Sardaukar Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Because this is seen as a short term gig, not worthy of the long term expansion of infrastruture required to do it via US .mil and .gov forces. For that matter, using members of the SOF community as bodyguards is a huge waste and strikes me as the move of pompous, egomaniac asshats. That's what MP's are for, and in most cases, it's probably adequate to issue the person in question a sidearm and ask them to man up and be responsible for their own damned security. As (Foch? DeGaul?) said, "Grave yards are full of indispensible men," and none of these people are really as important as they think they are. S/F....Ken M Well...I don't see expanding regular infrastructure necessarily a bad thing, since I don't see the end for US officials visiting potentially dangerous places..on the contrary. SOF should be used only as last option, I agree..or when there is very grave risk of direct combat. And I agree that most of the officials do not need massive protection, they are not indespensable. Kinda reminds me of quote: Interviewer: "How did you became a battaillon commander?"Answer: "Other officers were dead..."
capt_starlight Posted October 24, 2007 Author Posted October 24, 2007 More for Blackwater (and the others)........ Rice orders crackdown on Iraq-based security firms US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered tougher oversight of private guards in Iraq, including tighter rules on the use of force, following deadly shootings involving US security contractor Blackwater. The State Department said other measures included improved training and clearer rules of engagement, better coordination with the US military as well as cultural sensitivity training for guards and more Arabic speakers. Dr Rice made the move following recommendations by a panel of experts she appointed to look into the work of private security contractors after the September 16 shooting incident in Baghdad that killed at least 17 Iraqis and enraged Iraq's Government. "Our key finding is that prompt measures should be taken to strengthen coordination, oversight and accountability aspects of the State Department's security practices in Iraq in order to reduce the likelihood that future incidents will occur that adversely affect the overall mission in Iraq," said the report by the panel, led by department official Patrick Kennedy. Iraqis have complained vociferously about the role of private security contractors in Iraq and US lawmakers have accused them of being trigger-happy and not accountable under either US or Iraqi law for their actions. North Carolina-based Blackwater, which employs about 1,000 people in Iraq, has said its guards responded lawfully to a hostile threat. Mr Kennedy told reporters there needed to be a better legal framework for contractors and the panel was unaware of any basis for holding non-US Defence Department contractors accountable under US law. "We want there to be legal clarity here," said Mr Kennedy. Earlier this month, Dr Rice ordered cameras be installed on convoy vehicles run by Blackwater and that diplomatic security agents accompany them on all missions taking diplomats out of the international zone in Baghdad. A senior diplomatic security official said the cameras had not yet been installed as they were still looking at the best equipment for the job but diplomatic agents were accompanying each mission. - Reuters
mattblack Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 From that article: "One military contractor, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution in his industry, recounted the story of a Blackwater operative who answered a Marine officer's order to put his pistol on safety when entering a base post office by saying, "This is my safety," and wiggling his trigger finger in the air. "Isn't it a scene from Blackhawk Down? If the incident actually happened,it wouldn't be in the least surprising to me if the PMC was carrying a Glock ( as most Blackwater employees do) and the Marine officer was not aware that it isn't possible to put one on safety.Of course weapons handling by LE and PMC's vs soldiers and Marines is done considerably different. Robert Young Pelton's Hired Guns in the War on Terror is worth reading.I think the biggest misconception about contractors is that when XX,XXX number of them is given that people assume each one is an ex-SEAL making huge $,rather than the Peruvians,Filipinos,Fijians et al who aren't being paid relatively beans.
Paul G. Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 What intrigues me is why use private contractor to bodyguard your officials ? Why not get trained personnel from USSS or diplomatic protection service ? Or special forces in a pinch? Most countries would never consider outsourcing the protection of high-ranking officials to private contractor. There are 1,400 employed by the US Government total, world wide. There are some 800 private security contractors operating in Iraq alone. Do the math.
Sardaukar Posted October 25, 2007 Posted October 25, 2007 There are 1,400 employed by the US Government total, world wide. There are some 800 private security contractors operating in Iraq alone. Do the math. I did. Which either gives the message that there are too many people to protect...(most likely 50% would not need to be there or protected or both)...or that USG cannot protect their own officials themselves (which is quite embarrassing). In my not so humble opinion, you either protect your government officials yourself, you don't send them or you let them take their chances if they want. Outsourcing stuff like that is detrimental to morale and can lead to all sorts of weird co-operation fuck-ups and miscommunications between official and "unofficial" forces.
