DTOM - quick question for you that you may or may not be able to answer. I saw a report on the news yesterday that American military combat forces carry a list of Blackwater radio frequencies and other information with them on patrol in case they needed help in a hurry. Is this true to your knowledge?

Aquilla

I can say that Blackwater MH-6 'Little Birds' have been able to assist US forces in the past, when Army attack aviation was engaged elsewhere.

To add: now that I have more time to respond. I have known that little birds were directed to buzz some bad guys on one or two occasions. They didn't support with munitions and didn't have commo with the unit on the ground. Luckily, birds in the air make the rats scurry for cover.

I have never heard of any US unit having acces to BW freq's and callsigns. That would probably be considered as much of a ComSec violation as Blackwater having our information.

Okay, I won't state your opinion as you have done. I'm not up in arms either, so let's not use hyperbole along with personal opinion, eh? But let's please realize that with no military chain of command and being answerable only to the bottom line in corporate land is asking for trouble when we're talking about war. Or whatever you want to call the situation in Iraq.

So you think the Iraqi government if full of it, fine. That doesn't matter. You're not an Iraqi, you didn't get to vote for the government and you don't have to put up with Blackwater.

I personally would not want Blackwater running around these hills protecting some corporate interest and not being answerable to anyone. Kinda reminds me of the Pinkertons.

I stand corrected on this narrow point. Nevertheless, the evidence for Blackwater's irresponsible behavior in Iraq remains overwhelming. Take this First Hand Account, for example.

Unforunately, your broad brush is going to have to cover all PSD's and US forces. The behavior quoted in the piece, that's making it rounds on the internet, is by and large, standard practice in Iraq. By that, I don't mean slamming cars into barriers, but being aggressive. The bottom line is while driving the streets of Baghdad, you are aggressive with traffic and obstacles, or you are dead.
The particulars of Blackwater and other PSD convoys is this is their principle, their protectee. A State or other diplomatic convoy cannot let itself be trapped in traffic. That doesn't mean Iraqi's have to die, but at the same time, all Iraqi's know to get out of the way when a convoy is coming. It may not be right, but that's the rules of the game over here.

That being said DTOM- when your record for not having anyone killed you are guarding means at the expense of innocent civilian lives- either killed by a truck or a bullet- either of which is used to clear a path of innocent civilians- I find it hard to be sorry for or even feel a sense of loss for any Blackwater employee that is killed or maimed over there. And I can see why they are so hated over there, and why statements like "cowboys" and such are used.

Not ot mention the fact that they operate under no one's rules.

Oh yeah, and thier callous disregard for innocent civilians.

That's one of the problems with the debate over PSD's operating in Iraq. The assumption of callous disregard of civilian life. While I will be the first to tell anyone that my life is infinitely more precious than any Iraqi, it is not in anyones interest to shoot or otherwise kill or maim a civilian. Blackwater doesn't have a policy, official or not, of 'kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out'. It is not in their interest to kill civilians, it only makes their job more difficult.

Using quotes from people who more often than not, are ill informed of the nature of things in Iraq.........using terms such as cowboys, doesn't forward meaningful debate on the presence of security contractors in combat. It keeps it emotionally driven and distracting from any real issues.

Look at the debate over the lastest event; we have corrupt a Iraqi Ministry driving the train on the investigation, the US military in PR overdrive and spin control; unseen and unreleased 'evidence' from the scene.....but no mention by either enitity of the explosion preceeding the gunfire, or the Blackwater SUV disabled by gunfire and towed from the scene.
Not to mention that the absolute worst way to clear a traffic jam is to fire into it. That analysis defies common sense.

This is one of the main reasons why we shouldn't be OVER THERE! One of the major reasons for the insurgency is treatment like this by Americans.

You're not going to get any argument from me about whether or not we should be here any longer, but as long as we are, it's be aggressive or be dead. The tactics of insurgents have mandated this type of behavior, not US forces.

Yes the whole thing stinks of a cover-up. Here is Blackwater not known for gunning down civilians accused of opening up for no little or no reason and shooting “civilians”. Now these are mostly ex SEALS who, to say the least, can shoot accurately. To say they just mowed down civilians is doubtful at best.

I bet this was a group politically connected to Maliki or one of his top officials

Although there are individuals within BW that I have respect for, I have little respect for BW as an organization. And, I've found certain of those I'd known for years appear to have changed significantly once they took off the uniform and began working for BW. In any case, I have to say that actions that may appear to defy common sense, in actuality occur.

BW came out of the IZ into on comng traffic; that particular traffic circle is extremely busy with hundreds of cars during the early afternoon. The local IP at the intersection attemped to stop the traffic but BW (as is usual) didn't wait for the locals to open up the road for them and drove south into the northbound lane heading toward airport road and then began throwing flash bangs to force cars away. Picture the indig drivers panicked, trying to move a car in congested traffic with the heavily armed BW convoy bearing down on'em. Among BW's first kills were a mother holding her 4 month old daughter, along with the father and another child. As chaos ensued, the IA and IP in the immediate vicinity see and hear the flash-bangs and shooting and they panic and open fire without identifying targets. BW speeds away and exfils through the "terrorist" attack. Not all the kills or wounded civilians were BW - some were from the panicked Iraqi security forces.

