Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[Rob Thornton]

Today's SWJ OPED Round Up and Yesterday's OPED Roundup both had some of the recent commentary. The United States will have to grow (considerably - perhaps more then planned) its tools of foreign policy - the Military, the Foreign Service, CIA, Justice, and the Inter-Agency etc. if it wants the flexibility to meet its commitments without filling the holes and cracks with PMCs - the PMCs saw the hole we (America) created and filled it.

We created our reliance on PMCs - this is a self-inflicted GSW. There should be no surprises that contracting out the nation's interests can result in consequences other then we had intended. When you put on the uniform you are different, and when you take it off you are different. Being asked to employ violence while in uniform means excepting the responsibilities and the strengths of the convictions and values the uniform represents - the straight jacket is the UCMJ, and unit loyalty. Taking off the uniform and taking on personal risk and doing violence for a paycheck is different - I don't know if there is a better illustration then that.

To me, the question is where do we go from here? I'd also add that even if we decide to fill our own holes - a process that a few years at the very minimum to fix (in a perfect world), goes beyond recruiting - toward competition with the PMCs to retain some of our best trained mid level folks, and to some degree relies on the political leadership to authorize, fund and equip the increase in manpower, and relies on the American public to volunteer on a much larger scale for service.

Even so - PMCs will probably still be seen on the battlefield. They have made their value on the world market known - and there are others who will contract their services.

[sgmgrumpy]

I am not defended what happened, but when we talk about UCMJ and all the other DOD rules, you also have to find out or know what type of contract the individuals are operating under. DOS never has, and never will allow DOD to control what they do. It’s like a bad marriage.

Everyone is focused on this particular BW incident and forgetting or at least maybe not knowing that these particular BW folks are operating under a DOS WPPS Diplomatic Security which is NOT a DOD contract. They work for State Department, so labeling them as military contractors is not an accurate designation but of course the media seems to jump on that terminology. They are performing duties what normally would be filled by Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Special Agents.

It’s amazing what’s contracted now days. Just go to and look through some of the pre-solicitations for contracts. Don’t forget to browse by branch or agency

You don't even want to know the amount of a three year contract that was awarded to a Company to provide protection to a foreign dignitary and his family living in Calif., USA

[Steve Blair]

Then maybe someone should try nailing the accountability to DOS and see how fast they can scamper for the darkness....

[tequila]

sgm - If you think contracting is out of control on the DoS/DoD side, I suggest avoiding what is going on in the intel side, in all the alphabet soup agencies: DIA, CIA, NSA, etc.

Over the past six years, a quiet revolution has occurred in the intelligence community toward wide-scale outsourcing to corporations and away from the long-established practice of keeping operations in US government hands, with only select outsourcing of certain jobs to independently contracted experts. Key functions of intelligence agencies are now run by private corporations. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) revealed in May that 70 percent of the intelligence budget goes to contractors.

For all practical purposes, effective control of the NSA is with private corporations, which run its support and management functions. As the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reported last year, more than 70 percent of the staff of the Pentagon's newest intelligence unit, CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity), is made up of corporate contractors. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) lawyers revealed at a conference in May that contractors make up 51 percent of the staff in DIA offices. At the CIA, the situation is similar. Between 50 and 60 percent of the workforce of the CIA's most important directorate, the National Clandestine Service (NCS), responsible for the gathering of human intelligence, is composed of employees of for-profit corporations.

[sgmgrumpy]

Ah Yes,

The Spy who Billed Me!

You gotta watch those intel types. They are sneeky

[tequila]

Yup, Ms. Hillhouse wrote the NATION article - an excellent piece of work. I'm still struggling to see the upside of doing all this stuff in the private sector. Seriously, are we saving that much money?

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

Yup, Ms. Hillhouse wrote the NATION article - an excellent piece of work. I'm still struggling to see the upside of doing all this stuff in the private sector. Seriously, are we saving that much money?

My gut guess is that it all depends on how you are doing your accounting. If you bear no fiscal responsibility for IO disasters or cleaning up the messes they are leaving, then yes, it does make fiscal sense. If, on the other hand,you have to account for cleaning up the messes, then I don't see how it makes sense.

[Stan]

I'll but defend DIA, where most of the services lend out their soldiers, keep said soldiers in promotion limbo by placing them within 71L (administration for the uninitiated), and about the point they become productive, their gone, or frustrated into leaving. I retired

There's no where left to go but DA civilians, and even they won't stay for peanuts.

