the meaning at all. People are using it in the sense of soldiers-for-hire. And it’s not accurate. They aren’t soldiers, and in a soldiering context ‘mercenary’ means going to work for another country for monetary gain. If the State Department was hiring French ex-soldiers for combat duty, THEY would be mercenaries.
John Mace: You’re responding to an argument I never made. I never said anything about whether Blackwater should be kicked out of the country or not. My post was solely aimed at those calling private security contractors ‘mercenaries’. That’s a distortion of the term, used because it has loaded connotations, not because it accurately describes what they are.
RickJay: No, that’s not as good a definition as you will find. Let’s see:
From Wordnet:
mercenary, soldier of fortune (a person hired to fight for another country than their own)
mercenary, free-lance, freelance (serving for wages in a foreign army) “mercenary killers”
From YourDictionary:
- Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
- Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies - One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
- A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
The first definition is the general term of ‘mercenary’. When used in the context of soldiering, it’s always used to mean joining a foreign army.
If you say, “That company went to Iraq for mercenary motives”, it means the former - that they went there not to help Iraqis or make the world a better place, but to simply make money. But if you say, “Those companies have hired a bunch of mercenaries”, you’re simply wrong.
It annoys me not just because it’s wrong, but because it’s a world that has negative connotations and which is used precisely for that reason, even though the usage is incorrect.
It’s also annoying to see the actions of a few people being used to tar all the security consultants and treat them as if they are a bunch of wild-eyed yahoos shooting up the country. The vast majority of them are professional, well trained, and careful. Most of them are ex-military, and many of them may have been in uniform only months earlier. Lots of them are ex-special forces. They serve a valuable job. Iraqis need infrastructure. Private corporations are willing to help them build it, but it’s a dangerous place and they need protection. There aren’t enough soldiers to protect them all, so they hire private contractors. What else are they supposed to do?
It’s a unique situation. They are operating in a relatively lawless region. Who is going to try them? Under what laws? Do you think they could get a fair trial in front of an Iraqi court? With Iraqi witnesses, who are perhaps part of the same tribe or militia as the people who perhaps attacked them in the first place?
And nice twist of phrase ‘under the auspices of an occupying power’. They aren’t working for a foreign government. They aren’t working as soldiers. They aren’t going on combat patrols or going out of their way to engage the enemy. Mostly, they plan safe passages for civilians, guard them while they work, and secure perimeters for sensitive installations. They are basically security guards. Heavily armed, yes. Working in a very difficult environment, with different rules? Yes. But they are not soldiers for hire to a foreign government. They do not muster with regular soldiers, or participate in military manoevers (other than in a defensive role when necessary).
The vast majority are good men trying to make a living doing a dangerous job, and keeping innocent civilian contractors alive in the process.
Blackwater is the primary contractor protecting American diplomats including Ambassador Crocker. They are in fact working as government agents. They are in effect soldiers given a defensive mission, in order to free up other soldiers for offensive missions.
Well, that’s not all they do, but I do agree that in the context of guarding the US embassy and State Dept. personnel, they do fit the description of mercenaries. If not to the letter, then close enough for government work.
Que? To Iraqis, the U.S. government is a foreign government.
In a counterinsurgency campaign, one of the roles of military forces is protection of civilians and securing perimeters. If it quacks like a soldier, and walks like a soldier, I’d have to say it’s a soldier, mercenary or no.
In any case, most of us would be able to recognize differences between the guy providing security for Brinks in Fresno and the guy working for Blackwater in Iraq:
- Military training
- Use of military weaponry
- Whether the primary role is to alert and protect property and life until law enforcement can arrive
- Whether the targets are property/money vs. political
- Combating criminals vs. guerrilla fighters
- Ability to drive through the country shooting at civilians to keep them away from the individual/convoy being protected
- Immunity to local law enforcement (de jure or de facto)
I don’t know how any of us can judge from so many thousands of miles away, and I have not seen facts to back up your opinion, although I do respect that it is your belief.
A) If they are American citizens being paid by the American government, they are not mercenaries.
B) If ‘freeing up soldiers’ makes you a mercenary, then I guess Brinks guards and police officers are mercenaries, because if there were no Brinks guards, there would be a lot of armed robberies, and no police, you’d need the National Guard to step in.
Look, it’s really very simple. If you’re hired as a soldier by a foreign country, you’re a mercenary. If the Iraqi government starts hiring Blackwater agents to go whack militia strongholds, they’re mercenaries.
If you’re a security guard working in Iraq for GE, IBM, or the State Department, you are not a mercenary.
Only if you overlook the ‘being hired by a foreign government’ part, which has always been the prime criterion for calling someone a mercenary.
Tell me: Is a Secret Service agent a mercenary? He’s hired by a government agency, and he’s not a member of the armed forces. He even has special laws applied to his duty.
Perhaps you can tell me the difference between a Secret Service agent (not a mercenary, I imagine you’ll agree), and a security guard hired by the State Department (who you think is a mercenary).
Ideally, I don’t see why Congress shouldn’t pass legislation to handle this. As long as we’re occupying Iraq, we should be able to oversee their behavior.
Yep, I just checked and it says 60,000 total, 10-15,000 estimated bodyguards, including several thousand from foreign countries like South Africa and, strangely enough, Fiji.
The moral high ground.
The concept of the United States Government contemplating the moral high ground is ludicrous to an extent that leaves bitter taste in my mouth to even say the words. Killing is nation building. Contracting with murderers is sufficient moral insulation to protect us from the very fires of hell. Down is up. Encamped upon the moral equivalent of Dead Sea, our leaders have demonstrated that pointing in the direction of some moral high ground is beyond their most diligent thinking.
For which we should probably be thankful. Our government, if they could find it would probably fortify the moral high ground, and use it as a deployment base for air strikes.
Tris
Mercenaries aren’t used solely for offensive purposes. William of Orange, for example, hired mercenaries to man Dutch forts in order to free up his soldiers to invade England. Besides, a soldier defending a convoy in Iraq isn’t involved any less in the war than those booting down doors in neighborhoods. The Iraq war is a guerrilla campaign, and every inch of the country is the battlefield. The role of Blackwater in Iraq is, I think, an entirely unique one in history. They are not under the command of the US Army, as would typically be the case with mercenaries, but often find themselves fighting alongside American soldiers. Certainly they fight the same enemy. To compare them to a Brinks security guard is absolutely ridiculous, and absurd on its face. There isn’t a term to accurately describe Blackwater’s role, but mercenary is the best word to convey the essence of what they are doing. That essence being private soldiers fighting under the auspices of a warring state for profit.
I don’t think anyone here is going to contend that having anyone other than the U.S. military doing the fighting in Iraq is a good idea. However, convoys need protection, VIPs need escorting, and job sites need to be secure. Unless someone here has a U.S. Army division hidden their backyard, Blackwater and their ilk are needed. There is a role for contractors in war zones. We don’t need a highly trained U.S. soldier scrubbing toilets or cooking dinner, but anyone fighting for the U.S. should be a member of the U.S. Military.