Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 319

Thread: Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

  1. #121
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    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.
    Warfighting operations are those operations where we are seeking contact with the enemy. Security operations are those operations which are concerned with just that, security. They are not seeking contact with the enemy and, in fact, often take steps to avoid it but can and will fight if neccesary.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
    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.

    No one is saying that they should not be subject prosecution if they are operating outside the law. They absolutely should face the full penalty of law if they did violate the law. I am just unwilling to make the assertion that they did violate the law based on media reports.


    (isn't that a fair definition of a terrorist?)
    That's part of the definition.

    SFC W

  2. #122
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    From CBC.ca

    Iraq has incriminating Blackwater tape: official
    Last Updated: Saturday, September 22, 2007 | 9:04 PM ET
    The Associated Press

    Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in a shooting last week that left 11 people dead, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday.

    He said the case was referred to the Iraqi judiciary.

    Interior Ministry spokesman Maj.-Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said Iraqi authorities had completed an investigation into the Sept. 16 shooting in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad and concluded that Blackwater guards were responsible for the deaths.

    He told the Associated Press that the conclusion was based on witness statements as well as videotape shot by cameras at the nearby headquarters of the national police command. He said eight people were killed at the scene and three of the 15 wounded died in hospitals.

    More...
    I'm sure it will be on YouTube soon
    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/

  3. #123
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    Warfighting operations are those operations where we are seeking contact with the enemy. Security operations are those operations which are concerned with just that, security. They are not seeking contact with the enemy and, in fact, often take steps to avoid it but can and will fight if neccesary.
    I think part of the argument here is that many PMCs currently in theater are exceeding their security brief. Overly aggressive security operations are often only a hair's breadth away from combat operations, and can in fact do major damage to the mission. But since the average PMC is operating on its own brief they only really have to pay attention to their bottom line.


    No one is saying that they should not be subject prosecution if they are operating outside the law. They absolutely should face the full penalty of law if they did violate the law. I am just unwilling to make the assertion that they did violate the law based on media reports.
    And that again gets to heart of it: whose law are they subject to? If any. I know there's been a stampede of jurisdictions rushing in here, but that almost guarantees that any proceedings will drag on forever and in the immediate scheme of things become useless. And we're still faced with an IO disaster, which is compounded many-fold if it turns out that what we had was a bunch of trigger-happy mercs who unloaded on a crowd (as opposed to a PMC team defending itself against an attack).
    "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

  4. #124
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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?

  5. #125
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default Blackwater and Erik Prince

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Granite_State; 09-23-2007 at 11:07 PM. Reason: Title

  6. #126
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granite_State View Post
    Can you elaborate on this?
    Eric Prince is countersueing the families of some of his dead employees. He's a piece of work. Actually, IMHO, a piece of $hit.
    Example is better than precept.

  7. #127
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    Eric Prince is countersueing the families of some of his dead employees. He's a piece of work. Actually, IMHO, a piece of $hit.
    The four who died in Fallujah I take it?

  8. #128
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default Ucmj

    From Colonel Patrick Lang's (SWJ/C member I think) blog:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...rcenaries.html

  9. #129
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Uboat:
    Apologies if I did not make my point very clearly. I appreciate the difference between going out looking for a fight and getting into one when you would rather not have. What I was trying to argue was that given the situation on the ground it is inevitable that Blackwater et.al would end up in an armed engagement at some time at which point they should have some kind of binding ‘rules of engagement’/ ‘terms and conditions’ with their employers – in this case the DoS. If they operate beyond those rules then there should be a defined procedure and sanctions. If – as seems to be the case – they do not have a clearly defined operating environment then either it is because the DoS wanted it that way or they were just negligent in failing to anticipate the consequences of putting an armed force into that breach. Neither of the above options are acceptable on the part of the DoS.

    As to who did what in this engagment; I dont know and is not really relevent.
    Last edited by JJackson; 09-24-2007 at 07:25 PM.

  10. #130
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I've never posted here, but find most of the discussions insightful. This one I felt needed a few points clarified.

    I am a special agent with the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), which for those that don't know, is the law enforcement and security arm of the Department of State DSS

    My previous assignment was in the Regional Security Office, U.S. Embassy Baghdad.

    DSS has approximately 1200 special agents worldwide. We are in every embassy and most consulates, plus many domestic assignments. As with the rest of the civilian USG, we were caught unprepared for operations in a war zone. In a normal country, the embassy would have long since been closed. DSS and DoS are not designed to function in a combat zone, although we are learning. To state the obvious, DSS is trying to conduct civilian security operations in a war zone.

    There are three options for DSS to conduct our mission:

    1. Ask the military for support. Is there a brigade plus available, plus a helicopter squadron? RSO Baghdad has over 4000 people in Iraq. This includes Blackwater, Triple Canopy, some DynCorp, plus DoS employees. There are some military elements working with the RSO already.

