U.S. Turns to Mercenaries by James Ridgeway WASHINGTON — The four "civilians" killed, burned, and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, Iraq, on Wednesday morning weren’t really civilians. Or were they? They were employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, a rural North Carolina subsidiary of Blackwater USA, one of several dozen firms taking over the duties of the regular American military in Iraq, protecting buildings and grounds as well as officials. In fact, Blackwater itself is in charge of protecting L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the U.S. official who now runs Iraq as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. In the coming weeks, hundreds of American civilian workers who really are civilians will be entering Iraq to work on private contracts let by the Bush government. Their security will be provided by guards (like the Blackwater men killed yesterday) from a variety of security firms, often consisting of former U.S. military special ops people. The use of private military forces raises tricky questions for the U.S. government. The most important one is why is the Bush administration is recruiting civilians to work there when our government can't possibly guarantee the security of the area. Another question: Why aren't these jobs in combat zones being carried out by American military forces, instead of mercenaries? Building up a surrogate military force, along the lines of the French Foreign Legion or the Gurkhas, has been the ambition of conservatives for many years. The thinking is that future wars will be characterized by "low-intensity," or guerrilla, warfare. If the fighting is done by a force of irregular surrogates, people won't question their casualties as they would those of regular military personnel. The contras in Nicaragua were an example of what a surrogate fighting force might look like, and special ops types from South Africa’s former apartheid regime have long been involved in fighting in southern Africa. The latest incident involving one of these relatively new mercenary companies occurred in Haiti. There the Steele Foundation, a private security firm based in California, was protecting the palace when Jean-Bertrand Aristide was summarily rushed to the airport at Port-au-Prince and onto a mysterious plane that took off with no listed destination—raising the inevitable question of their involvement with American intelligence. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Aristide feared that the Steele people would abandon their jobs and leave him to be killed by the rebels. Subsequent press reports noted that an extra detail of Steele people requested by Aristide for added protection were blocked by American officials from leaving California for Haiti. In Iraq, Blackwater provides security not only for Bremer but also for food shipments in the turbulent Fallujah area. The private security firms working in Iraq see big salaries as well as plenty of potential danger. Often, they have been seen in military garb but without the insignias that would formally designate them as U.S. military. This situation raises the question of whether or not they can be treated as soldiers under the Geneva conventions—whether they are provided those protections—or whether as irregulars they will get dealt with as spies. Providing mercenaries is a popular and growing business in part because their use in places like Iraq presumably would release regular military personnel for other work—or allow them to go back to the U.S. Blackwater USA’s other subsidiaries are Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Canine, and Blackwater Air. The company proclaims: "We have established a global presence and provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century," adding, "Our clients include federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Transportation, local and state entities from around the country, multinational corporations and friendly nations from all over the globe." More info on blackwater: http://www.blackwaterusa.com/ " Blackwater USA is comprised of five companies; Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Security Consulting, Blackwater Canine, and Blackwater Air (AWS). We have established a global presence and provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century. Our clients include federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Transportation, local and state entities from around the country, multi-national corporations, and friendly nations from all over the globe. We customize and execute solutions for our clients to help keep them at the level of readiness required to meet today's law enforcement, homeland security, and defense challenges. Any and all defense services supplied to foreign nationals will only be pursuant to proper authorization by the Department of State. Come to Blackwater, where the professionals train." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0401-14.htm ----------------------------------------------- Interesting, I was not aware of this. And, before somebody accuses me of implying it: NO, this does not excuse those cruel murders. [\b] Just some food for thought.
They were paid, armed guards riding in a sedan. There job was to offer security to people who we working on public works in Iraq. They were not soldiers in a tank. By you asserted description of a merc, the cops that are paid to stand at the movie theater on the weekend are mercs.
It's a security firm, not a mercenary firm. It's not uncommon for private security firms to have this kind of mission. Of course it's paramilitary; the founders were ex-SEALs. They are nothing more than an organized group of highly trained body guards. Ahh....more fodder.
Woah! This was not meant to incite anything more than constructive thought. I personally had no idea that the U.S. military was relying on "paid, armed guards." As I did not know this, I assumed some others might not either. And it is interesting to note this considering the recent discussions over yes/no for more troops in Iraq. I get the impression that you think this is some attack on the U.S. or the military or whatever. It is not intended to be so, and sorry if the term "mercenary" makes you uncomfortable. That was in the title, so I used it. You can call them "paid, armed guards" if that is more acceptable to you. For the sake of argument however: mer·ce·nar·y adj. 1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling. 2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army. 2) seems fairly applicable.. Anyhow I digress. It doesn't matter to me if they use mercenaries or "paid, armed guards" or whatever. It does concern me if there are too few troops in Iraq. That could lead to serious issues...
You may not be aware that there was another article in here a couple months ago about "mercenaries" we were hiring in Iraq, though that article was more inflammatory than this one. I made a big stink about using the word "mercenary" to describe security guards, especially because that article seemed to be trying to incite outrage at Bush's war by using the word. I considered it dishonest rhetoric. In any case, I still don't think 'mercenary' is a fair word to use here. These men are not members of the army and do not have the power that soldiers have. They also likely won't be mounting offenses or coordinating with members of the US military. They defend targets. I don't have too big a problem with that. I feel like using regular military for jobs like that is overkill. That's like insisting on a college graduate to mow your lawn. I would be concerned about tangental issues regarding these security firms. Do they abuse their power? Are they really subject to the laws of Iraq, or will the US run interference for them? Do they cause resentment by Iraqis? Is it not possible to give these jobs to Iraqis?