Shortly before and not too far northwest of the incident a VBIED did detonate but it was completely unrelated.

In the end, it is the US military that has to deal with the spectrum of aftereffects that undisciplined, unaccountable people like BW leave behind. They aren't involved directly in working with the indig and executing any of the hundreds of things small and large that US soldiers in uniform do every day to build trust and mutual respect with the Iraqis while trying to reconciliate feuding factions in a complex multilayered fight. Months and months of hard work by dedicated soldiers can be wasted in an instant by one action. As has been restated in this context so often as to almost become a cliche - tactical actions have strategic consequences in this fight.

Beyond simply BW, and addressing the broader implications, I recommend a read of this paper from the Brookings Institution, 27 Sep 07: Can't Win With'Em, Can't Go To War Without'Em: Private Military Contractors and Counterinsurgency

Complete 26 page paper at the link.

Mustang, thanks for the link to the Brookings Institute paper. It's well worth the read for anyone interested in this subject. I read a book, the name of which I can't immediately recall, several years back exploring the world of private military contractors and I have recently read Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill so nothing in the think tank paper particularly surprised me. A little confirmation from the establishment, however, helps discredit claims that criticism of Blackwater and other private military companies is some creation of liberals.

Perhaps more than the paper itself, I found this comment in the author's personal notes to be revealing and indicative of just how dangerous to democratic government the excessive privatization of military force can become.



(See Author's Notes).

I've waited a little bit for more Blackwater news. I still think mercenary fits, whatever baggage comes with the word.

Is Blackwater supposed to act like an extention of the FBI and raid competing security firms for evidence when another security firm overbills the U.S.?

State Department officials have repeatedly ignored warnings from U.S. diplomats that granting Blackwater immunity would endanger the population and undermine the military's mission.

According to the Post, military reports indicate Blackwater is at fault for using ecessive force. The Post very "helpfully" doesn't link or give the title of the report. An anonymous U.S. official is quoted as saying "It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong. The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP or any of the local security forces fired back at them."

The above is supported by a CNN story today: "Soldiers found no evidence gunmen fired at Blackwater"

U.S. soldiers investigating a shooting by Blackwater guards that left 17 Iraqis dead found no evidence the security contractors were fired upon, a source familiar with a preliminary U.S. military report said Friday.

The soldiers also found evidence suggesting the guards fired on cars that were trying to leave Nusoor Square in Baghdad during the shootings, the military source said.

The report said the weapons casings found by soldiers, who arrived about 20 minutes after the shooting subsided, matched only those used by U.S. military and contractors, the source said.

The soldiers "did not find any cartridge casings that would have matched those used by Iraqi security forces or insurgents," the source said.

Maj. Winfield Danielson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the military is conducting an inquiry because the incident took place "in our battle space," and because the military wants to "see what we can learn from it to apply to our contractors." He said the military has about 40 private security contractors.

40 private security contractors? Sweet jeebus.

On the House Committee for Oversight and Government Reform, Waxman wrote: "Blackwater has engaged in 195 'escalation of force' incidents since 2005, an average of 1.4 per week, including over 160 incidents in which Blackwater forces fired first; after a drunken Blackwater contractor shot the guard of the Iraqi Vice President, the State Department allowed the contractor to leave Iraq and advised Blackwater on the size of the payment needed "to help them resolve this" [snip]

If Iraq continues to order Blackwater out should Blackwater be forced to get out?
Yes, and State should pack up its bags and leave, and the military should start an orderly withdrawal. I understand the security need to hire mercs, but the political reality behind that necessity just highlights how absurd the situation is.

So I presume you believe firms such as Wackenhut or executive security personnel to be mercenaries as well? They perform the same basic function, defensive protection and security.

I have doubts about the military's investigation, namely:
The report said the weapons casings found by soldiers, who arrived about 20 minutes after the shooting subsided, matched only those used by U.S. military and contractors, the source said.

Obviously, Blackwaters casings were easy to find, they were in the street. But since Baghdad is a warren of interconnected buildings and hovels, most insurgents fire from rooftops or from inside buidlings, not the middle of the street. Did the unit investigating search the surrounding buildings? If Blackwater recieved no fire, why did they report (and State corroborated) that one of the SUV's was disabled by gunfire and require towing from the scene?

On the House Committee for Oversight and Government Reform, Waxman wrote: "Blackwater has engaged in 195 'escalation of force' incidents since 2005, an average of 1.4 per week, including over 160 incidents in which Blackwater forces fired first;

This statistic includes Escalation of Forces (EOF) measures, ie. warning shots. 1.4 instances per week is about even with or less than what an Army Brigade tallies for EOF events. Just another way to frame the message, don't mention warning shots, simply say they fired first. Go back to sleep people.

Maybe. In this thread or another you told me Blackwater's duties are restricted to escorting State officials. Now I read an article about Blackwater raiding USPI's Kabul office. In the U.S. the FBI needs a warrant to do that. Has Blackwater been deputized in Afghanistan?


Why do you assume they followed through on EOF procedures? Why is information concerning Iraqi civilian deaths even classified by the Pentagon?

