Foreign Mercenaries in Iraq

Politics International Politics
1

While we’re being told that US solders killed so far in Iraq are a “mere 1600” so far, the actual death toll may be much higher due to the presence of up 20,000 foreign mercenaries, and 30,000 (perhaps) contracted Iraqis. Exact figures are unknown (or classified). Consider the following:

Outsourcing death in Iraq
11/05/2005 11:02 - (SA)

[i]Baghdad - Day rates peaking at $1 000 - about R6 000 -
quickly turned post-Saddam Hussein Iraq into a modern day
Klondike for private security firms, but a growing number of
hired guns are paying the price in blood.

In the latest incident to shake the industry, a Japanese
former legionnaire working for a British security firm was
believed to have been captured by Ansar al-Sunna, one of
the most feared Islamist militant groups operating in Iraq.

…[/i]

Read the rest of the article:
news24.com/News24/World/Iraq … 72,00.html

Post (quote) cut by moderator due to length. Please observe the following rule:

2

Oh…my mistake.

I thought this was a thread about the 1000’s of Syrians, Iranians, Yemenis, Chechens, Jordanians and other ‘Muslims’ coming into Iraq to make a quick buck and perhaps (if the Coalition Forces have their chance) go meet their promised virgins.
They are receiving about $1000 USD a month, pretty big money for them.

3

Newsflash no. 1: the security guards in Iraq are not mercenaries.

Newsflash no. 2: the Syrian (et al) suicide bombers are.

Brought to you by the Society for the Enlightenment of Leftist Ideologues.

4

Well, if you are hired to fight while protecting a convoy or an important person, that would make you a mercenary in the purest sense of the word:

[quote=“Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, Art 47”]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;
© 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. [/quote]

A security contractor would fit that definition rather nicely.

5

"Chilean ex Military Recruited to Work as Mercenaries in Iraq

Public corporations operating from Uruguay recruited Chilean ex militaries to work as mercenaries for the coalition that invaded and occupies Iraq, reported La Republica daily.

The ghost companies, operating with Uruguayan status since Chilean laws ban the contract of mercenaries were [color=blue]Global Guards[/color] who picked 32 chopper pilots to transport civilians from Jordan or Kuwait, and [color=blue]Neskowin[/color] and [color=blue]Invercreek[/color] that recruited men for “security tasks”, said the paper.

El Mercurio daily in Chile even ran an add for Global-Guards demanding for 32 UH-1H pilots for US$12,000 a month to fly businessmen and professionals from Jordan or Kuwait to Iraqi cities, with the sole condition to be healthy men, speak English, and undergo further tests in continental US.

The companies 80-strong fleet of BO-105, UH-1H, Bell Ranger, and Bell 212 choppers also needs 40 mechanics, that will be paid up to US$5,000.

Neskowin, that belongs to the group of military advisory [color=blue]Red Tactica Consulting Group, a subsidiary of US Blackwater[/color], is ran by ret. Army officer Jose Miguel Pizarro, whom the Chilean Parliament denounced as mercenary recruiter.

Other companies with similar purposes stepped in in recent months, like [color=blue]International Security Consulting Group [/color]and Uruguayan Invercreek SA, with headquarters in Vi

6

[quote=“Mr He”]Well, if you are hired to fight while protecting a convoy or an important person, that would make you a mercenary in the purest sense of the word:

[quote=“Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, Art 47”]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;
© 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. [/quote]A security contractor would fit that definition rather nicely.[/quote]
Hired to defend, not to attack.

Thus, not mercenaries.

7

A rose by any other name…

Security Contractor/Global Guard/Merc. they’re all being paid to carry a gun. Attack or defend, it’s the same. Just simply whether you’re an offensive merc or a defensive merc.

8

[quote=“porcelainprincess”]Hired to defend, not to attack.

Thus, not mercenaries.[/quote]

[quote=“Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, Art 47”]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;
© 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.[/quote]

I think the scope of the meaning of “fight” here is quite broad. If the intended meaning is only “attack” then “fight” as well as the phrases “take part in” and “take a direct part in” should have been made more precise.

Also, if you are saying that “fight” here only means “attack”, then, for example, the German soldiers at Normandy on D-Day did not “fight” in that battle because they were defending their positions and not attacking.

