Blackwater, Petraeus, ...

[nerdgirl 0]

These days it seems too easy to pick on Blackwater …

“Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.”
(Analysis & quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html; primary document, made available through House Committee: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20061207151614-43671.pdf)

Is the market right there? Is it the market that we want America to project? (I.e., are the values of the market screwed up here? Im-ever-ho, yes.)

Counter that observation with the occasional wisdom and always insightfully/incitefully acerbic commentary of Ralph Peters w/r/t Blackwater’s latest incident …. which he actually blames on the State Dept, but the wisdom part is:

“And who gets the blame? Our troops. Iraqis just see all of the pale faces with guns as Americans. They don’t differentiate between the honorable men and women in uniform and the narcissistic killers who adorn themselves with knives and cop-killer side arms - and who look like rejects from professional wrestling.

“And, as any soldier in Iraq can tell you, one contractor shoot-’em-up can ruin months of progress. (Of course, the contractors don’t make money off of progress - a peaceful Iraq would be terrible for business.)” (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09302007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/trouble_for_hire)

One soldier (well, technically a marine) told us back in April 2005: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2425191;search_string=fallujah;#2425191 Unfortunately, there aren’t good sound-bites from Toolan’s interview – actually have to read more than a text snippet.

So what? Who cares?

A strong, civilian-controlled military – both "civilian-controlled" and "strong" being critical components – is vital. Is the phenomenon of Blackwater, et al., a result of down-sizing the volunteer military than began in the 1990s? (Yes, Hessians fought in American Revolution; more recent history please.)

If one sees value and importance of the US military for force projection globally – & I do – whether for national security, in support of allies, stability operations (per DoDD 3000.05), reconstruction, or humanitarian, (even if Iraq/OIF has not been the most successful example), is the reliance on private military contractors eroding that capability? Does Blackwater, et al., represent America?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

I don't have any direct experience working with any Blackwater/et al type firms over there, but they have a really tough job. A four man PSD is exactly that: a four man PSD. They are not guaranteed protection and/or support from US military assets.

This results in a completely different doctrine in the field. Does it mean they cannot overstep their bounds? No. It does mean though that they should more carefully scrutinize their tactics and procedures.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[1969912 0]

".....always insightfully/incitefully acerbic...."

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[idrankwhat 0]

Nice post nerdgirl. Lots of good questions and observations here. I hadn't thought about the fact that the Iraqis were not likely to discern much difference between the troops and the mercenaries. That's significant considering that the number of hired guns is at least equal to the number of troops currently in the country. Personally, I don't like this situation. I see too many problems with it. As you pointed out, the American troops aren't paid nearly as well as the contractors for doing the same job and I'd imagine that doesn't help soldiers' morale much. Also, the contractors seem to be able to function in this legal nether region that makes them accountable to no one. Because of that you have situations such as Blackwater/Fallujah ordeal. I don't know if it's been settled yet but the idea of a contractor suing the families of the dead contractors for $10 million in order to keep them quiet just doesn't seem right in my book. It also doesn't look help out the US image. Take the following headline for example. Interesting article. too.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1724225.0.0.php

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Interesting how many of these companies have ties back to very senior administration officials (like the President and the Vice-President) but people maintain it isn't about money.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

the number of hired guns is at least equal to the number of troops currently in the country.

WOW

160,000 mercs?

I thought is was between 20,000 and 30,000.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Interesting how many of these companies have ties back to very senior administration officials (like the President and the Vice-President) but people maintain it isn't about money.

Hey.. you.. furriner......this war is all about freedom and liberty ( for friends of the PNAC'ers in the administration to make money)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

the number of hired guns is at least equal to the number of troops currently in the country.

WOW

160,000 mercs?

I would have never guessed that.

Oh lordy lordy! I said "hired guns" instead of "contractors"! Better fix that fast before NC hijacks the thread away from the issue so we can do some myopic semantic gymnastics

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I remember when calling them mercenaries would get you lambasted on these boards.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I remember when calling them mercenaries would get you lambasted on these boards.

Last week? Dude that's a superceded world view, there's a new paradigm in town now.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I remember when calling them mercenaries would get you lambasted on these boards.

We've gotten tired of correcting them...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the number of hired guns is at least equal to the number of troops currently in the country.

WOW

160,000 mercs?

I would have never guessed that.

Oh lordy lordy! I said "hired guns" instead of "contractors"! Better fix that fast before NC hijacks the thread away from the issue so we can do some myopic semantic gymnastics

So you think all Contractors in Iraq are hired guns?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Interesting how many of these companies have ties back to very senior administration officials (like the President and the Vice-President) but people maintain it isn't about money.

Why so surprised? Haliburton and most military contractors had close ties to Clinton when he was President. What's your point?

.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Interesting article. too.http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1724225.0.0.php

Thanks for the link to the Sunday Herald article. Some very interesting & provocative background.

Know TX Hammes (he’s retired Marine Corps, also former commander CBIRF/II MEF) – gonna have to follow up on what he’s looking into.TX vs Ralph Peters in an intellectual sparring match – my money’s on TX.

One criticism of the Herald article is the emphasis on the DoD-Blackwater connection. First there are other contractors getting more DoD$ (e.g., SAIC, Northrup-Grumman, CSC, Lockheed, usual suspects ...), and second, the majority of these private security contractors are working for State or other federal agencies (even if sometimes they are paid with defense act appropriations funds). Trying not to sound flippant, at which I suspect I'll have limited success, but Marines and soldiers have their own guns.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What's your point?

