Reply With Quotebut not a good move on Blackwater's part...assuming of course that the current story is what actually happened. I haven't heard enough about this yet to hazard a guess either way.
Fallout from the Blackwater Shooting
More here.Associated Press BAGHDAD — The Interior Ministry said Monday that it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghdad.
The ministry said it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force in the Sunday incident.
Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight people were killed and 13 were wounded when security contractors working for Blackwater USA opened fire in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad.
"We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities," Khalaf said.
Blackwater, based in North Carolina, provides security for many U.S. civilian operations in the country. Phone messages left early Monday at Blackwater's office in North Carolina and with a company spokeswoman were not immediately returned.
Example is better than precept.
Only a matter of time, I guess...
but not a good move on Blackwater's part...assuming of course that the current story is what actually happened. I haven't heard enough about this yet to hazard a guess either way.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Devil's Advocate
Much has been written here and elsewhere about the insurgency's tactic of using civilians as shields. They will often shoot from the crowd hoping to evoke a lethal response which helps them win in the IO realm and possibly creates new recruits from those directly affected (i.e. those wounded or friends/family of those wounded or killed). Could this be more of the same? By pulling the credentials of this company, are we actually giving the terrorists what they want? They have previously attacked the UN and some of our smaller allies to get them to pull out of Iraq. Is this an updated version of that tactic?
Disclaimer: I am not advocating a blank check for contractors and believe that any contractors that violate the law should be held accountable.
-john bellflower
Rule of Law in Afghanistan
"You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)
Contract security firms, as a generalization, do more to screw up an AO than anything the owning unit can do. Often they don't coordinate with the owning unit. They are there and paid to protect their cargo, be it materials or people. FM3-24 is not part of their contract.
Example is better than precept.
As for being "held accountable", isn't this one of the big issues with using contractors, mercenaries, Hessians, hired guns or whatever term is in vogue these days? I don't think they are accountable to the UCMJ. Does the Iraqi courts system have any jurisdiction over this? I guess rather than bother with the hassle of trying something like this in court, just telling them to leave seems easier.Originally Posted by LawVol
No signature required, my handshake is good enough.
The tactic of shooting from the crowd in order to attempt to elicit an undisciplined response that will kill civilians is directed at turning the population (and members of the Iraqi government) against the US and its allies (or simply deepening already existing resentment and anger). The bad guys don't really care if BW specifically stays or goes - they want us all out.
Your last statement is a false analogy. For example, the bombing of the UN HQ and the Jordanian Embassy in '03 were direct attacks specifically intended to drive those representatives out of Iraq, and, by extension, to send an explicit warning to the wider diplomatic community in Baghdad. BW just ain't important enough to target in that manner.
The Iraqi government insisting that BW get out is an unintended side-effect of the of the incident that caused it all. I'm sure the bad guys welcome their departure, but the resulting perceptions of indiscriminate killing of civilians are far more important in the big picture.
Blood Lust and Gunmen
Just my opinion but it boils down to whom the State Dept. and the big money boys want protecting them and what the latter wants, the latter usually gets. Some civilians in country may not want a close relationship with the military for any number of reasons, legitimate and non-legit. Since former military significantly fill the ranks of mercs, it is out of character for years of training and experience to be tossed out the window in a firefight as if they were gunslingers in town on a drunken binge. No doubt mercs complicate and impinge on AOs but non DOD covert ops piggyback on mercs from time to time too, they would have to.
I suggest that the incident is a little more significant than we may have realized. It calls into question the entire issue of whether we're in Iraq to liberate the Iraqis or for our own self interests, which is one of the key "hearts and mind" issues and winning hearts and minds is the ultimate objective.
How sovereign is a country that can't even enforce it's own laws?
When push comes to shove, will we ignore the Iraqi government to protect ourselves? It looks like we might.
Which demonstrates the point I've made several times when discussing "marketing" in other threads. People judge you by your actions, more so than by your words, no matter how good your spin is.
The entire NY times Article is here
Blackwater
Do not believe the lies Blackwater is pumping out about the recent events in Al Mansour. None of what they are saying is true.