Then there's the analysts (somewhere in the basement). They need at least three masters, two languages, 10 years of experience (anywhere will do) and absolutely no sunshine (windows).

I recon all those available Blackwater dudes will be lookin' for a DC job

[skiguy]

Rob, that is an excellent post, sir!

Dumb question time (I haven't asked one in a while). Do civilians embedded with the military fall under UCMJ rules?

[Presley Cannady]

Yup, Ms. Hillhouse wrote the NATION article - an excellent piece of work. I'm still struggling to see the upside of doing all this stuff in the private sector. Seriously, are we saving that much money?

I don't know about money, but one thing's for sure. A government paycheck won't attract or keep people who do SIGINT these days, and those it does can't keep up with the private sector. My impression is that the government simply contracts certain lines of crypto and search innovation into secrecy.

[marct]

We created our reliance on PMCs - this is a self-inflicted GSW. There should be no surprises that contracting out the nation's interests can result in consequences other then we had intended.

Agreed, Rob. But I want to point to one horrific example of what has happened with a too strong reliance on mercenaries, especially when there is no form of accountability: the Thirty Years War and, in particular, the Massacre at Magdeburgh.

I know, at the moment it is a false analogy, but it keeps cropping up n my mind as a worst case scenario and, quite frankly, with not a darn thing happening to reign these people in and make them accountable it is, in my cynical opinion, becoming much more likely. We have already seen the reactions of many Iraqi's to the actions of PMCs being uncontrolled and, in many cases, unpunished. This is an IO winfall for AQI and any other insurgent group. And, more importantly, let me just note that incidents like this one and others actually make a Jihad quite legal in even the most mainstream forms of Sunni Islam.

Even so - PMCs will probably still be seen on the battlefield. They have made their value on the world market known - and there are others who will contract their services.

Quite true but, with respect Rob, it is in some ways irrelevant, at least in the sense that we can take it as a given for the future. What is of primary importance now and in the future is getting mechanisms that hld them accountable for their actions.

I am not defended what happened, but when we talk about UCMJ and all the other DOD rules, you also have to find out or know what type of contract the individuals are operating under. DOS never has, and never will allow DOD to control what they do. It’s like a bad marriage.

Everyone is focused on this particular BW incident and forgetting or at least maybe not knowing that these particular BW folks are operating under a DOS WPPS Diplomatic Security which is NOT a DOD contract. They work for State Department, so labeling them as military contractors is not an accurate designation but of course the media seems to jump on that terminology. They are performing duties what normally would be filled by Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Special Agents.

Does this mean that they have some form of diplomatic immunity? Even if that is the case, there is precedent for expulsion and requesting the originating nation to lay charges. This happened in Canada a while back with a Russian diplomat who killed someone in a car "accident" (BA content of .02+). I suspect there are other precedents for it as well.

To my mind, this means that the people involved in this incident should be expelled and indicted in the US under US law. As sgmgrumpy noted, there are private "security" details in the US - I can just imagine how US citizens would react to some of them randomly firing into traffic!

To me, the question is where do we go from here? I'd also add that even if we decide to fill our own holes - a process that a few years at the very minimum to fix (in a perfect world), goes beyond recruiting - toward competition with the PMCs to retain some of our best trained mid level folks, and to some degree relies on the political leadership to authorize, fund and equip the increase in manpower, and relies on the American public to volunteer on a much larger scale for service.

I definitely think you're right about that, Rob. Hmm, I really don't know US military policy as well as I should, but aren't officers available for recall after they leave? Would it be feasible (or even possible ) to add a rider to the legislation/admin rules (whatever) to he effect that if hey are engaged in "civilian" employment in a battlezone they, as individuals, are subject to the UCMJ?

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I definitely think you're right about that, Rob. Hmm, I really don't know US military policy as well as I should, but aren't officers available for recall after they leave? Would it be feasible (or even possible ) to add a rider to the legislation/admin rules (whatever) to he effect that if hey are engaged in "civilian" employment in a battlezone they, as individuals, are subject to the UCMJ?

Marc

I believe this is the case for officers, but EM are not subject to recall (one of the reasons Calley was the only one ever really put on trial for . That would just shift the PMC hiring targets a bit.

It was hinted at earlier, but I think the best way to hit these bastards is in the wallet. Kick 'em out, levy substantial fines/penalties, turn them over to local authorities in some cases (and this one certainly sounds like one of those cases), and block them from future employment with US governmental agencies.