Don't blur the line between mercenaries,

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Don't blur the line between mercenaries,
22
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.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 2:47pm
Well stated explanation. I've been trying for a couple of days to construct a good post explaining my view on the issue, and your's pretty much got it.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 7:26pm
No apology necessary, I must admit it didn't sound like you.

Pages