Forum: pol
Page 2448
Subject: Murky Mercs


  Posted by: biliruben - [531202411] Sun, Aug 14, 2005, 11:49

100 or so private "security" companies (PSCs) comprise as much as 16% of our fighting force:

In case the car gig doesn't work out (actually, if you read the article, you can combine your old and new professions).

A long article on the rise of mercenaries in the NYT.

Questions:

Should we be paying significantly more for experienced help with the dollar their main loyalty? Why would the career sargaent stay in the real military? Can they be trusted when the shiznit hits the spinning blades? What is a dollar worth to a dead man? What if the enemy triples your salary? How can they possibly be coordinated well with a top-down structure like the military? Do we really want foriegn Mercs guarding our generals? What kind of general is it any way that hires a band South Africans to keep his head attached to his neck? What kind of faith does that show in his own troops?

 
1Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 09:27
I think this would have been apropriate in the From the Right: What Went Wrong... thread. First because the war profiteering that resulted in the vast presence of civilian contractors (including the mercenaries) are possibly the primary deterrant from winning over many Iraqis. As long as unemployment soars and the majority of Iraqis remain dependant on food rations, there will be sufficient resentment among the people to continue to fuel and staff the insurgency.

Second because it challenges those on the right who still insist that any shortcomings of the occupation do not result from a shortage troops.
 
2biliruben
      ID: 531202411
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 11:50
Yeah, I suppose. I was hoping to get some discussion, and the use of mercs, while having many historical precedents, had really disappeared from general use in recent history, perhaps for good reason. They reappeared without any real public debate.

I was trying to avoid the finger-pointing associated with the obvious inference that this was due to low troop-levels, and engage a broader discussion from both sides. Alas.
 
3Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 12:13
Well its not too late to try to prompt that, but you know that finger pointing is what every discussion here eventually becomes, pretty much no matter what. I am curious about the histoy of civilians in nation building, in general, not just soldiers and armed guards.

Were American (and Soviet?) civilian contractors granted exclusive deals to rebuild Japan and Germany? If so, did they hire their own private security firms who would eventually number as much as 1/5 the size of the entire occupying military forces? How many Germans and Japanese did those contractors employ? What were the prevailing opinions of the day regarding civilian contractors? What about the roles of civilian contractors (including mercs) in other successful and unsuccessful nation-building endeavors?
 
4soxzeitgeist
      ID: 38727189
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 12:31
It would have been nice to open this subject up bili, but would probably have been impossible because the very presence of private soldiers implies that the civilian military leadership at DoD hadn't provided enough troops or support for the troops deployed. And we all know that that could never be the case.

While we posess the most powerful, capable and technically advanced weapons systems in the world, the way we utilize them doesn't provide us with any operational or strategic advantage. While tactically, I'll take a fireteam of Marines over any other small unit on the planet, the overall use of their abilities is mitigated by our current organizational structure and the changing threats we face.

Why the Pentagon is so in love with the idea of a techno war based on the manuver warfare tactics and centralized command of the middle and late 20th century is totally beyond me. If a former enlisted man with a hobby type interest in military strategy and tactics can see there's something amiss, why not our best and brightest? Because the Pentagon is in love with technology and can't shake the byzantine, heirarchal command structure that slows the dissemination of information, procurement and decision making. There's a reason that the cliche about being ready to "fight the last war" exists, and it's the 23,000 + people at the Pentagon. I don't doubt that the vast majority of them are dedicated and hard workers, but 23,000? That's a lot of bureaucracy, and necessarily means that as an organization, (especially a military one) it will be hard pressed to evolve with the times. And let's fact it, the people running the show there didn't want to hear any dissent in the run up to the invasion because they had been planning it for years and years (PNAC, anyone?). Rummy, Wolfowitz and Cheney are all on the record with incredibly lowball, best-case-scenario numbers that were far, far easier to sell to the public than pesky realistic scenarios. "Greeted with open arms as liberators", "the invasion will be far more costly than the occupation", and predictions that the oilfields would generate $100 billion and immediately come to mind.

This war wasn't ever going to be run correctly because it's a business move, and in business you try to maximize profits while minimizing costs. More troops and proper outfitting would have been too time consuming and costly. But so is an underprepared force, so the administration has quietly allowed private companies (many of which have ties to current administration and DoD officials) to pick up the slack and make, both figuratively and literally, a killing.
 
5biliruben
      ID: 531202411
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 12:53
Is the use of mercs preferable to a draft?

When we do not have enough volunteers to adequately staff our army, is this sign of a fundemental problem with our foriegn policy, or simply a temporary mismanagement issue?
 
6Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 12:54
Merc are like soldier temps. More of a temporary shortage, I'd guess.
 
7biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 13:52
Well-paid temps.
 
8soxzeitgeist
      ID: 38727189
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 13:54
I would rather see mercs, who are essentially prior service and better trained and motivated (even if it is just for the benjamins) than a draft.

