Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[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.

[marct]

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.

Okay, I really didn't know if it was for both. If that's the case, then you're right, it would just shift the hiring targets. Drat!

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.

Steve, I agree that at the institutional level this would work, and I would certainly recommend proceeding along those lines, but I don't think it would work at either the individual level, for IO or for building a "rule of law". Individuals who commit these types of crimes must be held personally accountable for their actions.

I would suggest, as an immediate response, that a joint Iraqi, MNF and State department investigative unit be established to investigate and determine the appropriate legal recourse for any future incidents. I would also hope that a specific legal code be established for the operation of PMCs where they are not covered by other codes. Furthermore, I believe that if at all possible, and I'll admit it may not be possible in some cases, I would like to see punishment meted out in the country and specific local in which the incident happened, otherwise any claims we are making about helping to establish a rule of law are invalidated on their face.

[Steve Blair]

I would suggest, as an immediate response, that a joint Iraqi, MNF and State department investigative unit be established to investigate and determine the appropriate legal recourse for any future incidents. I would also hope that a specific legal code be established for the operation of PMCs where they are not covered by other codes. Furthermore, I believe that if at all possible, and I'll admit it may not be possible in some cases, I would like to see punishment meted out in the country and specific local in which the incident happened, otherwise any claims we are making about helping to establish a rule of law are invalidated on their face.

I'm very much in favor of handing them over to local authorities or if that's not possible conducting any proceedings in the same area as the incident. My comments weren't directed as much at the IO level as they were the institution, so I didn't mentioned some of the things you brought up (great points, btw). We do need legal codes and transparent proceedings to show host nations that those things do work and do get done with as much impartiality as possible (something we are not always very good at, admittedly), but I think you also need to smack the companies in the wallet to really get their attention.

[Uboat509]

Let me make a few points. But first let me say that I am by no means a Blackwater apologist. I have enough friends in the industry to know that Blackwater has some significant issues.

1)Is there an official report of an official investigation by US forces out there somewhere that I have missed? So far I have seen a lot of media reports, many of which are based on Iraqi reporting. I have been here long enough to know that uncorroborated Iraqi reporting is not the gold standard for accurate unbiased reporting. If this was a military unit would we be piling on or would we be saying that we should wait for the results of the official investigation?

2)I hear a lot of really huge numbers for the number of "Private Military Contractors" here but I don't hear anybody in the MSM trying to make the distinction between the actual military contractors, who are, by far the minority and the support contractors, the cooks, clerks, mechanics, truck drivers etc, many of whom never even leave the FOB.

3)My feelings about the use of contractors fall along these lines. First of all, they take a lot of the support functions that we would normally do which frees us up to focus on operations, which contractors are most definitely not doing. Often times they do these functions better than their military counterparts because that is all they do. In the military we have a lot of crap that we have to do in addition to our main job.

4)I believe that contractors will save us a lot of money in the long run. Once we leave Iraq or at least severely reduce our footprint those contracts begin to dry up. Once the contract is done then it's done. We don't have to worry about it anymore whereas if you swell the ranks with all the service-members you need to perform all of these functions then you will still have them after the need is gone. Yes, we pay many contractors more money than we pay their military counterparts but we do not train them, nor do we feed, house, and clothe them back in the states. We don't worry about their career progression or education. When we are done with them we let the contract run out and that's it. Anybody who lived through the draw-down of the mid-nineties knows the immense ass-pain that the Army went through to reduce the troop totals after the cold war. I don't want to ever do that again.

Just my .02USD.

SFC W

[Steve Blair]

Contractors for services are a slightly different proposition from the gun-toting PMCs that sparked a great deal of this discussion. As I mentioned in another post some time back, the Army has used teamsters and other contract employees for the majority of its history. In most cases they worked with transportation issues or scouting/translation. In those cases they were considered post employees and could be fired by the quartermaster and/or the post commander with no notice. In Vietnam PAE did a great deal of support work as well. The issue here is that contractors are now being used in a direct combat (or close to direct combat) role with no real oversight and a great deal more firepower than they had in the past.

Part of the reason for any sort of pile-on is the record of the PMCs in general (which has been rather to very trigger-happy). If that starts getting in the way of accomplishing the mission, then you have to look at it. But with the number of high-end political players who use PMCs, I'm not sure you'd see an official investigation for some time. And even then official investigations are not always without bias.

[marct]

1)Is there an official report of an official investigation by US forces out there somewhere that I have missed? So far I have seen a lot of media reports, many of which are based on Iraqi reporting. I have been here long enough to know that uncorroborated Iraqi reporting is not the gold standard for accurate unbiased reporting. If this was a military unit would we be piling on or would we be saying that we should wait for the results of the official investigation?

Part of the reason for any sort of pile-on is the record of the PMCs in general (which has been rather to very trigger-happy). If that starts getting in the way of accomplishing the mission, then you have to look at it. But with the number of high-end political players who use PMCs, I'm not sure you'd see an official investigation for some time. And even then official investigations are not always without bias.

Uboat, I think you have raised a really good point, but I have to ask a counter question: given that these particular employees are DoS, is the military even allowed to investigate them? The quote that Tequila tossed up certainly seems to imply that they a) aren't empowered to do so and b) are under a lot of pressure not to do so. Baring the (unlikely) chance that State will, what are we left with but an Iraqi investigation?

