I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the use of professional bodyguards in Iraq. The alternative is 18-year-old privates who’ve been in country two months trying to protect high value targets from experienced assassins.
The two problems I have with the method though is that the bodyguards are completely immune from having to answer to the Iraqi people for any and all of their actions and their rules of engagement are too broad.
Even if they were being paid to conduct offensive military operations rather than purely defensive ones I wouldn’t have a problem with that – as long as it was within clear and rational guidelines.
The fact that the Bush Administration is uncomfortable having the full scope of the reliance of Operation Iraqi Freedom on private contractors clearly known is more amusing than anything else, though I understand how others could feel differently.
Excuse me for saying so, but I suspect that none of you have ever been soldiers. Soldiers are bound by legal codes that go beyond a criminal code. I don’t know what it’s called in the USA, but in Canada, it’s called the Service Code of Discipline. Soldiers are also bound by the Geneva Convention. The whole point of labeling people ‘enemy combatants’ is that they fall outside service codes and the Geneva Convention. It also appears that civillian contractors also do. So-called civillian contractors have been implicated in the torture of prisoners guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 25,00.html
but are exempt from military justice zmag.org/content/showarticle … temID=5445
In fact, because of their special status, they may escape any prosecution at all writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20040510.html
The whole point of having a clearly defined military is that we know who is killable and who isn’t. Branding prisoners ‘enemy combatants’ and giving ‘security contractors’ the responsibilities of soldiers destroys this system. Even back in WWII, this was called dirty fighting. Now it’s OK for reasons that aren’t quite clear to me.
The job of contracting security for businness men/women, private company employees, etc in areas of political instability is nothing new. Sorry if this concept chaps your pc butts, but its has been a fact of life, and business, for many many years.
Because of the increase in political terrorism, kidnapping and extortion since the late '70’s, the need for private firms to provide this security has also increased. This increase in need has been met. Its simple market forces. A need is being provided for.
There are literally scores of very professional firms who provide these services to corporate, private and sometimes government and NGO’s who have the need to operate in these areas of risk.
The ones that survive are the ones who provide the best complement of services and are the most dependable. This comes from professionalism. Both in hiring, training and support. Companys who hire cowboys and wanna-be adventurers don’t last - because their clients get kidnapped or killed. That is bad for business. Dead principals don’t pay their bills.
Sorry folks. Your political correctness may be a nice thing to discuss over cappuchino, but the real world is much different. There is a need for private contract security services and that need will be filled. The ones who conduct business in a professional manner will have clients who live.
And living is the name of the game.
Where is the outrage over the murdering thugs and terrs who are attacking these people?
Not really Laddie. Private Mil contractors have been around since the ancient Greeks. But more in the more recent world you might do a look-up on Mike Hoare and the Congo wars of the '60’s. And again on the BSAP lads of the Rhodesian unpleasantries of the late '70’s.
Exec outcomes was a good idea staffed by soldiers and not politicians. And thus their down-fall.
And the community was/is rather small. So a lot of the names pop-up in the most interesting places.
For the US Military it’s called “Uniform Code of Conduct” also use of force is described under “Rules of Engagement” which is given to units prior to going into the field out of a designated “safe area”. These 2 bodies of rules govern the actions of US soldiers.
The contractors most certainly do perform combat missions, not direct action such as taking buildings/roads. They do scout and recon missions and operate in direct support of US troops, being snipers and fire support.
Blackwater does engage in Executive Security contracts and Military Force Support contracts as well. I would describe them as mercenaies.
TC, of course they have, but wasn’t I told earlier that security contractors, like Blackwater, aren’t mercenaries? Of course it’s possible that you’re willing to be honest and admit they are. In that case, I’ll have to argue differently. Just so I can get all thos different non-PC arguments straight, which side are you on?
[quote=“limubai”]For the US Military it’s called “Uniform Code of Conduct” [/quote]Strange, after many years of Mil service I am not familiar with this “Uniform Code of Conduct” you mention. Would you by any chance be referring the the Uniform Code of Military Justice" aka UCMJ ?[quote=“limubai”]"…also use of force is described under “Rules of Engagement” which is given to units prior to going into the field out of a designated “safe area”. These 2 bodies of rules govern the actions of US soldiers.[/quote] Once again, this is an iteresting bit of trivia you speak of. Is this a booklet or pamphlet given to troops as they pass thru the wire?
Are they tested on their retention of this during their engagements with the hostile forces they encounter? Once again, I am unable to find reference to this booklet.
[quote=“limubai”]The contractors most certainly do perform combat missions, not direct action such as taking buildings/roads.[/quote] A bit of a conflicting statement here. Care to clarify with supporting sourcing?[quote=“limubai”]They do scout and recon missions and operate in direct support of US troops, being snipers and fire support.[/quote] Sorry. This is a statement that cannot be supported with facts. Can you prove otherwise?
[quote=“limubai”]Blackwater does engage in Executive Security contracts[/quote] Here you are correct.[quote=“limubai”]"… and Military Force Support contracts as well. I would describe them as mercenaies.[/quote]And here you venture into the realm of fantasy. I welcome any verifiable sourcing for the specious claims I have indicated.