That said, there should be far better guidelines or standards in place regarding their roles.
 
9Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 14:00
From the NYT link in post 0:
Back in October of last year, a Congressional bill demanded that the Department of Defense come up with a plan to manage the security companies -- to investigate individual backgrounds and inculcate rules of engagement and enforce compliance. Until then, according to a Pentagon official with knowledge of the process who asked not to be named because the Pentagon plan is still being finalized, the department had been at work, for many months, on doctrine dealing in a general way with all types of private contractors in Iraq but not specifically addressing the huge sector of gunmen. It seems that only the October bill drove the Pentagon to formally account for the most vital, and potentially most troubling, part of its outsourcing. Congress gave the department six months to produce its plan. Nine months have passed. The Pentagon has now promised the document any day; there's no telling whether it will change anything -- what guidelines it will give, what level of commitment will be behind them. When I asked the Pentagon official about who would enforce the rules in Iraq, I was told that the country's new sovereignty would be ''the context.'' It was hard not to think that the infant government of Iraq would be left mostly on its own to control the thousands of private gunmen that the American-led occupation has introduced to the country. It was hard not to think that the companies would be left to govern themselves.

 
10Pancho Villa
      Sustainer
      ID: 533817
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 14:33
Even when security companies are caught red-handed not only bungling their security responsibilities, but blatantly ripping off the government(read - taxpayers) for millions, the Justice Department claims they have no jurisdiction in Iraq.

I have posted this several times, but it fits well in this thread.

Custer Battles

Leave it to Henry Waxman to be the voice of truth and reason.


Towards the end of the DPC hearing, U.S. Representative Henry Waxman asked Grayson, "So, if the government doesn't pursue recovery of the money, and they block the lawsuits and tell their friends who run the Congress not to do any oversight, you're really talking about a no fraud zone in Iraq and no fraud zone wherever this administration is involved. Is this the case?" To which Grayson replied, "That is 100 percent true."


 
11Texas Flood
      ID: 326462912
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 16:18
It's amazing that we can train American soldiers in 16 weeks but we can't train those dumbass Iraqi's in 2 years.

Why would any of those bitches want to fight when we do it for them? Perhaps our guys should be paid Merc wages from the Iraqi treasury.
 
12Pancho Villa
      Sustainer
      ID: 533817
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 16:52
The reason we can't train a decent security force in Iraq is that all the good soldiers and fighters are already spoken for. The Kurds have their 100,000 strong Peshmerga, the Shiites have their Badr Brigade and other private militias, and the Sunnis are the insurgents. The leftovers that have become the Iraqi Army are not brothers-in-arms either. Kurds and Shiites need to be separated so as not to be fighting each other instead of side by side.

This is a glaring example of the complete lack of Iraqi nationalism. That Bush and friends refuse to even consider a separation solution is mind-boggling. The Iraqis are making that statement loud and clear with their inability to agree on the basic tenets of a union.
 
13soxzeitgeist
      ID: 38727189
      Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 22:23
Could you be any more ignorant and bigoted TF?

Or are you trying to be funny?

Iraq's borders were drawn up by the Brits after WW I in order to facilitate their domination of Iraqi oil reserves (surprise!). When they did that they essentially drew a box around the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni living in the remanants of the Ottoman Empire - none of whom cared for each other, and in fact had little to nothing in common - not language, not laws, not culture or religious traditions. Picture drawing a new map that includes the Aryan Brotherhood, the Latin Kings and some Crips and Bloods thrown in for good measure. Now tell them that they're all part of the same gang and should just play nice, and you'll get the idea.

That said, splitting Iraq up (or Balkanizing it) isn't without danger. We helped facilitate this in the former Yugoslavia, and it turns out that this process will probably not ever be self-stabilizing and that the international community will have to take greater responsibility for the region. It's one thing to do this in Europes' back yard with all of the built in infrastructure and intangibles in place already, but quite another to do it in Iraq where none of the saftey nets exist.
 
14Trip
      Leader
      ID: 13961611
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:03
PERU: Veteran Soldiers, Police Recruited for Iraq by U.S. Contractors

"There is no work here, and when you do find a job, you earn pathetically low wages. I'm a factory watchman, and I earn the equivalent of eight dollars for a 12-hour day. To work in Iraq they were going to pay me 35 dollars a day, plus other benefits. It was really tempting, despite the risks," said Pirana, 29

Well paid temps?
 
15biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:10
$35/day to get shot at is well paid?
 
16Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:32
BR -- it's been awhile since I looked at this issue, but I think referencing it as "low troop levels" is too simplistic. The movement to mercs has been a gradual one since the end of the Cold War, and is an inevitable (IMO) result of terrible government accounting practices.

That is, the defense department can pay $x to maintain a soldier on active duty, or shift that cash to other projects. When the need for the soldier arises, you get a special appropriation, anyway. The fact that it costs 1.5*x later doesn't matter because it doesn't hit your appropriated budget.