Do you have links or information (that can be posted without issues) to back up this statement? Providing something would be greatly appreciated, if for no other reason than to provide contrast to anything Blackwater happens to put out.
Last edited by Steve Blair; 09-18-2007 at 05:31 PM.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Were the people firing on teh convoy wearing uniforms?
I think Jedburgh and Steve Blair both make good points. I suspect the events surrounding the exchange of fire were much more nuanced than either side is revealing at this point. One point that should never be forgotten in these situations is that the enemy's war crime of fighting without an identifiable uniform endangers civilians in every confrontation. Civilian casualties would be greatly reduced if he obeyed the laws of war.
Whenever we are attributing causation this point should be raised to reinforce the point of the enemy's responsibility for civilian casualties. It could well be that there were other factors that put the Blackwater guys in a bad light, but this one factor puts the primary responsibility for endangering civilians where it belongs, on the enemy.
Confederate Yankee cites a report that indicates some of those doing the shooting at the convoy were wearing Iraqi Police uniforms. This adds another dimension to the event and may also explain the Iraqi political reaction.
Last edited by Merv Benson; 09-18-2007 at 07:47 PM. Reason: New info
Where did I see that quote... something like "The laws of war are usually applied after the war has ended".... something like that.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
With emotions running high and conflicting reports coming out, what do we actually know about the incident that an be verified rather than just what spokespeople are saying? I think we can all agree that the main stream media are sometimes a touch biased, to say nothing about the people who manipulate them. Personally, I would really like to see some specific evidence just so that.
Patriot, you said
Without breaking any OPSEC considerations, can you suggest any sources that contradict the BW line? BTW, I'm not in any way trying to say that you are incorrect. I find the limited information I have seen to be open to all sorts of interpretations ranging from a staged AQI PR attack through to the BW crowd being drunk and "gettin' rowdy". And, honestly, I take the BW official line with a pinch of salt.Do not believe the lies Blackwater is pumping out about the recent events in Al Mansour. None of what they are saying is true.
All, what I'm getting at is that this has the potential to be (maybe "is" would be more appropriate) a major flashpoint, PR issue. If this was an AQI PR attack, we need solid evidence that people will believe. If it's another Abu Ghraib in the making, then that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
To be honest, I tend to lump Blackwater statements into the same group as Microsoft statements that they are not a monopoly....
Blackwater has a vested interest (read money...both for current and future contracts) in presenting a particular spin on things. When it becomes especially troubling to me is if the government backs their spin without any sort of transparent investigation. I'm not saying this has happened or is happening...but rather identifying one of the many points of concern I have with this incident.
I do feel that PMCs are often allowed to slip through the cracks when it comes to accountability...a very disturbing trend.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
A good op-ed from 17 Sep 07 that speaks to that point:
Banned in Baghdad: Reactions to the Blackwater License Being Pulled
....Private military contractors have been involved in all sorts of questionable incidents, since the very start of the Iraq enterprise. U.S. military officers frequently expressed their frustrations with sharing the battlefield with such private forces operating under their own rules and agendas, and worry about the consequences for their own operations. For example, Brigadier General Karl Horst, deputy commander of the US 3rd Infantry Division (responsible for Baghdad area) tellingly put it two years back, These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There’s no authority over them, so you can’t come down on them hard when they escalate force. They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath.”
No one has kept an exact count of the incidents, but some notable examples include:
• The Aegis “trophy video”, in which contractors took video of themselves shooting at civilians, set it to the Elvis song "Runaway Train," and put it on the Internet.
• The alleged joyride shootings of Iraqi civilians by a Triple Canopy supervisor. They became the subject of a lawsuit after two employees, who claim to have witnessed the shootings, lost their jobs.
• Armed contractors from the Zapata firm detained by U.S. forces, who allegedly saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also at U.S. Marines. Again, they were not charged, as the legal issues could not be squared. Private military firms may be part of the military operation, but they and their employees are not part of the military, or its chain of command or its code of justice.