Clinton didn't create a perpetual war for them.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the number of hired guns is at least equal to the number of troops currently in the country.

WOW

160,000 mercs?

I would have never guessed that.

Oh lordy lordy! I said "hired guns" instead of "contractors"! Better fix that fast before NC hijacks the thread away from the issue so we can do some myopic semantic gymnastics

Sorry. didn't mean to cause a stir about terminology.

So, there are 160,000 HIRED GUNS in Iraq?

Could you provide a source?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

the number of hired guns is at least equal to the number of troops currently in the country.

160,000 mercs?

I thought is was between 20,000 and 30,000.

For the sake of argument (novel, in these parts
(Honestly, I don’t know. If one considers uniformed service members in 'combat' in Iraq (versus those in SCIFs, logistics, etc), maybe there are more “mercs” or private military security contractors (PMSC). Anything DoD-related requires a new acronym. I wouldn't put comparative specifics on the NIPRNET.)

Furthermore, let’s assume (just assume) that there have always been a substantial # of PMSCs in armed conflicts of the late 20th C.

So what's different here? And does it matter? (i.e., the “So What? Who cares?")

Is the visible role of PMSCs a reality of asymmetric warfare? Of 'post-modern' warfare, i.e., post-'fold the gap' US-Soviet style tank battles in Europe?

Is the prominence of PMSCs an indicator that the Army and Marines are still prepared/preparing to fight the proverbial last battle, or more accurately, the anticipated battles of the last century?
--
or
--
The importance of stability operations and reconstruction has been recognized. (See: 2006 QDR & DoDD 3000.5). Is the US relying on PMSCs to fill the gap on stability operations & reconstruction? If we do, is that bad? Im-ever-ho, trying it was a good idea; the implementation and execution has not succeeded.

If someone can solve the ‘who-the-hell-is-responsible-for-stability-ops-&-reconstruction-(nee ‘peacemaking/keeping’) problem, they’ll have themselves an Under Secretary position (altho’ I’m not sure I’d want that particular headache/heartburn).

Right now Blackwater is making themselves, as the 'bad apples', and other PMSCs (by association) look like they can't fill that role. Last thing I would advocate is a new Dept of Stability Ops (a la our new DHS). The Mar 2006 National Security Strategy proposed a civilian reserve corps (p. 44). Foreign Service Officers don't seem to be a viable option either. The DoD sent $$$$$ to State to try to get the Afghanistan Reconstruction going (via Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization http://www.state.gov/s/crs/c12936.htm). Who's gonna get the stuck with 'hot potato'?

---

Max highlighted an important issue – doctrine & tactics, which I think is worth more bandwidth.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What's your point?

Clinton didn't create a perpetual war for them.

What's that got to do with your original statement?

All miltary contractors have close ties to whomever is the current administration whether it be a Democrat or Republican. They also have close ties to and contribute to members of Congress. Does Dianne Feinstein ring any bells?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I remember when calling them mercenaries would get you lambasted on these boards.

As it should

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh lordy lordy! I said "hired guns" instead of "contractors"! Better fix that fast before NC hijacks the thread away from the issue so we can do some myopic semantic gymnastics

So you think all Contractors in Iraq are hired guns?

Some literally, some figuratively. Regardless, it's still the privatization of nation building. And when you do that, besides the problems listed in the article I linked earlier, I think that you end up with "market forces" having too much influence on our foreign policy.

"Whoo Hoo, another four years" to quote one contractor.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Sorry. didn't mean to cause a stir about terminology.

So, there are 160,000 HIRED GUNS in Iraq?

Could you provide a source?

I corrected it to "contractors". You can tell me how many have guns if you wish. That actually would be interesting to know.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I remember when calling them mercenaries would get you lambasted on these boards.

As it should

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention, signed by the US, to which 167 states are currently party, defines “Mercenaries” in Article 47 ( http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm):

2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


Now the vast majority of private contractors in Iraq clearly do not fit that definition, not even slightly. Not by any chance.

Otoh, does the most recent Blackwater incident, regardless of whether they fired first or not, coupled with the Fallujah firefight in March 2004 and the other shooting incidents being investigated not qualify … maybe? (see e.g., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21034414/ or do a Google search)

Parts (a) & (d) are the problem. 99% (if not 100%) of Blackwaters private military security contractors (PMSCs) are required to be US citizens. And since we all here are such strong proponents of the Laws of War,
In a non-legal setting, [here’s where I don my proverbial asbestos underwear] calling Blackwater metaphorically 'mercenaries' doesn’t seem too far off. Yeah, it's got a pejorative connotation, but so does "pansy ass."

To criticize that metaphorical use almost seems to be 'politically correct' (unless we’ve gone back to our strict interpretationalist views on the Laws of War). So maybe a certain subset of Blackwater PMSCs are not "ducks" ... but if they're not a closely related species, that subset (who the world hears about) are water fowl. (Metaphorically, speaking.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

You do make some good points, however:

"(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;" - I would argue that defensive operations (PPDs, as Blackwater is hired for) are not "taking a direct part in the hostilities".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Tonto 1]

Oooh! Look! Over there! a straw! Clutch it! Quick!

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

You do make some good points, however:

"(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;" - I would argue that defensive operations (PPDs, as Blackwater is hired for) are not "taking a direct part in the hostilities".

Are their fingers directly on the triggers of weapons directly taking part in hostilities by directly sending bullets in the direction of the enemy or was that by accident? Wether is defensive or offensive, they are directly involved.

...and you're in violation of your face!