I can't speculate on what Blackwater is or isn't doing in A-stan. I don't even have the premise of MSM reporting on that. I'm ill informed on this event, but clearly they shouldn't be conducting raids. They aren't participating in offensive actions in Iraq, and I would be surprised to know that they were in A-stan, but I just don't know. Does the FBI have the power to deputize, and is that power in effect for combat zones? I would not support that if it were the case.



Why do assume they have not? Without divulging the actual EOF steps, I can say that depending on a vehicles proximity, actions and speed, it is entirely permissible to skip steps.

I have just finished looking over the storyboard created by 3-82 FA, and based on aerial photos of Nisoor Circle, I can believe that they were firing at vehicles that they perceived were a threat and not an attack by insurgents, based on the urban terrain in the area. But I don't believe that BW's and State's report can be arbitrarily discounted either.
I'm still waiting for the IP video 'evidence' to be released. That should confirm beyond doubt who was at fault. The bottom line is that the nature of the conflict in Iraq has mandated that vehicles who pose a threat, ie. accelerating towards a convoy, fall under EOF procedures. To do otherwise is to risk the lives of you, your comrades and your principle.

It's here:

Later that year, the firm drew attention again when an Afghan official said an American supervisor for USPI allegedly shot to death his Afghan interpreter and was flown out of the country the next day. USPI officials have declined to comment on the incident.

The American security official said agents from the private security firm Blackwater USA raided USPI's Kabul office last month and seized computers and office files.

A Texas firm allegedly war profiteering and shooting an Afghan interpreter. Go figure.


Yes, circumstances may call for skipping throwing water bottles at cars, like Griffin testified, straight to shooting passengers. Then again, maybe it doesn't matter.

Why don't I assume BW followed through in every case? Because there's no good reason to keep individual reports classified except for liability and further ticking off Iraqis. It sounds like Iraqis already know the main thoroughfares State uses.


Not necessarily.

I would be bold enough to presume that Blackwater and other PSD's keep individual incident reports classified, just as the military does, to keep the enemy from knowing exactly what our EOF and ROE procedures are. I understand where you're coming from, but keeping certain information classified may tick off Iraqi's, but it also keeps Americans alive.

Allow me to quickly address another topic that keeps getting hyper-sensationalized. When a member of a civilian PSD shoots somebody or otherwise commits a possible crime, the company in question cannot indict and charge that person with a crime. Without a SOFA or other legal agreement in place, they also cannot be tried by the host nation justice system, if that person is in the employ of the US. The appropriate course of action is to get the alleged criminal out of the country as quickly as possible so local nationals do not continue to get agitated and commit violence in retribution, and so that the Department of Justice can indict the individual if warranted. If the DoJ does not pursue charges, that is not the fault of the company, much to the opposite of what the press and activists would have you believe. They continue to tout the Andrew Moonen case as proof of Blackwater's evil, regardless of the truth. Those same harpies fail to tell the lemmings how Blackwater followed the only course of action they were legally able to follow.

(Emboldened by me- please forgive Mustang)

Okay- DTOM- this was kind of what I expected to hear, considering I have been around the military, though not in the military as long, as you- but, when you remove the contraints of the military- they still may be good shots, and well trained in military ways- but I do KNOW that there is a sizable majority of soldiers out there that chafe under the guidelines they have to live under. Take away the element of that control, and, the kind of guy that signs up for more time in that hell hole. Maybe they are there just for the money- but you gotta be not happy to be there either , and, you really don't have black and white guidelines.

I absolutely agree. When a PSD causes an incident, it’s not the PSD that has to deal with the consequences. I do cringe however, at the media constant refrain in their recent articles, at how ‘Iraqi’s often can’t distinguish between US military and PSD’s'. Baloney. They may lump us together and blame us by affiliation, but they know exactly who travels in SUV’s and who travels in HMMWV’s.



You seem to be assuming that it is only ‘guidelines’ that prevent wanton killing, and that given the chance, a ‘sizable majority’ of the military would engage in this type of behavior. I completely disagree, but that behavior analysis may be best for another thread. Keep in mind that much of the driving and force protection behavior that PSD’s are being blasted for in the press in similar or identical to procedures of the military. The MSM recently seems to have found everyone with an “I saw Blackwater when I was in Iraq’ story, and printed accounts from largely ill informed people. Makes for entertaining reading I suppose………

The PSD industry is viable and in demand, but without standardization. The many companies that are currently employed in Iraq have a wide array of training standards. Some have formal in depth training regimens prior to the deployment of an operator, some have in-country indoctrination……some have a lot of both, and others have little of either.

The bottom line is that a rational and healthy debate should occur, discussing the use and parameters of PSD’s in hostile environments. What should not happen is to let this event become a proxy for the overall war debate. What should not happen is to let the media and politicians frame the debate with emotionaly charged terms in order to score points. PSD’s are not going away. Our government as well as others and NGO’s will continue to need security in high risk areas. To this point, nobody with a soapbox has addressed the actual impact of removing PSD’s or alternatives to their use.

