Privatizing war.

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Privatizing war.

It's one thing for the US military to outsource food and laundry services to private firms, as it started doing aggressively in the 1990s, but it's quite another to outsource the actual fighting. That is what the Pentagon is perilously close to doing in Iraq. The grisly deaths of four American security contractors in Falluja last month underscored America's troubling reliance on hired guns. After the 130,000 American troops, the nearly 20,000 people employed by private security firms now form the second-largest contingent - surpassing the British - in the coalition of the willing, although a private guard's services cost as much as $1,500 a day. .
The benign term "security guard" does not convey the true role of these armed men. They are hardly sitting behind desks and signing visitors into office buildings, and not all of them are doing what would be more appropriate tasks, like guarding oil wells. Hired guns are charged with the security of the occupation authority's headquarters in Baghdad, and of Paul Bremer 3rd, the American proconsul..
Contractors from Blackwater USA, the employer of the four Americans savagely killed in Falluja, recently fought a full-fledged battle with militants in Najaf, and they were even able to call in a company-owned helicopter for air cover. The Pentagon seems to be outsourcing at least part of its core responsibilities for securing Iraq instead of facing up to the need for more soldiers..
Increasingly relying on these loosely accountable contractors is bound to backfire. As the United States prepares to hand the sovereignty of Iraq back to its people, the fact that the Iraqi army and police force are now being trained by a private company risks sending the message that loyalty is owed not to one's country, but to whoever gets the contract. It is difficult to coordinate the dozen or so private firms in Iraq, and there is little regulation of their training and recruitment..
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pledged that the Pentagon will keep looking for ways to "outsource and privatize." When it comes to core security and combat roles, this is ill advised. The Pentagon should be recruiting and training more soldiers, rather than running the risk of creating a new breed of mercenaries.

While there may be some justification for privatizing Social Security and Medicare I fail to see any for the privatizing of war. Private armies of Mercenaries loyal to the highest bidder would seem to me to be a very costly and dangerous practice.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,471 • Replies: 47

No top replies

I've been pounding this drum on A2K lately to what seems little effect. This is a dangerous trend. Given to social and economic trends in this country that concentrates economic and political power in a small elite, take for example the Walton family and there are many others. The legitimization of private organized forces available to the highest bidder makes it possible for them to protect their interests through violence should the government return to polices such as Roosevelt instituted during the 1930's. This is not historically unique but in fact rather common. Private or semi private armies were common in the late Roman empire and medieval Europe. Currently , much in the instability in parts of South America, the Caribbean, and Africa can be attributed to private armies. A quaint if instructive example in this country. The Du Pont family in parts of Delaware had the habit of lining up the militia at polling places in the early 19th century in insure that people voted the "right" way until they were told that this was not the way things were done in this country and made to stop the practice.

0 Replies

Au1929, are you trying to convince us that the US army is using mercenaries to porters there headquarters? I find it hard to believe that the military would trust an outsider to protect them. The Army won’t normally let allied countries troops provide security for our troops, let alone the commander.

Where did you find this gem of information?

0 Replies

emclean
I don't know where you have been hiding but that has been in the news for the last few weeks or so. The article posted is from the International Herald Tribune. It is not fiction but fact. The Army is not using them they are private contractors performing functions of protection of facilities that should be performed by the military in time of war. Who do you think pays their salaries. The US government and in effect your tax dollar both directly and indirectly.

0 Replies

Re: Privatizing war.

au1929 wrote:

Privatizing war.

It's one thing for the US military to outsource food and laundry services to private firms, as it started doing aggressively in the 1990s, but it's quite another to outsource the actual fighting. That is what the Pentagon is perilously close to doing in Iraq.

Then they are not doing what your headline suggests. Would that not be the same scurrilous tatcics that Tarantulas was accused of for so many pages?

Quote:

The grisly deaths of four American security contractors in Falluja last month underscored America's troubling reliance on hired guns. After the 130,000 American troops, the nearly 20,000 people employed by private security firms now form the second-largest contingent - surpassing the British - in the coalition of the willing, although a private guard's services cost as much as $1,500 a day. .

