NationStates Jolt Archive

People keep talking about the "civilian" contracters whose deaths kicked off the battle in Falluja. And it has been discussed that they were all ex-special forces members, and debated as to whether paramilitary forces were a more legitimate target than simple aid workers - although we all agree that the treatment of their bodies was abhorrent.

But what has rarely been discussed is the scope of how many of these heavilly armed "civilians" there are in Iraq right now.

In actuality, over 20,000 private "security staff" are toting guns and engaging in running battles with Iraqis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4688033/)

It's to the point where the US's head man in Iraq is guarded by his own private army, rather than under the auspices of the military that he directs.

The reasons for this are suspect to my mind. It enables security detail work to be done while not showing an increase in actual troops stationed in-country. I would wager that private rates is also far more expensive to the taxpayer, but that it gets hidden under the costs of reconstruction rather than the costs apportioned to the military.

But the end result is that a 20,000+ strong private army of heavilly armed men are engaged in combat in Iraq, and that these people do so outside the regular command and control structures needed to pacify the country and win them over to the process of democratization.

What will hapen, I wonder, if one of these contracters screws up and hoses down a car approaching his post that turns out to have an important Iraqi's family inside? Who takes the fall for that politically?

Andwho guarantees the qualifications of these people to do this job. What if a screwup occurs and it turns out the guy was booted from the military for being a loose canon? Who does the in-country handover and training as they rotate in and out of Baghdad? Who calls them on the carpet for minor screwups that could be precursers to larger mistakes? And under what exact rules of engagement do these pople operate?

Anyone know?


If they need 20,000 or 30,000 more people to secure the work being done in Iraq, it should be done by real troops - not mercenaries. The risks to this approach are just too high.

-Z-

They really aren't mercenaries. They're private security guards. The Pentagon hires them to protect civilian convoys and such. Paul Bremer's guarded by them because he's not with the military--he's with the state department. For the most part, their rules of engagement are to shoot only when shot at, but I don't know about training qualifications. However, these guys are ex-soldiers.

This IS still a military occupation right?

Where the US is supposedly living up to it's geneva conventions requirements to provide security to the country it has taken over?


Having 20-30,000 extra armed men fighting pitched battles around the country outside the control of the established security policies and control structures seems an unneccessary and potentially complicating factor.

The fact that we are having to guess their qualifications and ROE - not to mention the accountability factor - I think says enough about the risks involved in this decision.

-Z-

This IS still a military occupation right?

Where the US is supposedly living up to it's geneva conventions requirements to provide security to the country it has taken over?


Having 20-30,000 extra armed men fighting pitched battles around the country outside the control of the established security policies and control structures seems an unneccessary and potentially complicating factor.

The fact that we are having to guess their qualifications and ROE - not to mention the accountability factor - I think says enough about the risks involved in this decision.

-Z-

A few thoughts... just because you or I do not know the qualifications behind these people does not mean those in charge do not. My understanding is that the government works quite closely with Blackwater to ensure high levels of qualifications.

I don't believe these mercenaries (and yes, that's basically what they are) are engaged in heavy fighting at this point; my understanding is that they are not part of any defensive or offensive action, and merely undertake some of the more day-to-day elements of the operations.

The US is clearly trying to live up to these obligations. I don't think it's fair to criticize them on this count, especially because they were doing reasonably well in terms of keeping violence low until this recent outbreak.

I know that these people ARE accountable to Bremer and the civilian arm of the occupation administration. They're not a bunch of thugs let loose in the country side.

Finally, I think it's fine to contract out certian types of work- contractors become increasingly valuable as the demand for specialization increases. My understanding is that many of these people were selected because they can speak the language and are familiar with the culture, which is something of a rarity in the 'grunt' sections of the US mlitary.

It's also good to point out that most every rich country uses one for civilian convoys and diplomats. I think that these guards are also part of a trend in the army. Rumsfeld's plan for getting more troops is to eliminate jobs from the military like cooks, janitors, even some logistics people, and turn them into "trigger troops". These jobs will be replaced by private contractors. And in this war, the ratio of private contractors to soldiers is the highest ever.

What scares me the most is why would an army, who have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, hire private contractors who do not?
These guys are not protected (or held accountable to) rules of engagement. What would happen if they were kidnapped? Who would be held accountable if they commit war crimes?

bump, i asked those questions because i'm genuinely curious. Don't make them rhetorical people ;)

from what i've heard their is some question as to these men's legal accountability for their actions in iraq. they are not under the military's uniform code of justice. they are technically under the iraqi civilian judicial system. however considing its present state of overcrowding and political problems that would result if they attempted to try americans at this point, they are effectively under no judicial constrants. this is a problem in my opinion, if the US military is going to contract out its work to civilians who have a large paramilitary element some system of policing these individuals should be in place.


i'm sure most of these men are honorable and competent, but an american unaccountable private army makes disarming iraqs various militias seem a bit hypocritical. though i support the occupation, sometimes i think the military and the administration need to consider the pr effect of certain of their actions more carefully.

What scares me the most is why would an army, who have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, hire private contractors who do not?
These guys are not protected (or held accountable to) rules of engagement. What would happen if they were kidnapped? Who would be held accountable if they commit war crimes?

by the way two us soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian contracts are presently missing in iraq after a fuel convoy attack.

This IS still a military occupation right?

Where the US is supposedly living up to it's geneva conventions requirements to provide security to the country it has taken over?


Having 20-30,000 extra armed men fighting pitched battles around the country outside the control of the established security policies and control structures seems an unneccessary and potentially complicating factor.

The fact that we are having to guess their qualifications and ROE - not to mention the accountability factor - I think says enough about the risks involved in this decision.

-Z-

Just who do you think made the decision? Many of these private contractors work for news and aid organisations.If we get rid of the mercenaries, who would go to Iraq to provide aid and report events? No sane person, I'm sure. The military doesn't have the numbers or the responsibility for holding the hand of everyone in Iraq. Even if the military carried out all of the duties that the mecenaries are carrying out, do you think that would invite more violence or less? I think more. As far as the rules that mercenaries follow, I think that would be determined by thier employers.