As many people know, there are over 20 "private contracting" security firms in Iraq, employed by the U.S. government to kill insurgents, sectarian militias, and help train the Iraqi forces.
The main company most people know about is Blackwater.
Not much discussion has been in the media about these "contractors", excluding the brutal murder of the four Blackwater employees mutilated and hung from a bridge back in '02.

But in World War II, Truman attacked these "private contractors" saying they were "enemies of democracy in the homeland" and "businessmen who used hostilities abroad as an excuse to raid the federal treasury".

"When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944."

So the question of debate is:
Are the private contractors being hired by the government "enemies of democracy" and ideologically and morally wrong?
If so, why?
And if no, how have times changed since the 40's that what was considered criminal activity, is now being employed by the U.S. Government itself, who persecuted it only 60 years ago?

Are the private contractors being hired by the government "enemies of democracy" and ideologically and morally wrong?

Yes and no, depends on extent of role and place in the conflict, such as a cook or a turret gunner.

If so, why?

For one, a mercenary for all intensive purposes does not have to be fighting from allegiance to any particular ideology, in fact a person in that situation could be fighting for treasure, or that person simply might like to fight in armed combat. How do you legally work a mercenary force into an equation like Iraq? Could you have a mercenary force going door to door as say U.S troops would be? The mercenaries would at that point be fighting for and representing the united states. Also, if mercenaries were on a hired basis, they could quit at anytime, or really demand more money or basically strike. Also a mercenary force, who can hire them and why? What are the entitlements to various weapons systems? What counties should the come from? Reality to me is that such a term as private contractor is sort of a misnomer for mercenary, and in reality I don’t think such groups are really capable of replacing a nations standing military in any large scale capacity, more so when it comes to actual war fighting. If they do, then in reality as I could see them succeeding is it would have to still be a lawful government para military agency of some sorts, basically the same as the military already is. The amount of money paid to such entities would far outgrow anything that would be paid to a current military also, being a blackwater employee can make more then a general while overseas.

And if no, how have times changed since the 40's that what was considered criminal activity, is now being employed by the U.S. Government itself, who persecuted it only 60 years ago?

Its just more of the same as I have posted above. During WW2 the environment was different in many regards. Today’s politics for example alone are vastly different. I think the use of private contractors in say Iraq might have as much to do with the fact of who our vice president is as much as it would make America more depending on big business then it already is, which to me in this aspect is a scary and somewhat disgusting thought, though it could cut the taxes which is always good right?

To me the funniest/saddest thing about the mass use of mercenaries is: if you listen the excuses the hawks on the right use to justify Guantanimo bay, they talk at length about how 'enemy combatants' are not eligible for protection under the geneva convention because they are not 'soldiers in uniform'. However, according to THEIR definitions, American mercenaries in Iraq would fall under exactly the same definition, and thus (according to Bush jr) would not be protected by the geneva conventio if captured. One of those sad bits of irony...

Vermillion:

Actually, they do have a standard uniform [either black or the mottled green/sand brown combat uniform resembling that of most nations].



Now re the questions:

1) We have a volunteer army for pay, so we already have a mercenary army [mercenary: one who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling].

2) A draft would end that status.

3) The supreme irony of the moment otherwise is simply that, well, why enlist? Learn some new job skills and maybe go on to college? Why? More money? And so those former Navy SEALS put their acquired job skills to good use and founded Blackwater. There is otherwise not much difference, if any, between the poor Honduran souls who sign up to work for Blackwater and the poor souls of our own nation who sign up for our armed services, at least when the shared motivation is desire to secure a more promising economic future.

I think for once I agree with Vermillion. I know it's a shock.

Private contracting for the government is not the issue. That is a constant, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nor is using private security personnel. But with one caveat, they must be used on the soil of the country the are working for. Otherwise as Vermillion pointed out they are mercenaries. UN Convention on use of Mercenaries

From the Geneva Convention:

Blackwater and other contractors are mercenaries under the GC and under the GC have no legal protective status regardless of whether they are wearing insignia or a uniform.

