Don't blur the line between mercenaries,
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 04-10-2004 - 1:31pm |
Op-ed: Don't blur the line between mercenaries, U.S. military.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04102004/commenta/commenta.asp
Many Americans seem to be passing through the Iraq War in a state of ambivalence.
In polls, they say they're glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, but they feel misled about the reasons for the invasion. They support the troops, but they have serious misgivings about administration policy. They're confident that the world is a safer place without Saddam, but they still expect more terrorist attacks here at home.
It wouldn't surprise me if what happened last week in Fallujah only winds up intensifying the ambivalence. Americans are right to feel outraged when we see televised images of four of our countrymen savagely murdered -- bodies mutilated, burned, dragged through the streets and hanged from bridges like morbid trophies. We are right to want to dig in our heels and declare our determination not to be frightened off by thugs and ghouls.
The U.S. military did the right thing -- indeed, the only thing it could do -- when it sent more than 1,000 Marines to seal off the city in what it labeled Operation Vigilant Re- solve.
But here's what I've been struggling with: The Americans who died on that dreadful day in Fallujah weren't U.S. soldiers. They were soldiers for hire.
It had to happen. In their daily lives, Americans now rely more than ever on private schools, private hospitals, private courier companies, and private security guards and police forces. Why not private armies?
Welcome to the world of the modern-day mercenary.
The idea of individuals who are willing to go to war (or at least to step into a war zone) for profit isn't new. Nor is it new in our country -- which, in fact, became a country despite the best efforts of the British, who relied heavily on mercenaries in trying to squelch the colonial uprising.
What is new, however, is the degree to which the American government relies on private military companies to stand in for U.S. troops in global hot spots. Barry Yeoman, a writer who has studied the industry, attributes much of this new reliance to the individual who occupies the White House. In a New York Times op-ed article, Yeoman writes that "things started booming" thanks to President Bush, who has shown a fondness for farming out what are normally government functions to private companies.
Few spots on the globe are hotter than Iraq, which is, the experts say, now home to between 10,000 and 15,000 private military servicemen associated with two dozen companies from all over the world.
It is one of the largest of those companies, Blackwater USA, that now finds itself grieving the loss of four of its employees. The Blackwater employees were escorting food delivery convoys when they were attacked. Other companies also provide security for everything from diplomats to oil companies to journalists.
After the incident in Fallujah, the company -- which was founded in 1998 by former Navy Seals -- issued a statement from its 5,200-acre headquarters compound in North Carolina. It said that the attack illustrated the "extraordinary conditions under which voluntarily work to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.''
For its volunteer work, Blackwater USA makes a bundle. In 2002, it snagged a five-year, $35.7 million contract to train Navy personnel. It pays its operatives six-figure salaries -- quite a leap from what the former Green Berets, Army Rangers, and Navy Seals earned on active duty. It's no wonder that finding recruits doesn't seem to be a problem for the private military industry, which reportedly brings in, annually, about $100 billion worldwide.
I admit that when I first saw the images from Fallujah, I wanted the administration to send a message that we wouldn't be scared off from what is, I am still convinced, a just war. Now that I know more about what these four men were doing in Iraq in the first place and at what price, I feel manipulated. Here we were originally told that these were civilians killed while doing humanitarian work. Someone left out the part about how these civilians were also hired guns.
The administration had the right response, but we shouldn't blur the line between these modern-day mercenaries and U.S. military personnel. The U.S. military goes into harm's way to serve its country and to represent its people. The private soldiers for hire go into harm's way to cash in on their unique skills and turn a profit.
One group takes with it the prayers of a grateful nation. The other takes its chances.


Pages
I suspect the word "contractors" was initially used by the embedded reporters who have to play by the Pentagon's rules. At first glance, it would seem like a truly heinous crime against those who could not defend themselves. At second (and more informed) glance, the "contractors" were armed, aware of the nature of the conflict, and heavily reimbursed for their presence.
Apropos of this, CBS is airing "The Patriot". Remember the scene where Mel Gibson's character goes nuts with an ax against one of the British soldiers who has taken away his one son and killed another? Did anyone think "mutilation"? I feel a tremendous amount of grief for the families of those who were killed but can understand the rage of many of the Iraqis. We are in their country--unasked and now, increasingly, unwelcome.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Angry and ex-military seek jobs with Blackwater
By JOANNE KIMBERLIN, The Virginian-Pilot
© April 10, 2004
After four of its employees were killed and their bodies mutilated in Iraq last week, Blackwater Security Consulting could hardly have expected this:
Job applications are up. Way up.
Chris Bertelli, a spokesman for the Moyock, N.C.-based company, said the number of applications has increased “considerably” since the March 31 ambush in Fallujah. He said former military men are behind most of the spike.
“They’re angry,” Bertelli said, “and they’re saying, 'Let me go over.’ ”
Age is no barrier to the itch for action.
“We’re hearing from guys who are ready to grab their gear from Korea,” Bertelli said.
Revenge, however, does not belong to Blackwater. Private security forces in Iraq – or private contractors, as they’ve come to be known – are not allowed to start a fight, Bertelli said.
By law, they are only allowed to defend. They can exchange shots if first fired upon. If the enemy runs, the private contractors are not allowed to chase.
That’s the difference between the contractors and commandos or mercenaries, as Blackwater’s forces are often mistakenly called. Commandos or mercenaries usually operate on the offensive, moving forward, initiating action.