I could not understand at first why these companies cant simply be replaced with the military as is. I overheard a conversation in which it was stated that ex special operations soldiers such as SF or seals go off to these companies because they pay higher wages then the U.S simply does, which I imagine is a big part of it. Not to get into what’s wrong with Iraq such as not enough troops for security by a large number it sort of forces any government actions in times of war such as with Iraq to become dependent on private contractors such as backwater. Now not to try to pin something on character, but I would suggest that these people partake partly in such jobs because of money, I think the real test would to simply pay contractors on a soldiers salary and see how many remain. Of course we cant do such but it does provide to me that with high money someone will go to war, which is sort of the definition of to a merc. Not to say that if we paid our military barely anything most of them would quit, just that really its a company that gets paid to fight wars, all through my life that and mercenary has always gone hand in hand really in thought... Maybe its just its not formal enough for me, such as a governments military, maybe its just to hip to think of wal mart or Microsoft having a military for sale, it just all smacks of mercenary or gun for hire really.

Now what I don’t get is that if backwater is doing such a fine and dandy job, why any aggravation for the Iraqis or its government? I mean from the statistics it would sound like backwater does a fine job and hurts no one really that is not a direct combatant, which kind of seems like a paradox giving so many differing accounts of stuff that happens in Iraq. Which sort of goes into the question of is the Iraq government corrupt in that regard, or is there actual fire to the smoke?

Also without normal or routine regulations to follow, like the UCMJ for instance, I think backwater can take advantage of various loopholes and exploits in a giving system, and taking Iraq into consideration I am sure more then one of those exist. Bottom line to me which should be truly important to everyone is if backwater is actually aiding or detracting from stability in Iraq, and why or why not. Not the jargon or hyper-emotional rhetoric you point out. Personally I don’t know what to say, I don’t think they are helping, I think its a bad situation that lead to the employment of such groups and I really don’t think a private sector army is the way to go really on top of that. I mean the military has various checks and balances in place to stop abuse really, or corruption. Can the same be said of private contractors contracted to fight wars? If not how can we know what they really happen to be doing or thinking or planning?

Gordo, the enitre premise of your post makes no sense to me, since none of the PSD's in Iraq were hired by anybody to 'fight wars'. They provide mobile and fixed security and force protection. They do not enagage in offensive operations. The application of the term mercenary is intellectually lazy in my opinion.

Well, I suppose if, like in Mustang's post- you don't consider tossing flash bang grenades, and shooting at cars that enter thier "zone of comfort", and, well, killing a mom and her daughter in a car, um, offensive- how far does one have to go in Iraq to not be considered "offensive"- They go out into the community, they are armed, they shoot first and ask questions later.

Is there some reason to paint Mustang's scenario, pretty much the majority of the time, as true?

Okay- you got black SUVs- you WILL CONTROL travel where you go and when you go out into the city- we all know that third world traffic is, lets say, chaotic when NOT in a war, and may have thousands of poeple at a busy intersection of the city- on foot, bicycle, scooter, car, bus etc.

So the SUVs go into a busy intersection, because they are "guarding VIPs" and toss flash bang grenades into a busy intersection, at busy times in a city of what, like 7 million poeple or so? and shooting whomever doesn't get out of the way fast enough, explaining them as "collateral damage" or "didn't stop at the command" or "an armed insurgent". If you leave the Green zone, and you are guarding some "VIP", and you have guns- and plan on driving anywhere in Iraq-

I am sorry DTOM, that is an offensive move.

If they don't have a pre-set corridor by military, that bad guys have to pass through a military perimeter to get to the VIP- then they are an offensive force. They get in heavily armed convoys of black armored SUVs and shoot anyone that gets in thier way- thus, similar to Saddam Hussien, sure, Blackwater hasn't lost a person in however long- but Saddam stayed alive by his armed guards too

I can play semantic games also. If Blackwater engages in offensive operations, then they are not defensive are they? If Blackwater isnt' in the business of defense and protection, then neither are celebrity bodyguards, bank guards or grade school hall monitors. You can believe anything you wish, but PSD work is not and has not ever been considered offensive operations in the military/LE lexicon.

Shoot first and ask questions later? You left out 'shoot 'em all and let god sort 'em out' or 'the only good haji is a dead haji'. So much for a healthy, rational debate. Herd mentality rules again.

You and others take a mere handful of events that could be construed as excessive or criminal, and decide to paint an entire organization and industry with the same brush. Since US service members have engaged in events that could be considered excessive or criminal on a far greater scale and frequency than Blackwater, can I assume that you view them as collectively murderers?

Zone of comfort? That's an odd expression........one completely devoid of common sense in regards to the tactical situation in Baghdad. When on one of the roads in the city, comfort bears no relationship with reality. I understand what you mean, but again, framing is everything.

Listen, I'm not going to shed any tears if Blackwater suddenly went bankrupt and dissolved, and I'm not their defense attorney............but just as anyone who sees the way the press and critics attack something or somebody, when you know the reality is different............frustrating. Especially when the argument isn't reasonable, in this case its majority hyperbole and spin.

"Zone of comfort" is somewhat of a sarcastic phrase- because, we all know, there is no such thing in Iraq. Even the green zone isn't really safe- is it? - that being said- back to the question at hand, I think it shows how badly GW has done the military at this point if the mission can not go forward WITHOUT contract "whatever you want to call them" companies.