    2. Direct hire to replace the contractors. Most of us on the ground would love this, please talk to your congressman to increase our budget so we can hire an additional 2000 - 3000 people, plus buy helicopters. We are happy to MAYBE get an additional 200 agents in FY08.

    3. Use contractors to fill the "temporary" void. The option we took.

    Remember, in 2003, almost everyone thought we'd be done by now. DoS went the short term answer and now we are stuck with it for the time being.

    As far as oversight, DSS agents are with most of the BW details. I won't give away our SOPs, but we cover as much as possible with the limited special agent staff.

    DSS special agents also investigate all shootings. There will be a full report on this one. For those that mentioned DoD investigating, I am sure RSO Baghdad will work with them if necessary. For the most part, all the federal LEOs worked well together there.

    Concerning prosecution, once again, talk to your congressman. DSS realized quick that there was no reliable mechanism for prosecuting non-DoD civilians. Let me explain. In a normal country, a non-DoD civilian accused of commiting a crime would be turned over to the host country. The embassy would do all it could to ensure a safe and fair trial. Decisions have been made not to turn Americans over to the Iraqis, for now. There also isn't a civilian version of the Military Extra-Judicial Act (MEJA) When the Christmas shooting happened, there were many "pundits" wanting the accused brought to trial in the U.S. DoJ and others came in and took the case from DSS. But nine months later, they too have realized there isn't a mechanism for prosecuting non-DoD civilians. I personally told several Congressional staffs and high level DoD and DoS visitors that a civilian "MEJA" was needed. Ask your congressman to work on this.

    I know my comments have a cynical/snide tone, but too many people aren't thinking on this one, their passion against contractors is blinding them. Am I a contractor apologist? Hell no, it was a huge mistake to give all the contrators the latitude the USG did. However, maybe someone can correct me, but I don't believe any other federal agency (including military) sends agents with their PSDs? DSS probably has more direct contact with their contractors then any other agency. Some may say that if we have so much contact, then why do we seem to have more incidents. The unwritten answer and very seldom mentioned, is that DSS is not willing to take casualties. We've lost 2 agents and 20+ "contractors" in Iraq. While that pales to the military casualties, remember, we are a civilain law enforcement agency. DSS is not willing to lose a convoy if there is anything we can do to prevent it. Maybe our close contacts allows us to see the "contractors" as Americans, not just rented help.

    One last thing, none of us know what happened in this incident. There is an ongoing investigation that will get to the bottom of it.

  11. #131
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Koyuavci,

    Thanks for the post, it helps clear up some of the structures and options DSS and DoS had.

    I must admit that I find the decision not to prosecute or hand over contractors to be a poor one. It might have made sense in 2003, but we are well beyond that now. As for suggesting I write my congressman, that wouldn't do any good since I'm a Canadian .

    It does strike me, however, that that particular decision has some serious implications towards undermining the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. In effect, it appears to be saying that the official branch of the US government responsible for recognizing foreign states does not recognize Iraq since it does not grant that the Iraqi government the right to exercise minimal sovereignty(i.e. internal LE).

    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/

  12. #132
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default Blackwater

    From the NYT: Blackwater Logs Most Shootings of Firms in Iraq

    The American security contractor Blackwater USA has been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq than other security firms providing similar services to the State Department, according to Bush administration officials and industry officials.
    And in a less serious vein, see Pat Lang's blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis on Blackwater Fever (I'm not sure as to the original source--Pat has it in quotation marks).

  13. #133
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    David Kilcullen made an interesting point today that I think bears mentioning. At the end of the day, BW has not lost a principal in Iraq. Most other outfits cannot say the same thing.

    That adds a lot, I think, to the inertia behind them and DoS details.
    Last edited by jcustis; 09-27-2007 at 03:24 AM.

  14. #134
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Were it not for this special place (ie a discussion board for COIN) I would have not asked this question, since it is kinda provocative (I apologize for that but it's difficult to put it another way).

    With all respect sir, what is going to bring more results in Iraq?

    Protecting principals at all costs or a more positive iraqi public opinion?

    If I might add in my humble opinion there is a direct link between not using snipers due to force protection and the esteemed above opinion of Mr. Kilcullen.
    Last edited by UrsaMaior; 09-28-2007 at 04:35 AM.
    Nihil sub sole novum.

  15. #135
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMaior View Post
    Were it not for this special place (ie a discussion board for COIN) I would have not asked this question, since it is kinda provocative (I apologize for that but it's difficult to put it another way).

    With all respect sir, what is going to bring more results in Iraq?

    Protecting principals at all costs or a more positive iraqi public opinion?

    If I might add in my humble opinion there is a direct link between not using snipers due to force protection and the esteemed above opinion of Mr. Kilcullen.
    I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that we tell these guys not to protect their principle (and themselves) if there might be I/O implications?

    I'm also not sure what your point about snipers was.

