Look, it really doesn’t matter if they’re mercenaries or not, and there’s no need to spend an entire thread arguing the definition.
Their armed agents acting ostensibly on our behalf that cock things up a fair bit. I think it’s clear that having highly “forward deployed” security guards in a war has clearly proven a mistake from the standpoint of both the US military and the occupied people.
[QUOTE=threemae]
Look, it really doesn’t matter if they’re mercenaries or not, and there’s no need to spend an entire thread arguing the definition.
Their armed agents acting ostensibly on our behalf that cock things up a fair bit. I think it’s clear that having highly “forward deployed” security guards in a war has clearly proven a mistake from the standpoint of both the US military and the occupied people.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, dropping the terminology - on what basis do you say that it’s ‘clearly proven a mistake’ to use these people? To make that determination, don’t you have to consider the alternatives?
It seems to me that the alternative is to offer no protection to foreign companies that are trying to help rebuild Iraq. So, without protection, there’s no rebuilding, or dramatically scaled back rebuilding.
How have you decided that the few problems that have cropped up from private contractors is somehow worse than not offering security protection to enable the rebuilding effort? What is your alternative?
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Okay, dropping the terminology - on what basis do you say that it’s ‘clearly proven a mistake’ to use these people? To make that determination, don’t you have to consider the alternatives?
[/QUOTE]
I call it a clear mistake based upon the problems that have popped up as discussed in this thread as well as the general consensus of the US military command staff that depending upon these contractors is a mistake, but a necessary evil for this war.
My view on private security contractors is far from a rare viewpoint in the United States officer staff.
Now, I want to make it clear, that I’m not advocating that we push out all of the security contractors in Iraq. Again, I conceed that they play a critical role to our current force structure, and I don’t think that the military has the ability to cover all of the roles filled by private contractors.
But, for future conflicts, I think its clear that the pendulum of outsourcing certain aspects of war has swung to far to private contractors. When the current conflict in Iraq ends or winds down considerably, I suspect that the Pentagon will significantly change the way that private contractors are used in the next war.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Okay, dropping the terminology - on what basis do you say that it’s ‘clearly proven a mistake’ to use these people? To make that determination, don’t you have to consider the alternatives?
It seems to me that the alternative is to offer no protection to foreign companies that are trying to help rebuild Iraq. So, without protection, there’s no rebuilding, or dramatically scaled back rebuilding.
How have you decided that the few problems that have cropped up from private contractors is somehow worse than not offering security protection to enable the rebuilding effort? What is your alternative?
[/QUOTE]
…Sam, Iraq is not being rebuilt. Baghdad averages 5 hours of power a day. There is less potable water. There have been outbreaks of cholera in northern Iraq. Over a million people have fled over the border and another million are internally displaced. By any imaginable metric, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the exception of cell phone coverage the reconstruction effort has been an absolute dismal failure.
Reconstruction funds started to run out in 2006, and nearly half of reconstruction funds were spent on the security effort, the justice system and apparently the trial of Sadamm. Do contractors need protection? Absolutely. In the early stages of the occupation that protection should have been carried out by the occupying power, who should have invaded with enough soldiers to ensure that reconstruction goals were possible.
After the “occupation” phase was over, the responsibility for the security of the reconstruction effort should have fallen to the sovereign authorities. Unfortunately, the reconstruction led by American Contractors protected by American Contractors have, after five years of reconstruction, achieved absolutely nothing. With dwindling reconstruction funds: what can the current Iraqi government do?
The alternative to this situation was not “simply to offer no protection to companies trying to rebuild Iraq” as you have suggested.
The alternative was to have a reconstruction plan in place with achievable objectives, to put the reconstruction objectives out to a fair tender, to put the right amount of troops on the ground to ensure the protection of the reconstruction effort, and to achieve these reconstruction goals in a time-frame that would ensure that the insurgency wouldn’t have an opportunity to take hold.
None of this happened. Money went down the money pit-and the stories of where that money went is legendary. Pallets of money disappeared: Bremers’s CPA lost 9 billion dollars during their watch.
Seriously: looking at the figures on the Brookings Institute Iraq Index: as a businessman would sinking more money into companies like Blackwater make any sense at all?