• Abu Ghraib, where reportedly 100 percent of the translators and up to 50 percent of the interrogators at the prison were private contractors from the Titan and CACI firms, respectively. The U.S. Army found that contractors were involved in 36% of the proven abuse incidents and identified six particular employees as being culpable in the abuses. While the enlisted U.S. Army soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib abuse were court-martialed for their crimes, not a single private contractor named in the Army's investigation report has been charged, prosecuted or punished. The Army believes it lacks the jurisdiction to pursue these cases, even if it wants to.....
Remarkable that this incident never made the news at the time. The killing of the Iraqi vice president's bodyguard at Christmas by a BW contractor has made the rounds, but I never heard of this despite apparent press witnesses and a mil investigation:
NPR witnessed a similar scenario two years ago. A State Department convoy, protected by Blackwater, raced out of a compound. Guards immediately shot at a car killing an old man, his son and his daughter-in-law. Blackwater said the car was driving erratically. A U.S. military investigation concluded Blackwater had used excessive force. No one was prosecuted.
Sunday's incident seems to be the final straw — not just for Iraq's prime minister, but for the public. Outrage was bubbling on the streets.
Karim Muhammed, who owns a furniture store, said he's seen people killed by foreign security companies. He said Iraqi officials should have done something about this a long time ago.
"Why do they consider American blood first class, and ours a cheap commodity?" Muhammed said. "Are they better than us?"
And Samir Samir said he fears the private security companies far more than the U.S. military.
"The U.S. military is subject to its own laws and monitoring," Samir said. "Who monitors the security companies?"
Iraqi Report Says Blackwater Guards Fired First
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/wo...rssnyt&emc=rssA preliminary Iraqi report on a shooting involving an American diplomatic motorcade said Tuesday that Blackwater security guards were not ambushed, as the company reported, but instead fired at a car when it did not heed a policeman’s call to stop, killing a couple and their infant.
The report, by the Ministry of Interior, was presented to the Iraqi cabinet and, though unverified, seemed to contradict an account offered by Blackwater USA that the guards were responding to gunfire by militants. The report said Blackwater helicopters had also fired. The Ministry of Defense said 20 Iraqis had been killed, a far higher number than had been reported before.
In a sign of the seriousness of the standoff, the American Embassy here suspended diplomatic missions outside the Green Zone and throughout Iraq on Tuesday.
“There was not shooting against the convoy,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government’s spokesman. “There was no fire from anyone in the square.”
...
Last edited by Sarajevo071; 09-21-2007 at 06:27 AM.
Where Military Rules Don't Apply
Blackwater's Security Force in Iraq Given Wide Latitude by State Dept.
...Blackwater USA, the private security company involved in a Baghdad shootout last weekend, operated under State Department authority that exempted the company from U.S. military regulations governing other security firms, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and industry representatives.
In recent months, the State Department's oversight of Blackwater became a central issue as Iraqi authorities repeatedly clashed with the company over its aggressive street tactics. Many U.S. and Iraqi officials and industry representatives said they came to see Blackwater as untouchable, protected by State Department officials who defended the company at every turn. Blackwater employees protect the U.S. ambassador and other diplomats in Iraq.
Blackwater "has a client who will support them no matter what they do," said H.C. Lawrence Smith, deputy director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, an advocacy organization in Baghdad that is funded by security firms, including Blackwater.
The State Department allowed Blackwater's heavily armed teams to operate without an Interior Ministry license, even after the requirement became standard language in Defense Department security contracts. The company was not subject to the military's restrictions on the use of offensive weapons, its procedures for reporting shooting incidents or a central tracking system that allows commanders to monitor the movements of security companies on the battlefield.
"The Iraqis despised them, because they were untouchable," said Matthew Degn, who recently returned from Baghdad after serving as senior American adviser to the Interior Ministry. "They were above the law." Degn said Blackwater's armed Little Bird helicopters often buzzed the Interior Ministry's roof, "almost like they were saying, 'Look, we can fly anywhere we want.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902503_pf.html
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.
DOD or DOS
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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks