Heat Builds On Blackwater: Congresswoman Moves To Ban Private Security Contractors

The congressional vice-grip is tightening on Blackwater and other contracted defense firms.

Next Wednesday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) will introduce legislation to phase out the use of tens of thousands of private security contractors deployed on battlefields where American troops are present. The Stop Outsourcing Security Act intends to effectively put Blackwater and their ilk out of business.

"After 9/11 we thought airport security was so important that it shouldn't be contracted out and we created the Transportation Security Administration," said Peter Karafotas, a spokesman for the Congresswoman. "The writing's on the wall that Blackwater needs to go, and contracting is on its way out."

Private contractors should not be used "for functions that should be reserved for U.S. military forces," Schakowsky argued in a "dear colleague" letter to fellow House members earlier this month. Half a dozen fellow members of Congress, including Reps. Bob Fillner (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-WA), and Nick Rahall (D-WV), have since signed on as co-sponsors, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) may introduce a companion measure in the Senate.

Schakowsky acknowledges that the security contractors could not be given their walking papers immediately, since "our armed forces have been so overtaxed" and now rely on their assistance.

But she has moved up the date for a complete phase-out of contractors to June 1, 2009, from her original proposal of 2012, after consultation with military experts, her staff said. The bill would apply to all places where Congress has authorized the use of force.

One expert on private security companies says that while the question of contracting has been treated in a partisan manner, there were reasons why reigning in such firms could be supported by both sides.

"This is something that the base of both sides can agree on," said Brookings Institution scholar Peter Singer, who wrote the book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. "Many conservatives don't like idea that contractors are hurting the troops, and they don't like the idea that contractors are being paid more than the troops."

The State Department, which employs more than 1,000 guards from the companies Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy, would not comment directly on Schakowsky's proposed legislation. But a spokeswoman did refer the Huffington Post to a report prepared for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the use of private contractors for security in Iraq.

The report's authors argued that the contractors were a necessity because of the small size of the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service.

"Given the limited size of the Diplomatic Security Service...by having this combination of federal agents and contractors, we feel that's the right balance," Ambassador Patrick Kennedy argued in a press conference last week rolling out the report.

Kennedy also suggested that the military was not best equipped to protect US interests in Iraq.

"The U.S. military is a force projection entity. It is not -- its specialty is not personal protection," he added.

But Schakowsky's staff disagreed with the idea that contractors continued to be needed for missions like the one in Iraq.

"The situation now is that we have the uniformed military already having to look over their shoulders everyday so they don't get shot by insurgents, and now they have to babysit contractors," Karafotas argued. "Instead of having the military watch over the contractors, we may as well have the military or the government do these functions."

Karafotas also disagreed with the idea that the government running its own protection services for diplomats and other personnel was too expensive.

"We've paid Blackwater over $1 billion, and I'm pretty sure that money we're spending on contractors could go toward building a force to take over this responsibility," he said. "When you privatize something, it's 9 times out of 10 more expensive, and that money can be shifted toward building a force that can make this happen."

The Brookings Institution's Singer also agreed that it was time for the State Department to stop claiming that its hiring of contractors was in response to an "extraordinary" need.

"When do you acknowledge that the State Department is too small, and that whether you're engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, when it comes to security for officials, the threats have grown exponentially?" he asked. "It was a valid excuse in 2001, but that excuse does not work when these things become ordinary."

Note: An earlier version of this story erroneously stated that Peter Singer's assessment was that the bill could receive conservative support. The story has been corrected to more accurately reflect the meaning of his remarks.

Comments

[Fresnobill314]

This legislation will go nowhere. The GOP will go "Boo!" and the Dems will run back into their corners and hide. Talk is cheap.

[thebanana]

Let's assume the Blackwater boys all return to the US. What will these adrenaline junkies do for excitement then? Mall security?

[HearNoWeasel]

This is absolutely the right move. Private contractors are the White House enablers. Without them, an end to the war in Iraq would already be scheduled, because the military isn't large enough to sustain this many troops there indefinitely. Plus, simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan AND Iran would also be out of the question without private contractors. Finally, if there is an emergency here in the US, I don't want mercenaries to deal with the issue. But that's what it'll come to if Blackwater and Co expand their headcount while the military has recruiting shortfalls while engaged in several wars. Do you want Blackwater in your street?

The alternative to mercenaries is not the draft, it's ending useless wars and focusing on Al Quaeda. And so what if a draft is proposed? It would finally get us off the couch and into the streets and polling booths.

[rabun666]

Democrats had better take an interest in the public funding of Republican Party private armies, DUH!The purpose of these private armies is to guard the planned interment camps for "enemy combatants" or based on the whim of a social-psychopath say like Bush. No Bill of
Rights which is the only thing that distinguished this country from the old soviet union or the fascists and Nazi's.A soviet-fascist government is being implemented by Bush, the Republican Party and the Reppublican branch of the Democratic Party , err, the BillHillary's and the DLC.

[foneric]

It's about time. There is no explaination for the United States of America employing a mercinaries to fight a war. These para military corporations should not even be allowed to operate in this country.

And there should be a draft. Then all of these brave college republicans would finally be able to go and serve the way they have always wanted to.

[ranger5]

The Bushies have created a monster. Just as Bremer's dismissal of the Iraqi army led to chaos, so the dismissal of Blackwater and their ilk may lead to dangerous situations. Prince has created a private army of well-paid, highly trained, and well-equipped mercenaries, and Prince himself is a right-wing nut-job. The fascists who are trying to take permanent control of this nation may find Prince's minions to be useful tools in their attempt to impose dictatorship in America.

[MA]

Why not have State have it's own internal security force and be responsible for it?
For what we're paying contractors, they can supply their own security by hiring Iraqis.
They're freedom loving people(Bush just told us so!) and need the jobs!

[olivia]

What a hero.

Mercenaries allow the U.S. government to get away with things they could not do otherwise.

If a war is so unjust people will not support a draft, it must not be engaged.

[speakingtruth2power]

Any guess on Hillary's position on this?

[wadenelson1]

What an idiot.

The alternative to mercenaries is a draft.

And that ain't gonna happen.