Over some years the name Blackwater shows up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were hired by someone (who?) to fight?
That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces. Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse? And would the Geneva Conventions apply?
That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces. Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse? And would the Geneva Conventions apply?
And what do we actually know about Blackwater? It's effectiveness? As mercenaries are thay paid so much per head? Or how else? Do they report to a military person or to a political person or to perhaps the CIA? DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ENHANCED TERROGATION OF ENEMY COMBATANTS? Under whose jurisdiction?
I have an idea that we should find out.
Dixon
Comments
There is no reason I can think of why we cannot use Special Ops troops for this job other than the fact the present R.O.E. gives the President "plausible deniability".
War is tough, and it ought to be so nasty no one wants to participate in it. Still, I too am uncomfortable with paying hired guns to do the job our military should be tackling.
Change the rules...
Unleash our troops, and this problem goes away.
Part of the problem is logistics. Most of these contracted jobs used to be handled by military members. But with all the cutbacks of the 1990's, the US decided that we have a professional military filled with soldiers and all the support roles would be filled with contractors. Congress and the President was busy spending the "peace dividend" after the Cold War so we didn't need a large military. This idea continued to expand in the 2000's. For one with the low pay of the military and the booming economy it was difficult to retain highly trained specialists. Now with the bad economy people are lined up to sign up for the military.
The other contributing factor that I see is military members do not make big campaign contributions and military contractors do. Congress is full of bribe taking scumbags.
And we are still expanding contracting out jobs. My daughters classified, avionics job in the Marines has gone civilian. If she wanted to re-enlist it would have to be for a different job. Now some jobs maybe more efficient to contract out, but the military does not always need to be super efficient.
The main problem I see with this system is a lack of military manpower if a true national emergency arose. Back in the day we could give all the cooks and airplane mechanics and truck drivers a rifle and send them to front if need be. Now if we need more guys with rifles then we have to call a security company. There are many companies, Blackwater just seemed to make the news more than others.
The military has a bigger budget than under Clinton and has not shrunk in numbers. It's all about fighting wars ... and you people who are against taxes should like cutting the budget. Talk about irony to complain about cuts in the military (which there weren't statistically) and still want the government downsized. It's crazy to talk about wanting things you are not willing to pay for.
George W. Bush IS NOT President anymore.
We now have an incompetent in the position.
Everyone in this platoon is out of step but me!
How do I correct that?
(And George Bush is STILL NOT PRESIDENT.)
I gave up trying to have a discussion with you at your site because when I'd (or Bumps, or Ingineer) ask you a question that would expose a weakness in your argument, you'd simply ignore it. When I returned to ask the question again, you ALWAYS resort to your old standby...
But... but... BUSH!
When I say you are incredible Rain, I truly mean you are NOT CREDIBLE in that arena.
We'll agree our military is spread too thin, being asked to do too much. When individuals are involuntarily going overseas for the third or fourth time in seven years, there is tremendous strain put on them and their families. Their physical and mental health will traumatically suffer. Until Afghanis begin to understand the advantage of single-government leadership, I think Obama's "Good war" should be handled mostly by special forces operations, insuring the bad guys don't get comfortable. I think Obama is DEAD WRONG handling that conflict the way he is, and it may in fact end up being his Viet Nam.
(And I think you are a nice person. But you and others like you with your tra-la-la attitude in the face of pure evil are the reason this country is circling the drain.)
Yes our military is very good at what they do. We were in control of most of Afghanistan in a few weeks with only a few hundred soldiers helping the Afghans take their country back. But taking ground and holding it are two completely separate issues. We took Iraq in a few days, but actually occupying it like we did with Germany or Japan at the end of WWII would take at least 300,000 soldiers.