Blackwater, Petraeus, ...

[warpedskydiver 0]

Defending ones own life, and the lives of others should not happen?

Is that what you are suggesting?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

no, I think what he is suggesting is that they do take a direct part in the hostilities.

[mnealtx 0]

The point that you both are missing is that Blackwater is NOT tasked with supplementing troops on the battle line (the "classic" definition of mercenaries, which are active fighters) - they are used as personal protective details (PPD). They are not taking a direct part in the hostilities as a normal task, their role is in defense of their principal.

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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The point that you both are missing is that Blackwater is NOT tasked with supplementing troops on the battle line (the "classic" definition of mercenaries, which are active fighters) - they are used as personal protective details (PPD). They are not taking a direct part in the hostilities as a normal task, their role is in defense of their principal.

Agreed, that is the official task. But when you see them shooting first 80% of the time it might appear to be offensive, by both definitions of that term.

[Tonto 1]

If you're in another country - your action cannot be defensive. Your being there is as the result of an offensive, not a defensive action.

(And since you mentioned the "Battle line" would you care to tell me exactly where that is in Iraq?)

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[GQ_jumper 4]

If you're in another country - your action cannot be defensive. Your being there is as the result of an offensive, not a defensive action.

Quote

Being tasked with defending the lives of Iraqis VIPs is an offensive action? All the incidents where they fired first is why they are under scrutiny, it goes to show their task in Iraq was to defend the lives of select people, by providing them with a PSD, not to go out, find insurgents, and engage them.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you're in another country - your action cannot be defensive. Your being there is as the result of an offensive, not a defensive action.

(And since you mentioned the "Battle line" would you care to tell me exactly where that is in Iraq?)

t

Deliberately being obtuse doesn't become you. Defensive operations are entirely different than being deployed beside a line unit.

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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If you're in another country - your action cannot be defensive. Your being there is as the result of an offensive, not a defensive action.

Quote

Being tasked with defending the lives of Iraqis VIPs is an offensive action? All the incidents where they fired first is why they are under scrutiny, it goes to show their task in Iraq was to defend the lives of select people, by providing them with a PSD, not to go out, find insurgents, and engage them.

What difference do you think Iraqis see when they look at armed Americans in Iraq? Do they make the distinction between the Military and the contractors or do you think they see members of the occupying force?

• Quote

[GQ_jumper 4]

What difference do you think Iraqis see when they look at armed Americans in Iraq? Do they make the distinction between the Military and the contractors or do you think they see members of the occupying force?

Quote

The majority of Iraqis are smart enough to differentiate between soldiers and contractors.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[Darius11 12]

Quote

The majority of Iraqis are smart enough to differentiate between soldiers and contractors.

I doubt that they can. I bet if you line them up right next to US troops I wouldn’t be able to tell you who is who. As they are wearing military uniforms and carry M-16 or at least the ones i have seen.

No matter who black water or the US troops are I bet the Iraqis just sees Americans in their land.

As for the mercenary comment I believe the armed members of Black water are exactly that.
They get paid a lot of money to do the governments biting and are armed and ready to shoot. They are armed and have been accused of “Shooting or killing first and asking questions later” according to the US Senat. In regards to the shooting that killed 17 Iraqi civilians in a market.

I don’t think we can compare our troops to the people in Backwater. Our troops are doing there Job they didn’t necessary join to get action and make a whole bunch of money, Backwater is doing it for the money I personally have no respect for that.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 3,120]

>Being tasked with defending the lives of Iraqis VIPs is an offensive action?

Yes - if you see your job as including eliminating threats to that VIP before they start shooting.

Many people define any pro-american, pro-Iraq government action as defense. Heck, look at all the people who call our invasion of Iraq "defending america."

[nerdgirl 0]

Thank you *all* for great comments!

There aren't readily identifiable Maginot lines or easily identifiable combatants (vs civilians) in asymmetric warfare and in stability ops, which is what we (the world) and we (specifically the US) are likely to be see increasingly. (& that’s not a particularly novel statement on my part.)