I believe I started a thread on this sometime ago- Blackwater CERTAINLY are mercenaries and subject to 0 geneva protecton, and torturing and beheading a civilian contracter in Iraq is certainly no more or less illegal than "extrodinary renditions" and Guantanimo as far as legality (not, of course, in brutality- lest someone get thier panties in a bunch)

However- Loreng- techinically- since they are under the auspices of the Iraqi goverment- aren't they covered under Iraqi or US law but NOT GC? I mean, if some smart insurgent managed to kill and murder every <ahem> "civilian contractor" (sounds much better than "mercenary" I guess ) - isn't it up to the Iraqis, or in some cases, the US to try them in thier countries- but NOT a war crime of any type?

You are making a spurious comparison between businesses that produce war materials (the subject of the "Truman Committee") and businesses that provide services in potentially hostile environments.

Are the private contractors being hired by the government "enemies of democracy" and ideologically and morally wrong? Setting aside the spurious correlation between producers and service providers, I think the answer comes down to "it depends."

If so, why? A key question is the robustness of the democracy. A fledgling democracy in a Third World country is far more at direct risk of "coup" or the like than a mature democracy such as ours or most of the First World countries. Aside from that, the big risk is when a government decides to lean too heavily, for too long, on "mercenaries", and so the citizens lose their own sense of duty for their own defense. Ideologically and morally, they are no more "wrong" than contracted medical personnel. The real world requires hard men and women to stand watch. In some instances, its beneficial to hire said folks permanently (i.e. military), in others, for a wide variety of reasons, its better to hire them temporarily. And that's really the key: temporary. The State Department may want the security of its non-Embassy operations under its own control, so they hire a private contractor. Training of the Iraqi police is something that the DoD itself has limited capacity to undertake, so they hire private contractors, who, it should be noted, hire civilian law enforcement folks to do the training, not military.

And if no, how have times changed since the 40's that what was considered criminal activity, is now being employed by the U.S. Government itself, who persecuted it only 60 years ago?
What was considered "criminal activity" was the overcharging of the government, not the provision of products or services. Unlike Red China, virtually everything our military uses is produced by private contractors. Whether or not Blackwater and other such firms are overcharging is another question entirely, and one that you haven't supported. Nor have you supported the contention that Blackwater is being tasked explicitly with "killing insurgents and sectarian militias." If they are, good. The more dead insurgents and dismantled sectarian militias, the better.

Are the private contractors being hired by the government "enemies of democracy" and ideologically and morally wrong?

If they are profiteering, yes; if they are merely profiting, no. Truman campaigned against profiteering, not profiting. Profiteering isn't happening unless profits are unreasonably exorbitant to the extent of harming others. An oil company profiteers when it turns a $10 trillion profit by raising the price of gas so high that the economy spirals into a recession. A company that sells tanks or uniforms to the government with a 5% margin is profiting, but not profiteering. Companies supplying labor with a small overhead for support roles in war zones are doing the country a favor, and should be applauded.

And if no, how have times changed since the 40's that what was considered criminal activity, is now being employed by the U.S. Government itself, who persecuted it only 60 years ago?

Laws now try to prevent profiteering on government contracts. If true war profiteering were widespread, you can bet the People would be screeching about it at the top of our lungs and frogmarching corporate execs to prison in swarms. It's not happening on the kind of scale it was in the 1940s, primarily because government profiteering is illegal, and partially because the Iraq war is microscopic compared to WWII. When we have a draft, rationing, thousands of casualties a day, and start melting our jewelry and plumbing into bullets, then we can start complaining about 1% profit margins being too high. As it is, most war profits pay the salaries of those American workers who improve the products we need to win wars. Most of us wish we lived in a world where wars weren't necessary, but it's not a perfect world.

