No Mercy for Mercenaries

After raking in more than a billion dollars from its contracts in Iraq, Blackwater is finally being forced to leave the country that it has terrorised for so long. But the notorious mercenary firm's departure will likely have more symbolic significance than any real impact on the day-to-day lives of Iraqis.

First, only Blackwater as a corporate entity - which just changed its name to Xe in an effort to shake its bad reputation - is being given the boot. Iraqi officials have said that its operatives will be allowed to stay in the country by switching companies, as long as they have clean records. While this sounds reasonable, making that determination will be next to impossible. According to US officials and the contractors themselves, the actual number of shootings in Iraq by private military companies is far higher than is publicly acknowledged and they are rarely reported by the individuals involved.

Second, Blackwater never was a lone bad apple. The entire mercenary industry is rotten and needs to be discarded. Consider Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, the two mercenary outfits that will be filling the hole left by Blackwater. In 1999, for example, Dyncorp employees were implicated in a sex ring in Bosnia that involved the trafficking of women and children as young as 12 years old. When whistleblowers came forward to expose these heinous crimes, they were promptly fired.

And there is no sign that the firm has cleaned up its act in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US state department has repeatedly rebuked Dyncorp for being unprofessional and "too aggressive." In one embarrassing incident, a BBC correspondent actually saw a guard from the company slap the Afghan transport minister.

By comparison, Triple Canopy is a relative newcomer to the mercenary business. With hopes of cashing in on the most privatised war in history, the company was founded immediately after the invasion of Iraq by three US special forces veterans. According to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Triple Canopy relies far more heavily on so-called "third-country nationals" to cushion its bottom line than either Dyncorp or Blackwater. Paid only $33 a day, these hired guns come largely from developing countries - especially those in Latin America - that have histories of human rights abuses.

Much like Blackwater, Triple Canopy was involved in one of the most infamous shooting sprees of the war in Iraq. On 8 July 2006 - after remarking "I want to kill somebody today" - a heavily armed Triple Canopy guard in Iraq reportedly shot multiple rounds into the windshield of an unthreatening pickup truck and later a taxi for amusement.

Many argue, including President Barack Obama, that these mercenaries can be reined in through the creation of a legal framework that can hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. The notion, however, that these hired guns - who number in the tens of thousands and are often better armed than US soldiers - can somehow be effectively monitored and brought to justice in the middle of a war zone is pure fantasy.

The only real solution to this mess is for either Iraq or the US to ban armed contractors altogether. The Stop Outsourcing Security Act would accomplish this by mandating "that all diplomatic security in Iraq be undertaken by US government personnel within six months of enactment." The legislation also states that "the use of private military contractors for mission critical functions" in all conflict zones where the US is active must be phased out over a longer timeline.

Hillary Clinton offered a glimmer of hope when she endorsed this bill during her campaign for the presidency. But as Obama's secretary of state, she has quickly abandoned her commitment to "show these contractors the door." Unfortunately for Iraqis, it looks like the mercenary industry will have little to fear from the new administration.

This article was originally published by The Guardian.

 

Comments

[cstalberg]

While mercenary, violence for profit corporation Blackwater has changed its name to some allegedly cool, two-character element from the periodic table (Xe), their mission and worldview remains the same. Their contract with the State Department is good until May 2009, they're still positioned on our Mexican, US land and oceanic borders in hopes of gaining that sole source border militarization contract I'm sure Womble Carlisle is lobbying for (see http://blackwaterwatch.net/winston_salem_action.htm) and they're training both military and civilian personnel on how to ignore rules of engagement and take full advantage of excessive deadly force (see http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/11/12/blackwater-worldwide-testing-weapons-for-the-us-armed-forces/). And don't forget Blackwater is in both Afghanistan and Pakistan as well on the front line of the US government's crusade against Islam, continuing to magnify our most-hated-nation status and making us less safe then at any time since before the Cold War.

Despite owning and operating their own intelligence company, there was sheer stupidity on their part when they failed to do their homework to find out that they'll likely be sued for trademark infringement (see http://www.scottfish.com/defensive-domain-registrations-blackwater-vs-xecom/). Would you hire these guys to do your corporate intelligence and spying? Prospective customers beware!

A Stop Blackwater Conference will be held from April 24-27, 2009 in Stockton, Illinois. Visit http://www.noprivatearmies.org/take_action.html#Anchor-STOP-49575

[EtTuBrute]

For ease of reference for the others on the thread, I will include here, in 2 posts (too large for the word limit) Wilfred Owen’s poem disussed further down the thread.

