Apparently so. It’s been stated in a number of sources that Blackwater (the employer of the four killed in Fallujah earlier this week) provides the security for Paul Bremer. And you’d think that if anyone in Iraq rated a military security detail, Bremer would be that person.
For anyone interested, three of the dead have been identified. 38-year-old Scott Helvenston of Florida, a former Navy SEAL who joined the Navy when he was 17. He has worked as an actor and stunt man. Michael Teague, 38, was a 12 year Army veteran, who fought in Panama, Granada, and Afghanistan, where he earned a Bronze Star. He had e-mailed his best friend just two days before he died and told him that he loved what he was doing. Jerry Zovko was 32 years old, and joined the Army at 19, and was a member of the 82nd Airborne. He spoke five languages fluently: English, Croatian, Spanish, Russian and Arabic. His mother said that her son felt like “he just had to go and help”.
Blackwater is accepting donations for the families of all four killed, at:
Memorial Fund
PO Box 159
Moyock, NC 27958
Sorry if this is a hijack, but there is a domestic precedent for this. It has been widely reported for a number of years that perimeter security for the notorious “Area 51” aircraft testing facility at Groom Lake, NV has been provided by a unit of Wackenhut, not Air Force personnel. This may have been done in part to allow the Air Force to deny its operations there.
OK, not quite the same as guarding peacekeepers under combat conditions, but certainly not unheard of.
Alan Owes Bess:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Alan Owes Bess, this is NOT the place for namecalling. Stop it.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I think it’s tragic and horribly unfortunate, but almost inevitable. I agree with what one of the press groups said after a shooting: that both the US military and the journalists need to communicate their presence in hot zones better. I hope you’re not implying that the Army is shooting reporters on purpose.
I also think that some cases are tragic accidents. Jumping out in the view of a tank with a video camera that, in the heat of battle, could reasonably be mistaken for a RPG launcher is not a recipe for a happy ending, and both sides need to remember that.
Of course, the chances of that happening are slim, I fear.
Probably one reason for subcontracting as much as they can is that the US military are facing a severe personnel shortage. Personnel are being prevented from leaving the service when their time is up and many are being denied disability claims and being sent back to Iraq quite unfit for active duty.
This explains, in part, the use of “civilian contractors”.
That’s darkly humorous. I wonder if Blackwater takes out “dead peasant” policies on these guys.
I must confess, the “civilian contractors” thing had me thinking redwing boots and hard hats, till I got hip.
I think the four guys in colombia are “civilian contractors” too…
At least it would be less disingenuous to say “security guards”…It’s clear the crawford regime is trying to obscure the nature of the “contract”
Maybe its time for new g. to lead the pubs in a rousing rally to support the contract on Iraq
The guys killed in the Palestinian territories some weeks ago were also “civilian contractors” of this sort. I wish I could find that thread because there were also posters who were defending the “contractors”.
So what are they going to do with a man who chanted “death to America” and who beat a corpse with a stick? This policy of reprisals plays directly into creating more resentment and more resistance.
In other news
One thing is for sure: the longer the American occupation drags on, the worse the situation will get. I cannot see any way the Iraqis are going to turn around one day and feel happy with the Americans. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Dang! If you’re still around, I hope you’ll reconsider; your posts are by far the most informative in this thread, and your perspective is a very interesting one to have around. I apologize if i helped drive you off.
Daniel
Not that I am happy to see madmonk28 go but he seems to have a low tolerance for differing points of view and if there is anything those in Iraq need is an understanding for the locals. No matter how good their intentions, those who think they can impose their points of view on the locals are just making things worse. Those who can be totally neutral are the ones who can help best.
The fact is the Americans killed were soldiers in all but in name and they were engaged in protecting army supply operations. Trying to paint them as “contractors trying to help the Iraqi people” is just a plain lie. Not that lying is anything new for this government.
Would you argue that the President himself, as Commander in Chief, is a soldier in all but in name? And that the Pentagon is a military, rather than civilian, entity in all but in name? If not, why not? If so, would you argue that they are fair-game targets for terrorists? If not, why not?
"So what are they going to do with a man who chanted “death to America”
I believe that as part of the importation into Iraq of full-blown constitutional democracy, the Provisional Authority has decreed that the public expression of “anti-occupation” sentiments is a jailing offense.
He WILL be found.
He WILL be silenced…
I believe the White House and the Pentagon would be legitimate targets for a people at war with the USA. And I would not call them terrorists any more than I would call the Americans “terrorists” when they were bombing Bagdhag. Terrorist implies doing actions which are primarily targeted with the aim of terrorising the civilian population. Attacks targetted at the Pentagon or White House cannot be called “terrorist” by any means as they are not aimed at the random civilians.
The word “terrorist” these days seems to be used more and more as just “enemy of the USA” and this is diluting its meaning and diluting the support the USA was getting against Al Qaeda. Just calling someone “terrorist” doesn’t make him one.
What sort of rubbish argument is that? The US had no qualms trying to off Saddam. No one said he was off limits because he wasn’t a soldier.
Where would you draw the line between an an appropriate level of of armed security employed by a private organization to protect its facilities in such a hostile environment and hiring mercenaries.
Although I appreciate your telling me what people are and are not saying, I was addressing Sailor’s argument specifically. He said that representation of the de facto soldiers (“soldiers in all but in name”) as civilian contractors merely there to help Iraqis (“contractors trying to help the Iraqi people”) was a lie. I asked him whether the same argument did not apply to the Commander in Chief and the Pentagon. These are instutitions that are routinely represented as civilian entities helping people (by defending their lives) but are de facto military in nature (they command the armies). How does a man argue one without arguing the other? Anticipating that Sailor would maintain consistency, I asked him the follow-up question. And the reason I did was because of the implication that a reasonable person could take from swallowing his untenable position; namely, that since their status is not civilian de facto, it must be military in fact. I’m certainly not against calling politicians liars, but I am against making politics out of tragedy. Whether these men died as soldiers or civilians is utterly irrelevant. Unless you can show otherwise, I submit that they were honorable men who thought they were doing good. And they died.
All I am saying is they were legitimate targets and the Government is lying through its teeth when it says they were “civilian contractors” and implies they were doing humanitarian work. The government is trying to imply they were not legitimate targets. The government is lying (again).
In this case these people were, in fact, providing armed force to protect supply operations of the occupation forces so there is no doubt they were legitimate targets. Saying anything else is disingenuous.
In any case, in a war zone, any armed force is subject to being countered by armed force. A private company can do whatever the hell it wants and I don’t care so long as I am not an employee or shareholder. All I am saying is that a private organization which enters a war zone under the authority of one side and with armed force endorsed by that side should not be surprised if the other side, which does not recognise such authority, fights them with armed force. They can do whatever they want as far as I am concerned. Just don’t come crying to me when you get shot at because I will use my favorite phrase: “I told you so, now fuck off”. That’s all I’m saying.
I, as well, was wholly taken in by the “contractor” spin, seeing as others have noted engineers and electricians and that sort of thing. And “Blackwater”? WTF kind of name is that? Sounds like an anti-environmentalist terrorist cell. You’d think I’d learn by now, when the Bushiviks say “hospitality coordinator” they mean a diseased $2 crack whore.
But all funsies aside, this ominous note just in…
“Troops wait eagerly to re-enter Fallujah”
An air strike? A military action “precise and overwhelming”?
And that word, that terrible, terrible word. “Reprisal”.
This is soooooo not good.