Furthermore, if part of the mission is to stand up an Iraqi government that operates by rule of law, I don't think that we can afford to dismiss their investigation out of hand. Yes, I know that there have been a lot of problems with them in the past, but I think that this incident is generating enough interest Stateside that they are going t keep their investigation fairly transparent.

Marc

[marct]

I just came across this in the LA Times

As for the corporations so eagerly lapping up the contracting dollars, there's no conspiracy -- it's just the good old profit motive. If the White House wants to sell off U.S. foreign policy, someone's going to buy it. Prince, the former Navy SEAL who founded Blackwater, is straightforward about his company's goal: "We're trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service."

Since FedEx rendered the post office irrelevant for all but the most trivial forms of mail, this means you can kiss our national security apparatus goodbye.

[Uboat509]

Pardon me if I don't get excited about anything that Prince says. As I stated earlier, it is well known that Blackwater has some significant issues and Prince is at the root of those problems. That said, there are a lot of good guys working for BW. I am not anymore willing to throw the contractors who are the center of this incident under a bus than I am to throw the Marines at Haditha under a bus, based on media reports.

Contractors for services are a slightly different proposition from the gun-toting PMCs that sparked a great deal of this discussion. As I mentioned in another post some time back, the Army has used teamsters and other contract employees for the majority of its history. In most cases they worked with transportation issues or scouting/translation. In those cases they were considered post employees and could be fired by the quartermaster and/or the post commander with no notice. In Vietnam PAE did a great deal of support work as well. The issue here is that contractors are now being used in a direct combat (or close to direct combat) role with no real oversight and a great deal more firepower than they had in the past.

I am sure that most of the people on this board are aware of the difference between the armed and unarmed contractors. I wasn't trying to insult anyone's intelligence. I was just making a point about the huge numbers being thrown around by the MSM. When John Q. Public hears that there are 100,000 "PMCs" running around Iraq he immediately thinks that there are 100,000 thousand armed mercenaries running buck wild in Iraq and that just isn't the case. To my knowledge there are NO PMCs being used in a direct, or even near direct combat roles. We aren't outsourcing warfighting. Most of the armed contractors are engaged in security operations.

SFC W

[JJackson]

To my knowledge there are NO PMCs being used in a direct, or even near direct combat roles. We aren't outsourcing warfighting. Most of the armed contractors are engaged in security operations.

SFC W

Given that the there is no front in this war and engagement may be initiated anywhere at any time by the opposition I am not clear on the distinction between warfighting and security operations. Anyone with a weapon (or even just their bare fists) should be subject to some form of rules of engagement and punishable if they use excessive force. If the DoS have armed employees who are operating outside the law (isn't that a fair definition of a terrorist?) they should be culpable for allowing that situation to develop and the buck should stop with the Secretary of State.

[Granite_State]

Pardon me if I don't get excited about anything that Prince says. As I stated earlier, it is well known that Blackwater has some significant issues and Prince is at the root of those problems.
SFC W

Can you elaborate on this?

[Granite_State]

Let me make a few points. But first let me say that I am by no means a Blackwater apologist. I have enough friends in the industry to know that Blackwater has some significant issues.

1)Is there an official report of an official investigation by US forces out there somewhere that I have missed? So far I have seen a lot of media reports, many of which are based on Iraqi reporting. I have been here long enough to know that uncorroborated Iraqi reporting is not the gold standard for accurate unbiased reporting. If this was a military unit would we be piling on or would we be saying that we should wait for the results of the official investigation?

2)I hear a lot of really huge numbers for the number of "Private Military Contractors" here but I don't hear anybody in the MSM trying to make the distinction between the actual military contractors, who are, by far the minority and the support contractors, the cooks, clerks, mechanics, truck drivers etc, many of whom never even leave the FOB.

3)My feelings about the use of contractors fall along these lines. First of all, they take a lot of the support functions that we would normally do which frees us up to focus on operations, which contractors are most definitely not doing. Often times they do these functions better than their military counterparts because that is all they do. In the military we have a lot of crap that we have to do in addition to our main job.

4)I believe that contractors will save us a lot of money in the long run. Once we leave Iraq or at least severely reduce our footprint those contracts begin to dry up. Once the contract is done then it's done. We don't have to worry about it anymore whereas if you swell the ranks with all the service-members you need to perform all of these functions then you will still have them after the need is gone. Yes, we pay many contractors more money than we pay their military counterparts but we do not train them, nor do we feed, house, and clothe them back in the states. We don't worry about their career progression or education. When we are done with them we let the contract run out and that's it. Anybody who lived through the draw-down of the mid-nineties knows the immense ass-pain that the Army went through to reduce the troop totals after the cold war. I don't want to ever do that again.

Just my .02USD.

SFC W

All good points. But here's a question that relates to all contractors: in COIN/LIC/UW/term of choice, which is what we're probably going to be fighting for the foreseeable future, front lines are amorphous or even non-existent. Combat troops are in more danger than everyone else obviously, but even guys on FOBs get mortared. With the surge's move away from big FOBs and into more contact with the people and indigenous security forces, it would seem that support personnel would also probably be in more danger in the short term. What happens when your Sri Lankan or Nepali truck driver or cook decides that even the relatively large wages he's making aren't worth risking death, and decides he's headed home? Leaves us in a pretty tough spot if it suddenly happens en masse, doesn't it?