“Apologia Pro Poemate Meo”.

I, too, saw God through mud--
The mud that cracked on cheeks when wretches smiled.
War brought more glory to their eyes than blood,
And gave their laughs more glee than shakes a child.

Merry it was to laugh there--
Where death becomes absurd and life absurder.
For power was on us as we slashed bones bare
Not to feel sickness or remorse of murder.

I, too, have dropped off fear--
Behind the barrage, dead as my platoon,
And sailed my spirit surging, light and clear,
Past the entanglement where hopes lie strewn;

And witnessed exhultation--
Faces that used to curse me, scowl for scowl,
Shine and lift up with passion of oblation,
Seraphic for an hour, though they were foul.

I have made fellowships--
Untold of happy lovers in old song.
For love is not the binding of fair lips
With the soft silk of eyes that look and long.

By joy, whose ribbon slips,--
But wound with war's hard wire whose stakes are strong;
Bound with the bandage of the arm that drips;
Knit in the welding of the rifle-thong.

I have perceived much beauty
In the hoarse oaths that kept our courage straight;
Heard music in the silentness of duty;
Found peace where shell-storms spouted reddest spate.

-continued-

[EtTuBrute]

-continued-

Nevertheless, except you share
With them in hell the sorrowful dark of hell,
Whose world is but a trembling of a flare
And heaven but a highway for a shell,

You shall not hear their mirth:
You shall not come to think them well content
By any jest of mine. These men are worth
Your tears: You are not worth their merriment.

Wilfred Owen
1917

[EtTuBrute]

But – as it relates to the initial topic –

I disagree with you that Owen was necessarily saying that those who do not serve are beneath contempt.

It is a mathematical impossibility for everyone to serve, for one thing. I think he was speaking of the shared bond, and the inability of those not included to truly understand it.

Respect for those who serve in that capacity is not a partisan or ideological issue. I haven’t found that most Liberals necessarily disagree that those who serve in the military have laudable personal qualities. Their legitimate concerns relate back to the corporatization of the military and nation, and the detrimental effects that has upon us all.

In fact, I would assert that that is the overriding concern of the majority of the posts below.

Not all contractors are some sort of crazed villain. I know because many of them are friends of mine and have been for 30 years and more. They are sober, careful professionals who take their responsibilities seriously.

Their own personal qualities do not detract from the argument that the US’s misuse or overuse of contractors is to the detriment of the active military, and presents a judicial challenge to good order and discipline in the military, as well as to the location in which they are employed. Without the UCMJ and structure of the military to enforce order in areas of strife, things can get out of hand quickly, as we have seen.

[DuPageDem]

Great post. Only empires need soldiers for hire. Citizens are happy and willing to take up arms for legitimate cause. When we stop being an empire, we can stop hiring mercenaries.

[Berettasskeeter]

So, if the current situation is any indicator, plenty of folks do NOT think it is a legitimate cause. Plenty of others did, and enlisted. Don't we elect a government to make that decision for us? Or is it given to us to pick and choose? If you choose to opt out, and there is no draft, the government has no choice but to hire the people it needs! Or, not?
Semper fi

[TexasDem0]

No, we don't elect a government to make decisions for us.
We elect a government to serve the public.

[research]

Private citizens do not have the right to wage war for profit.

Mercenaries have an awful habit of overthrowing legitimate governments for those who pay the most.

Always Faithful

To the constitution and people of the USA,

not the highest bidder.

[EtTuBrute]

Which "old saw” were you referring to in your other reply (below)?

Quoting Berettasskeeter:
"That old saw? Eisenhower also said, in the same speech, that the "military-­industrial complex" is only looked down upon during times of peace. Read Kipling's "Tommy".
Semper fi"

That doesn't negate the broader point.

Quoting Kipling:
-
“And it's Tommy this and Tommy that,
And "Chuck him out the brute!",
But it's "Savior of his country!”
When the guns begin to shoot",
- etc.

That may be a bit inexact, did it from memory.

I don't think quotes from the British Afghan war are germane to the corporatization of warfare in the modern post-industrial state, save for the sentiments of those directly involved in the situation, and the tendency of societies to value those people only when it’s convenient.

But again, that doesn’t speak to the broader point.