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091200858.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010200370.html
[QUOTE=John Mace]
*You couldn’t invent a better name for such a private security company, btw. One would think that came from some spy novel or movie!
[/QUOTE]
“Custer Battles,” OTOH, was not very well thought out.
I think the situation here is a little muddled by the fact that the particular company in question has a rather large contract with the US State Department. Thus, all the talk of “operating under our(the US) auspices”. You could sort of make a case for it in this particular instance, but the vast majority of private security personnel in Iraq were not invited there by the US government, who has better access than most to security personnel, but by whoever it is they were contracted to protect. The representatives of the UN, for example, were guarded by Fijian private security personnel when they were in Iraq. Would you have them expelled too?
Blackwater is a very dodgy outfit. Like its own litttle Mafia, with money going back and forth to its protectors in the government. There have been a couple of books on it.
Cooler heads will prevail. The matter will be investigated. Thoroughly. Of course, a truly thorough investigation takes time, but, on an issue this important, nothing less will do. Very thorough.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
“Custer Battles,” OTOH, was not very well thought out.
[/QUOTE]
I actually have a Custer Battles story, too. They provided security to a facility I used briefly in 2004. They had a guy who would go up on the roof during the call to prayer and scream obscenities. A group of Iraqi neighbors came over and said essentially, I don’t know what your problem is, but you are about 1 day away from getting sniped. A lot of the Custer Battles guys were Serbian war criminals who had joined the French Foreign Legion for the new passports. Real scummy bunch.
Just to be clear the issue of whether or not Bremer’s immunity decree apply to private firms will be decided by an Iraqi court (or possiblely the cabinet). If it was deemed not to apply is there anything the US government could do about it (while maintaing the pretence that Iraq is a sovereign state)? Would it lead to an exodus of security contractors (which Bush could use as an excuse to increase troop levels)? And does the US have an actual treaty with Iraq giving immunity to our soldiers or does that depend on the decree too? 
If it it’s depend on the decree that means the Iraqi government could unilateraly decide to strip American (& British, etc) soldiers of immunity and try them in Iraqi courts.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Cooler heads will prevail. The matter will be investigated. Thoroughly.
[/QUOTE]
By whom?
[QUOTE=scr4]
By whom?
[/QUOTE]
After watching the spectacle of Petreus and Crocker assessing their own performance it’ll probably be Blackwater.
Well, they’re the experts on the ground.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_probe
** US, Iraq to probe Blackwater shooting**
A thorough investigation. We should wait for that report before we jump to any conclusions, and patience is required.
So Blackwater has been killing Iraqi civilians for years now. Finally, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back – what, too many witnesses? – and the government of Iraq says they have to go, vamoose, amscray, get out of the country boys and girls, the party is over. I wonder how we could use this wonderful logic and apply it to other entities in Iraq…can you help me out on this one, Maliki?
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
So Blackwater has been killing Iraqi civilians for years now. Finally, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back – what, too many witnesses? – and the government of Iraq says they have to go, vamoose, amscray, get out of the country boys and girls, the party is over. I wonder how we could use this wonderful logic and apply it to other entities in Iraq…can you help me out on this one, Maliki?
[/QUOTE]
Well, technically it can only be applied to entities operating in-country under an Iraqi government license.
And, in practical terms, probably not even those.
Don’t really understand legalese, but it seems that Blackwater “contractors” are immune, but if you read further it states that they still have to obey Iraqi laws. Are the sub-contractors Blackwater hires in from other countries immune also?
Warning PDF. Order 17.
From a small training facility to being active in 9 countries and a new private intelligence company. Tis good to be friends with Bush Co.
By the way, coincidentally enough, the October issue of Harpers (which doesn’t yet seem to be available on their website yet, even table-of-contexts) has an “annotation” titled “Contract with America” that is an annotated version of one of Blackwater’s employee contracts, or rather “independent contractor service agreements”. It’s pretty interesting!
When I first heard a couple of days ago that Blackwater was being kicked out of Iraq, and having just read the Harpers article, I assumed it was the U.S. government doing this and thought, “Boy, they are finally doing something intelligent.” I was disappointed to learn that this was not the case.