Blackwater guys on the rooftop in Najaf

[Brett327]

Corporations serve for the good of their corporation not the good of the country. The military exists to serve the better good of this country regardless of the cost. These mercs are a bastardization of a professional military. Corporations should not be allowed to have this kind of authority. IMHO, only people who take an oath to defend this country should be in combat in Iraq. Oh, and I took a pay cut to join the military so I don't want to hear the argument that we are all here for the money because the money is not very good. Some people really want to defend mercs because they hire ex military or because they have friends on the payroll but that still does not legitimize corporate mercenaries.

That seems a little rash. What exactly is the harm again? The US has been employing private contractors in this capacity since the revolutionary war. And as for the money (boo hoo for you, I'm sure), stick around 15 or so years and the money is pretty good, especially with the bonuses they're giving out these days.

Brett

 

[skidkid]

I agree with wedge and no the military hasnt been using contractors in a combat capacity outside of three letter agencies as a rule-prior to OIF/OEF OAF.
I realize most of these guys are former military but officially where do their loyalties lie? to company or country what if thet two are in conflict (it could happen post Iraq)
As a whole the Blackwater and company guys are cowbys who get in the way of a lot of ops in Iraq (I wont say more sorry). contracting out military functions is a bad idea all around.

Im in the Fleet and have been for a while

 

[HeyJoe]

Corporations serve for the good of their corporation not the good of the country. The military exists to serve the better good of this country regardless of the cost. These mercs are a bastardization of a professional military. Corporations should not be allowed to have this kind of authority. IMHO, only people who take an oath to defend this country should be in combat in Iraq. Oh, and I took a pay cut to join the military so I don't want to hear the argument that we are all here for the money because the money is not very good. Some people really want to defend mercs because they hire ex military or because they have friends on the payroll but that still does not legitimize corporate mercenaries.

Whoa Tex,
Things aren't as black and white as you are trying to make them appear nor do all corporations exist for pure profit motive or individuals working for them doing it soley for the money (not to say they're not bona fide examples of both). True, companies like Blackwater, AMTI, DYNCORP, etc. are in business of putting armed individuals overseas in the employ of US Government and other entities. Your beef should be with US Government then, not the companies who have merely responded to the RFP or PO, etc. The term "Mercenary" harkens back to colonial wars in Africa where paid units were raised to fight as surrogates. It could also be applied to the American Volunteer Group that was raised from active duty ranks of US Military in 1941 (grabbed Boyington from Mustin Beach O Club). They were later inducted into Army Air Force and still have best success record of any unit in fighter business.

At any rate, US Government is contracting for services all over the map and in Afghanistan and Iraq in particular. Some of those services include carrying weapons...some are security related, some are high end "gigs" like personal protective details for VIPs like Kharzi. In a lot of cases, contractors took over roles of uniformed military because they were needed elsewhere. In some cases, reservists are used to anchor contractor dets flying UAVs for convoy protection so they are in fact blended operations. In the states, contractors are sometimes part of government organizations and sit side by side with civil servants and uniformed folks. Point is, government is paying the bills and has to deal with end strength issues so contractors are sometimes employed because of convenience or because of desire to get special skills or expertise. It's not black and white as you purport. The government does this with eyes wide open. You might have a different perspective when you hit the fleet and see some of specific instances yourself.

 

[Brett327]

Point is, government is paying the bills and has to deal with end strength issues so contractors are sometimes employed because of convenience or because of desire to get special skills or expertise. It's not black and white as you purport. The government does this with eyes wide open. You might have a different perspective when you hit the fleet and see some of specific instances yourself.

Thank you.

Brett

 

[Wedge]

mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
Hired for service in a foreign army.

No matter how you look at it Blackwater acts as a mercenary group. And yes I do take issue with the U.S. paying for these groups. If a private corporation wants to hire people to use as security that is one thing but there should not be any funding from the U.S. And yes Joe, it is black and white, these people do not act in the chain of command they are not held under the UCMJ (as we in the military are) and they did not take an oath to defend the country as the CIA and FBI personnel over there have done.
To me this issue is a matter of principal. These groups should not be funded by the U.S. by doing so we are in some way legitimizing vigilantism.
I doubt my perspective will change seeing these hired guns first hand out in the fleet however, I will try to be professional and open minded if I ever have to work with any of them in the future.

 

[DanMa1156]

My question is what was posed before, what happens when American military intervention in Iraq/ Afghanistan ends? Are these companies restricted by law for working for foreign nations, or what?

 

[Brett327]

mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
Hired for service in a foreign army.

No matter how you look at it Blackwater acts as a mercenary group. And yes I do take issue with the U.S. paying for these groups. If a private corporation wants to hire people to use as security that is one thing but there should not be any funding from the U.S. And yes Joe, it is black and white, these people do not act in the chain of command they are not held under the UCMJ (as we in the military are) and they did not take an oath to defend the country as the CIA and FBI personnel over there have done.
To me this issue is a matter of principal. These groups should not be funded by the U.S. by doing so we are in some way legitimizing vigilantism.
I doubt my perspective will change seeing these hired guns first hand out in the fleet however, I will try to be professional and open minded if I ever have to work with any of them in the future.

Your objection to them seems irrational. Again, what is the harm to be avoided? It's not like these guys are just out there being anarchists. As previously stated, they act on behalf of and in the interests of our government - just like we do. The government contracts these people because there is a need that can not be filled by regular forces. Beyond some vague philosophical objection you have, what is this huge evil they are perpetrating? Do you have the same objection to contractors running the simulators, or working in the galley? What would happen if some of these "hired gun" mess cranks went to cook for a foreign government after the war is over? The horror!