By the way, if you want a poem just as germane, try “Apologia Pro Poemate Meo” by Wilfred Owen. One of my personal favorites.

“I, too, saw God through mud —
The mud that cracked on cheeks when wretches smiled.
War brought more glory to their eyes than blood,
And gave their laughs more glee than shakes a child.

BIG SNIP

“You shall not hear their mirth:
You shall not come to think them well content
By any jest of mine. These men are worth
Your tears: You are not worth their merriment.”

Or Alan Seeger's "I Have a Rendezvous With Death". Another.

[arvay]

These American mercenaries are our "Foreign Legion" -- i.e. soldiers who can and will do things that our military personnel aren't allowed to do, or which would be considered war crimes, illegal, etc. The proof is ample in their outrageous and sometimes undisciplined behavior in Iraq.

This "business" needs to be legislated out of existence in the US and our government forbidden to use such "services."

[EtTuBrute]

Some food for thought, regarding mercenary functions.

Mercenaries have existed since man began engaging in organized warfare. To be a mercenary is neither good nor bad, it just “is”. They fulfill a necessary function; otherwise, they would not be hired and paid. All people in modern societies are mercenaries, to one extent or another.

The original argument made during the creation of the Volunteer Army (in the 1970’s) was that the US would save money by subcontracting support functions (cook, supply, etc.) to private companies, and establish a more professional force thereby. This was during the aftermath of Vietnam, and the US military, as a whole, was not perceived as professional. The VOLAR concept also defined the use of National Guard and Reserve units to supplement standing active duty forces as a “transition” force to “plug the gap” until sufficient additional regular forces could be recruited and trained, in the event of a large conflict (6 months – 1 Year).

If, in Iraq, instead of subcontracting security, transport, and other organic tasks, the US had used the funds spent for those purposes to expand the size of the armed forces, how many additional troops could we had recruited, and had them perform those tasks instead?

What benefit would there have been to having those (additional) personnel subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) instead of existing in a shadowy netherworld not subject to military law, but also not to either US or Iraqi civil justice?

-continued-

[EtTuBrute]

-continued-

What morale benefit would there have been to US forces not having ex-military personnel (contractors) performing similar tasks alongside them for (comparatively) ridiculously large sums of money?

What effect would it have had on retention in the armed forces (significant, trust me)?

Would the additional taxes paid into US coffers by regular military personnel have helped the US budget situation (as opposed to corporate profits often banked outside the country and not taxed)?

Would the growth of the US military rather than private corporations have affected the perception of the US presence?

Would the additional troops have facilitated the more rapid stabilization of Iraq?

Would the additional public exposure of more Americans having friends and family members at risk have resulted in more popular pressure to conduct the war more efficiently and professionally (from the civilian power point of view, not the military view)?

Would the creation of a separate section of the military to fulfill the DSS functions have resulted in a more professional, controllable force? Obviously, such a separate unit could be trained (and maintained) in a totally different manner than combat troops (which they would need to be).

-continued-

[EtTuBrute]

-continued-

Yes, DSS training is involved, but no more so than the training provided special operations NCO’s during their entire term of service. A permanent military section devoted to the DSS function would have developed its own sense of professional pride with high retention rates. All such units do. It could even become a part of the special operations arm, if handled properly.

It is more than possible that “all diplomatic security in Iraq be undertaken by US government personnel within six months of enactment." There are innumerable retired military or ex-military personnel currently employed in the US in training capacities (by the US Government) who would be available for that function (as well as the ex-contractors who would become available after the current contracts were terminated). They do not have to be military personnel, just standard government employees in the GS- grade ratings. Many of the current trainers are.

The system itself has become the problem. Google Eisenhower’s Farewell Address for a more complete discussion thereof (the full text, not small quotes).

(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html).

[zanzig]

One anomaly is that the Geneva Convention requires a "mercenary" to be "neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict". Blackwater/Xe and the other 2 companies are clearly nationals of a Party to the conflict in iraq, so what exactly is the legal status of the personnel of these 3 companies? Triple Canopy by using South American personnel seem to have got around this, but what about Blackwater's American operatives? If a mercenary is not a mercenary then they are unlawful combatants, that lovely legal fiction used to keep all those poor souls in Guantanamo for 5 or 6 years.

[weatherwaxx]

Their status? Above the law. And that is just plain wrong.