Save a penny, spend a pound. Or something like that. It's similar in design to the idiotic Boeing lease deal, if I recall that one correctly.
 
17Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:35
BR -- sorry, I just now saw the date of your initial post. I can't access the NYTimes article.

My non-responsiveness at the time wasn't avoidance; I was in Colorado.
 
18Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:38
BTW, here is a perspective from 1997. This issue didn't just suddenly spring up.
 
19Madman
      ID: 43410119
      Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:43
BTW, I should point out that my link in 18 provides an entirely different side of the "problem", but one also worthy of due consideration.
 
20biliruben
      ID: 17502215
      Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 18:06
timely butt, and the Times archives are now free and open if you want to read the old link.
 
21Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Oct 15, 2007, 07:18

Hat tip: Daily Dish
 
22Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 09:58
Excellent and very disturbing article in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune.

Nice to see my local rag involved in some real investigative journalism.

It's unclear how many armed contractors come from third-world countries, but federal reports indicate less than a fifth are Americans.
The rest are recruited from dozens of other nations, including many places like Honduras, that are not a part of the Bush Administration's so-called "coalition of the willing." And like Honduras, many of the nations from which private security contractors are drawn are steeped in abject poverty. In these places, critics say, billion-dollar American companies can find plenty of people willing to risk their lives for wages as low as $31 a day - and who don't have a voice when things go wrong.


After arriving in Iraq - via Baghdad International Airport, according to a stamp in his passport - Urquia said he was vetted by U.S. military doctors and issued an identification badge at the U.S. embassy, where he was given a uniform with a Honduran flag on the sleeve.
Between August 2005 and August 2006, Urquia led a dozen other soldiers from Honduras' 2nd Aerotransport Infantry Battalion as they stood guard on one side of the U.S. embassy compound.
"We worked from 6 in the evening to 6 in the morning," he said. "Then we would go to breakfast and afterwards, we would be picked up for training. We trained all day and slept for two or three hours before we went back to work. That was how it was."
Urquia said he was given a debit card to access an account where his pay would be deposited. But when he tried to use it to buy food and supplies in Baghdad's Green Zone, it didn't work. "We all complained, but they said: 'Don't worry, your money will be waiting for you when you return home,' " Urquia said. U.S. soldiers who knew of Urquia's situation would sometimes slip him some cash. Urquia said that money was all he and his soldiers had to spend while in Iraq.
About six months into the tour, one of Urquia's soldiers was wounded in a rocket propelled grenade attack. Urquia said initial care by U.S. military doctors was sufficient to save the soldier's life. But after the wounded soldier was evacuated back to Honduras, Urquia said, "he never got the help he needed. His brain was damaged but there was no compensation."
Urquia said it was obvious, at that point, that he and his men were being exploited. But still expecting that a large savings account was waiting for him on the other side of the deployment, he stuck to it. "What else could I do?" he asked.
More than a year after he returned, Urquia claims he still hasn't been paid. "Not a single penny," he said
 
23sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 10:08
Nice find PV. Further evidence of the lack of oversight and sheer irresponsibility with which these "contracts" were doled out.
 
24Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 11:27
Blackwater gets $1 billion in contracts, then screws government in taxes

Blackwater insists its 850 operatives in Iraq are separate contractors, not employees. That little device has allowed the company to avoid paying an estimated $50 million in American payroll taxes.

Tax and labor laws may have been violated by Blackwater’s being awarded $144 million in contracts that were supposed to go to small businesses. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House government oversight committee, is calling for a multiagency investigation.

The sooner the better for taxpayers. Blackwater officials insist that they are entitled by law to classify their hirelings as non-employees. But the Internal Revenue Service has concluded otherwise, finding Blackwater’s designation of a security guard as an independent contractor to be “without merit.”


Go get em, Henry!

 
25Boldwin
      ID: 53211263
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 11:32
This part of the law does in fact get murky. If they bought their own decoder rings they prolly qualify as subcontractors. Even if they get disallowed it doesn't mean Blackwater didn't have every reason to think they had their T's crossed and I's dotted.
 
26Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 11:58
Even if they get disallowed it doesn't mean Blackwater didn't have every reason to think they had their T's crossed and I's dotted.

Fine, they may have thought they crossed every T, but it's time to pony up the $50 million.

The more I read about Blackwater, the more I am convinced that Erik Prince should be spending some time in jail. If my clients have to sit in jail because they didn't pay for a speeding ticket which suspended their license, that apologist for murderous thugs deserves much worse.
 
27biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 23:52
Did Erik Prince, head of Blackwater, commit murder?
 
28Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 01:30
Article from The Nation with some tasty quotes from the affidavits.
 
29boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 10:17
Didn't I see this already?
 
30biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Tue, Jul 01, 2014, 08:36
bbb... butt
 
31biliruben
      ID: 229341622
      Tue, Jul 01, 2014, 08:36
bbb... butt