capt_starlight Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 And now we have the UN working group on the use of mercenaries - specifically those sections that talk of groups like "Blackwater".... Private security companies operate without supervision or accountability in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and represent a new form of mercenary activity, a United Nations report said. The United States' reliance on private contractors has fuelled a growing demand for former police and military personnel in developing countries to be recruited as "security guards" who in fact serve as private armed soldiers, it said. These forces enjoy de facto impunity under national laws that grant immunity to private military and private security company personnel, according to the UN working group on the use of mercenaries. Its report will be presented to the General Assembly today. "The trend towards outsourcing and privatising various military functions by a number of member states in the past 10 years has resulted in the mushrooming of private military and security companies," the report said. Many companies have contracts with the Pentagon or US State Department, it said, citing a "tremendous increase in the number of private military and private security companies connected with the conflict situations in Afghanistan and Iraq". Private security guards are considered by some governments to be neither civilians nor combatants, though they are heavily armed, the report said. "They are new modalities of mercenarism," it said, likening them to the notion of "irregular combatants". "In many instances, these 'private security guards' have encountered contractual irregularities, poor working conditions, a failure to satisfy basic needs and problems in obtaining financial compensation for injuries received," it added. Private US security firms have come under scrutiny since a shooting in September in which Blackwater guards working for the State Department were accused of killing 17 Iraqis in Baghdad. The North Carolina-based firm employs 1,000 people in Iraq who protect US diplomats and other officials. The incident led the Iraqi Government to approve a draft law to scrap a decree issued by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004, before it handed over control to Iraqis, which granted foreign contractors immunity from prosecution. The five-member UN panel, set up two years ago, carried out investigations in countries including Chile, Fiji and Peru, where many contracted guards in Iraq and Afghanistan come from. It encouraged countries whose nationals work as private security employees to avoid granting immunity to military contracting firms and their personnel. In Chile, for example, "although contracted as security guards, the recruits were allegedly provided with military training by private companies in the United States, Jordan or Iraq and eventually performed military functions," it said. The panel called for more countries to sign up to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, which only 30 have ratified. - Reuters (From UN warns on rogue mercenaries)
Simon Tan Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 So how do you propose to secure shit in lawless lands? Why do people assume that they should have control of stuff that they are in position to actually make a difference in? F*ck the UN and their working groups. Unless they are going to put on a blue helmet and ride shotgun on convoys, they are a waste of time and breath, kinda like the people who push their agenda. Simon
capt_starlight Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 So how do you propose to secure shit in lawless lands? Why do people assume that they should have control of stuff that they are in position to actually make a difference in? F*ck the UN and their working groups. Unless they are going to put on a blue helmet and ride shotgun on convoys, they are a waste of time and breath, kinda like the people who push their agenda. Simon :sigh:
Simon Tan Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Let's have a solution and not just more worthless opinions. I still remember the BS that took EO out of Sierra Leone and let the RUF continue their campaign of amputation. EO did the job for a fraction of the effort put in after. Bleeding heart liberals have opinions but no solutions and are therefore as useful as a perforated condom. Simon
Jim Martin Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 :sigh: *sigh* yourself. The UN had an opportunity to participate in Iraq. Last I heard, they upped stakes and ran like hell from the country several years ago, and haven't been back since. The US had asked for a UN peacekeeping presence. We requested security forces, development aid, police presence and training, and all we've gotten is whining and backseat driving from the UN. F*** them.
KingSargent Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 Kinda reminds me of quote: Interviewer: "How did you became a battaillon commander?"Answer: "Other officers were dead..." OT, but I remember reading of an incident that occurred during the first US Army v. Indian War. A General was riding up the road after a battle and saw a cluster of ragged, bloody, tired soldiers by the road. A very young man, maybe 16, stood and saluted. Gen: Where is your company commander?YM: Dead, Sir. Gen: Where is your First Lieutenant?YM: Dead, Sir. Gen: Where is your Second Lieutenant?YM: Dead, Sir. Gen: Where is your Ensign?YM: Here, Sir. The General decided "the company was in good hands" and rode on.
Jabberwocky Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 *sigh* yourself. The UN had an opportunity to participate in Iraq. Last I heard, they upped stakes and ran like hell from the country several years ago, and haven't been back since. The US had asked for a UN peacekeeping presence. We requested security forces, development aid, police presence and training, and all we've gotten is whining and backseat driving from the UN. F*** them. The UN also asked that the US not go into Iraq without an explicit UN mandate. Which the "Coalition of the Willing" chose to ignore. So now that the main party in Iraq is over, without the UN in attendance, even after they asked that the US not to throw it without everyone else involved, you expect them to come in at the request of the US and do the baysitting and the cleaning up afterwards? Seems a little odd to me...
