# 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:** 3
**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, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/41 "2004-04-02T15:30:26Z")
> [@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. ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/42 "2004-04-02T15:31:43Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/43 "2004-04-02T15:35:48Z")
> [@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 ---
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/44 "2004-04-02T15:53:02Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/45 "2004-04-02T16:02:54Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/46 "2004-04-02T16:03:23Z")
> [@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 ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/47 "2004-04-02T16:13:13Z")
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? ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/48 "2004-04-02T16:29:09Z")
> [@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. ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/49 "2004-04-02T16:31:55Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/50 "2004-04-02T16:33:13Z")
> [@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 ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/51 "2004-04-02T16:49:59Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > 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 I believe the Red Cross either has the agreement of both sides to respect them as neutral or they don’t go in and that is what I think should be. Once you take sides you have taken sides. Once you assert force you consent implicitly to force being used against you. And I believe there is a lot of propaganda involved where all these people are described as “civilian contractors working for the reconstruction of Iraq” where they would more accurately be described as “Armed mercenaries protecting American interests”. You are implying there _has_ to be a way for humanitarian organizations to do their work and I think sometimes this is just impossible but if it is going to be possible they should be strictly neutral and this is not the case. These people are not neutral, they are on one side and against the other. You may think one side is right and the other is wrong but it does not change the facts. American forces fight insurgents all the time and do not allow them to assert any authority on any grounds. Do you really think American forces would allow rebels to “protect” a hospital? Come on!. It’s war and the USA is using everything it can to deny the enemy the control of anything so it is disingenuous to blame the other side for doing the same. An organization which is truly neutral and humanitarian should not be using armed protection from one side. Why don’t the humanitarian organizations negotiate with the resistance a safeconduct? Would American authorities allow this? These mercenaries are there to fight for American interests. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/52 "2004-04-02T16:52:32Z")
Phil Carter over at [http=http://philcarter.blogspot.com]Intel Dump[/http] has a brief analysis of the status of the mercenaries/civilian contractors. Basically, as armed agents of the US government they can no longer be considered civilians for Geneva convention purposes. At the same time, as ununiformed personnel they do not fall under the 3rd Geneva convention definition of combatant, either. I don’t think that the death of personnel intended to be combatant can be equated or mapped into the murder of employees/contractors of either the US or other governments or NGO’s who have a noncombatant role. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/53 "2004-04-02T17:03:36Z")
Originally by **Desmostylus** > [@](#): > > Quit whining. Contribute something sensible or go away. Since you are the one who wanted to indulge (note the word) in a bit of argle bargle and accuse me of falsely claiming something that I did not actually claim (see posts 25 and 28, et al) you are the one who is whining and whingeing here. PS. Don’t tell me what to do, you asinine twerp. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/54 "2004-04-02T17:13:07Z")
Link to what **MMI** referred to above: > [@](#): > > [Friday, April 02, 2004 > Contractors on the battlefield](http://philcarter.blogspot.com/) > > In a nutshell, these employees are not quite civilians and not quite soldiers. They carry arms and act as the agents of the U.S. government, removing their protection under the 4th Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of civilians. However, they don’t wear uniforms or belong to a properly constituted armed force or militia, so they don’t really fall under the 3rd Geneva Convention’s definition of a combatant either. The murkiness of their status means that it is really tough to define the a that actually occurred last week as a war crime, or anything else beyond what domestic Iraqi law says about it. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/55 "2004-04-02T17:14:46Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Once you assert force you consent implicitly to force being used against you. This is bizarre and untrue. If I am scared of my neighborhood and buy a gun to protect myself, I am in no way consenting to get shot by a thug in my neighborhood. > [@](#): > > An organization which is truly neutral and humanitarian should not be using armed protection from one side. Why don’t the humanitarian organizations negotiate with the resistance a safeconduct? Would American authorities allow this? These mercenaries are there to fight for American interests. End of story. But the whole point is that they’re not using armed protection from one side: they’re using mercenaries. Whyd on’t they negotiate safe conduct with the “resistance”? Because the resistance doesn’t want them there at all! The resistance wants to establish a theocracy in Iraq, and to do that, they need to make absolutely sure that the US occupation looks like a complete failure, and to do that, they need to make sure that no Westerners succeed in helping the locals improve their lives. Aid workers may disagree: they may think that murderous theocrats ought not to dictate what sort of lives the locals get to lead, and they might decide that, while they’ll never fire the first shot, they’ll defend themselves against anyone who shoots at them. **That is not a consent to be shot at**. It is totally illogical to suggest otherwise. Daniel ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/56 "2004-04-02T17:24:04Z")
