Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[SWJED]

24 January Associated Press - 4 Americans in Iraq Crash Shot in Head.

Four of the five Americans killed when a U.S. security company's helicopter crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad were shot execution style in the back the head, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday.

A senior Iraqi military official said a machine gunner downed the helicopter, but a U.S. military official in Washington said there were no indications that the aircraft, owned by Blackwater USA, had been shot out of the sky. Two Sunni insurgent groups, separately, claimed responsibility for the crash.

In Washington, a U.S. defense official said four of the five killed were shot in the back of the head but did not know whether they were still alive when they were shot. The defense official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record...

[sgmgrumpy]

1. Is there an entity other than the Dept. of Labor that tracks the number of civ. contractors killed and wounded in Iraq?

The only one I know of that is even close to being accurate. I am told the numbers are actually much higher.


http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx

[Danny]

It is tragic, this loss of civilians. But I would like to pose the simple question, "what do the losses have to do with whether firms like Blackwater are used at all?"

In other words, you can question the wisdom of the use of contractors, or you can justify their use. But the connection of the two issues (a) the use of them, and (b) potential or actual losses, elludes me.

It is either justified or not, regardless of the losses incurred - it would seem to me. Or perhaps I am missing the point. Perhaps this is simply a convenient opportunity to mention your general reluctance to use contractors, regardless of the fact that they sustained losses today.

T'would be a fairly significant change. Contractors are in significant use today in Iraq. In fact, it would seem that they have had relatively few casualties given the high usage (not to belittle the tragedy of the losses at all, just making statistical observations). It might be an informative statistic to know just how many contractors there are at any one time, compared with casualty rate. Then, compare this with Marines, Soldiers, etc.

[Culpeper]

Wasn't there something in the news not too long ago that will place these types of security personnel under the UCMJ? Blackwater is another example of the new face on today's battle front. Apparently, Blackwater et al brings a certain amount of hatred against them from the enemy. You see, the enemy gets to execute these guys and the counterinsurgency gets hammered for far less offenses. Nevertheless, a successful counterinsurgency has to maintain a higher standard than the insurgency. Why is it that America always has to fight ruthless people. I think the last somewhat civilized and professional military we went up against was the Germans.

I wonder what people working for a company like Blackwater are going to do on their own for the execution, if true, of their fellow employees? I can understand shooting down the chopper in a fight but to murder the wounded really pisses me off. I realize that Blackwater folks are professionals but do you think they will exact some revenge?

[Jedburgh]

....Contractors are in significant use today in Iraq. In fact, it would seem that they have had relatively few casualties given the high usage...

There are more "contractors" KIA/WIA in Iraq than you hear about in the headlines - partly because the stories get buried, partly because often they are not Americans. Just recently Unity Resources Group, a company with which I have some contact, lost three personnel in an ambush in Baghdad - but although the principal was a US citizen (also killed), none of them were.

Wasn't there something in the news not too long ago that will place these types of security personnel under the UCMJ?

Washington Post, 15 Jan 07: New Law Could Subject Civilians to Military Trial

[Tom Odom]

In other words, you can question the wisdom of the use of contractors, or you can justify their use. But the connection of the two issues (a) the use of them, and (b) potential or actual losses, elludes me.

The linkage is quite simple: if the US government decides it is necessary to put armed forces on the ground, then the US government needs to equip train and deploy US government forces to do that job. Contractors are offered as a "cheap" or "short term" fix for what are often self-created shortfalls. Sustained use of PMCs is hardly cheap or short term--and those self-created gaps remain gaps.

As for losses, the seemingly invisble use of contractors--especially in a direct action mode--only gets pulled aside when losses like this occur. Contract direct action forces are used in this manner because their losses are less an issue in Congress.

This was in the case in using mercs in Africa, especually the Congo.

Tom

[zdfg]

These men operate under DoS/DS/WPPS regulation. They are trained, vetted, and fall under control of federal agents/agencies. It is cheaper to deploy former SPECOPS/COMBAT ARMS/LE personnel for specific mission sets that in many cases are at/or below their skills levels to augment missions that are above the skillsets of federal agents trained for low/medium security risk environments. It is cost effective to deploy them short term, than to recruit, train, maintain, retire a federal agent.

To refer to these men as mercenaries or purely as civilians is inaccurate. Most of these men are former TF160, Ranger Regiment, and SPECOPS. They share the ideology, motivation, and adherance to tradition of their uniformed counterparts.

[jcustis]

zdfg, since your location show Kabul, would you care to share a short introduction?

If you are currently working contract security, your views would certainly be appreciated when the subject of PMCs comes up. As you have seen, the SWC has a forum dedicated specifically to PMCs, and we need members from that field.

If you aren't comfortable posting much in the open, please PM me or SWJED, and we will check things out and "certify" you as a real-deal BTDT.

