What is your opinion on Blackwater?

[bulldogg]

As I said to MMarsh elsewhere, Inferno, from what do you base your characterization of the people who work for PMCs?

DelBoy, I have long been an advocate of mandatory national service. I would go so far as to make it a prerequisite for voting or anyone wishing to become a citizen of another nation. Doesn't mean military but some form of national service either military or civil but a two year stint after secondary school and before anyone could attend university. With no way out of it. EVERYONE serves in some capacity or other.

 

[Infern0]

As I said to MMarsh elsewhere, Inferno, from what do you base your characterization of the people who work for PMCs?

i have had no direct contact with Merc's, but i know of some NZDF personnel that i trained with that have joined their ranks, and also tales told by mates who have returned from A-stan. hell...i know of a large contingent of fijian soldiers on the books of one of the companies....and as evidenced by their recent coup....they're nothing more than thugs


ok...probably a gross over generalisation...but the point that im getting at for every ex-special forces operators at blackwater (and the ilk), they are vastly outnumbered by lesser trained "fodder" required by the company so they win the contracts.


but hey, share the wisdom....im more than interested

 

[mmarsh]

How does the forum feel about that?

I'm mixed. Had you asked me BEFORE the Bush Administration I would have been totally against a conscription.

However there are two things I greatly dislike.

1. First of all is this presidential power that allows a president to use military force without a formal declaration war from Congress. This was started by Kennedy it was a very bad precedent then, its even worse now. It has caused us no end of problems.

2. The increased willingness of extremist politicans to use the military as a expendable tool of Foreign deplomacy, and not of National Defense. A volunteer military doesn't impact civilians as much as a conscripted one does because the military is much smaller in size. If however the military included a sizable amount of the population the politicians would be much more hesitant to venture on military adventures, especially if the Conscription was on a no-exemptions allowed basis, like Charlie Rengle wanted to pass.

I would very much like to see how the Chickenhawks in Washington react when its their own children that are on the frontlines of the wars they continually push, and not somebody else's. Its easy to go to war when its someone else taking all the risks.

 

[bulldogg]

I just know a few soldiers who now work for them and a few that work for a couple different labels. I have quite a different impression and it doesn't jive with the media portrayal of the companies.

But if you remove them, the PMCs, who will fill the void they now occupy? They didn't create the jobs they fill, budget cuts and volunteer service did. For every action there is a reaction and the proliferation of PMCs is a reaction to voids in the market. Jobs that can't/won't be done by expensive highly trained operatives who are underpaid and underappreciated. Who will run security details when your combat forces are needed elsewhere and your MPs are stretched to the breaking point trying to provide some semblance of law and order and recruiting numbers are getting harder and harder to hit because young men and women are opting for occupations other than the military.

Its not feasible to spend a half million dollars and two years to train a soldier and then have him guard Hillary Clinton when she decides to visit a warzone... or have that soldier escort trucks down a highway wearing a bullseye size large on his chest... or have him guard prisoners. The numbers are too thin and the cost too high.

It is more economical both fiscally (pork barrel budgets) and politically (since so many people are opposed to mandatory service) to hire private contractors to do these and other jobs and use your soldiers to do the jobs they volunteered to do.

 

[Infern0]

yeah but here's the thing...the Military IS spending the money to train these guys....then they jump ship for the big cash money.

i think the current boon for the merc company's is more due to a desire to keep the numbers of troops deployed in the sandbox low to keep the noise from the media down to a dull roar.

and that is a double edge sword.

would the merc companies be there in suc force if enough troops had been deployed in the first place? who knows.

 

[bulldogg]

yeah but here's the thing...the Military IS spending the money to train these guys....then they jump ship for the big cash money.

Hence the underpaid, underappreciated part that leads them to leave. But bear this in mind, Blackwater et al have no retirement plan, no VA, no GI Bill, these men give that up to cash in now. Pay them what they are worth on the open market and they won't leave... of course there goes the budget for Ospreys and TMDS.

As for their market niche in the first place, its still supply and demand, free market and all that. You would have to beef up the standing Army in order to eliminate the gap the PMCs are filling. Even in full force there are gaps that only the PMCs are capable of filling right now. Not enough young men and women are joining as is so if you want to eliminate the gap you have to go to mandatory service in order to achieve the numbers needed.

So in the end the fiscal and political economics rule the day since fat cats don't want to give up their cash cows and the common people don't feel that their freedoms are something they should have to personally sacrifice for in order to maintain.