[bronceye]

I revile in the notion that Amnerica is spreading democracy through the use of Hessians. They weren't too popular in the U.S., at the time or in history books as they were paid assasins with no dog in the fight. A mercenary is a pox on the face of civilization.

[Berettasskeeter]

First, try spell-check before you "revile" anyone else. Then read into the relationship between Germany and England at the time that Hessians served the English Crown in its war against us. I have found no evidence to assume that the Hessians assassinated anyone. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Semper fi

[devanate]

Regardless. Mercenaries have no place in civilized society and the privatization of war ensures only one thing, that it will never end. As long as there is someone making profit from war, it will continue regardless of whether it is necessary or not.

[Berettasskeeter]

I didn't ask the author for citations. I took him to task for posting NO facts, only allegations.
As for my statements!? I was a bodyguard, on active duty with the Marine Corps, in the 70's. Both State and the Corps wanted out of that job because of manpower issues, and because the training involved to produce one is not very conducive to the other job. You should be able to Google "Personal Protection Security Unit", to find that the Marine Corps did, indeed, engage in this matter until the late 70's.
As for DSS, the training to produce a bodyguard is very involved. It is not a matter of handing a pistol and cool glasses to someone and sending them to work. We're speaking of, in the case of Iraq/Afghanistan, combat training, first aid, extensive firearms, intelligence, etc. It takes a lot of time to produce someone who can competently do the job.
As for your dig at soldiers who take on the job, your gratuitous insult is appreciated, coming from a Liberal. Soldiers take the job because of the money, of course. Do you dedicate a goodly portion of your life to something without remuneration? Do you have a family to support, ambitions to meet, bills to pay? Then you work for money, or.... do you work? Does that make you mercenary? No, then why do you insult them in that manner?
Semper fi

[doriath22]

This marine says there is no place for mercs representing the USA. They are a stain on the reputation of our country.

[Berettasskeeter]

Sorry Marine. I never agreed that there are any mercenaries representing the USA. C'mon Jarhead, think about the meaning of words you use. Furthermore, the vast majority of immigrants come to this country without U.S. citizenship, and are allowed to work. They are mercenaries, of a sort! Are they a stain? Or is it only the mercenaries with whom you disagree?
Semper fi

[TexasDem0]

doriath22 ,this Marine agrees with you.

[Snuffleupagus]

Your anecdotal story about personal protection and marines only shows your point of view, and is far from being fact. It is an opinion, the same thing you take the author to task over.

DSS training is very involved. Fair enough. You say it involves "combat training, first aid, extensive firearms, intelligence"
Seems to me like all of these (except for intel, sometimes) would be part of any soldiers training.

As for my dig at soldiers.........? No, that was a dig at your faulty logic attempting to show how vastly different Blackwater was to standard military service. I have not served, but know many more who have than you would assume. All of them look down on the mercenary trend with disdain, contempt and just a little bit of jealousy over the money side of things. All are too proud so far to go down that road.
Sure I have done many jobs for money. All of us draw ethical lines that change with times, our own situation and needs etc. Killing foreigners for good pay is a non starter.
A mercenary in Blackwater has a pretty high chance of killing someone. Most people here are disgusted by that. You can reply to every comment on this page, trying to explain or rationalize. Save it for St. Peter at the pearly gates......I'm guessing he's going to say you are full of sh*t.

[Berettasskeeter]

My point is that soldiers train to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver (or close combat, the current wording). Bodyguards most certainly do not train for that, but must be trained to do that combat required to remove their subject from the fray. That goes against a soldier's training.
I too know many GI's. Most have no set opinion of Blackwater, other than envy over the pay issue. A couple of my friends have the training and background, and have gone to Blackwater, which has pretty high standards.
I'm not sure why killing foreigners for good pay would be a non-starter. I'd rather have been paid very well for it than what I did get, and would have felt no remorse whatsoever about being paid better. And a lot of people are disgusted by military service, period. I have no interest in them, being less than men.
Semper fi

[devanate]

Mercs are the prostitutes of war.

[research]

Mercenaries anywhere,

are a threat to

Democracy and liberty,

Everywhere.

[Berettasskeeter]

I'll be glad when you folks learn some new refrains. Not only is your statement untrue, it is not borne out by historical fact.
Semper fi

[research]

The history of mercenaries is one of the rich killing the poor.

Look it up and get back to us.