[color=blue]Speaking of rules of engagement. 'Private military companies" follow an even more lax set of “rules” than the U.S. military since they have to answer to almost no one.[/color]
“I explained that their tactics were alienating the civil population and could lengthen the insurgency by a decade. Unfortunately, when we explained our rules of engagement which are based around the principle of minimum force, the US troops just laughed.”
Tainan Cowboy, I think some of the confusion that you and I are having can be clarified by letting me know whether or not you think Blackwater and other security contractors are mercenaries.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3121.01, Standing Rules of Engagement for U.S. Forces (SROE)
Basic guidelines of U.S. ROE:
R-A-M-P
R - Return Fire with Aimed Fire. Return force with force. You always have the right to repel hostile acts with necessary force.
A - Anticipate Attack. Use force if, but only if, you see clear indicators of hostile intent.
M - Measure the amount of Force that you use, if time and circumstances permit. Use only the amount of force necessary to protect lives and accomplish the mission.
P - Protect with deadly force only human life, and property designated by your commander. Stop short of deadly force when protecting other property
A group is not a mercenary group if they are simply protecting something. If an armored car is being robbed and the guards on the armored car return fire they do not suddenly become mercenaries. They are performing the duties of a guard. As long as they are not attacked they do not engage in combat.
But if they are being sent on missions they are mercenaries.
Is the US using mercenaries? From what has been said in this thread the answer looks to be “yes” but not all being employed in Iraq will fall under that heading.
[quote=“tinman”]TC, of course they have, but wasn’t I told earlier that security contractors, like Blackwater, aren’t mercenaries?[/quote]Perhaps you were; and if so, then you were told correctly - Blackwater, along with the score or so other groups from various countries are not acting as “mercenaries” in Iraq. Again, do you have any verifiable data to the contrary? I would certainly be willing to look at such data.[quote=“tinman”] Of course it’s possible that you’re willing to be honest and admit they are.[/quote]What kind of rhetoric is this? I have clearly stated my view that they are not acting as “mercenaries” in Iraq. They are private security employees employed in a war zone theater. I have seen allegations of otherwise from you, but nothing to substantiate these allegations.[quote=“tinman”] In that case, I’ll have to argue differently. Just so I can get all thos different non-PC arguments straight, which side are you on?[/quote]Again, my view is clearly stated. Again, I will look at any verifiable data you have that speaks to the contrary.
[quote=“tinman”]Tainan Cowboy, I think some of the confusion that you and I are having can be clarified by letting me know whether or not you think Blackwater and other security contractors are mercenaries.[/quote]No. As you wish to use the term “mercenaries” - they are not. Again, if you have verifiable data to substantiate your claim I would like to see it.
And quotes from DU or questionable websites will not work in your favour.
I’m just asking the question. It was you who was comparing BW and EO to ‘Mad’ Mike. If that’s a comparison, then they’re mercenaries. In fact, I had half expected you to say they were and ask why it would matter.
As for the the tidbits you are requesting direct proof I can only say that I rely on my friend who worked for them before and my 2 friends who are in Iraq now working for them.
The ex-Blackwater friend who I’ve known for quite a while readily acknowledges they are mercenaries and he said most of the guys working in Blackwater now would also.
tinman -
my apologies for not making myself clear.
I wass drawing a comparison between the more accurate depiction of the descriptive adjective “mercenaries” with some easy to reference groups and what Blackwater and the other private security groups on Iraq and Afghanistan are doing.
I did not make this clear and it was my mistake.
limubai -
I have a number of acquaitances and a couple of friends who are working in Iraq/Afghanistan with Blackwater and a few other groups. These are all seasoned professionals. Nobody, I repeat nobody, is being paid for what is traditionally accepted as “mercenary” worlk.
Of course it sounds sexier and strokes the ego to say -“Yeah Baby…I’m doing merc work in Iraq.” Thats gets a lot more free drinks rather than to tell the truth and say - “Yeah…I guard truck convoys on 15 hour supply runs on dusty fukin’ roads in the mifddle of nowhere. And yeah, they shoot at us and I have no idea who the hell is doing it.”
Thats the nature of the beast.
I believe you when you say yr buddy says he’s a “mercenary.” But being paid to do security work, which is a dangerous and honest work, is not to be confused with signing a contract to act in an agressive manner and overtake military objectives from an enplace adversarial force.
I hope this clarifies my opinion. And as I say, its my opinion. Based on quite a bit.
Honestly, as I mentioned in my 1st post in this thread - The word ‘Mercenary’ more aptly correctly to the terrs and insurgents being paid to attack the Coalition Forces.
They are acting in an offensive manner against legitamate government forces in Iraq/Afghanistan. They are the “mercenaries” in this theatre.
My friends don’t actually call themselves that at least I’ve never heard them do that.
I queried them on this question and they readily replied via email that yes they were at their most basic mercenaries but wouldn’t use the term lightly or in reference to Blackwater. I guess cuz I’m a friend they don’t mind using that term but I can see where others may.