Jim Martin Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 The UN also asked that the US not go into Iraq without an explicit UN mandate. Which the "Coalition of the Willing" chose to ignore. So now that the main party in Iraq is over, without the UN in attendance, even after they asked that the US not to throw it without everyone else involved, you expect them to come in at the request of the US and do the baysitting and the cleaning up afterwards? Seems a little odd to me... Yes, we can wait until the Libyans, the Syrians, and the PRC decide that the level of crimes against humanity warrant military intervention. You're funny, you are. And if they don't want to be involved in fixing a country that is undeniably a problem from any number of international development standpoints (and gee, I thought that was a major part of the UN's job, international development?) then they should STFU about how we ARE dealing with the problem.
Jabberwocky Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Yes, we can wait until the Libyans, the Syrians, and the PRC decide that the level of crimes against humanity warrant military intervention. You're funny, you are. And if they don't want to be involved in fixing a country that is undeniably a problem from any number of international development standpoints (and gee, I thought that was a major part of the UN's job, international development?) then they should STFU about how we ARE dealing with the problem. So, you don't trust those countries to make a decision regarding the invasion of a sovereign nation (like they did, in say, 1990?), but you do trust them to get involved in the internal situation of the same country, when there is an internecine war going on? The continued existence of Saddam Hussein in Iraq seemed to be more of a undeniable problem to the US than to the rest of the world. And the UN has come back into Iraq. The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) as been in the country since 2003. Just don't expect them to be a cheering squad for the US and cohorts. You can have a look at their mandate at: http://www.uniraq.org/aboutus/mandate.asp?pagename=mandate
Simon Tan Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 Guess who is protecting their asses in Iraq? The IP? The IA? I don't think so. Irony of ironies is that all this started after the UN was blown to bejeezus in Baghdad. Or did you not know that? Simon
Jim Martin Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 So, you don't trust those countries to make a decision regarding the invasion of a sovereign nation (like they did, in say, 1990?), but you do trust them to get involved in the internal situation of the same country, when there is an internecine war going on? The continued existence of Saddam Hussein in Iraq seemed to be more of a undeniable problem to the US than to the rest of the world. And the UN has come back into Iraq. The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) as been in the country since 2003. Just don't expect them to be a cheering squad for the US and cohorts. You can have a look at their mandate at: http://www.uniraq.org/aboutus/mandate.asp?pagename=mandate I never expect them to be a cheering squad for the US. They're always too busy whining about US "imperialism" while putting out their hands for more aid money, and hoping to see the Jews in Palestine exterminated.
pikachu Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 Er, just wondering... Since BW and many other PMC ops are ex-military, what is the US Army's position on their ex-service personnel who join such companies? Specifically, do PMC ops still get the same sort of veteran benefits other former servicemen do?
Bluelight Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) video:http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8513...272b6686410b3b2 article:F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause...Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin Edited November 14, 2007 by Bluelight
capt_starlight Posted November 15, 2007 Author Posted November 15, 2007 I wonder if this whole situation is becoming murkier and murkier.....From the BBC Blackwater killings 'broke rules' The killings of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by guards from the security firm Blackwater were unjustified, FBI officials have told the New York Times. The officials are investigating the September 16 incident in which 17 Iraqis were shot by Blackwater staff guarding State Department employees. The revelations come as the US State Department's inspector-general admits his brother is linked to Blackwater. The official admitted the link while giving evidence to Congress. Members of Congress are conducting an investigation into the activities of private security firms like Blackwater. The State Department's inspector-general, Howard Krongard, was the latest senior official called to give evidence on Capitol Hill. Mr Krongard is responsible for State Department contracts and ensuring that the department behaves ethically. At the start of the hearing, he wanted to quash what he called ugly rumours that his own family was linked to Blackwater. He said his brother had no financial relationship with the private security firm. Astounding revelation But after a break in proceedings, his testimony dramatically changed. "During the break, I did contact my brother... I learned that he had been at the [blackwater] advisory board meeting yesterday," he said. "I had not been aware of that and I want to state it on the record right now that I hereby recuse myself from any matters having to do with Blackwater." That astounding revelation prompted only more questions as to why Mr Krongard had not previously established his brother's links to Blackwater, especially in the wake of the September 16 shootings that first put Blackwater under the spotlight. The New York Times, quoting unnamed US officials, says a preliminary FBI investigation has found that at least 14 of the 17 shootings that day were unjustified and violated Blackwater's rules of engagement. Blackwater still insists its employees came under attack before opening fire. The FBI investigation is ongoing, but the State Department's links to Blackwater have already proved damaging.This latest story seems to bring into doubt the probity (and even the intelligence) of the State Department's Inspector General, the Department's relationship with Blackwater (and others), responsibility for the actions of the PMFs (Private Military Forces) in Iraq and indeed their use in warfare in general. In other words - a very large can of worms - and the lid has come off.... The damage done to the image of the US both internally and externally may not be repairable for some time. I wonder if the "simple" solution may be to bring Personal Security for State and other US Government Agencies "in house" (perhaps directly employ the personnel (even as independent contractors) and make them subject to US law and practices) and declare these organisations as "mercenaries" ? At least then it would make the "protectee" very interested in the actions of the "protectors" and liable if found at fault...