And as for the legallity of these companies...

The 1949 Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) does not recognize the difference between defense contractors and PMCs; it defines a category called supply contractors. If the supply contractor has been issued with a valid identity card from the armed forces which they accompany, they are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture (GCIII Article 4.1.4). If, however, the contractor engages in combat, he/she can be classified as a mercenary by the captors under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) Article 47.c, unless falling under an exemption to this clause in Article 47. If captured contractors are found to be mercenaries, they are unlawful combatants and lose the right to prisoner of war status. Protocol I was not ratified by the United States because, among other issues, it does not require "freedom Fighters" to obey the convention in order to be granted its protections.

http://www.imyspaceproxy.com/index....lraS9Qcml2YXRlX21pbGl0YXJ5X2NvbXBhbnk=&hl=3ef

 

[mmarsh]

As I said to MMarsh elsewhere, Inferno, from what do you base your characterization of the people who work for PMCs?

DelBoy, I have long been an advocate of mandatory national service. I would go so far as to make it a prerequisite for voting or anyone wishing to become a citizen of another nation. Doesn't mean military but some form of national service either military or civil but a two year stint after secondary school and before anyone could attend university. With no way out of it. EVERYONE serves in some capacity or other.

Bulldogg

Nobody is questioning the PMC personal integrity. I am sure most are stand up guys, and no I don't blame for taking the job I might have done the same, especially considering the money involved.

What I am saying is I don't trust the very nature of the business they are in. Where do I base that characterization? From several centuries of the history of warfare. Even in the days of ancient antiquity the use of Mercenaries have been historically a very risky affair.

The problem is always the same. Mercenaires may really like their employer, but ultimately they are only really loyal to their paycheck. It doesn't matter if they are German Mercenaries that fought for Roman Empire or if its Blackwater USA. They will go where the money is. -Thats the nature of the Business.

A second problem is that Mercs are more concerned with personal survival than regular troops.
A soldier will fight and die for an Ideal. But to a Merc, money is generally meaningless if you are dead. All Mercs accept the chance they might be killed in combat, but they are not going to obey orders that would likely result in their death. Even if they get fired, they can always go to another company.

Do you have any idea how many battles have been lost due to Mercs switching loyalities before an engagement? We have already have a case of Blackwater ops betraying the US Government by illegally selling weapons (that most likely that went to the insurgency).

You just cannot trust people like that, And I certainly don't want to have people like that watching my back, I'd much rather have a fellow under-paid, under-appreciated, federal employee in my foxhole.

 

[bulldogg]

That case is alleged... I'll wait till the smoke has cleared and the poop sifters have finished reading trailsigns. As for the very nature of the business, I'd argue its human nature and in a perfect world, well... perchance to dream of a world where humans overcome their lowest common denominators and we can all skip into the sunset holding hands and sipping pink lemonade... they will always exist. As long as humans do, there will be conflict and as long as there is conflict men will fight for money. As for them switching sides, human nature being what it is, sure its possible, in small numbers, but the majority would never turn on their brothers in arms.

 

[mmarsh]

That case is alleged... I'll wait till the smoke has cleared and the poop sifters have finished reading trailsigns. As for the very nature of the business, I'd argue its human nature and in a perfect world, well... perchance to dream of a world where humans overcome their lowest common denominators and we can all skip into the sunset holding hands and sipping pink lemonade... they will always exist. As long as humans do, there will be conflict and as long as there is conflict men will fight for money. As for them switching sides, human nature being what it is, sure its possible, in small numbers, but the majority would never turn on their brothers in arms.

Except that not all of the people at Blackwater are American. Blackwater hires ex-military from around the world. And while I would agree its only a remote chance that they would turn against fellow US Soldiers, they are much more likely to do something against the interests of its current employer (the US Government) if it suits their interest.

For example: If Hugo Chavez was paying some obscene amount for US mercs so that they would participate in the invasion of a neighboring country do you think it wouldn't be at least tempting?

 

[Gator]

I believe the Merc's need to be removed from United States soil, and the United States Military along with the Department of State needs to sever all ties. Furthermore, I personally believe they are all outlaws and should be treated as such.

As for the Press Corps on the Ground, there is no need to offer them protection, as the United States Military has its own Reporters, so, any other Private Press Company sending people should be on their own as for Protective Services.