“We’re only allowed to hold the fort,” Bertelli said. “And in a place like Iraq, that can be really difficult when you have to let the enemy make the first move.”
The grisly images from Fallujah will likely hike the cost of doing business in Iraq, Bertelli said.
“It’s too soon to really tell,” he said, “but it’s natural to assume that the visibility of the dangers could drive up salaries for the folks who have to stand in the path of the bullets.”
Salaries currently range from $100,000 to $200,000 annually.
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=68777&ran=15041
I don't understand the confusion. Contractors is the plural, e.g. a contract is given to a general contractor who then contracts verious aspects to sub-contractors. In the case of the DOD they have many, many contractors all with separate contracts. Of course, you know that "contractor's" refers to what belongs to the contractor including the employees. The basis of the determination is who has the contract with whom.
Edited 4/12/2004 11:20 am ET ET by hayashig
The DOD uses contractors for many functions that doesn't require direct fighting; security is one of those functions. The general term for a firm like Backwater is "contractor". The DOD contracted with Backwater for security so soldiers didn't have to be removed from their military duty. It was Backwater that hired the "comandos."
Your definition of mercenaries is correct, however note the comandos are hired by the security firm not the DOD. Their assigned task is security not "fighting". It is important to note that the DODd has no direct control, and this could be problematic, for example what IF the comandos decided to fight. Or what if the DOD decides to hire them to fight (overtly or covertly) what is the responsibility and liability of the DID.
Back to your question I don't know who brought up the term mercenaries, but the correct relationship is contractors. If the DOD hires them to fight then they would definitely be called mercenaries. But then, according to you, the difference between mercenary and solder goes to motivation. Does this really matter?
When Private Armies Take to the Front Lines.
>" The security contractors killed in Fallujah represented a little known reality of the war in Iraq.A nation that goes to war on principle may not realize it will then have to hire private soldiers to keep the peace. The work of the four American civilians slaughtered in Fallujah last week was so shadowy that their families struggled to explain what exactly the men had been hired to do in Iraq. Marija Zovko says her nephew Jerry said little about the perils of the missions he carried out every day. "He wouldn't talk about it," she says. Even representatives for the private security company that employed the men, Blackwater USA, could not say what exactly they were up to on that fateful morning. "All the details of the attack at this point are haphazard at best," says Chris Bertelli, a spokesman for Blackwater. "We don't know what they were doing on the road at the time." "<
What the murder of the four security specialists did reveal is a little known reality about how business is done in war-torn settings all over the globe. With U.S. troops still having to battle insurgents and defend themselves, the job of protecting everyone else in Iraq—from journalists to government contractors to the U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer—is largely being done by private security companies stocked with former soldiers looking for good money and the taste of danger."<
>" It was founded in 1996 by former Navy SEAL Erik Prince, who saw a growing need for private security work by governments overseas and private firms. Since then, the company has trained more than 50,000 military and law-enforcement personnel just south of the Virginia border, near Norfolk, at its 6,000-acre facility, which it calls "the finest private firearms-training facility in the U.S." The facility boasts several target ranges and a simulated town for urban-warfare training. It is so advanced that some of the U.S. military's active-duty special-ops troops have trained there. Next month Blackwater will host the World SWAT Challenge—an Olympic-style competition among 20 SWAT teams from around the country—set to be broadcast on ESPN.
The security firm's website notes that "Blackwater has the people to execute any requirement." "<
>"Locals often mistake the guards for special forces or CIA personnel, which makes active-duty military troops a bit edgy. "Those Blackwater guys," says an intelligence officer in Iraq, "they drive around wearing Oakley sunglasses and pointing their guns out of car windows. They have pointed their guns at me, and it pissed me off. Imagine what a guy in Fallujah thinks." Adds an Army officer who just returned from Baghdad, "They are a subculture."
Indeed, the relationship between the private soldiers and the real ones isn't always collaborative. "We've responded to the military at least half a dozen times, but not once have they responded to our emergencies," says Custer. "We have our own quick-reaction force now." "<
>"Noel Koch, who oversaw terrorism policy for the Pentagon in the 1980s and now runs TranSecur, a global information-security firm, says private companies "aren't required to have an intelligence collection or analytical capability in house. It's always assumed that the government is going to provide intelligence about threats." That, says Koch, means "they are flying blind, often guessing about places that they shouldn't go."
I've posted on an English
This is an interesting problem; who is responsible and accountable? Given the way this Administration supports privatization, we may be in for more and more "contractors".
I am totally confused, I don't know what the question is, but I will be interested when you get the answer.
And the military/DoD really has no other option given the downsizing of the military... there's simply not enough personnel for every job required during a deployment or even in garrison duty. And truth be told, the base function of an army is to fight, not to serve @#$t-on-a-shingle or walk a post guarding MRE's. Then you have another base truth which hasn't been brought up that I've seen... our troops over there are getting paid, just like the Blackwater employees. Nowhere near as well, no argument, but paid nonetheless. So it's not like they're there simply out of patriotism, or out of a moral obligation or responsibility to defend the good'ol US of A, they're there to make a buck while they're at it. That's something of a hole in the argument/observation that mercenaries fight for money while troops fight for country.
But no biggie about the name. Names I usually get correct, it's the gender of the individual they belong to which gives me problems.
~mark~
Pages