PMC / Mercenaries in Iraq (catch all)

[SteveMetz]

And I thought that my comments were 'original" since they were based on experiences and observations as a soldier, a contractor, and a DOD civilian.
It is interesting that others made similar observations earlier. Since my education is sorely lacking in that I have never read Hammes and haven't gotten around to Rick's yet, would you be good enough to provide the full Hammes citation and the Ricks page citation?

Thanks

JohnT

I also quote T.X. on that point in my Rethinking Insurgency monograph. Guess you haven't gotten around to THAT either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The passage is on pages 370-371 of Fiasco.

I have to pass on an anecdote about Fiasco though. On pp. 323-324 Ricks wrote, "'Rotating nearly the entire force at once degraded capability, [and that] may have contributed to loss of control over several cities in the Sunni Triangle,' wrote the Iraq Stabilization Study Team, a group at the [Army War] college's Strategic Studies Institute that has produced some of the military establishment's most insightful work on the Iraq war."

Let me tell you who was on said "team": me. We did a two part study in 2003. The main part dealt with the conventional ops. When the professor who prepared it briefed our Commandant, he was berated for putting the names of the analytical team on the first slide. He was told that you don't put individual names on tasked studies. Lesson learned. I ran up to the office and took my name off of the first slide of my briefing (which dealt with the "postconflict" period). I had to put something there, so I made up the name "Iraq Stabilization Study Team."

Actually, my briefing was never official released, so someone leaked it to Tom. But I need to fill him in on this next time I see him.

[Tom Odom]

Actually, my briefing was never official released, so someone leaked it to Tom. But I need to fill him in on this next time I see him.

Be sure and get the team's approval before you do....

[goesh]

This whole business is about like throwing rocks at cats - you scare 'em a bit and in a flash they are in the weeds laying low or they are sprinting off out of range. Public perception is about like the thrown rock, it seldom does any damage and the thrown rock is what the cat responds to - it doesn't need to make the connection between thrower and rock. State projects its own image of being distinct and separate from the military by not being surrounded with uniforms. The Public hears of these murdering mercenaries then sees them surrounding Condi and others, protecting them from murdering jihadis. They hear Generals and other wagging heads tell them that there should have been more troops in Iraq to begin with, they hear constantly that the Military's mission is not succeeding, that all is chaos doom and gloom but the military can rein in the mercenaries and everything is going to be fine once this happens. The Public should be told too how many more billion it is going to cost to manage mercenaries, since the latter can get mini-Ops up and running with but a few words or some texting or one call or one email. What's the cost comparative/efficiency ratio here anyway? 50-1? That may be conservative. It reminds me of the hearing some Congressman had when Halliburton was gouging plywood prices during the Kosovo dust-up. Halliburton Reps entered the meeting, sat down and told them if they didn't like the prices being charged, they were free to hire someone else then walked out. The cost of any reconstruction projects would horrifically increase if a military security bill were attached to the total overhead. Throw another rock at that cat, he is only 35 meters away in heavy cover, he should be easy to kill.

[Mark O'Neill]

This whole business is about like throwing rocks at cats - you scare 'em a bit and in a flash they are in the weeds laying low or they are sprinting off out of range. Public perception is about like the thrown rock, it seldom does any damage and the thrown rock is what the cat responds to - it doesn't need to make the connection between thrower and rock. State projects its own image of being distinct and separate from the military by not being surrounded with uniforms. The Public hears of these murdering mercenaries then sees them surrounding Condi and others, protecting them from murdering jihadis. They hear Generals and other wagging heads tell them that there should have been more troops in Iraq to begin with, they hear constantly that the Military's mission is not succeeding, that all is chaos doom and gloom but the military can rein in the mercenaries and everything is going to be fine once this happens. The Public should be told too how many more billion it is going to cost to manage mercenaries, since the latter can get mini-Ops up and running with but a few words or some texting or one call or one email. What's the cost comparative/efficiency ratio here anyway? 50-1? That may be conservative. It reminds me of the hearing some Congressman had when Halliburton was gouging plywood prices during the Kosovo dust-up. Halliburton Reps entered the meeting, sat down and told them if they didn't like the prices being charged, they were free to hire someone else then walked out. The cost of any reconstruction projects would horrifically increase if a military security bill were attached to the total overhead. Throw another rock at that cat, he is only 35 meters away in heavy cover, he should be easy to kill.

True perhaps, but that does not make it right or desirable.