 

[bulldogg]

Be wary wary quiet, we're hunting wabbits

MMarsh, given the financial state some warriors are in, yeah the Chavez offer would be VERY tempting.

I believe the Merc's need to be removed from United States soil, and the United States Military along with the Department of State needs to sever all ties. Furthermore, I personally believe they are all outlaws and should be treated as such.

As for the Press Corps on the Ground, there is no need to offer them protection, as the United States Military has its own Reporters, so, any other Private Press Company sending people should be on their own as for Protective Services.

For your first paragraph, with what shall you fill the void? Very easy to point fingers at a problem, the rub lies in the solution to it.

And thank god our laws are not determined by your "feeling" and rather by the legal system which as it stands right now says that these companies and their employees are legal. Shall I quote you chapter and verse from the US legal code, I got it here if ya need it in black n white. We've been down this road before incase your memory fails you and between then and now the laws have not been altered.

Second paragraph, you really can't have just said what you said. You make the case for press companies to hire the PMCs... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Gator you are your own worst enemy in an argument. Would you like to rephrase that one?

Let's go one further just for shits 'n giggles, are personal body guards hired by VIPs around the world mercenaries? Think about this one before you answer because I've got a full ammo belt on this one.

 

[LeEnfield]

With all the pressure on the Governments about troop losses the Governments are only to happy to get some of the dirty work done by these contractor's, now there is not the hue and cry when they get killed. Also it appears that they operate under different rules to the military. Many of the Soldiers would like to able to be so free in opening fire with out so many questions being asked

 

[senojekips]

I'm going to have to ease myself into this debate very carefully as much has transpired in the last 24 hours and I haven't as yet absorbed it all. I spent yesterday largely elsewhere and only looked in for a few seconds every time I had a chance. All manner of points have been raised but I figure that rather than attempt to answer them all I will go back to the question originally posed "What is your opinion of Black Water"

The way I see it is that Blackwater have come into public prominence of late because of a number of questionable incidents that have transpired, which in turn has led to people questioning the way that these companies operate.

Now the question was what do "I" think of them. Well,..... based on reports in the press and subsequent developments.

(1) It appears that the company is operating in a very grey area regarding their very legality. I don't care if the they call themselves Mother Teresa's little Helpers, by definition, they fulfil all of the requirements to be classified as mercenaries pure and simple.

(2) There have been reports of them behaving as a law unto themselves where they have no authority. e.g. Pulling their weapons on US troops and disarming them, the reckless use of weapons against unarmed civilians including spraying a crowded square with machine gun fire.

Now I could go on, I think we have all read of the calls for enquiries into the way that they work and all the rest of it.

Just based on the couple of points above, I feel that until many questions are answered like their position vis a vis the military forces, and there is a clarification of the legal status of companies such as this internationally, there is absolutely no legal place for them. Yep they are Illegal, that's what I think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just saw this:

Let's go one further just for shits 'n giggles, are personal body guards hired by VIPs around the world mercenaries? Think about this one before you answer because I've got a full ammo belt on this one.

I can only speak for Australia, but I'm sure that it would also be the case in most other countries. Body guards when operating in a foreign country hold absolutely no legal status, they are merely non resident civilians, they are not permitted to carry weapons unless a special dispensation is given, and this is only done for some heads of state. Should they assault anybody they are held accountable and treated the same as any other criminal.

 

[Gator]

Just based on the couple of points above, I feel that until many questions are answered like their position vis a vis the military forces, and there is a clarification of the legal status of companies such as this internationally, there is absolutely no legal place for them. Yep they are Illegal, that's what I think.

I'd like to know how the Merc Supporters on this Board feel about the Iranians being within their legal rights sending Merc's to Iraq to fight the United States Military and plant IEDs just because the Government of Iran wants a certain outcome in Iraq, and the Government of Iran is willing to pay Merc's to achieve such an intended outcome.

If we say Merc's are legal for us to use in a Combat Zone in place of Military Troops, then one would think they are legal for any nation on Earth to use in a Combat Zone, perhaps even the same Combat Zone, and even if said Merc's are used against United States Troops.

 

[mmarsh]

You guys see this? UNBELIEVABLE.
I was just telling Bulldogg a few days ago I didn't think Blackwater would ever take arms against US soldiers. I was wrong.

Blackwater Ops points weapons at US soldiers in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek/

Oct. 15, 2007 issue - The colonel was furious. "Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers." He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad's Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV. His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company. Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, "This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press."