    SFC W

  16. #136
    Council Member sgmgrumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth Kansas
    Posts
    168

    Default

    The Spy who billed Me Blog

    The Washington Post describes a "Quick Report" by the Regional Security Office at the US Embassy in Baghdad describing the Blackwater shooting incident from September 16th. I obtained the same report today (uploaded here). The report is far from enlightening, but the WaPo seems to have missed a few interesting details. (For the following to make the most sense, please read the actual report or the WaPo rendition.)

  17. #137
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMaior View Post
    With all respect sir, what is going to bring more results in Iraq?

    Protecting principals at all costs or a more positive iraqi public opinion?
    Sorry, but I don't get your point ?

    Should BW personnel have sacrificed their principals in exchange for a more positive Iraqi public opinion ?

    What do Snipers have to do with BW ? One is military and the other is a contractor tasked to protect State Personnel.

  18. #138
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Okinawa, Japan
    Posts
    33

    Default

    I think this excerpt from a new Brookings Institution report by Peter Singer might highlight the point UrsaMaior is trying to make:
    Viewed through the corporate lens, where a premium is placed on protecting assets above everything else, this behavior is certainly understandable. But it un-dermines the broader operation. As far back as 2005, U.S. officers in Iraq like Colonel Hammes were worried, “The problem is in protecting the principal they had to be very aggressive, and each time they went out they had to offend locals, forcing them to the side of the road, being overpowering and intimidating, at times running vehicles off the road, making enemies each time they went out. So they were actually getting our contract exactly as we asked them to and at the same time hurting our counterinsurgency effort.”

    A real world example illustrates how this process plays out. An Iraqi is driving in Baghdad, on his way to work. A convoy of black-tinted SUVs comes down the highway at him, driving in his lane, but in the wrong direction. They are honking their horns at the oncoming traffic and firing machine gun bursts into the road in front of any vehicle that gets too close. He veers to the side of the road. As the SUVs drive by, Western-looking men in sunglasses point machine guns at him.

    Over the course of the day, that Iraqi civilian might tell X people about how “The Americans almost killed me today, and all I was doing was trying to get to work.” Y is the number of other people that convoy ran off the road on its run that day. Z is the number of convoys in Iraq that day. Multiply X times Y times Z times 365 and you have the mathematical equation of how to lose a counterinsurgency within a year (And that assumes that he doesn’t tell his mom or wife about the incident, upon which they likely to tell everyone in the neighborhood about how the Americans almost killed their boy/husband, multiplying the equation further).
    I think UrsaMaior is trying to get us to look at the cost-benefit ratio of protecting these principals. If the force protection requirements for a State Dept. official are so high that their merely moving from one place to another has significant negative repercussions for the overall mission, perhaps they shouldn't be in the country in the first place?
    Is it fair to ask civilian government employees, like we ask the military, to assume more risk for the sake of helping the counterinsurgency effort?

    The full report can be read here: http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/research/singer200709.pdf

  19. #139
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Hey Jesse !
    I'd go back to this recent post first, which should clear most of the controversy up.

    The principal is probably not at all interested in being there, but should still be protecting in order to perform his/her job.

    Costs ? If the principal gets dead, it will indeed get expensive and he/she will eventually get replaced. Talk about gettin' expensive to manage.

    I fully agree with you, they have no business being there right this second, and probably don't want to be (there).

    I've seen embassies reduce staff and close for far less reasons.

  20. #140
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default McClatchy Services Report

    This one is an interesting wrap up

    Blackwater guards killed 16 as U.S. touted progress
    Before the shooting stopped, four other people were killed in what would be the beginning of eight days of violence that Iraqi officials say bolster their argument that Blackwater should be banned from working in Iraq.

    During the ensuing week, as Crocker and Petraeus told Congress that the surge of more U.S. troops to Iraq was beginning to work and President Bush gave a televised address in which he said "ordinary life was beginning to return" to Baghdad, Blackwater security guards shot at least 43 people on crowded Baghdad streets. At least 16 of those people died.

    Two Blackwater guards died in one of the incidents, which was triggered when a roadside bomb struck a Blackwater vehicle.

    Still, it was an astounding amount of violence attributed to Blackwater. In the same eight-day period, according to statistics compiled by McClatchy Newspapers, other acts of violence across the embattled capital claimed the lives of 32 people and left 87 injured, not including unidentified bodies found dumped on Baghdad's streets.

    The best known of that week's incidents took place the following Sunday, Sept. 16, when Blackwater guards killed 11 and wounded 12 at the busy al Nisour traffic circle in central Baghdad.


    More at this link

Similar Threads

  1. Colombia, FARC & insurgency (merged thread)
    By Wildcat in forum Americas
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 02-09-2017, 03:49 PM
  2. Terrorism in the USA:threat & response
    By SWJED in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 486
    Last Post: 11-27-2016, 02:35 PM
  3. Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 944
    Last Post: 02-06-2016, 06:55 PM
  4. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-23-2012, 11:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •