This is something that has bothered me for AGES, but has only recently come to a head with the case of those "Blackwater" cowboys shooting dead 11 Iraqi civilians last month when their convoy came under mortar attack or something. - just firing randomly into the crowd I suppose... And yep, they've been confirmed as civilians, that's not an issue.

They call them "contractors" rather than mercenaries, for the same reasons rebels and militia men are called "insurgents", and "terrorists": public perception. But these mercenaries are used instead of real soldiers. They work as guards mainly, their companies are paid billions of dollars, they face no charges what so ever if they kill civilians (or anybody for that matter), either in Iraq or the US; they're exempt. Another interesting factor is that even though they're paid by the US government, their deaths and injuries don't count towards the official casualty numbers, so the US government can effectively sustain higher injury and death rates in secret.

Elements of the Republican party have also got significant shareholdings in Blackwater, the biggest mercenary company. But personally I don't think that's too much of an issue compared to the actual use of mercenaries to start with, especially when they're specifically exempt from all the normal rules, laws etc that govern the conduct of soldiers. They quite literally have a license to murder.

I'm surprised no one else has ever commented on this here before... Thoughts?

They're necessary in a guerrilla war to counter the very objective of the guerrillas. That being the goal of goading the occupying force into making decisions that are detrimental to the political side of the occupation.

What that means is yeah, its problematic for the Iraqis that piss off the mercs.

Mercenaries in general shouldn't be problematic. Blackwater is, because they are taxpayer funded, and yet how that money is spent is completely opaque. Also, their actions indicate they are hurting the "hearts and minds" portion of the mission.

The fact of the matter is mercenaries are an end run around our military in every way.

They are not subject to the hierarchy of command except between top level generals and company CEO's.

They make way more money than our troops, so there is a morale problem. They do not count in estimates of casualties because they operate under a blanket of secrecy.

Their overall cost is tricky to figure in to the cost of war, so it perverts the cost estimates.

Their major allegiance is first and foremost financiallly driven, so they have no pretense of fealty to our laws or our nation.

Their jobs could be filled by American soldiers, and their overpriced salaries could be given to American troops who fight for our country, not their pocket book.

Without this crutch of black ops battalions, the predident would have to be more forthcoming on his sadly miscalcualted operations and would also have to deal with the reality of how many sodliers we can squander across the globe.

This is probably the most obvious flaw of mercenaries. It allows people like Cheney and Bush to answer to no one, allies, congress, the american people, and even some brave folks in the military who don't like these companies, like Blackwater, who sully our troops with their actions. If it weren't for mercenaries, we might have to be more reasonable about how we allocate our troops, and we might have to play nice with our allies to engage their support instead of acting unilaterally whenever it suits us.

I say next time Bush comes to the American people hat in hand for more funding for "our brave men and women"(he sure loves those troops doesn't he?) in Iraq, we tell him to fire the mercenaries and use that money first.

TNT
its problematic for the Iraqis that piss off the mercs.

But not the civilians who don't "piss" them off and get killed anyway? And not problematic in the case of the US government disguising causality and death figures through the use of mercenaries? Your evaluation, as always is incredibly rudimentary.

Mapaghimagsik, you seem to have a more rounded view of the situation. Yes, I agree that the opacity of the money situation could be a problem, since Blackwater specifically has been paid a few billion dollars for its services and they don't have much more than a few thousand employees. What does all the money really go on?

ozoneocean
Mapaghimagsik, you seem to have a more rounded view of the situation. Yes, I agree that the opacity of the money situation could be a problem, since Blackwater specifically has been paid a few billion dollars for its services and they don't have much more than a few thousand employees. What does all the money really go on?

How dare you! I take offense! Where's a mod when you need one....

Oh. Nevermind.

In this particular conflict, mercs are keeping the empire from getting their hands dirty :D

Except they get the empire's hands dirty anyways.

When random Iraqi civilians get gunned down by Blackwater, they're not gonna say "Oh those guys weren't American soldiers it's not America's fault." It'll be "Damn Yankees from the evil empire are sending in their plainclothes terrorists into our nation."

ozoneocean

TNT
its problematic for the Iraqis that piss off the mercs.

But not the civilians who don't "piss" them off and get killed anyway?

Those would be Iraqis.

ozoneocean
And not problematic in the case of the US government disguising causality and death figures through the use of mercenaries?

Nope, that's not a problem for the US. That's a benefit.

ozoneocean
Your evaluation, as always is incredibly rudimentary.

The use of mercs is not a complicated issue.


In an occupation, the guerrillas hide amongst the people, and use them as cover for their actions against the occupying force. Maybe they hide in a crowd, pop off a few shots with an AK, and then disappear back into the crowd. Maybe they set up an IED in full view of people on the street, depending on their support to not be ratted out. The occupiers are forced to comply with the rules of engagement, so they can not fire into the crowd, for example.

But with mercs, things become much nastier. Not bound by the rules of engagement, mercs can/will fire into the crowd. This is what led one of them, upon his return to the US, to tell me personally (he does some computer support work for our company), "when the suburbans roll into the area, the insurgents know not to fuck around".


Like I said, the use of mercs is problematic for Iraqis. If it was problematic for the US, they wouldn't hire them.

from a military perspective, having mercenaries in iraq is a great idea because it eases off the burden on the US troops.

Also, US troops are having difficulty recruiting new members.

my two cents....does the US want to be connected to a merc company called "Blackwater"?
Is it me or is that name ominous? Why does all the crap and scandal the US government gets into have to have the words "water", "gate" or "black" connect some how? Why couldn't we have gone with company called "Greensleeves" or "Che'Merc"?

Well, in international law, mercenaries are offensive troops for hire - since the US only assigns them "defensive/bodyguard" duties, they get to say they are not mercenaries. However, most of us just use the common meaning of the word, so mercenaries they are.

There is an old principle - one taught to me by conservatives - that if people are not held responsible for their actions, they will be corrupt, wasteful, illegal, and useless.

The Mercenaries we use in Iraq are not held responsible for their actions - and sure enough, their operations have been wasteful, corrupt, illegal, and in the end, useless.

Ask any soldier coming back from Iraq - in my experience, they hate the mercenaries almost as much as the Iraqi people do. Everyone hates these guys.


Mercenaries. Torture. PreEmptive War & Occupation. Suspending habeas Corpus - it reminds me of an old D&D game I was in once. I told em - if you want to win, you gotta be the heros.

TheMidge28
Why does all the crap and scandal the US government gets into have to have the word "gate" ?

Watergate started it. Now any controversy is -gate.

"Blackwater" is a cool name, though, isn't it? I wanna be a mercenary for Blackwater, it sounds badass!

TnTComic
"when the suburbans roll into the area, the insurgents know not to fuck around".

I'd say that's pure bravado and BS. Those well paid bastards travel mostly in secure and safer areas anyway. They mostly face ordinary civilians. If they faced the kind of concerted and clever attacks the serving troops have to deal with, then it wouldn't be so easy. Personally the more I hear about them, especially taking StaceyMontgomery's good points into account about abuse of power, I'll just be cheering on the Iraqi militiamen and rebels against the mercs. :)

Not against real troops, but personally I'd consider the mercs and the militia forces to be on a par: neither have much concern for the lives of the civilians around them, the militias are mostly bullies and gangsters in it for protection (their own), money, and violence, and the mercs are just in it for big cash rewards, the chance to use violence etc. But at least the militiamen are in their own country doing their bad deeds, and they take bigger risks. The pampered mercs are in a foreign country making the situation worse.
-The only thing in their favour is that their job is mostly to guard and not primarily to fight.

You want to be in Blackwater TNT? ha! in the mail room? Tech support?...
Got 14 years experience in the special forces? I hear they like their people to know what they're doing. ;)

Here you go! Two pretty easy jobs for you in the corporate section:
Export Administrator
Airship Ground Crewman
Those shouldn't be too hard to get and that last one sounds a doddle! just need a 1 year course in airship handling.

To each his own, but you're forgetting why it is necessary to bring in mercs, Ozone, and that is because the insurgents use the civilians as basically human shields. The mercs aren't angels, but they're not fighting angels either. If the insurgents weren't employing classic guerrilla warfare tactics, the occupiers wouldn't be forced to employ classic countermeasures to those tactics... which is what the use of mercs is.

Some of the pics the dude showed me from his time over there:

TnTComic
"when the suburbans roll into the area, the insurgents know not to fuck around".

So much for winning hearts and minds, sound like Chazz Palminteri, "I would rather be feared than respected" Are you saying the American Military proper doesn't command as much respect as a Blackwater? If that's true then we have a much bigger problem than mercenaries.

kyupol
from a military perspective, having mercenaries in iraq is a great idea because it eases off the burden on the US troops.

Also, US troops are having difficulty recruiting new members.

Perhaps if the commander in chief weren't so eager to paint targets on the backs of the military by placing them in harms way for no reason, then more recruits might magically appear. I know it would seem stupid to me to sign up right now to get my ass shot off in Iraq.

TnTComic
To each his own, but you're forgetting why it is necessary to bring in mercs, Ozone, and that is because the insurgents use the civilians as basically human shields. The mercs aren't angels, but they're not fighting angels either. If the insurgents weren't employing classic guerrilla warfare tactics, the occupiers wouldn't be forced to employ classic countermeasures to those tactics... which is what the use of mercs is.

Some of the pics the dude showed me from his time over there:

I dunno all this sounds like a good reason to not be there in the first place. Of course we were warned this would happen, but they probably figured they could black op their way out of any trouble. So much for the scary merc, they havent produced shit in the way of progress, unless you count their mounting pricetag.

bobhhh

TnTComic
"when the suburbans roll into the area, the insurgents know not to fuck around".

So much for winning hearts and minds, sound like Chazz Palminteri, "I would rather be feared than respected" Are you saying the American Military proper doesn't command as much respect as a Blackwater? If that's true then we have a much bigger problem than mercenaries.

Ever see "Rules of Engagement" with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson? It illustrates the point i'm trying to make very clearly.

The point is not that Blackwater commands more respect than the US military. The US military has much more firepower than Blackwater ever will. However, the US military is bound by rules of engagement that Blackwater is not. Blackwater is like a gunslinger in the wild west, they can do as they please with no consequence.

But now that people have turned over the rock and looked underneath it, Blackwater will be facing the same media scrutiny that the US military does. You'll see, this is the next big story.

I heard a news piece about this the other day that mentioned that a lot of the mercenaries are hired through a string of corporations by Blackwater, and that the job of guarding an official (which a lot of Blackwater mercs are used for) - which could be done by a sergeant in the military for $84 per day - costs the US taxpayers over $1000 per day per soldier.

Along with the problem that private mercenaries are not distinguished by the Iraqis from our soldiers, they are exempt from US military law (because they aren't US military) and Iraqi law (because Paul Bremmer made it so the minute he touched down in Iraq). The most a Blackwater employee has been held responsible for these killings is that they lose their job.

The long term problem with the privitization of all aspects of the military is that our armed forces are no longer a way for people who can't afford college to get a skill for civilian life. War aside, we hire private contractors for food service, guard duty and a myriad of different functions that used to be specialization fields for our soldiers. Now if you join the army, you are basically going to learn little more than how to kill people.

Another problem for our soldiers is that a lot of the private contractors do not have military training and if fighting breaks out somewhere, our soldiers have to defend themselves and protect these contractors. If everyone over there were part of our armed forces, they would all be able to defend eachother.

Recently, Bush initiated an executive order that would allow him to hire a private militia within the borders of the United States if there is a national emergency - broadly defined as a threat to the nation (be it natural or terrorist, I suppose). This is, of course, because we have sent a good chunk of our national guard (and a larger chunk of their equipment) overseas. But am I the only one who sees this as something that could easily be abused?

Privitization is practically a religion for some people (mostly conservatives). So much so at this point that no one asks "is it really cheaper and better" anymore, and they just assume that because our government isn't doing it it must be better. But why should a private company that HAS TO make a profit be more cost effective than an efficient governmental system?

Dems believe you help the economy by keeping the money in the country, and Reps believe you help the economy through war. Got a new republican in office? The war will not be far away.

This is why the stories about wasted money this, overcharging that, never phase me. War is a money sink, that is its purpose.

TnTComic
Dems believe you help the economy by keeping the money in the country, and Reps believe you help the economy through war. Got a new republican in office? The war will not be far away.

This is why the stories about wasted money this, overcharging that, never phase me. War is a money sink, that is its purpose.

As a lifelong Democrat I insist we be honest about our trangressions. I will not condemn Republicans for being the sole war mongers. The Bay of Pigs and Vietnam were started by the Kennedys, Truman started the Korean war. Clinton barged into Somalia and Bosnia. Even Iraq was given a stamp of approval by spineless, gutless capitol hill Democrats.

Truth is there is lots of blame to go around when a conflict turns into a shooting war. Much as I hate the republican leadership, can't hang warmongers solely on their necks.

TnTComic
However, the US military is bound by rules of engagement that Blackwater is not. Blackwater is like a gunslinger in the wild west, they can do as they please with no consequence.

Well they should be bound by those rules fercrissakes!! What is the justification for not making mercs as accountable as our real soldiers? If thes rules weren't so important, our military wouldn't insist on our troops complying with them. Personally I don't want a fucking ginslinger representing us internationally. A soldier has to be motivated by civic duty, not financial gain. War is tricky enough business to square your morals with, the last thing we need is a growing mercenary class who have decided that allegiance and dedication to the US military comes with too many restrictions and not enough $$$.

bobhhh

TnTComic
However, the US military is bound by rules of engagement that Blackwater is not. Blackwater is like a gunslinger in the wild west, they can do as they please with no consequence.

Well they should be bound by those rules fercrissakes!! What is the justification for not making mercs as accountable as our real soldiers? If thes rules weren't so important, our military wouldn't insist on our troops complying with them. Personally I don't want a fucking ginslinger representing us internationally. A soldier has to be motivated by civic duty, not financial gain. War is tricky enough business to square your morals with, the last thing we need is a growing mercenary class who have decided that allegiance and dedication to the US military comes with too many restrictions and not enough $$$.

The merc isn't paid per kill, or per destruction, you know. They're paid a wage. They do not have money as a motivation to kill more or destroy more. They are just dudes, like you or I. Except they have a green light when normal troops do not.

Suppose you are in a Humvee, and a crowd of demonstrators blocks your progress. As you wait for the crowd to disperse, 3 men pop out of the crowd and spray your position with bullets before ducking back into the crowd. If you're in the military, you may not engage, lest you kill civilians. The net result is that maybe you've lost some guys, the bad guys win a few points, and the civilians have no reason to stop the bad guys.

If that same situation occurs to some Blackwater dudes, they might open fire. They might kill civilians. They might even get one of the bad guys. But the net result is that the bad guys will not be allowed to use the civilians as cover for much longer. Guerrillas depend on the compliance of the civilians, and if civilians get killed because of their support of the guerrillas, they won't be supporting them for very long.

This is Guerrilla Warfare 101. Its the precise reason why the military hires mercs in the first place.

'Course, if we followed the rules of Guerrilla Warfare to the letter, we'd just leave, since that's the only way to win a guerrilla war.

TnTComic
This is Guerrilla Warfare 101. Its the precise reason why the military hires mercs in the first place.

Eh, it's urban Guerilla warfare, but the rules of engagement aren't why mercs are used. From what I've heard it's a combination of another way for the guys in the know in Washington to make a buck out of their position during the war (hey, it happens all the time in little African countries, should we be surprised?), and the US military simply not being able to spare specially trained troops to that sort of high level guard duty in sufficient number- protecting VIPs takes a very high level of training, they're not just security guards.

For the rest of the jobs they do, well they are just security guards. The US military can't really spare big numbers of it's well trained troops to menial and simple jobs like guarding building sites, which can be done by cowboys without much training or experience.

The main issues for the US governments are expediency, and a cost benefit ratio. Which is fairly typical of this administration.

It's a rotten business.

Maybe they do follow different rules, but soldiers are just as willing to fire into crowds if they think they need to do it in order to "protect" themselves.

ozoneocean

TnTComic
This is Guerrilla Warfare 101. Its the precise reason why the military hires mercs in the first place.

Eh, it's urban Guerilla warfare, but the rules of engagement aren't why mercs are used.

All I can say is that much of what I know is what i've learned from one of the mercs themselves.

>

Um, no. "be more aggressive about shooting into crowds" is NOT Guerilla Warfare 101 - (I believe that Guerilla Warfare 101 is usually "blowing things up is easier than building them" ) .

In Iraq, US troops are currently in Counter-insurgency warfare. Counter-Insurgency 101 is also NOT "be more aggressive about shooting into crowds" - actually, COIN 101 generally goes "get excellent intelligence with human sources and serious cultural knowledge before you even think of trying anything."

If you've studied counter-insurgency throughout history, you know the only way to defeat a popular insurgency is to win over the population. Having foreign mercenaries who are feared (and known to be above all laws!) shooting into crowds is actually the exact opposite of how you win this sort of thing.

In fact, "Insurgency 101" generally reads "Get the enemy to shoot into crowds a lot."

So no, Blackwater is not a good idea and not good strategy - their use is in fact criminally incompetent - and what you said was just totally and completely wrong.


(edited because this board keeps turning proper punctuation into weird smileys)

Jesus christ, you're like the BA calling the insurgents terrorists. You say counter-insurgency, I say guerrilla warfare.

What's the difference? Its locals trying to repel an occupying force.

Why do you think the numbers have shown that our actions have aided recruitment? Because that's guerrilla warfare 101. The more you agitate the occupiers, the more they do things to upset the locals, the more locals you have willing to take up AK's and join the guerrillas- er... insurgents.

StaceyMontgomery
If you've studied counter-insurgency throughout history, you know the only way to defeat a popular insurgency is to win over the population. Having foreign mercenaries who are feared (and known to be above all laws!) shooting into crowds is actually the exact opposite of how you win this sort of thing.

And if you studied current history, you'd know the BA does everything incorrectly. They're not trying to defeat the popular insurgency. They're trying to keep troops alive while maintaining a front of innocense to the media through the use of mercs. We don't care about winning the hearts and minds! If we did, we wouldn't be there. A western occupying army will never win the hearts and minds in a middle eastern region. Never.

TNT - I notice that when you say things that are totally wrong, and I point that out, you throw up your hands and compare me to the Bush administration. That is wrong and mean-spirited of you. You were simply wrong in what you said, and I corrected you. I notice that while you were calling me names, you did not actually address my points. Now who is acting like the administration?

In fact, while you are calling me names, you seem to have changed sides and started to agree with me. But if i was right, why call me names?

TNT - you totally wrong about "Guerilla warfare 101" and you called me names when I pointed it out. In a civilized debate, this is where you would offer a polite apology.

I said you're like the BA in your use of language to confuse. "In a civilized debate" this is where you'd apologize for being oversensitive.

You want to call guerrillas insurgents, go ahead. I'm just saying its no different from the BA calling insurgents terrorists.

By the way, your opinion that i'm wrong is just that... your opinion.

Now... what point is it that you wish me to address, specifically?