nerdgirl

Nothing explicitly mentioned, no. Do you consider a convoy driver for KBR to be "taking a direct part in the hostilities" just because he is there - you may have a different outlook. Responding as if there was a question mark there: as I've written before - no. That's also something of a red herring to this conversation. A private contractor not engaged in hostilities is not a mercenary ... nor is the guy employed at dining hall, the Dairy Queen, or BK at Bagram Air Field. But none of those folks are the ones about whom we are writing, i.e., it's the red herring. And that's one of the reasons why I consistently differentiate private military contractors from private military security contactors. It serves as a term of art for explaining to those with no experience the difference between offensive and defensive assets. Or it serves as an artificial attempt to apply a constraint that is distracting in an insurgency. Or pedantically one might say it's imprecise and inaccurate, like confusing bullets with casings. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would you write more about what you see as the successful use of PMSC in Sierra Leone? And why was that such a case? (I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you ... more curious w/r/t your line of thinking.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's fair enough. Are you going to take that consideration into account for other issues? Security and stability operations may include both offensive and defensive components. Transition and reconstruction are supposed to be more defensive. Uniformed military are deployed to do or to support such operations, per DoDD 3000.05. One knows in reality that even such notionally defensive operations aren't always free from hostilities. And that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. The metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I started listening to this last night before I headed off ... the part that gave me a chuckle was the sensationalistic way Pres Obama's parents meeting in a Russian class was portrayed. Anyone who worked/works in national security or international affairs in the last 40 years knows folks who met in Russia classes and married. I know of at least 5 or 6 couples that met and married while doing Soviet studies ... and I'm post-Soviet. If I surveyed colleagues, suspect a whole bunch more would be found. I also know a bunch of couples who met & married while pursuing degrees in chemistry - what does that make them? (Other than perhaps nerds. ) Meeting one's spouse while pursuing similar professional or personal interests is not novel. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You scenario reminds me of the economic model written about in a column by one of my favorites national security wonks, Ralph Peters: “TROUBLE FOR HIRE: THE MERCENARIES WHO MURDER IN YOUR NAME,” (all caps in the original – apologies) “And who gets the blame? [for poor choices/actions of Blackwater, etc - nerdgirl] 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.)” I don’t agree with everything of Peters writes/says … but he’s a very smart man and usually intellectually provocative. (For those whom it matters, he’s also a retired US Army LTC, who supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.) In a COIN scenario I disagree to the extent that paying members of the *population* (like we did in Iraq, i.e., Sons of Iraq) can be tactically, operationally, and strategically beneficial to COIN efforts. (But that’s not really what you meant, I bet? ) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