9

The Iraqi government should give permanent residence to all private contractors. That way they would not be mercenaries.

10

The largest American security contractor in Iraq is Blackwater USA
blackwaterusa.com/
Blackwater is a high-profile security organization. It has the one of the largest privately-owned firearms ranges in the world and has been host to the 2004 World SWAT Challenge. Blackwater is deeply interlocked with the world of legitimate security agencies (also see blackwaterusa.com/new/mtt.html).

Is Blackwater a mercenary organization? If you are an American citizen and qualify, you can attend the Blackwater Academy blackwateracademy.com/
where you will be familiarized with how Blackwater provides ‘security’ in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the posting above indicates, many Blackwater employees are NOT Americans citizens and have been soldiers for some of the most vicious governments in the world.
redrat.net/thoughts/blackwater/
guardian.co.uk/international … 92,00.html
dissidentvoice.org/April2004 … tz0405.htm

It’s difficult to avoid the term ‘mercenary’ in describing Blackwater’s operation. They employ heavily armed, well-trained personnel of any nationality in jobs that historically have been performed only by non-civilian members of military units who were subject to military law and the Geneva Convention. It is the out-sourcing of military operations in a way that would have been very uncomfortable, perhaps even illegal, until very recently.

On the other hand, they are a legal organization. In fact, police organizations seem to feel they are a legitimate and credible ally. They break no law in any country, and as such, they are involved in gainful employment in the service of the country during wartime. You might even compare them with women drafted into factory work during WWII.

But let’s face it, as uncomfortable as many readers may be with all this, Blackwater is another sign of the changing times of the 21st Century. Mercenaries are now legitimate business.

11

quote 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;
© 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;[/quote]
Is the army sending divisions of these security personnel out on raids or attacks?

No. Do they fire back when fired upon? Yes. When the firing’s over, do they launch counter-offensives? No. That’s what the army does.

It’s a crucial, and, indeed, simple distinction that only the most wilfully obtuse refuse to see. The day Blackwater has divisions that go out on raids is the day they become mercenaries. Who knows, that may happen. But what they’re doing now is security.

12

[quote=“porcelainprincess”]Is the army sending divisions of these security personnel out on raids or attacks?

No. Do they fire back when fired upon? Yes. When the firing’s over, do they launch counter-offensives? No. That’s what the army does.

It’s a crucial, and, indeed, simple distinction that only the most wilfully obtuse refuse to see. The day Blackwater has divisions that go out on raids is the day they become mercenaries. Who knows, that may happen. But what they’re doing now is security.[/quote]

I don’t know what makes you so dead certain about this. There could be a very fine line drawn between being “security guards” and riding shotgun on convoys all across Iraq.

Does the US military break its own rules? Well, here’s another interesting case - about 10,000 “US troops” in Iraq are non-citizens. Due to the problem of US military recruiters being unable to meet their quotas, the army is now allowing illegal aliens to enlist. Those who complete a tour of duty in Iraq are being promised green cards. Take a look at this:

P.C. Insanity at the Pentagon
Michelle Malkin (archive)
October 8, 2003
[i]
If Osama bin Laden snuck into our country illegally,
bought fake immigration papers and changed his
name to Osmundo Ben Ladeno, could he join the
U.S. military?

You betcha!

Last week, the Army announced that Pvt. Juan
Escalante, a 19-year-old illegal alien from Mexico
who had used a $50 bogus green card to enlist,
would be allowed to remain in the armed forces.
Wait, there’s even more good news for ID fakers
looking to infiltrate the military: Thanks to
President Bush’s executive order allowing
non-citizen soldiers to obtain expedited
naturalization benefits, Escalante – an admitted,
two-time lawbreaker – will be rewarded with
American citizenship. Army officials at Fort Stewart,
Ga., have promised to actively assist Escalante in
securing legal status.

…[/i]

Read the rest of the article:
townhall.com/columnists/mich … 1008.shtml

Post (quote) cut by moderator due to length. Please observe the following rule:

13

Unless porcelain princess belongs to some sort of Security Guard Anti-Defamation League what we’re really talking about here are political overtones.

If the hired guns are “security guards” then that’s consistent with the pure image of a liberating force struggling to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.