Again, it’s so easy to use Blackwater as the illustrative case, don’t mean to be intentionally ‘picking on’ that company. I agree that Blackwater is – to some extent – being scapegoated for broader problems associated with the USG reliance on PMSCs and the murky legal jurisdiction. That does not, however, make them any less responsible for their behavior.

BTW: yes, I know “PMC” is the more common abbreviation, but I want to specify intentionally those private military contractors who are tasked to execute security functions. (KBR serving dinner is a very different task than protecting and escorting potentially high-value targets or other PMSC tasks.)

If Blackwater or any PMSCs were acting in purely protective or defensive actions, i.e., never shooting first, it would be easy. But it’s not.

PMSCs are
-- transporting armed uniformed combatants in war zones (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/02/blackwater.afghan.crash/index.html),
-- involved in multiple shooting incidents that are highly debated as to ‘who shot first,’ e.g., most recent incident (left: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071015&s=scahill / right: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct01/0,4670,BlackwaterIraq,00.html),
-- allegedly smuggling arms into conflict areas, which is being investigated by a retired Marine Colonel, among others ( http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep22/0,4670,BlackwaterProbe,00.html)
-- Eric Prince, CEO, yesterday in the Congressional hearing (Thank God for C-SPAN!) acknowledged the 150+ shooting incidents and specifically noted that the actual number is certainly *higher* than what they self-report.
-- offered to raise combat forces, http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=102251&ran=202519&tref=po
-- Advertise as “We are not simply a 'private security company.’ We are a professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping and stability operations firm who provides turnkey solutions” http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

Prince elaborated some of the frustration. When asked about the repercussions for the drunken Blackwater employee who shot and killed a bodyguard for the Iraqi VP last Christmas Eve, Prince explained that employee was fired and indicated that the employee was also fined a large amount (>$2K). When pressed, his response, which can be taken out of context, was to reply "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him." He’s absolutely right - it’s a private company executing what has traditionally been the domain of states with state authority, whether autocratic or based on more civil law. That's the crux. I suspect the number & role of PMSCs will increase in conflicts not decrease.

LTC Thomas K. Adams, USA (ret), proposed “three types of mercenaries” in his 1999 paper, The New Mercenaries and the Privatization of Conflict, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/99summer/adams.htm. The first type resembles the Geneva Convention Article 47 and historical characterization of mercenary activities cited here. The 2nd and 3rd types, are in line with what PMSCs are being tasked to do in Iraq & Afghanistan, i.e., “fairly large commercial companies that provide the kind of services expected of a general staff in one of the more developed national armies: high-quality tactical, operational, and strategic advice for the structure, training, equipping, and employment of armed forces” and “highly specialized services with a military application, but these groups are not in themselves notably military or paramilitary in organization or methods,” respectively.

My interest is less in indicting Blackwater or any other PMSC than my initial “So What? Who Cares?” questions:

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

no, I think what he is suggesting is that they do take a direct part in the hostilities.

Bingo.

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

[377 22]

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.

It's all about the money and it's a national disgrace. The overbilling and downright fraud on the civil side of the Iraq war is costing every single one of us dearly. You wonder why W has no clear exit strategy? The Iraq war is a money faucet for Blackwater, Bechtel, Halliburton and other outfits with strong White House ties. How would you like to be awarded a no bid contract to build infrastructure in Iraq and receive a huge multimillion dollar standby/readiness payment without ever having to do ANY actual construction? Do ya really think George Bush Jr. is going to turn off the spigot even one day before his term ends??? "NOT GONNA"

This corrupt adminsitration has ironically given rise to their worst nightmare: a liberal black man as a viable presidential candidate. Obama wouldn't have a prayer if he had to follow a Republican presidency that balanced the budget and had moral integrity. Nice going guys. Tell me, was it worth it?

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.