We've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries. My recollection is a lil’ different - the findings of those discussions were not as clear-cut as you assert. Trying to argue that Private Military Security Contractors (PMSC) don’t “in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities” in counterinsurgencies (as you know, there is no Maginot line or Fulda Gap in an insurgency) is darned tough. E.g., see COL John Toolan, USMC, comments on the actions and effects of then-Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004 and more expansively and authoritatively than Mr. Scahill, Big Boy Rules: America's Mercenaries Fighting in Iraq. Some of the activities of Crescent Security, another PMSC, make Xe/Blackwater look like boy scouts, comparatively. If I had to argue it, it’s the loophole of citizenship (“national of a Party”) that may get Xe (nee Blackwater), etc. off on a technicality. Ironic? The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) – the professional association of private security contractors – has put forward a Code of Conduct for a number of reasons, substantively to try to self-police their own industry because some recognize that activities/poor choices that draw attention to their industry are likely to result in regulations that they don’t want. They are call on their own members to act responsibly. I.e., if one doesn't like regulation, hold responsible those who mess up in the first place (& very rarely is it the first, second, third, ... tenth time that leads to regulation), responsibility, eh? Blackwater is no longer a member of IPOA. IPOA started an internal investigation of their activities, i.e., other PMSC were concerned about Blackwater’s actions. The IPOA President, Doug Brooks, has spoken publically about the need to self-police when PMSC behave badly. Perhaps the more interesting question, to me at least, is why do you – specific and general “you” – so strongly object to PMSC being identified as mercenaries, even colloquially? Is it just pedantic? (Goodness knows, I can understand pedanticism for precision and accuracy – see my objections to misuse of “theory.” ) Notionally, is there something that is perceived to illegitimate the political-military action if mercenaries are used? ‘Cause after all, as “St Carl” quipped, war is politics by another name … & Galula wrote “Insurgency is the pursuit of policy of a party inside a country by every means.” Or for all the advocates of privatization, what is reasoning beyond lack of advocacy for privatizing the combatant military? (For those who aren’t advocates of privatization of everything, it’s a non sequitor.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In some cases, imo, "pride" or "shame" is irrelevant. Are they effectively and efficiently executing the job needed? Are their choices and actions in the interest of US strategic interests or counter to them in the short- or long-run? For me, the So what? Who cares? is: A strong, civilian-controlled military – both “civilian-controlled” and “strong” being critical components – is vital, imo. Is the phenomenon of Blackwater, et al., a result of down-sizing the volunteer military that began in the 1990s? (Yes, Hessians fought in American Revolution; more recent history please.) Is it an artifact of the privatization of everything? Do PMSC act in the strategic interests of the US and what happens when the strategic interests of the US are counter the short term interests of Xe/Blackwater, etc? 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 endeavors, is the reliance on private military security contractors eroding that capability? There are a number of US Laws under which PMSC contracted to the US Government *could* be prosecuted domestically. As Mike [mnealtx] pointed out, the most likely one is the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) of 2000 (18 U.S.C. § 3261). In 2005, MEJA was amended to include contractors of any USG agency or Department. Prosecutors, in many cases, have discretion as to whether they will or will not pursue prosecution. That extends to a lot of areas not just PMSC. In 2007, contractors “accompanying” US military in “contingency operations” were also made subject to the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). [redlegphi] is correct that the US-Iraqi Status of Forces agreement (SOFA) enables the potential prosecution of US nationals in Iraq, under Iraqi law, as well. Contractors and their hired legal representation objected to inclusion of that. And I don't blame them -- given a choice between being tried in US and Iraq, I'm going with US every time. I'd like to discuss this charge more. I probably won't have time until Thursday ... but would like to hear others thoughts on this charge? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As one of those in the generally-not-big-Tarantino-fans category, I'll echo the praise for his latest film. I was 'incentivized' to see it over the weekend. (I can appreciate and rationally comprehend his brilliance, like James Joyce's, that doesn't mean I necessarily 'like' what either produced.) It definitely doesn't spoon-feed everything (anything?) to the audience, which I like. It's also got some fabulously acerbic humor in it. Concur that Waltz dominates, even with the strong cast throughout. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The writers understood that promoting the general welfare of the nation was best accomplished by not restricting the rights of the individual. I'm curious: do you make that argument on a historical basis? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There is truth to this. 100 years ago, the idea that the federal government could move in on what the states are doing was laughable. Then someone said, "let's forget the estavlished history and precedent. Let us conclufe that everything anybody ever does at any time affects interstate commercew if everybody was to do the same thing." And if one goes back even further than the late 1800s to the time of the founding of the Republic, one observes that only *one* part of the Executive branch had direct and explicit limits placed on funding: the Army. Article 1, Section 8: “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” That’s the only thing that the Constitutionalists were concerned enough about to place limits. Everything else was left for Congress and future generations. Does that mean they expected more or less? Arguments seem to largely depend on whether one approves or disapproves of the recipients. Why did the Founding Fathers limit appropriations to 2 years for armies? It would interesting (to me at least) to explore how historically radical the idea of a standing, professional *federal* Army was at the time (as opposed to the English tradition of universal military obligation for all able-bodied free men at the will of the King or Queen). The standing army was the threat perceived in that day to civil liberties/citizens’ liberties not that they were the defenders of freedom, as is today. And the 2nd Amendment was needed to protect citizens from the standing army, largely seen as an agent of the government. The Framers were also concerned with regard to what the States (via their elected/appointed representatives) would approve, so limits on armies were explicitly included. Why was the Army limited to 2-year money? A commitment from the States – who resisted/feared strong centralized govt, a la England and who had their own “well-regulated militias” – to support a standing *federal* Army (as opposed to the civilian volunteer force of the Revolutionary Army) must have been radical! Pragmatically, in the late 1700s having an ocean between you and the likely source of threat by other armies was a dang good defense. Not so much today. It strikes me as a poignant example of fundamental change in what Americans expect and see in government, i.e., an evolution. In Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton writes as critic of those who would replace or supplant the local and State militias with a standing federal army: “There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the [State and local] militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. “Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of officers? [when was the last time that an officer in the federal military, Title 10 forces, was appointed or promoted by a State government? – nerdgirl] If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it.” I suspect that very few of the folks who today argue most strongly for “original intent” arguments are going to argue for need to restrict or abolish the professional Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps [TankBuster?]. Instead, it’s folks like [TomAeillo] and [jcd11235] who have argued for smaller militaries, albeit probably on different basis. Otoh, I’ve argued for argued for increasing DoD budgets. As was noted earlier in the thread by [GeorgiaDon]: Jenner hadn’t ‘invented’ the smallpox vaccine when the Constitution was signed. (General Washington did use cowpox variolation to inoculate troops against smallpox.) I highly doubt that the Framers of the Constitution would likely have imagined all that “health care” means in the early 21st Century (or the associated expenses). Similarly, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say anything about telephony or electronic communication; it has, however, been interpreted to have governance over those areas and other that have evolved. The concept of universal public education was radically liberal offshoot of the Enlightenment. The Framers, however, were brilliant men who recognized change happens and who crafted a document that could adapt to serve a world more than 200 years later. /Marg … & thanks for the small impetus to re-read one of the Federalist papers.

You might just call your local police department and ask what is their policy and process, which really is my just repeating something that [AggieDave] has encouraged multiple times. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

... Thanks!

While there do appear to be not insignificant reports of voting irregularities, the threatened level of violence does not appear to have materialized, which is a (excellent ?) metric for success. E.g., GEN McCrystal: “The measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.” It doesn't appear that such a scenario as you suggested was neccesary. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur on the need for perception internationally w/r/t international community. But that’s not the most important piece, imo. Substitute “international” with “domestically.” Perception of legitimacy of government is the most important factor in successful counterinsurgent efforts. Legitimacy doesn’t mean “happiness with” or “overwhelming support.” It is imperative that the population recognizes their government as legitimate (perhaps, in spite of all its faults). Governments security forces (military and police) must be seen by a populace as legitimate as well. Populations that don’t feel secure in their homes and communities are vulnerable to insurgents promises of safety. (NB: I’m borrowing heavily from FM 3-24 there.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That may be ... I'm more interested in the way it may play out w/r/t Mexico's domestic counter-narcotics efforts and the US counter-narcotics efforts. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In the weeks and days leading up to Thursday’s elections in Afghanistan, Taliban representatives in the countries’ south had threatened to cut off the fingers of people who voted. Like Iraq, in the elections the Afghan voters fingers are stained with an indelible dark blue ink after voting. There have been reports from Kandahar that the fingers of two voters were cut off by the Taliban as punishment for voting. Beyond condemnation of such actions, it’s more interesting to me that the Taliban insurgents *only* -- at least thus far – were able to carry out the threat against 2 voters. That’s not a significant intimidation level. Hmmm .... /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

“Mexican President Felipe Calderon has signed into law a bill passed by the country's congress last spring. The new measure decriminalizes possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamines and heroin, setting limits for what constitutes ‘personal use’ quantities. At the same time, it provides free treatment for those with drug addiction. “The hope is that the law will distinguish casual users from addicts. Before, those arrested for drug possession -- even for small amounts -- were handed long jail terms. Studies show that drug use is on the rise in Mexico, calling into question the efficacy of deterrent policies. In addition, the ongoing violent drug war against cartels, which has killed an estimated 11,000 since Calderon took office in 2006, also played an influential roll in the government's shift from punishment to treatment.” More from the BBC, suggesting another motive: "[Mexican prosecutors] say it [the decriminalization law] is designed to prevent corrupt police from seeking bribes from small-time drug users, and to encourage addicts to seek treatment. "The move comes amid a drug war in Mexico that has claimed more than 11,000 lives in the last three years. "Those found in possession of the equivalent of four joints of marijuana, or four lines of cocaine will no longer be viewed as criminals. Instead they will be encouraged to seek government-funded drug treatment, which will be compulsory if users are caught a third time." Reportedly, “The maximum amount of marijuana for 'personal use' under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines." For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.” Do you think this change in the Mexico’s law will enable the government (& military being deployed domestically) to focus on big-time traffickers? Is there any evidence that internal/domestic Mexican demand is driving the Mexican narco-traffickers? (My inclination is to be skeptical … but don’t have anything more than my inclination on which to argue that point at this time.) Or will it exacerbate the problem? What do you think will be the impact on US-Mexico border control efforts and violence along the border? I'm wondering how pleased (or not) this makes all sorts of parents who sent their kids to UCSD, University of Arizona, UT-Brownsville, etc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

According to the rule of law. Thereby necessitating combatants versus non-combatants differentiation; application of laws of war, domestic military law (both sides), and other international law; use of discriminate versus indiscriminate force, commensurate response, etc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How about if I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night Hmmm ... I slept at a Holiday Inn last night ... but it wasn't an Express. /Marg ... waiting on a delayed flight at DCA Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Citizens Police Academies are largely educational and community relations efforts. That seemed to be the prime motivation stated by most of the folks. Completion of the course, "graduating," conveys no special privileges. As I wrote in my initial post, in addition to my own personal interest along those lines, I’m also looking at it w/r/t better understanding local law enforcement and networking w/r/t my professional work ... & I was upfront about that in my application and during intros on Tuesday night. I’d be happy to write more by PM if you’re interested. (Oh yeah, & some of the stuff we get to do qualifies under my subjective consideration of “fun.”

Especially when government doesn't provide justice. To which government are you referring? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

My own reconciliation of this argument would be; The nations concerned have themselves reconciled (and let's face it, Lockerbie WAS a state-sponored act) with Libya rejoining the community of nations (and paying compensation for the deaths in Lockerbie, with such compensation received). I understand that Britain and The US now buy Libyan oil and sell Libya goods, including weapons systems. This in itself makes al-Megrahi's continued incarceration an anachronism in that the states concerned have ceased hostilities and resumed normal, even cordial relations. At that point, what purpose is served by continuing to punish a minor government executive for another few months? Interesting argument. Thanks for responding.

No, I don't think so. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Nope, didn't overlook it.