And yes, if you go out into the population, heavily armed, and most likely to take and give fire, and you are not part of the military- it is more than a bit dishonest to call them anything BUT mercs. They are soldiers of fortune, guns for hire.

Maybe they don't kill everything they can in site- but thier ROE is obviously a bit more lax than our forces there, and thier accountability is nil.

And Erik Prince, or his connections, are to blame for this, because I am quite sure he was the one that initialy insisted on immunity from prosecution for his "troops".

They have no rules, no consequences for thier behavior, and they are guns for hire. What kind of hair splitting do you have to do to NOT call them anything but what they are: Mercs.

Because Blackwater's contract is through State? Why hasn't the military "been allowed to speak to Blackwater employees who were in Nisour Square that day" and "been shown the Blackwater vehicle that the company and State Department officials have said was disabled during the events of Sept. 16" a month after the incident? (Link)

How can you conduct a proper investigation without speaking to witnesses and examining evidence? If the military makes the wrong conclusion it's because State wants it that way.


Has Justice indicted anyone? What could Justice indict them under, if State Department employees, including Blackwater, have legal immunity? I haven't heard of State waiving immunity for anyone.


Are you sure Blackwater classifies them? According to this Waxman asked Blackwater to hand over unclassified documents and State retroactively classified them.

CR, I'll say one last piece about the term mercenary, because it's clear you and I aren't going to agree. I have attempted to apply the term logically, based on the orthodox definitions of the word, and the actual mission of Blackwater: protection and security. Two applications which are defensive in nature. You have chosen to evolve the word to suit your argument, for emotional impact. I'm not insinuating that you cannot utilize words in whatever manner you choose, I'm saying that there is an agenda behind your use. You despise Blackwater and use whatever hyperbole that will add firmament to your argument.



Surely you're not going to turn another thread into a Bush-flame forum, are you? I despise L. Paul Bremer. I believe he is most singly responsible for much of the problem we still have in Iraq, and why ultimately we are going to fail. I do not support his blanket immunity for security contractors, but I have no idea, nor do you, if Prince had Bremer's ear on this matter. It's speculation to demonize the CEO of the company you despise.

Security contractors are separate from the military mission in Iraq. Blackwater specifically, protects State Department and other US government personnel. They were hired to do this, because of a gap in coverage brought on by the violent and chaotic nature of life in Baghdad. A diplomatic mission of this scale has never been the a role for the US military, and DSS was woefully unequipped for it. Security contract companies were the only obvious choice, as they had been employed on one scale or another since the Carter Administration (including the Clinton Administration) up to now. To pin this solely as an issue that the evil George Bush has done our military wrong, is once again political hyperbole.

Lesly, you bring up some good questions, that I don't have the answer to. For all I know State and Defense have pulled out their rulers to see who's is bigger.
I have read that Andrew Moonen is under investigation by the Seattle branch of DoJ. But the question I have for the Blackwater critics is, what would you have had them do to employees committing alleged crimes? Corporations do not have the power to incarcerate and indict. Surely you don't think that 7-11 should catch someone skimming from the till, and lock them in the back room while the manager plays judge and jury, while sipping on a slurpee?

As for classification, it probably would be State that classifies, since Blackwater is working for them, they are following DSS protocols, and DSS agents are supervising.

I am sorry if my earlier post was a bit all over the place I will try better this time around. I think one of the reasons I disagree currently with the method of operation in regards to private contractors, not mercs is the separation. For instance, KBR people. They don’t do much anything to my knowing that is not in a support role. I mean they build or maintain various structures, drive trucks and so on. In the blackwater stance though this all changes, in which you imply its because of the nature of the beast. Well I agree, but on different grounds. You can youtube videos showing blackwater engaged in more they what you are saying is all, and the reality from what I heard is hardly just blackwater acting as bodyguards for a VIP or group of such. Its not that its wrong of right its my point that the Iraq war or how its turned out to be I think makes the U.S dependent on contractors from the simple reality of how many boots happen to be needed on the ground over there. So its really does the Iraq war pose an unneeded effect of requiring "para-military" forces from private sector to conduct large scale combat operations in a combat zone really? I mean if that’s the case then these people need to be governed directly like a military or our military is, or what’s the point save for shooting yourself in the foot to have so many different pages of music to get on?

The number of private contractors operating in Iraq I think is a blatant pointer to one of the more basic fallacies that has allowed Iraq to be a quagmire. General Shinseki basically desired a combat force of up to or more then 400,000 personal for the operation. The U.S in terms of organic military components, such as the army I think fields on average around a third of that, and such is hardly a figure that represents boots on ground, a good percent of that is support personnel such as supply sergeants and medical personal for example, up to people that handle mail. So we have a large gap in which now we have to by what I think is no real choice employ and rely on non governmental based para military organizations for hire.

Looking at the reality that the surge made some progress towards peace, was it simply some better plan or simply more man power, and in reality is it possible to think that the U.S cannot afford to have blackwater leave Iraq regardless of claims such as indiscriminate use of force by the local people and or its "government". How does such help stabilize Iraq in regards to mission accomplished?