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 What I dislike about this (IMHO BW has deserved to get jacked up for a while now) is that its going to seriously hurt this entire nacent industry. With the World moving away from bloody all out wars of conquest and towards para-military and semi-law enforcement operations. There is a possible niche for professional, well trained PMCs to fill in conflicts or operations that national governments don't feel like extending their militarys into for political or economic reasons. But if the adhoc, yahooish, behavior of a few bad apples leaves a distaste for thier utilization in the public's mind, then they won't become anything more than the an unsavory fringe that the "mercenary reputation" has now.
Bluelight Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 There is a possible niche for professional, well trained PMCs to fill in conflicts or operations that national governments don't feel like extending their militarys into for political or economic reasons. There definitily is a market for an armed security guard type. Especially with Aid convoys and the like. I would argue it is a bad idea to use them for any type of national security work, but for NGOs and US Aid who else are they going to use to guard? Perhaps some sort of goverment or UN regulations should be put into effect. Basically make a legal framework under which members of PMCs know their rules of engagement, what they can be prosecuted for, and so on. Basically instead of lawless mercs, some sort of framework to make them accountable to some governing body, where everyone knows the rules up front.
Ivanhoe Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 I probably failed to mention this here at Tanknet, but the CEO of Blackwater was on the Charlie Rose show* a few weeks ago. It was funny as hell watching Rose try to get Blackwater's CEO to admit that Blackwater is "the world's largest private army**" and that they can hire themselves out to anyone, anywhere, anytime***. It was clear that Rose was ill-prepared for dealing with Blackwater's chief, kinda makes me wonder about the admissions requirements of Duke's law school. The takeaway from the interview is that America's left is outraged at Blackwater's methods and revenue stream, and that they want to know if Blackwater can be hired to sort out Darfur. I kid you not. Rose would not let go of the latter query, despite Blackwater saying repeatedly that there has to be USG approval and involvement for Blackwater to do anything in Darfur. * That show is an interview show run on PBS television. Host is a former lawyer, runs with the New York limousine liberal crowd. Interviews tend to run much longer than on normal TV news programs; often 30 minutes devoted to each guest. ** Some newspaper clown came up with that moniker, which subsequent fact-checking showed was badly erroneous, but the pressies still tried to turn it into a meme. *** As most of Blackwater's employees are US citizens, and Blackwater is a US corporation, a whole library of US laws and regulations constrain what Blackwater does abroad...
Guest JamesG123 Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Er, just wondering... Since BW and many other PMC ops are ex-military, what is the US Army's position on their ex-service personnel who join such companies? Specifically, do PMC ops still get the same sort of veteran benefits other former servicemen do? Officially, it doesn't matter what a prior-service member is doing (so long as its not illegal). They could be shooting up Baghdad or pumping gas somewhere in middle America, they are still veterans. The VA is its own separate agency from the military. Unofficially, I'm sure that the contacts they have in the military comes in handy, especially among the SF community. BW in particular has a famously incestuous relationship with SOCOM and State Dept. security services.
capt_starlight Posted November 23, 2007 Author Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Ooops! Now someone else is getting caught out..... 31 Asians face Iraq trial after Baghdad shooting Thirty-one Asians will face trial in Iraq on charges of entering the country illegally, in the wake of a shooting this week involving a foreign logistics firm, the Government's spokesman said. Iraqi security forces detained 43 people, including the 31 Asian workers, from a convoy of vehicles at a checkpoint after the shooting in central Baghdad on Monday in which a woman was seriously wounded. The other 12 detained were guards. The US military has said those responsible for the shooting could be charged under Iraqi law because the company involved, Dubai-based ALMCO, was a logistics contractor for food supply, construction and training, not a security firm. Security contractors have immunity from Iraqi law. ALMCO has not commented on Monday's incident. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraqi authorities had finished their investigation into 21 Sri Lankans, nine Nepalis and one Indian who had been detained at the checkpoint. "They will go before an Iraqi court on charges of entering Iraq illegally," Mr Dabbagh said, without giving a date for the hearing. An Iraqi military spokesman has said the guards fired randomly and wounded the woman. The incident was the latest in a string of shootings that have triggered widespread anger and prompted the Iraqi government to propose a change to the laws under which foreign security contractors operate. Edited November 23, 2007 by capt_starlight
capt_starlight Posted November 23, 2007 Author Posted November 23, 2007 Re these "Private Military Forces" becoming a liability to the Iraqi imbroglio - at least in the propaganda department ?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now