Americans civilians pointing weapons at US soldiers??? WTF!!!
Had I been the Colonel I would have sent MPs with arrest warrants for the Blackwater people involved and send them to the stockade as 'enemy combatants'.So lets see...

1. Killing of 17 unarmed civilians -and then lying about it.
2. Killing of 3 US soldiers in Afghanistan while hotdogging in a cargo plane.
3. Weapons smuggling.
4. The killing of a Iraqi diplomats bodyguard
5. The armed detention of US Military personnel.

Whats next??? Furthermore I am sick and tired of listening to Blackwater 101 lame excuses of "why its not our fault".

 

[A Can of Man]

About conscription into the military. No. I prefer a professional military. In fact, since those in arms are volunteers, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. I know a lot of folks didn't really want to go to Iraq but that's the deal they signed up for.
As for "Support Our Troops, Bring them Back Home" people... they'll come home if they don't re-up.
Blackwater et al, are a wakeup call to the government to make our military more effective and less restricted to cumbersome rules and restrictions. However, Blackwater also serves as an example of what happens if these regulations are too light.
As for manpower issues... people are just going to have to wear a lot of hats. I had to wear 7 when I was in. You don't need to wear that many but you get the idea.
All I can say is that these companies should never be used in the capacity they have been in this conflict at any point after Iraq. More restrictions must be placed on what sort of force they can use, when and also their subjection to laws. Once a bunch of these characters get jailed for what they do, they might not strut around so much looking down on regular military folks.

 

[godofthunder9010]

It was a mistake to bring in Blackwater to begin with. The USA should have never placed it's trust nor it's dependency upon an organization of mercs that the US command structure has extremely limited control over. Ex-military? Irrelevant. Former US military does not mean you are loyal. It just means that you have the same training and skills that the regular military has.

Mercenary organizations are an age-old problem. There have always been a large variety of niches they've filled. For instance, entering combat where nobody else will and providing an "instant" increase to a nations military strength. Some mercs are better soldiers than regular soldiers too. But the problem just encountered is the same problem that has always been encountered with mercs. You can't trust them and they do as they damn well please.

The truth of the matter is that the United States has probably lacked the capacity to successfully occupy Iraq from the start. Yes we can play policeman there. Yes there can see success stories. But the underlying fact is, we're just too ... soft? nice? diplomatic?

What I'm getting at is this: The type of insurgency you're seeing in Iraq cannot be solved by reason and it cannot be negotiated with. The brutal tactics we are starting to see on the part of Blackwater might give some chance of success, but the USA simply cannot and should not saddle itself with that liability.

The last successful policy for stable control of Iraq was the rule of Saddam Hussein. How did he do it? Blood, torture, genocide and terrifying his populace into submission. The US Military cannot conscience such an approach, yet it's likely that is the only method of creating stability in Iraq -- a large collection of mutually hostile peoples.

It does seem to me that Blackwater is beginning to take a more Saddam Hussein-like approach. In so doing, they've proven that the US government should terminate their contract and work in Iraq post-haste.

 

[warhappy100]

I wonder if those who invested money into getting Blackwater started are happy if there not I wonder how many want to cash out before it sinks. Thats who should be worried now if there kicked out Iraq.

 

[bulldogg]

Oh look Phoenix is back...

I'd like to know how the Merc Supporters on this Board feel about the Iranians being within their legal rights sending Merc's to Iraq to fight the United States Military and plant IEDs just because the Government of Iran wants a certain outcome in Iraq, and the Government of Iran is willing to pay Merc's to achieve such an intended outcome.

If we say Merc's are legal for us to use in a Combat Zone in place of Military Troops, then one would think they are legal for any nation on Earth to use in a Combat Zone, perhaps even the same Combat Zone, and even if said Merc's are used against United States Troops.

Then quit pretending to ignore my posts and ask me, instead of using a thinly veiled euphemism shades vis-a-vis Phoenix80, since in fact I have never said I support any of these private fighters. Danger, thin ice.

 

[Gator]

Americans civilians pointing weapons at US soldiers??? WTF!!!
Had I been the Colonel I would have sent MPs with arrest warrants for the Blackwater people involved and send them to the stockade as 'enemy combatants'.So lets see...

I can't believe that a United States Military Force surrendered to a group of Merc's in Iraq without firing a shot.