It starts with this April 2nd, 2004 somewhat prescient* letter from some Senators.
excerpts:
"…security contractors are armed and operate in a fashion that is hard to distinguish from military forces, especially special operations forces. However, these private security companies are not under military control and are not subject to the rules that guide the conduct of American military personnel.
It would be a dangerous precedent if the United States allowed the presence of private armies operating outside the control of governmental authority and beholden only to those who pay them. In the context of Iraq, unless these forces are properly screened by United States authorities and are required to operate under clear guidelines and appropriate supervision, their presence will contribute to Iraqi resentment.*
We request that you provide, at the earliest possible moment, an accurate tally of the number of privately armed non-Iraqi security personnel in Iraq. We also request that you adopt written guidelines, including the legal justifications for their use both now and after June 30, 2004, the rules of engagement for these contractors and the lines of coordination among U.S. military forces, the Coalition Provisional Authority (and after June 30th, the sovereign Iraqi entity) and the contractor community."
Mr. Rumsfeld writes back May 4th, 2004 with this list attached. Note the date. Compare to teh date the Senators see the Taguba report.
Note the absence of evidence for the presence of CACI and Titan.
Is it easily knowable if this evidence’s lack of presence is evidence of intentional reluctance? Heavens, no. It’s entirely within the realm of plausibility that he was just out-of-the-loop when it came to compiling the list, no? Yes. It is.
Somewhat prescient or merely a statement of the obvious depending upon your perspective.
Rumsfeld was asked about private security firms, not contract linguists or interrogators. It’s my understanding the CACI and Titan employees were translators and interrogators. I have not heard anything about CACI or Titan carrying weapons in order to provide security at the prison, but I’ll be quick to retract that if someone can show evidence that the contractors at Abu Ghraib were security personnel.
In fairness, I don’t think Rumsfeld can be dinged for his letter. He’s only answering the questions that were asked.
What the Senators asked for was “an accurate tally of the number of privately armed non-Iraqi security personnel in Iraq.”
What they got back from Rumsfeld was, at best, inaccurate. With more than 15,000 military contractors in Iraq, no one seems to be able to come up with actual copies of the contract – much less a record of who is armed and who is not. You can buy a granade for $1.00 in the marketplace. (But that’s against the law, isn’t it. They can get fired for having a granade.) Hell! Even Tucker Carlson was armed with an AK-47 and, with others, used it to hold civilians at bay when filling up on gasoline.
Why are any civilians privately employed in positions which require them to be armed? That is against U.S. military doctrine, isn’t it? Weren’t civilians supposed to be hired to do the small tasks so that the military could be doing the important jobs?
The best source of information on this that I know of is Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution who was interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air on May 11. http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=05/11/2004 The interview is a goldmine and fascinating to listen to.