Private Contractors in Iraq

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:11 pm

The use of private contractors in wars has been happening for thousands of years, should the US be using them in Iraq now?

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Thu May 03, 2007 8:00 pm

I've heard a lot about private contractors lately, especially in Iraq. I've read a certain article in Newsweek that the US military even used private contractors in quite a number of tasks such as cleaning, cooking and many more. In my opinion, if it helps to reduce costs, I don't see any problem in employing their services. Depends on what type of private contractors.

P.S. By the way, what type of private contractors are you talking about?

This topic is kind of broad to begin with.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Fri May 04, 2007 1:21 pm

Im talking about the contractors like Blackwater, Cresent Security, and all the others like them.I should have specified

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri May 04, 2007 2:04 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Im talking about the contractors like Blackwater, Cresent Security, and all the others like them.I should have specified

ie: mercenaries.

Mercenaries are despicable in my book. If a nation wants to fight a war, it shouldn't pay some poorer country to do it for them, but sent its own troops.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Fri May 04, 2007 2:21 pm

Mercenaries are despicable in my book. If a nation wants to fight a war, it shouldn't pay some poorer country to do it for them, but sent its own troops.

Im not sure why you would say that about them, theyre exactly like regular soldiers only they get paid more. Also, by hiring them, were not getting some poorer country to do the work for us, Blackwater, and many of the big name groups are americans.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri May 04, 2007 2:38 pm

Many sources indicate that amongst other military personal/people from Chile and Colombia are also being recruited and sent to Iraq. So while the "company" itself is American run/founded, recruitment is not exclusive to Americans.

My problem with mercenaries is that they are "outside" control. It is people who want to fight, want to go to war.
The military undergo special rules of conduct, rules of engagement, they are subject to laws and legislation and the awareness of media and the public.
This is all things equal much more complex with military "contractors" - ie mercenaries. They operate - to say it mildly - in the gray. If these people go on some rampage, they can quickly be disowned by the people hiring them and even the company which sent them, making everybody in effect unaccountable. So no - they are not exactly like regular soldiers - so very very far from it, and it is a gross simplification to even suggest that and quite insulting to regular military personal in my opinion.

It also makes it impossible for the US population and everybody else to actually know how many "troops/personal" are dedicated to a situation, thus twisting and spinning the entire scenario.

That I find despicable. The usage of mercenaries is medieval, it is ancient. It has no place in civilized countries.

If Bush wants to fight in Iraq, he should do so with American (and collation; which Denmark is a part of by the way) troops/personal, not a gray market of uncontrolled and unaccountable people.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:23 pm

One problem with mercenaries is that the the nation doing the fighting usually isn't completely clear about the relationship it maintains with them. Mercenaries were involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib; understandably, there were no court martials of these, since they were "above the law," meaning US military law. Yet when angry Iraqis killed four American-hired mercenaries at Fallujah in 2004, US General Kimmett besieged the city, and proceeded to kill hundreds of people. Not in the miltary, but revenged by the military: these are problems that don't arise if you simply send your own troops, rather than hiring out and putting the tab as a line item in a 2 trillion dollar bill.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:31 pm

Xandax wrote:Many sources indicate that amongst other military personal/people from Chile and Colombia are also being recruited and sent to Iraq. So while the "company" itself is American run/founded, recruitment is not exclusive to Americans.

Blackwater usa is an "American Only" group, and i believe that Dyncorp is as well. Sure some foreigners are used as well, but i dont see anything wrong with that if they are highly skilled fighiters, why not use them.

My problem with mercenaries is that they are "outside" control. It is people who want to fight, want to go to war.
The military undergo special rules of conduct, rules of engagement, they are subject to laws and legislation and the awareness of media and the public.
This is all things equal much more complex with military "contractors" - ie mercenaries. They operate - to say it mildly - in the gray. If these people go on some rampage, they can quickly be disowned by the people hiring them and even the company which sent them, making everybody in effect unaccountable. So no - they are not exactly like regular soldiers - so very very far from it, and it is a gross simplification to even suggest that and quite insulting to regular military personal in my opinion.

Contractors in iraq are kept on a tight leash by american forces and they are rarely used for combat opreations, mostly they drive trucks, train iraqi military and police, and protect high profile people. These men are some of the most skilled and disciplined soldiers in the world, the chances of them going on a "rampage" is next to nothing. And yes, most of them are like regular soldiers because that is what they used to be, all of the men in blackwater are either ex SWAT or special forces. you seem to have a stereotype in your mind that all contractors are merciless barbarians.

It also makes it impossible for the US population and everybody else to actually know how many "troops/personal" are dedicated to a situation, thus twisting and spinning the entire scenario.

Im not sure how that effects anything, the govt knows exactly how many are there, they hired them.

That I find despicable. The usage of mercenaries is medieval, it is ancient. It has no place in civilized countries.

If Bush wants to fight in Iraq, he should do so with American (and collation; which Denmark is a part of by the way) troops/personal, not a gray market of uncontrolled and unaccountable people.

These men have earned their place in civilized society, during the 1980's (i think, not sure on the date) a group called executive outcome was hired by the govt of seirra leon to stop a rebel uprising, with only about 100 men they accomplished this task and handed over control to the UN peace keeping force numbering in the thousands. within a matter of weeks the peace keepers were forced out and EO had to take back control. these men deserve respect, they are not murderers.

One problem with mercenaries is that the the nation doing the fighting usually isn't completely clear about the relationship it maintains with them. Mercenaries were involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib; understandably, there were no court martials of these, since they were "above the law," meaning US military law. Yet when angry Iraqis killed four American-hired mercenaries at Fallujah in 2004, US General Kimmett besieged the city, and proceeded to kill hundreds of people. Not in the miltary, but revenged by the military: these are problems that don't arise if you simply send your own troops, rather than hiring out and putting the tab as a line item in a 2 trillion dollar bill.

I have not heard that any were involved in Ghraib, not sure where you got that . And may soldiers practically idolose these mercs and when they saw the 4 mutilated bodies of the contractors hanging from a bridge, they were understanably pissed.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:52 pm

Contractors in iraq are kept on a tight leash by american forces and they are rarely used for combat opreations, mostly they drive trucks, train iraqi military and police, and protect high profile people.

This is inaccurate. The Los Angeles Times was printing nothing new when it reported in January this year that "Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll."

So they are used frequently in combat operations, and are not responsible to the US armed forces. This is only one source for information I've quoted. Others reproduce the same general content, from personal observation and fact-finding trips.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Fri May 04, 2007 4:15 pm

This is inaccurate. The Los Angeles Times was printing nothing new when it reported in January this year that "Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll."

True they normally do not have any active oversight, but they are not allowed to go on any combat ops without checking in with the military so that they do not accidentally interfere with them. Also i dont see what is wrong with them making lots of money.

And ya know, im getting a little frustrated, i think i am the only conservative on this site. this is quite vexing

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 04, 2007 4:43 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:True they normally do not have any active oversight, but they are not allowed to go on any combat ops without checking in with the military

Meaning to give no offense, but seeing as your comment about their active status in combat and their willingness to act without any national military supervision was wrong, what's your source for the above?

And ya know, im getting a little frustrated, i think i am the only conservative on this site. this is quite vexing

Conservative? Liberal? When you write, "Contractors in iraq are kept on a tight leash by american forces and they are rarely used for combat opreations," and both statements are demonstrably wrong, they're not wrong because of my political opinions. They're wrong simply because they're wrong, independent of anything else. I think you'll agree those liberal/conservative/whatever labels are pretty meaningless. What matters is getting all factual information about something, and making logical decisions to arrive at the truth. Opinions enter into some areas, but not where acquiring facts are concerned. Facts aren't conservative or liberal.

But if the facts collide with opinions that don't match the facts, which should take precedent? Should we abandon our opinions in light of the truth, or ignore reality and dodge the facts?

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri May 04, 2007 6:29 pm

These mercenary outfits have been in the news as of late due to the infamy earned by Blackwater and the negligence surrounding the deaths of some of their personnel. The family of at least one deceased "contractor" is suing Blackwater, and some initiatives are underway in Congress to force outfits such as Blackwater to "open their books" and be accountable like any other military contractor. As of this time, they are not required to reveal much of anything about themselves.

Not all of these mercenaries are former military. And certainly, not all are Americans, even though the outfit might be headquartered in the States.

In my opinion - note, just an opinion, though it may be a strong one - these outfits are criminal and should not be employed by the Pentagon, nor should their pockets be lined with taxpayer dollars. They are private armies who are not accountable to the public. I have a big problem with that, especially since they are being paid by taxpayers.

@TEMPLAR67: There comes a point in a person's life when they ought to examine themselves very closely, and question every aspect of their life - especially long-held beliefs and ideas. If the desire to base one's outlook rests on examining information and arriving at conclusions yourself, then it ultimately results in the abandonment of spoon-fed media and the idea that concepts are "conservative" or "liberal." For far too long, people in the U.S. have been spoon-fed their beliefs by the powers that be via the media. You are handed a pair of colored glasses...the tint depending upon which "camp" you pledge allegiance to...and are sent on your merry way. Each camp has their pundits and spin doctors, network anchors and pet causes...all that's required is you buy it. Oh, and be sure to patronize their sponsors too.

I for one learned quite a bit after Reagan's death. What I learned made me sick to my stomach. Like fable, I prefer to pursue information sources as far removed from our own system as possible, because quite frankly, people such as John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are more reliable sources than organizations such as Fox, CNN, etc. I gladly abandoned labels a long time ago. I just want to know the facts of the matter.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:25 pm

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are more reliable sources than organizations such as Fox, CNN, etc. I gladly abandoned labels a long time ago. I just want to know the facts of the matter.

well now i know exactly what is wrong with this country, everyone is getting their info from hard left comedians, what a sad state this country has come to

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:40 pm

TEMPLAR67 wrote:well now i know exactly what is wrong with this country, everyone is getting their info from hard left comedians, what a sad state this country has come to

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? I think you're the only one here who sees that. Everyone else would see what came before in what I wrote: I pursue sources of information removed from those here in the US, because our own are infamously unreliable and influenced by advertising dollars and "market demand." And yes, it's quite sad that comedians are a more reliable source of information than the major news outlets, isn't it?

I don't think you're going to find an audience in SYM that appreciates straw-man bashing, TEMPLAR67. I don't appreciate the intentional twisting of my posts in order to setup a soap-box style of statement as you did above. It doesn't prove any point you're trying to make, nor will it win you any points otherwise.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:27 am

And ya know, im getting a little frustrated, i think i am the only conservative on this site. this is quite vexing

well now i know exactly what is wrong with this country, everyone is getting their info from hard left comedians, what a sad state this country has come to

I definitely do not identify myself as "liberal", Templar. At the same time I am not what Hannity would call "conservative", although I agree with a lot of conservative ideas. Have you ever heard about politically and ideologically independent people able to form their own opinion on each issue? So, don't get frustrated. Not everybody is "getting their info" from red or blue clowns.

"What is wrong with this country" politically is corruption of the manipulative "elite", the ignorance of the manipulated "masses", and unwillingness to compromise, IMHO.