Blackwater (part of the US mercenary army) loses its Iraq license

[mckitterick]

Read this article to learn about our glorious freelance soldiers in Iraq, killin' Iraqi civilians willy nilly. Or don't, if you don't want to feel your blood pressure rise.

Oh, and guess what? There are at least as many of these kinds of mercenaries in Iraq - whom you pay with your taxes - as US soldiers in Iraq. Lovely.

EDIT: Oh, and these paid killers? Guess where else they are stationed (and paid with your taxes to do their dirty work)? In New Orleans. No, seriously. Mercenaries fresh out of Iraq's killing streets hunting bad guys in one of our own cities. Thanks for the heads-up, gmskarka.

Chris

Comments

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

I am so glad that those folks are being expelled from Iraq. It's not like burning mercenary bodies on a bridge didn't demonstrate distaste or anything. But they have been over there being lawless and cowboying around. It's time and past time for Iraq to get rid of them, and for our government to stop paying them.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Shit goes bad sometimes.

I did work with some of these guys in Kentucky, they were always top notch professionals when I encountered them. Waiting to see the full details of what happened though.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

They certainly are professionals, which is why they're getting paid to do the job. Ironic that they can do it cheaper than the military. But they don't have to follow rules of law during war in the same ways, because they're not bound by the same rules.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

I think you are skewing this a little bit my friend. Most of these people are ex-military and spec ops guys and conduct themselves as such. There is nothing that says they don't have to follow the law, they just aren't under the UMCJ because they aren't military. Before Iraq, Blackwater hired out as force protection for foreign dignitaries , business magnates and the like. They are still however subject to "the law" as you might put it under the State Dept.

It's easy to just pile on and say "Oh look a bunch of freewheeling thugs." I'm just saying you should wait for all the facts to hit.

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

Er Chris... there are 169,000 American troops in Iraq, and only 1000 people employed by Blackwater there, according to the article you posted.

Not that that makes it okay, I'm just sayin that your numbers are off.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Actually, those are just employees of Blackwater doing this kind of work; US mercenaries outnumber (according to some research) US soldiers.

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

Wow. Got any citations on that?
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that US mercenaries would be eager to go to the Middle East. It's disgusting.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Here's one. An interesting excerpt:

But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.

Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts.

“We don’t have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That’s dangerous for our country,” said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon “is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that’s obscene.”

Although private companies have played a role in conflicts since the American Revolution, the U.S. has relied more on contractors in Iraq than in any other war, according to military experts.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

PMC's do not outnumber military forces. You have to separate contract work (IE construction, logistics, infrastructure etc..) from armed PMC units.

I think your data source is off.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

What's PMC precious? "Para-Military Criminals"?

Note that most Army units don't fight all day, either, but mostly do support and such.

Lots of sources out there. Check out this LA Times article for a complete breakdown.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

PMC = Private Military Contractor :)

I know there are a bunch of articles, I just didn't want democracynow.org to be your sole cited source :) They can be just as bad as Fox Noise sometimes.

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

There are many companies with fat contracts for "security" in Iraq. Blackwater is just one of the most notorious.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

And they're also in New Orleans, as it turns out. Since when do we allow paid killers to hunt Americans in America on the American tax-payer tab?

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

Holy Voodoo!
I'm curious as to what exactly they are paid to do there.
Soldier of Fortune magazine must still be alive and well.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Um. Dude, that site is so WAY off. I poked through that site and I have a hard time believing a good chunk of this article. I'd look for correlating sources.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

I grabbed one from a friend, but Google will get you all the info you need in 0.0017 seconds.

What, thinking of becoming a merc, are you? Don't want to think of them as bad guys? *g*

I used to read Soldier of Fortune Magazine myself as a kid, back during the Cold War.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Soldier of Fortune is crap. You want decent reads, try Small Arms Review or Shotgun News.

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh.. then it makes more sense. But really, the same amount?
:boggles:

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's something the corporate media fails to mention. What I don't understand is how it can be cheaper to hire mercs than regular soldiers. Or maybe they're using "special funds."

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

I don't get that either, especially when the Democracy Now article cites the mercenary they talked to as making $350 per diem and bitching that it's low.
... is it no wonder we can't get recruits into the military?

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

I found one article that says "about $1000/day" for Iraq duty. But they're getting more in Afghanistan where it's safer. Go figure.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

1000 a day is about right. You cover all your own expenses (equipment, armor) plus if you get blown to shit, there's no "insurance" package that covers you. No vet benefits. It's great money, but I think you are missing the point in the risk involved as well.

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

well, in my line of work, I can say that vet benefits have turned to crap for the military as well, sadly enough, but yah, NO benefits is a bit different than crap benefits you have to fight bureaucracy for years to get.

I know of a local Nat. Guard trainer who has so much of his own equipment that he almost scares me. I helped move some of his stuff.
.. and there was a lot of it :chuckles:

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Yeah no kidding, the current administration has gutted Vets benefits so insanely. It's really a shame, hell even the Romans had an understanding of veterans benefits.

As for the personal equipment thing, the Pentagon recently issued an order that forbids troops from purchasing their own (and many times better) equipment. This included better body armor, tactical gear and what not. It's a REAL shame.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

When you factor in the support mechanisms for a soldier. (Training, housing, benefits, logistical support, raw goods support, etc..) it actually does make it more economical to use PMC's.

PLUS, what's being missed in a lot of this discussion is that two other factors are going on:

a) The Army is stretched WAY WAY too thin at the moment.

b) PMC's are more and more comprised of SF guys that finish their tour and re-up with a PMC unit for better conditions. You get to work short term engagements as opposed to 16 month tours, you get better income (We pay our armed forces like shit) and you get access in some cases to better equipment and such. Plus you do other jobs besides Iraq. (See earlier post..no, the other earlier one)

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Ok, I took my thoughts back to my own LJ :) to avoid flooding it here.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Yeah, re: a) - that's precisely the problem. The Bush administration is using half the real troops (that is, under our jurisdiction and subject to military justice) that they should be using and hiding that fact beneath the veneer of "private contractors," which even the corporate media buys into. And spending more while they're at it.

It's just all part of the bigger lie.

[arian1.livejournal.com]

Well the whole overall war issue is a much more complex discussion. I am just speaking from what I know from experience :)