Brett

 

[Wedge]

My question is what was posed before, what happens when American military intervention in Iraq/ Afghanistan ends? Are these companies restricted by law for working for foreign nations, or what?

This is a good question.

I would also like to know what their ROE's are, who they answer to, what recourse is there if they kill non combatants. If these same groups fought against us would we then consider them insurgents, terrorist, mercenaries, traitors.

I may be coming off a bit strong on this subject but it is one that I find both interesting and disconcerting.

 

[Wedge]

brett 327 you claim that they are acting on our national interests but how can you be sure that this is the case. And so what if they are acting on our best interests, these people are not in the military and they are not sworn to protect this country, they have no obligation to uphold the nations best interests. We should not have to look to the private sector when it comes to combat arms. You have no real reason to validate government funded mercs other than that you think they serve a purpose. I certainly believe that no private organization with monetary gains can be trusted when it comes to combat arms especially with "national interests". Iraq has used mercs from other countries in the course of this war, how then do you feel about there involvement. Should we treat them as combatants or as terrorists.

 

[HH-60H]

Wedge, it seems to me that you are confusing some of the issues. The US govt doesn't hire them to conduct offensive combat operations. They are hired to provide defense/protection. It's a similar idea (albeit different scale) to hiring private bodyguards or a private security firm. In fact some of these companies seem to advertise that they are private security firms with extra special skills. In the US body guard, security firms, armored car companies are all legal. Generally, I think their operations fall under self defense type laws, just as the groups in Iraq kind of do.

 

[A4sForever]

........ I certainly believe that no private organization with monetary gains can be trusted when it comes to combat arms especially with "national interests".......

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght ..... you mean --- don't trust "organizations" with monetary gains in mind like, say, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Hughes, Grumman, and a cast of thousands, etc., etc. ..... organizations like those???

Like I said before ... when we get 3 million men under arms again .... ..... we won't need "Mercs". Or will we .... for deniability of certain operations ???

 

[mkoch]

Special skills aside, a merc is also considered to be much more "expendable" in comparison to a regular soldier/sailor/marine/airman. The public makes a big fuss about every 19 yr old kid that gets blown up on the side of the road, but I don't see any candle light vigils at Berkley for merc's. I'm not saying they don't deserve respect, but that's how stuff is in the world of public opinion. When the brass has an op on the table where casualties are guaranteed, the option of sending in a SEAL team and losing 6 operators (which they footed the bill to train) or paying for a contract and losing 10 merc's, and meanwhile not having to make the PR folks work overtime, which do you think they're going to choose?

So whether you want to admit it or not, there are many reasons to hire merc's. Some of those reasons are good, some of them are just plain bullsh** politics, but they are still reasons. People on both sides of the game know the whole picture when they sign on the dotted line.

 

[HeyJoe]

mer·ce·nar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-nr)
adj.
Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
Hired for service in a foreign army.

No matter how you look at it Blackwater acts as a mercenary group. And yes I do take issue with the U.S. paying for these groups. If a private corporation wants to hire people to use as security that is one thing but there should not be any funding from the U.S. And yes Joe, it is black and white, these people do not act in the chain of command they are not held under the UCMJ (as we in the military are) and they did not take an oath to defend the country as the CIA and FBI personnel over there have done.
To me this issue is a matter of principal. These groups should not be funded by the U.S. by doing so we are in some way legitimizing vigilantism.
I doubt my perspective will change seeing these hired guns first hand out in the fleet however, I will try to be professional and open minded if I ever have to work with any of them in the future.

I absolutely do not agree with your application of the dictionary meaning as you are "assuming" that is the primary motive. Maybe it is for some. How many do you know personally to make that assumption? I have a former SEAL working for me right now and he is on list to go because he wants to contribute and he cannot do so in uniform anymore. I have two other former special ops guys who feel the same way and will do it for a pay cut. Your principles (suggest you look that one up, too for proper useage/spelling) are important, but keep that open mind and remember your chain of command has put them into play. They are not in a foreign army. They are (for the most part) on your side. If it really bothers you, sing out to President and Congress then (beware: last guy who did that on "principle" was a marine buddy and he never got the squadron he deserved. He admits now that he let his emotions get the better of him....writing front page editorials did not endear himself to his chain of command). I do see your point and am only trying to show you some other perspectives on why so many contractors are being employed (to those who said use more uniformed types...3 answers to that endstrength, PERSTEMPO and OPSTEMPO)

 

[chupacabra]

I think what it boils down to is that it's much easier politically to send private contractors to do these security jobs than it is to send more military over there to fill those positions. When compared to increasing the number of troops in Iraq (or in the military period), hiring these guys out is the easiest option for our government.

What concerns me is what the majority of these contractors are going to do when their services are no longer needed in a large-scale U.S. engagement. Will they find civilian jobs back home, or look for a new security contract with whomever is cutting a check? I think many of them are, as they claim, motivated by their American loyalty and patriotism, but will that change when our government is no longer paying them?

Maybe they are the best option right now, but we have a military for a reason. Increase our manpower, and let the military do what we're trained to do.

 

[MIDNJAC]

A little off of the main topic, but I was just wondering if these guys (Blackwater, etc) fall under the protection/regulations of the Geneva Convention? I'm not totally schooled in the GC at this point, so forgive me if this is a newb question. Are they required to operate w/ respect to its regulations? Or can they operate outside of this (and other international law) since they aren't part of the armed forces of any nation that falls under this category?