It raised a very basic questions as to why this situation exists. Is that element of the Iraq government or itself corrupt, do the locals hate us that much to lie to such a great extent, is blackwater doing things it should not be doing? Is the reality of the Iraq war basically a hip shoot that spawns such environments in which everyone needs to be shot to have security? I mean how did we get here?

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrÆsà nerÅ"), adj., n., pl. -nar·ies.
–adj.
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
–n.
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.
[1350–1400; ME mercenarie < L merc"nn!rius working for pay, hired worker, mercenary, perh., repr. earlier *merc"d(i)n!rius, equiv. to *merc"din-, s. of *merc"d$, a by-form of merc"s, s. merc"d- payment, wage (akin to merx goods; cf. MERCHANT) + -!rius -ARY]
—mer·ce·nar·i·ly (mûrÅsà nârÆà l", mûrÆsà nerÅ-), adv.
—merÆce·narÅi·ness, n.
—Syn. 1. grasping, acquisitive, avaricious, covetous.
—Ant. 1. altruistic, idealistic, unselfish.


The webster dictionary is close enough for me- merely acting for money, reward, venal. This is NOT an altruistic excercise blackwater is in here- they are guns for hire.

Okay- let's back off that for a moment. I think we should call a spade a spade here. That is the problem- just because they are paid by the state department instead of the DOD doesn't absolve them of the term merc.

They are hired, they have guns, thier job is to shoot poeple that get in thier way. They have no ROE, no accountability, no oversite. They make forays into hostile territory and shoot poeple that they feel neccesary to shoot. By maybe the most strictest of definition, since they don't go on missions with you, they aren't mercs. But that is more of a cover than a definition. It is very similar to debating what the definition of "is" is- don't ya think?

It's not a question of BW judiciously using force to keep order. Is there a liberal in America who thinks corporations police themselves?


I've mentioned that I think mercs should be liable under the UCMJ. I'm suspicious of BW's employer (State) doing the right thing when BW is responsible for their security. How impartial can State be? JAGs, at least, had the gonads to challenge the administration on behalf of Gitmo clients. I'd rather leave investigations to CID and charges to military prosecutors. Their boss is the Pentagon but they're not politically invested in the outcome. At least, not as politically invested as State officials.

I've read several articles complaining and yes using the loaded merc descriptor painting mercs in a bad light, but I haven't come across any article that defends executive agencies and certainly not Congress for failing to demand some uniformity under the law. It's inconceivable that as important a role as mercs play in security there could be "little of either" formal training before deployment and/or on-site indoctrination.

It's too late to train company employees that may need it but there's no reason why we shouldn't implement a legal standard. It looks to me like State is stalling and Congress is enabling State because by now the attitude that executive agencies can't get anything done right is contagious. In fact it's my opinion that agency bungling offers too many opportunities for politicians to absolve themselves of responsibility.

If there are real losers here it's Iraqis and the military.

The problem with your hypothesis is that Blackwater is not engaged in any offensive combat operations, supporting the surge or otherwise. Please point to any operations BW conducts in Baghdad that is not PSD-centric. Likewise, the US military, minus the small USMC Embassy Security Force, has not ever been in the large scale diplomatic protection service, the type of service that Baghdad requires. Petiton your representative to boost DSS recuritment, petition them to waive maximum age requirements for agents, and you will attract many people who fit the same demographic as those employed by Blackwater, thus possibly eliminating the need for contract PSD's.



You have now just labled most Americans as mercenaries. So if that is your metric, then yes, they are mercenaries. So am I, so are you.




You have an agenda, you are calling a shovel a spade. But that's your perogative and your opinion, so carry on.



You sure about that? Or are you just basing that off of corporate media?



No.



I completely agree, and have never thought otherwise. Either hold accountable under the UCMJ, which I don't currently think is legal unless you formalize PSD's into the US military reserve.........or hold them accountable under MEJA.



My comment was in response to the many laughable remarks by pundits and myrmidons about 'all Blackwater did to Andrew Moonen was to fire and fine him'.

What makes you so adverse to calling Blackwater mercenaries DTOM? I mean, in the age of "plausible deniability" and twisting defintions so far so that no one has any liability, and spin doctors trying to fix corporate images through using more "politically correct" terms- I would think you would know better.

There have been merc organizations in the past that were not all bad- french foreign legion fits that bill quite well. Seems to me, that the pro-blackwater crowd want to "soften" the image of what Blackwater really does- and that is- they are hired guns. Calling them "private security details" just sounds nicer than "mercenary" I suppose- but one term is certainly NOT more accurate than the other.

Why so adverse to giving Blackwater the more negative word than the soft, spun term?

What you are trying to dance around here is the difference between "sanitation engineer" and "garbage man".

CR, I'm not the one dancing. My foot hasn't lifted a step. In the military/LE lexicon, personal security details have always, and continue to be defensive in nature. It matters not if they travel from point A to point B, they are still protecting the principle, nothing more and nothing less. You have taken the tactical situation in Baghdad - and the mitigation measures required because of it.......and tried to portray the mission as something that it is not.