\>\> In a nutshell, these employees are not quite civilians and not quite soldiers. They carry arms and act as the agents of the U.S. government, removing their protection under the 4th Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of civilians. Correct. They are not considered civilians and do not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians. By carrying arms and acting as agents of the US they have forefeited that protection. \>\> However, they don’t wear uniforms or belong to a properly constituted armed force or militia, so they don’t really fall under the 3rd Geneva Convention’s definition of a combatant either. Correct. They do not enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention regarding regular members of the armed forces. By not being part of the US military, wearing uniforms, etc, they have forfeited that protection. I do not think this is a major point one way or another though. More a legal fine point with no real effect. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/57 "2004-04-02T17:38:15Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > But the whole point is that they’re not using armed protection from one side: they’re using mercenaries. Not true. The mercenaries are paid by the USA, they enforce the orders of the USA and they are there to fight against the rebels. They are fighting for the USA and are legitimate targets. > [@](#): > > Wall Street Journal: > The murdered contractors were security guards from a closely held North Carolina company, Blackwater Security, that relies heavily on retired U.S. soldiers and intelligence operatives, especially from Delta Force and special forces. The men were working under a U.S. government contract to protect food shipments to the Fallujah area, > > * * * > > One Bush official, who declined to be identified, said that “because of the gruesome nature of this” the administration now expects “renewed requests from contractors for more funding and more help on security. That seems unavoidable at this point.” Such desires are even more likely because the latest round of rebuilding contracts means that hundreds more U.S. civilian workers are supposed to begin streaming into Iraq in coming weeks. They are armed forces protecting American contracts. 100% legitimate targets. > [@](#): > > Whyd on’t they negotiate safe conduct with the “resistance”? Because the resistance doesn’t want them there at all! The resistance wants to establish a theocracy in Iraq, and to do that, they need to make absolutely sure that the US occupation looks like a complete failure, and to do that, they need to make sure that no Westerners succeed in helping the locals improve their lives. So you are just saying that one side is right and the other is wrong. Fine, but that does not have anything to do with the fact that they are agents for one side and legitimate targets for the other. To think you can just have combatants out of uniform and that would make them immune from attack is just silly. They are agents of the USA, they are fighting for the USA, to protect its contracts and its interests. They are IMHO 100% legitimate targets. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/58 "2004-04-02T17:46:55Z")
Am I reading this correctly? From the original post by **RTFirefly** [Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4815701-103681,00.html) > [@](#): > > 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. Are they saying that the US peacekeeping force (IE part of the US military) is using mercenaries to guard the compounds? Tell me I’m reading this wrong. I can understand (not necessarily agree with, but at least understand) contracting out some of the non-military work associated with the official US military (maintenence, food services, etc). I can understand private security for private companies. But private security for the military? ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/59 "2004-04-02T18:25:46Z")
My first thought is that in parts of Iraq that are basically war zones, Western civilians should only be there on tasks necessary to the mission we’ve embarked on over there; they shouldn’t be operating on their own. And security for those civilians on essential missions should be provided by US or other coalition military forces. Why? Because we know who they are, how they were trained, and how they’re accountable. In places where the level of violence has gone back to near peacetime levels, then I can see the legitimacy of Westerners visiting in search of opportunities to start businesses and employ Iraqis, especially given the high unemployment rate in Iraq. And they’ll undoubtedly feel more secure if they have some hired security, and it’s unrealistic to expect the US military to play that role. I’ve got no direct pipeline to the truth of what’s going on in Iraq as a whole these days, so I don’t know how much of the country is basically at peace, and how much of it is still a war zone. Clearly the ‘Sunni triangle’ is still a war zone; they haven’t surrendered there. I expect that there’s a good chunk of Shi’ite Iraq where everyday life is, well, everyday life, even if they’re stockpiling guns behind the scenes in case of civil war. According to the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43364-2004Apr1.html): > [@](#): > > A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops under a subcontract to a company named Regency Hotel and Hospitality. I gotta admit, my thoughts were tripping all over each other when I saw this. What’s a company with a name like “Regency Hotel and Hospitality” doing business in a war zone? Why does the US military subcontract out such services _at all_, in places like the Sunni Triangle? And if they do, why aren’t they at least providing the security for the food convoy themselves? This bit scares me too: > [@](#): > > The men, all employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, were in the dangerous Sunni Triangle area operating under more hazardous conditions – unarmored cars with no apparent backup – than the U.S. military or the CIA permit. You get a private company, with a bottom line to worry about, in a situation like this, and this is one of the things you have to expect: that the security people themselves had insufficient security. There are always businesses where cutting corners could cost someone their life, but it’s much more stark in this sort of environment. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774/60 "2004-04-02T18:33:11Z")
Hello thank you all for helping me decide if this board was worth $5. Bye [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mercenaries-for-america/237774.md?page=4)