# Mercenaries for America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774 "2004-04-01T18:50:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/1 "2004-04-01T18:50:17Z")
[CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/31/civilian.deaths.ap/index.html): > [@](#): > > 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](http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4815701-103681,00.html) (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. ---
**Author:** ![Karmagun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Karmagun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karmagun)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/2 "2004-04-01T21:30:00Z")
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’. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/3 "2004-04-01T23:57:11Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/4 "2004-04-02T00:04:50Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/5 "2004-04-02T00:15:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/6 "2004-04-02T00:56:00Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Karmagun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Karmagun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karmagun)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/7 "2004-04-02T00:59:01Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/8 "2004-04-02T01:05:59Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/9 "2004-04-02T01:14:11Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/10 "2004-04-02T01:30:15Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/11 "2004-04-02T01:33:49Z")
> [@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.” ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/12 "2004-04-02T01:59:06Z")
> [@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”. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/13 "2004-04-02T05:27:59Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/14 "2004-04-02T08:09:21Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/15 "2004-04-02T08:58:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/16 "2004-04-02T11:13:28Z")
> [@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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248110&page=2). Plenty of cites. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/17 "2004-04-02T11:34:53Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/18 "2004-04-02T11:55:54Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/19 "2004-04-02T12:01:43Z")
> [@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](http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html) > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/20 "2004-04-02T12:26:19Z")
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](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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774.md?page=2)