These guys are getting paid $500 to $1500 a day. Our soldiers get that much a month. If those mercenaries wanted to be soldiers they could, but they wanted the freedom and money of *choosing* where and when to fight and die. Our soldiers and police officers do not have that luxury.
I thought police officers were mercenaries, at least the ones who don't live in the cities they police. I guess those Allstate security people and other rent-a-cops are mercenaries, too. It really is playing with the language. These folks may well fit the official definition of a mercenary, but if they apparently don't fit what people associate with the word mercenary. It appears to be use of a loaded word to engender a specific opinion about the situation.
I never endorsed fooling around with corpses, but thanks for trying to read my mind. Overreacting to treatment of corpses is stupid. The whole exercise was meant to provoke an overreaction. And most rent a cops are not policemen, unless they are off duty police officers that are moon lighting. There's a reason they are not police officers - most of them could not pass the muster.
But are rent-a-cops mercenaries? They are offering protection services for businesses, etc. that they have no connection to for money. If private security in the U.S. are not mercenaries, why is private security in a foreign country mercenaries? To me, mercenaries are those who actively engage in battle for money in a conflict they would not otherwise be involved with (official military not included). Providing bodyguard services or other security would not qualify.
The deaths of those 4 security guards reminded me of thatGuardian article about the mercenaries too. Security guards are on the borderline, but we do know that "contractors" are being provided to train Iraqi troops and to guard certain establishments that go well beyond the bounds of security or even the Geneva Convention.... It beats negotiating with the UN right, right?
And your point is?? I would want at least that much to be a security guard for a target area in iraq. i expect most foreigners would be getting much higher wages than normal for the danger of their jobs there -- whether they're teachers, engineers, or otherwise. (and i think soldiers do earn more than $6,000 to $18,000 a year) While Rhad states his intentions are not to incite, i don't think the original article writer can make the same claim. He compares these men to the contras in Nicaragua. He refers to them as mercenaries, and implies their deaths are somehow not as big a deal. Had it been the bodies of soldiers being dragged around, i think the outrage would have been just as high. I agree with Paige here, that the word Mercenary is being used in a much more inflammatory way then its strict dictionary definition. In fact, i would go further to suggest that rhad's definition 2 does not apply as they were not hired as professional soldiers. At any rate, the connotations of words are often much more powerful than their dictionary definitions. And in the context of this article, the connotation was intentional. Now i wouldn't be altogether shocked if down the road some of these men were found to be doing more than just 'security.' But that's not been established yet. And, more importantly, it would not lessen the horror of what was done to them. Had they been soldiers killed in active fighting, it would not justify dragging the bodies around. Food for thought? Hardly. A very cheap and disrespectful 'hook' on a legitimate story (concern over just who's being hired for what over in Iraq)? Most definitely. Credibility of the writer after this play? None.
Desecrating dead bodies is wrong. It pales in comparison to putting our soldiers in harms way based on false pretenses.
Gifford addressed the most salient point. Those mercenaries took their chances and lost. Most of them will be luckier and pocket the dough. I have less sympathy for someone who had a choice and decided it was worth their life for 500-1500 dollars a day versus a soldier who signs up and does their duty and has to go wherever this Iraqi vendetta of our current POTUS tells them to go. Those mercenaries decided that their life was worth the money and from the interviews with their families they wanted adventure. It's a horrible way to die and it's terrible to have your corpse mangled but they knew the risks and they decided it was worth it. I would feel no differently about people who like to climb Mount Everest. It's the exact same situation. Lots of them die because it's still a very risky venture, but that's part of why they go - of their own free will. A soldier gives that up when they sign up - they have to go no matter what the cause.
Woofer: But.....adventure and the knowing of putting yourself in danger is the same thing in the Army. In signing up for the Army, the Soldier takes on the knowledge that he has no control on where he is positioned. They are taking a risky life style just by enlisting. Are you saying a civilian who enlists as a soldier isn't taking any risks joining, and doesn't think he could get hurt or even killed? Being in the Marines is not a very safe job. Ofcourse driving aroud in a car is also not very safe.
You are right for some of them. But the soldiers in Iraq had to go irregardless of what they thought of the war in Iraq. Reservists are abused even more, this is the most and longest callups since Vietnam. The mercenaries had a choice. Most of the American mercenaries could have even rejoined the US military or the CIA but chose to be a gun for hire - instead. I never said being a soldier was a low risk venture.
True sorry if that is what I was stating. A lot of the current soldiers I am pretty sure joined around the time of the Iraqi war. With the Bush administration's support the the Military (lots of funds) I am sure it seemed good for them to join.
As an E4 in the Army I made approx. 40k. It includes base pay, housing and supplemental allowances. Housing varies from area to area. My cost of living is higher up here, so I made a little more. Housing and supplements are not taxable, so all in all I'd have to make 42k to make the same as before. If you don't get housing, the military still considers that it is paying you for housing, whether you live in the barracks or family housing. Each year soldiers get a little sheet stating that living in a 16 x 16 room with another man means it is worth 18k. Why would they pull troops off the line to guard Mr. Bremer? They need every body they have over there and they sure as hell aren't going to let joe schmoe infantryman guard him. On the flip side, they sure won't use anyone from SOCOM either. They have a specific mission too. Of course they'll hire outside help. Not only that, security firms aren't bound by the Geneva conventions. They can use hollow points, MESH rounds, pretty much anything they'd like.