Then to try and explain it away by waxing about the golden age of plausible deniability, or softening terms (and you may have been using sarcasm here) goes back to what I said before, intellectual laziness. Just because you and others have decided to alter the meaning of a word and use it's convenience in your argument, doesn't mean I have to agree and go along with changing the premise.

If it makes you feel any better to call any PSD organizations mercenaries, then go right ahead. But using your own Webster's definition, Blackwater only qualifies for defintions 1 and 4. And those two defintions fit about 90% of all Americans. Talk about spin........

The best defense is a good offense.

You can call me Jay, you can call me Ray, but don't call me Johnson.

By any other name, a rose is still a rose.

The Blackwater people are hired by the US government and paid for with US tax dollars.

Questionable shots have been fired. Undeniably, lives have been lost.

Justified?

The terrorists made me do it!

But he hit me first!

You can't move around Iraq without PSDs (sounds like a disease). Then there are the EOFs (End Of Files?). Nothing like undefined acronyms to fog up the issue.

We will leave Iraq if the Iraqis ask us.

But apparently we did not mean private contractors hired by the US government. That is somehow not a part of "we."

A pile of crap by any other name is still just what it is.

Corporations are still a part of "we." If they ask "we" to leave, we should go. Let whomever the PSDs are protecting figure it out for themselves.

I imagine there will be a PU (Period of Unrest).

It seems silly to remove Blackwater, a company that has protected many with nary a loss – except to their own, until the investigation of the incident is in.

We all talk about corrupt Iraqi police and security forces and yet we are ready to toss the best security firm in the world out without a full hearing.

And the Iraqi government has OKed their limited use – or quite frankly the convoys would not move.

A US spokeswoman, Mirembe Nantongo, told AFP:
"We have resumed limited movement today. It is very limited and all missions need to be pre-approved. The decision was taken by us in consultation with the Iraqi government. All convoys will be protected by PSDs (private security details). Yes, it is Blackwater."
http://www.infowars.net/articles/september...7Blackwater.htm


But they could be gone in 6 months.
“Baghdad - Iraqi and US officials are negotiating Baghdad's demand that security company Blackwater USA be expelled from the country within six months. American diplomats appear to be working on how to fill the security gap if the company is phased out.”
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...2201934,00.html

Good references, Ted. Thought this was of interest from the second link:



These two moves seem like obvious policies that should have been in place at the beginning. Watch the contractors, eh? I'm pretty closely watched when contracting, and I don't carry guns either. Regardless of the issues about using CASH (Corporate Army Supplementary Horde), video and government supervision seem like no-brainers.

Yes and they will be especially good at refuting false claims. In this case if the cameras where there we would have seen imo that the “civilians” weren’t and fired on the convoy first.


A no brainer for sure.

Actually, neither of our opinions matter. The opinion of the Iraqi PM matters, as does those of the judges who will hear the individual cases. I really don't know who shot first. All I know is that 17 Iraqis got shot, so my opinion goes along these lines:

I don't know who shot first, but you'd think some forensic evidence exists of the shooting. Maybe casings can be collected and taken away, but the bullets probably left at least scratch marks, and maybe one got embedded into something. There's no doubt that Blackwater bullets got embedded. That one guy in the article had four of them -- in his back.

I'll just chalk this up to just one more example of incompetence at the helm. Who ever heard of government contractors with no supervision? Or private-sector contractors? I'll admit it does occasionally happen. It's not considered best practice, and in fact heads usually roll.

Yes, and it's unfortunate that videos aren't available. But then who knows, maybe the "citizens" whipped out their cellphones?

I am sure there are lots of bullet marks and casings to look at. That will not settle the questions. The question is what were the “civilians” doing – were they attacking the convoy? Why?



Ya right another “Bush gets the blame”. This policy has been in place for decades. We, no doubt, do it this way to save money. Supervision costs money, takes men and risks their lives. Lets remember that the Blackwater men are ex SEALS and true professionals in every sense of the word and the fact that they have never lost a protected person or convoy tells you something. I have no doubt they were fired on first. And these are men who can hit, or not hit, small targets. To believe they just sprayed bullets around indiscriminately is imo ludicrous.

So bottom line is whoever replaces them will not, in all likelihood be as good.

Lets then send Teddy K over for a tour covered by the “new guys”.

State convoys have always been under the supervision of at least one DSS agent. They are overall responsible for the convoy and the principle. What remains to be seen is if State had been following through on it's own protocols or not.



Sorry, I try to un-acronym-ize things when I post, but Lesly and I had been discussing Escalation of Force procedures, a few posts back. I thought this one had been defined.

What isn't clear is what actually happened, thats why investigations are ensuing. If Blackwater is found at fault, firing for no defensive purpose, then they should be punished. What is clear however, is the insurgents comfort with sacrificing civilian lives not only in pursuit of their goals, but but as active measures to frame Americans as bloodthirsty, wanton killers. They have recently begun giving away realistic air-soft assault rifles to children. Indistinguishable from any distance from real rifles, in the hopes that they can trumpet the deaths of children by American hands. Certainly a possibility in this case. Open fire from a covered position at an American convoy in a crowded traffic circle, knowing that return fire would be likely to kill civilians trying to flee the fracas.
Just as believable as Blackwater opening fire for not apparent reason in a crowded traffic circle.