[Bill Moore]

Tom,

I share your concerns, but don't come to the same conclusion. What is wrong with solutions that make sense economically? If it is cheaper to use Blackwater and other PMCs to do critical fringe work like provide VIP security, why not? For the most part they are better trained and not encumbered by the military bureaucracy. We all feel for those and their families who are lost in this fight, but they understand the hazardous nature of their work, and unfortunately sometimes that risk comes to fruition. Of course it makes the news, then everyone starts second guessing the wisdom of employing them, but if their mission was providing security for the Dept of State, it is better that they provide it, then pulling our Special Ops types from the field to do it. It appears to me to a functional compliment to our manning strategy.

When a contractor commits a crime, as those mentioned above, they definitely need to get hammered, or hurts all of us. If that isn't happening, then it needs to get fixed ASAP.

We're fighting networked enemies with a hierarchical bureacracy, so if we can incorporate (pun intended) more flexibility in our approach I'm for it (however the problems you mentioned need to be addressed). I think some of our ideas on security are outdated. A private security company out of S. Africa did outstanding work in Sierra Leone, probably saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives, because they "had" the flexibility to act, while bureaucratic militaries sat on the side lines. However, do to fears of "mercenary" operations with all the old connotations, they were forced to pull out, and as anticipated the Gangs went on a murdering rampage.

I know you frequently mention the situation in Rwanda, would you have objected to a PMC if they could have saved thousands of lives?

This is a subject that governments need to reconsider. PMC's are highly practical and can save thousands of lives around the world, where professional militaries are simply prohibited from going due to their states' political processes. It really confuses what is right and what is wrong, but I'm a simple guy, if you can save lives with a PMC, then use them. What is key is the P "Professional".

Bill

[marct]

Hi Bill,

This is a subject that governments need to reconsider. PMC's are highly practical and can save thousands of lives around the world, where professional militaries are simply prohibited from going due to their states' political processes. It really confuses what is right and what is wrong, but I'm a simple guy, if you can save lives with a PMC, then use them. What is key is the P "Professional".

As ZDFG probably noted, I'm one of the people who doesn't see a distinction between PMCs and mercenaries. Having said that, I actually don't have a problem with governments hiring mercenaries (outside of those raised by Machiavelli in The Art of War) in the abstract. I do have a problem wth the way a number of the current contracts appear, and let me emphasize the word "appear", to be constructed in such a limited manner. You mentioned the Sierra Leone case with Executive Outcomes. That was a good example of what could be done with mercenaries and, barring international pressure against them, the would have been able to guarantee security.

My complaint is not with mercenaries per se, as ZDFG notes, many are very well trained and highly disciplined. In fact, they are probably better trained, on the average, than many national army troops. My complaint is with the term PMC and some spurious attempt to create a new categorical term for mercenaries.

Marc

[Tom Odom]

Tom,

I share your concerns, but don't come to the same conclusion. What is wrong with solutions that make sense economically? If it is cheaper to use Blackwater and other PMCs to do critical fringe work like provide VIP security, why not? For the most part they are better trained and not encumbered by the military bureaucracy. We all feel for those and their families who are lost in this fight, but they understand the hazardous nature of their work, and unfortunately sometimes that risk comes to fruition. Of course it makes the news, then everyone starts second guessing the wisdom of employing them, but if their mission was providing security for the Dept of State, it is better that they provide it, then pulling our Special Ops types from the field to do it. It appears to me to a functional compliment to our manning strategy.

....Bill

Bill

On PMCs and contractors in general, I see the 60,000 or so contractors on Iraq as economic insanity; 4 years does not a "short-term solution make".

On wisdom of PMCs doing the undoable, maybe just maybe in the name of the United Nations, OAS, OAU that makes sense. But in the name of the United States? We take oaths as Soldiers, Diplomats, and even Civil Servants to represent, sustain, and defend the Constitution. Our government is one of deliberate pollitical debate; we do not engage in private wars or wars as private enterprise. If we need PMCs or whatever you call them to fill in such missions. maybe just maye that mission is not ours.

As for Rwanda, aside from actively recruiting an Israeli-Zairios merc force on the ground, I also met with a Brit company that did our local security forces in Kinshasa and was looking at the mission in the camps. The senior rep in Zaire was Sam Melessi and I bumped into him and a Brit on the UN L-100 flight from Kigali to Nairobi. They were bidding on a camp contract; I asked Sam if he was going to be able to shoot folks as necessary. He responded that the ROE would be "liberally" interpreted.

If Sam's mission or the Israeli-Zairios force that actually got the mission had had the capacity to disarm the camps, then maybe, Bill, I would look on it as a success. They did not; the camps became another self-licking ice cream cone of contractors, NGOs, and UNHCR spenidning millions and millions of dollars to sustain 1 million bloody handed "refugees."

In contrast we had a force on the ground that could have taken on the mission--UNAMIR 2--but we as the world community lacked the will to use it. Later, the US and the UK would actually be in the process of finally doing something when the Rwandan military resolved the camp situation but sparked an even greater war.

As for niches in dip protection; again that is a self-licking ice cream cone. We justify the need to fill the need rather than addressing the origin of the need. If we have too many folks that need this sort of escort we have 2 options: reduce the numbers requiring the escort/protection or two increase the number of USG tranied escorts. Put the money into a sustained program versus a "short-term" fill that seems to only expand.

Best

Tom