As a footnote, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has proposed the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. He claims profiteering is widespread, but it seems on occasion that he has profiteering confused with mere profiting. The existing antitrust and antifraud laws have been sufficient to regulate any real profiteering on government contracts, although they have a spotty record of enforcement. The bill Profiteering from government contracts is already illegal, so Leahy's act wouldn't seem to "criminalize" anything that isn't already a crime, it just extends penalties to 20 years under war-related circumstances. Leahy's previous attempt at similar legislation failed to pass in 2004, but received 46 votes.

My objection to the Leahy bill is that to some people, all profit is excess, so "excessively profit" is redundant; it would be better if the bill were more clear that moderate profits are fine, but exorbitant profits are not, perhaps using an explicit percentage scale so everyone can know in advance whether they are violating the law. The whole issue of redefining profiteering can be avoided by just keeping the laws already on the books the way they are, or by increasing penalties without redefining the concept.

Blackwater

If Henry Waxman's allegations against Blackwater are true, Blackwater would seem to be profiteering:Even if these charges are true, it may not rise to the level of profiteering if each level of markup covered legitimate operating expenses (worker wages, etc.), but apparently the Army is refusing to provide enough detail to explain away the markups.

Waxman's complaint that Blackwater should never have received any money seems tenuous, at best. Halibuton bought food and catering services from a company who supplied its own guards through a hotel company that subcontracted to Blackwater. Blackwater didn't have a direct government contract or even a subcontract directly through Haliburton, but was acting under the auspices of the food provider to help protect its supply chain. If the Haliburton contract had specified that all suppliers must use official US forces instead of providing their own private security, then Waxman might have a point; however, I don't think it very reasonable to expect a private food supplier to remain defenseless in a war zone. Haliburton or the Army should have arranged lower-cost security services if either had been aware that the food bill's security fees were the result of several levels of markup.

I know but such as it is happens already to be generating trouble as evident in your posts and that surrounds no where near the scope of mercenary involvement in the ME in total. The U.S taxpayer to fund a mercenary force will end up paying in large much more then they would pay for say a standing governmental armed forces overall if such a direction in large is what is desired to implement. Its not only this but as a private corporation what laws can govern it? We would have to make a new set I am sure, to actually move in that direction as a more permanent fixture in our national defense.

If we say replaced the governmental armed forces of the U.S in Iraq right now, what would around 150,000 people getting paid 600$ a day cost alone? So what do we do, drive down the costs and end up with a military anyways but in the hands of a company and not Americans in general?

This would lead to in the future if such dependence was made more heavy very large problems in my eyes. We would basically be handing our national defense or military over to corporate control. I bet more then one investor would probably like such, but then again how would you have a free market in that, companies competing with there military for contracts, trying to develop the best tactics, and then of course the entire payment issue and of course it soon just turns into a ball of worms that would be impossible really to have any real oversight on. I could care less to have the Halliburton airborne division, they could drop in to rescue to Exxon first armored though, it could make for a nice sci fi story with some truth to it also Heck you could have signal operations taking over by Microsoft and special forces could be composed of grocery store chains and you know fast food is loved so burger king could do the whole food stuffs.

Sorry for being silly but really. If at all private contractors should have a limited role in a non combat support function at best by the hands of the U.S if eve used and in reality for the world today our military should be able to take on all of those roles as to reduce any possible corruption that could result from it. I mean the money alone spend on private contractors to date could have improved our military which for some reasons or another was having all kinds of issues here or there, such as even paying a power bill.

Among other things, using mecenaries means the govt has no long term pension, medical or other obligations to these mercenaries. It will save a ton of money vis-a-vis our all-volunteer force. For that reason, I believe these modern mercenaries are here to stay.

Also, as I personally know a couple of these folks, they actually feel the get better equipment and clearer orders as mercenaries. They know what their mission is, how long it lasts, and what to do.

Beyond that, historically mercenaries always sell their services to the highest bidder, even when it means changing sides during a conflict. When Saudi outbids us for the services of our own former soldiers, we may be unhappy.

I see no evidence of this. The fact is the military does not have all the personnel needed to do the job and needs contractors. One of the disasters’ in Iraq has been that we did not anticipate or have the number of “police” needed to quell the insurgency earl.