Dubya has self proclaimed as a war president to many other remarks I would directly attack in relation to this post, but to say the least responsibility definitely is within his scope. Any operations going on in Iraq one way or another tie to him and his administration, he for all intensive purposes along with Cheney and good old(in hiding) rummy breed this war. The personal chain all the way down to an airmen directly deals with the decisions they do or do not make. This would pertain to blackwater also. If for instance the reality of how blackwater operates along with any other U.S body in Iraq could produce unstable or chaotic results needed to be I would hope something factored into decisions people in control would make. If the reality of Iraq as by people pulling strings is going bad, the people primarily responsible for that reality in the first place, such as the U.S, a free nation invading another nation on the command of its commander in chief which holds then responsibility on him and his admin should have realized this.

I guess it goes back to the comment of going to war with the army you have, what a famous remark. I mean what was that to mean really in light of all that has occurred and even this situation? Now it may sound bad or politically bias but we have a war going on that currently has no end in site costing a heavy toll in regards to live and treasure and in reality I would suggest that this incident with blackwater is not something completely isolated from the environment of Iraq in any historical context.

If you don’t rest the blame on bush for this where does the fault go exactly? I mean we are in Iraq because of him right? Did he just sign the order and expect everything else to be death with by someone else with no repercussions?

To make a short story even shorter, when you say things like its just another blame bush, you make it nearly impossible to connect any logical consequences of his actions to this conflict or the environment its produces, you basically attempt to reduce any attempts of such as nothing more then merely a product of partisan politics. Does bush cause everything in Iraq to be what it is, no I don’t think so, he did though start and maintain and hold prime control over the domain of Iraq in regards to U.S involvement at any level really. So when does something become acceptable to attribute to him, my guess is the right would simply say capturing saddam for the most part.

So are you saying that Mustang's account is improbable, the exception to the rule, or impossible? How likely is it that Mustang's account is the most likely realistic scenario? It definately sounds like something you posted earlier about "knowing they need to get out of the way black SUVs"

It is NOT intellectually lazy to call guns for hire than make offensive moves (though a stretch of logic to call them purely defensive, since they are the ones moving into hostile zones) it is intellectually lazy to try and make the definition so narrow that no force on the planet can really be called "mercs".

Hired guns doing jobs the military should be doing= mercs. Not too much to debate about it.

I'm not saying, nor have I said that Mustang's account was improbable or impossible. He has his experience with PSD's and I have mine.......I respect his opinion, but the two don't necessarily have to be the same. I'm simply not falling in with the knee-jerk reactionary crowd who's entire knowledge of Blackwater is derived from an article in the MSM or leftist publication. I, as I would hope any rational person would do, am trying to examine the facts that are known, add in a dose of reality and wait for the investigations to conclude. I haven't ever said that I know Blackwater to be innocent of all charges. I am simply familiar with mitigating circumstances that effect all actions when moving around in Baghdad, and that tempers my judgment, unlike others.



It absolutely is, in my opinion. And who exactly trying to narrow the definiton so that no force on the planet can be called mercenaries? How about personnel who are hired to serve in a foreign army? How about a group that is contracted by a nation to conduct offensive combat operations against a foe? Both are mercenaries, neither are Blackwater. I'm sure a time will come soon where you will believe a definition has been altered by the masses, to suit an agenda, that is contrary to what you know to be true. PM me when that happens and we'll share an online virtual beer.

Nice framing, by the way, since they are the ones moving into hostile zones. It suits your argument to make it appear that Blackwater chooses to drive through Baghdad for no other reason than to mix it up with the locals.

From your quote:

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrÆsà nerÅ"), adj., n., pl. -nar·ies.
–adj.
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal. Blackwater? Sure, as are most of us.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc. Blackwater? Nope.
–n.
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. Blackwater? Nope.
4. any hireling. Blackwater? Sure, as are most of us.





I ask again, when has the military assumed sole protection responsibility for State Department or other agencies, aside from the rather small USMC Embassy Security Force? I'm not saying that it can't evolve into a DoD mission, but I wonder where the outrage was when Carter and Clinton government agencies used PSD's.

ABCNews.com has the first pictures from surveillance cameras that captured some of the September 16th Blackwater incident in Baghdad. I don't see anything to convince me one way or the other, but a few people here have been looking for the images, so I thought I'd post a link.

Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this furrther proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

If the Iraqi government truly demanded the expulsion of Blackwater from Iraq, they wouldn't be there. Last I heard, they were in negotiations for restricted use of Blackwater in certain areas.

Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

The first step towards that (getting Blackwater out) would be revoking the immunity they agreed upon. They did so a couple of days ago. Though this doesn't offer retroactive prosecution, it is definitely a step towards getting private contractors out of Iraq. No contractor would wish to be prosecuted under Iraqi law, even if they are not guilty of a crime. Few individuals would be willing to take such a risk in this (already dangerous) environment. I predict we'll either see a swift retraction of this revokation (or alternately a new law written to mean virtually the same thing as the old one) or private contractors leaving in droves rather quickly now.