If they’re “mercenaries” though who are only there to use their automatic weapons and military training in the service of money then that unavoidably stains the image of Operation Iraqi Freedom as something less, something cynical and dubious you have to pay people to play a central role in.

The “hired guns” in Iraq are really more accurately called body guards for starters. They themselves would probably take exception to being called security guards. When you send body guards into a combat zone though, arming them with combat weapons and making a point of making them immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities then you’ve unavoidably left the body guard zone and are into uncharted territory – for the U.S.

Are they security guards in any real sense of the term then? At best, only marginally, given the fact that hundreds of them have died doing what they do in the last two years and they routinely expect to be fired on and bombed in the normal course of doing their duties.

Are they simply body guards then or are they really quasi-mercenaries of some sort?

Maybe we’ve already been given the answer as to what formal category they fit in and have just overlooked it because we’re looking at the other side of the coin now. Maybe what they really are are "friendly combatants.

14

How you know that Blackwater personnel are not involved in raids or attacks or even what could consistute a raid or attack in Iraq is beyond me.
corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11870
msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/
lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a- … 30394.html
Blackwater does work that until recently would have only been conducted by soldiers covered by the service code of discipline of their country. In fact, you have to be a veteran to attend the Blackwater Academy that trains personnel for work in Iraq. Blackwater hires personnel who are not US citizens to do this military work. It really doesn’t matter what word you use or what dictionary you pull up, this is a clear departure from the previous manner of conducting war.

15

I have a friend that just left Iraq, he is a Blackwater employee and was protecting convoys and other more nefarious things.

The US DoD does not report contractor casualties, though sometimes CNN, AP and the like do.

The contractors are not necessarily bound by the same rules of engagment as the US soldiers are. My friend is no uncertain terms said that “we go from projecting threat level 1 to 9 in mere seconds”. 1 being weapons holstered/slung ie friendly, 9 being ready to kill someone if they fail to comply. The do also use modified rules of engagement but I don’t know what those are.

16

Obviously there are political overtones to the nomenclature. What I don’t find very interesting is how the left is spinning furiously to make it look like the US is “paying mercenaries to fight a war.”

They’re guards. Yes, they come under fire and fire back. They’re not guarding beaver dams in Saskatchewan. But they aren’t attacking. They aren’t “part” of the army in any meaningful way.

If they are, but we don’t know about it, then it will come out eventually, and yes, they will rightfully be called mercenaries. If the day comes when a reputable media source (i.e. not Noam Chomsky or his ilk) gives credible evidence which shows that raids and attacks are being done by Blackwater crews, then they are mercenaries.

I agree that having so many paid private contractors out in the field guarding people, something the army would have done previously, is a new kind of thing that perhaps does not fit into existing categories so easily. And the illegal aliens fighting in the army is illegal, hypocritical, and, quite frankly, shameful.

But when a thing ain’t a certain kinda thing, it don’t matter how many times you keep calling it that kinda thing… it just ain’t.

17

So what? You seem to be implying that if someone accepts your definition of mercenary then everything is OK because Blackwater’s then not a mercenary group. But that’s ridiculous. The problem is not merely a semantic one. There are foreign citizens involved in killing Iraqs in the name of the US government. Whether they are involved in ‘attacks’ or not, they are involved in combat in the name of the US government. Call it what you want, the point is that it’s wrong.

18

The term they use to describe themselves is "private military companies."

19

It’s wrong for them to defend the people they’re defending? How so?

20

[quote=“porcelainprincess”]
It’s wrong for them to defend the people they’re defending? How so?[/quote]

Maybe the bigger question is, “Is it immoral to use mercenaries in this war?”

I can’t speak for everyone, but for me the main objection I have to this practice is the deceitfulness. Mercenaries (or “security guards” if you prefer) are being given some of the most dangerous assignments in Iraq, and they’re taking casualties. Yet those casualties are not reported, and the American public is being misled to believe that “we’re winning the war” because the US troop casualty rate seems to be falling.

Are we winning the war in Iraq? To be honest, I don’t know, but the number of US soldiers killed and injured is an important measure of “success” in the eyes of most Americans. And I strongly suspect that the administration is trying to minimize the figures by “privatizing” the war.

happy weekend,
DB