[zizyphus]

These private, corporate armies of paid murderers must be made illegal. Corporations are going around the world now, acting like nations unto themselves- Blackwater is a good example. Led by radical, Christian evangelicals on a holy jihad, these mercenary armies are getting away with murder. Their plan is to make the whole world Christian, I guess.

We need to pass a constitutional amendment or something to ban the formation of private corporate armies.

[Berettasskeeter]

You claim that Blackwater is "...going around the world now, acting like nations.." Can you cite any proof of this? I haven't heard anything beyond their legitimate work fulfilling contractual obligations and providing training to our military services, police forces, and individuals who pay their way.
Further, can you cite any legitimate Christian evangelicals who have, and are, waging holy war?
Just how would you pass an amendment, such as you describe, without crippling the entire structure of incorporation in this country?
Semper fi

[weatherwaxx]

Take a quick google on who owns the Blackwater company--or whatever alias they're using. These folks are neocon dominionists.

I've heard too many stories from soldiers serving in Iraq about Blackwater blowing in, comandeering weapons and supplies, and taking off again -- with no accountability.

This organization is the largest private army in the world, and they are not being held accountable. The existence of mercenary soldiers isn't quite the issue -- though I do not for a minute believe that it's a good idea to have mercenary forces larger and better-armed than our own troops.

The issue in this case is accountability, and there is none.

[zizyphus]

Do a little more research, brother, they have an agenda.

[CelticDragon]

Any private security company can be called "mercenary" depending on how you word a law.

There is a time and place for mercenaries. The Clinton Administration used mercenaries in Bosnia to train the Bosnian Army, rather then deploy troops. The policy paid off, and the Bosnian Army quickly began to win impressive victories against the Serbian terrorists, rapists and murderers.

In Sierra Leone, Executive Outcomes beat back the savage and genocidal insurgency that had been dismembering opponents with machetes. When the war was nearly won, the company departed to allow the UN to take over. A hapless UN peacekeeping force was taken hostage, and the killing began again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

True professionals have a place in the emerging new face of warfare. Murderous idiots like those at Triple Canopy do not.

[Snuffleupagus]

Great article Eric Stoner.
A complete break from the Bush use of mercenaries is the right way to go.

Hey Berettasskisser, you sure take the author to task over numerous issues that have been well documented for months now. I will forgive him for not providing a link in every sentence to what is largely common knowledge.
Would you follow your own advice and link us up with proof of your assertions?

1 The military does not want to perform, or be tasked to do, the job of bodyguard....

2 The State Department could not, under any circumstances, train up the numbers of DSS agents required to do what Blackwater and the other companies do

If a Blackwater gig is so "contrary to the aims and goals of a soldier"..­..........­..........­.then why the hell are they all ex soldiers??­?????????? For the money baby! That's why they call them mercenaries.

[TexasDem0]

How many people think Berettasskisser will answer the questions that were asked?

[Berettasskeeter]

Noone else seems compelled to provide any proof, including the author of the article. My proof is my life.
I provided my answers above.
Semper fi

[Berettasskeeter]

"...the actual number of shootings in Iraq by private military companies is far higher than is publicly acknowledged and they are rarely reported by the individuals involved." Then, how does anyone know that fact??
"...implicated in a sex ring in Bosnia.." Implicated? Not convicted?
"... reportedly shot multiple rounds into the windshield of an unthreatening pickup truck ..". Reportedly? No facts??
What poor writing. The author condemns a legitimate company, based on "reportedly"!? While the facts may bear him out, this comes across as innuendo and character assassination, instead of reportage.
The reporter obviously has no knowledge, or experience, with military training or with what it takes to be of the caliber of the men and women of Blackwater. The military does not want to perform, or be tasked to do, the job of bodyguard. It is a different mindset, a different training regime, and contrary to the aims and goals of a soldier. The State Department could not, under any circumstances, train up the numbers of DSS agents required to do what Blackwater and the other companies do, not in the time quoted by the author.
Semper fi

[weatherwaxx]

It's hard to quote anything except as "reportedly" when facts are suppressed and indictments and convictions are rejected by the Attorney General. Here's hoping Eric Holder follows up on some of the reports that Mr Torture Gonzales conveniently ignored.

[Berettasskeeter]

If the only reports are just that, "reportedly", then they should not be used to influence people. If you are willing to accept hearsay evidence, why did you not accept the U.S., French, German, and UK evidence of WMD's? After all, if you'll take hearsay as evidence, that would seem to make you rather gullible, no?
Semper fi