?


If they are making illegal profits they should be fired – if, as I suspect, they are doing needed and dangerous work for the government and the country they should be lauded. Certainly some of their employees have paid the ultimate price. And they have the added disadvantage of not being totally plugged into the military communications net – so when it all goes to hell quickly they are, well – dead.

As has been mentioned, this is an apples and oranges comparison. To answer the gist of the question, depends on which type of industry we are speaking of. There are three basic categories:
1) Tactical military assistance (actual combat services)
2) military consulting firms, which provide strategic advice and military training
3)military support firms, which provide logistics, intelligence, and maintenance services to armed forces.

Category number one is the only potential mercenary job, the others are not. I don’t believe that the government should ever hire individuals for this purpose, and to my knowledge we do not. Furthermore, we demonstratively do not expect Geneva protections for those types…the contractors whose plane went down in Columbia in 2003 are Sorta Out of Luck, to my knowledge they are still there (if alive). The only reason the three Iraqi contractors mentioned above hit headline news was due to the especially publicly gruesome nature…it was obviously intended to be an advertisement. But on the other hand, about a thousand contractors have died in Iraq. They don’t count on any public death toll and just sort of disappear. So, were the government to hire such types to do a combat related job this would be a very large problem, and un-democratic, for the specific reason that there is no accountability. The government could thus accomplish public ends through private means without having to gain legislative or public approval, a disconnect of the public from it’s own government’s foreign policy.

Private entities, which need security for, say, a water tank delivery to some hospital in a remote location in Iraq, cannot do without them though…or else the water tanks could never be delivered because the military doesn’t have enough forces to protect each individual convoy. So, I see a need for those people but it leads to a host of other problems….no universally established standards for training or recruitment or operating procedures, numerous non-cohesive “command and control” centers (a huge liability in an area where a misstep can spiral into political violence and the population has not way to tell the difference between public and private forces), limited to no legal recourse for criminal actions…the worst combatant commander can do if a crime is presented to him is suspend the firm's contract and expel the individual employee (according to reports, all of the translators and up to half of the interrogators involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib were private contractors). It’s a definite problem. Perhaps the answer is to leave and give the government of Iraq money to hire their own private security forces if they need them.

But does Iraq possess civilians capable of doing these jobs? Blackwater (Armour group, etc) are all generally ex-Marines, etc. These are guys that have combat experience, understand how to protect themselves as well as the principle. How many Iraqi nationals are trained to do this?

In my opinion, giving the money to the Iraqi gov't also opens another door that they are all too familiar with. Corruption.

If Iraq doesn't possess civilians capable of doing these jobs they can hire Blackwater, or whatever company is willing. There are many many of these contracting companies around the globe....from the Ukraine to Africa to Australia.

Of course I agree that giving them money can lead to corruption...we have encountered this already, in spades, from said government. It's the best of a lot of bad options and doesn't require us to sacrifice our own forces. Furthermore, if and when they inevitably do something wrong, our forces won't be used as the (either physical or propaganda) target of angry violent political public backlash. They won't be there. Control, and culpability, will be in the Iraqi government's hands.

Are the private contractors being hired by the government "enemies of democracy" and ideologically and morally wrong?If so, why?

I could make a case from a moral standpoint. My case would be based on consistently applying the uniformed military code of justice on these people which has not always held true. The first order of business is to first prove they are in existence in Iraq. The second would be to highlight the terms they are under contract for. The third would be to see what level of impunity they are operating under.


And if no, how have times changed since the 40's that what was considered criminal activity, is now being employed by the U.S. Government itself, who persecuted it only 60 years ago?

Excellent question. I'm going to read Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater and hopefully get some insight on the workings of large armies for hire and what can be done about them.

Going back to loreng59's link on UN Covention on the Use of Mercenaries.



Termed here, such a case could be used to defend any Iranian involvement or interference as a defensive action. From the this perspective the mercenary army could be viewed as an aggressive destabilizing force and warrant response from any country which felt threatened.