If the pay is right, what is the problem with hiring private security? after Saddam released all the criminals back into society, I would want protection as well.

Quote:

The benign term "security guard" does not convey the true role of these armed men.

But that is what they are. Armed men with some training guarding the secuity of what ever it is they were hired to guard. Call them mercenaries then, though that term fits even less than security guard as they are not there to be soldiers, but to provide security.

Quote:

They are hardly sitting behind desks and signing visitors into office buildings, and not all of them are doing what would be more appropriate tasks, like guarding oil wells. Hired guns are charged with the security of the occupation authority's headquarters in Baghdad, and of Paul Bremer 3rd, the American proconsul..

This would be a good accusation to back up with a link or other evidence.

Quote:

Contractors from Blackwater USA, the employer of the four Americans savagely killed in Falluja, recently fought a full-fledged battle with militants in Najaf, and they were even able to call in a company-owned helicopter for air cover. The Pentagon seems to be outsourcing at least part of its core responsibilities for securing Iraq instead of facing up to the need for more soldiers..

Who is hiring these people? the Pentagon or Haliburton? You need to re-check your facts.

Quote:

Increasingly relying on these loosely accountable contractors is bound to backfire. As the United States prepares to hand the sovereignty of Iraq back to its people, the fact that the Iraqi army and police force are now being trained by a private company risks sending the message that loyalty is owed not to one's country, but to whoever gets the contract. It is difficult to coordinate the dozen or so private firms in Iraq, and there is little regulation of their training and recruitment..
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pledged that the Pentagon will keep looking for ways to "outsource and privatize." When it comes to core security and combat roles, this is ill advised. The Pentagon should be recruiting and training more soldiers, rather than running the risk of creating a new breed of mercenaries.

While there may be some justification for privatizing Social Security and Medicare I fail to see any for the privatizing of war. Private armies of Mercenaries loyal to the highest bidder would seem to me to be a very costly and dangerous practice.

I wouold like to see something to back up your accusations here. But, that's just me.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hired guns are charged with the security of the occupation authority's headquarters in Baghdad, and of Paul Bremer 3rd, the American proconsul..

Sorry, I guess I missed the part about where they are not protecting the Army.
The question is what are they protecting? If it is the military, then it is wrong, if it is civilian assets, then fine. It is not the job of the military to protect US business interests, or civilian personal in other countries. Even the diplomats do NOT use the military, and some DO hire privet security firms. Here are some.
first
second
or you can find one localy here

Give us a link to your story.

0 Replies

Au - Can you help me understand what you see as wrong with this?

0 Replies

Scrat
There are 20,000 hired guns doing what the armed forces should be doing in time of war. That aside they are being paid, and let's not be naive, by the American taxpayer exorbitant sums of money to do there function. Sure they are being hired by contractors but who do you think pays the bills.

0 Replies

That's circular logic.

The companies agreed to a price of doing business. that price involved being able to protect it's people and interests. Part of that price is paying people to act as security. Now you're saying we shouldn't be paying them?

0 Replies

emclean
Here is your link

Privatizing war
By IHT
http://www.iht.com/articles/516244.htm

0 Replies

McGentrix
These were either let on a cost plus basis or the service was priced in. Based upon my experience I have no doubt that they are cost plus contracts. The sweetest deal you can ever get working for the government.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Scrat
There are 20,000 hired guns doing what the armed forces should be doing in time of war. That aside they are being paid, and let's not be naive, by the American taxpayer exorbitant sums of money to do there function. Sure they are being hired by contractors but who do you think pays the bills.

Don't we pay our soldiers? Seriously, I'm asking you to drop your preconceptions for a moment here. It wasn't too long ago that regular Army personnel fed the troops, erected bases, etc.. These functions are now almost exclusively contracted out, yes?

We're not talking about mercenaries on the front lines; we're talking about contracting out duties like being bodyguard for a critical individual or guarding a critical facility. Maybe contracting those functions out is the best solution, maybe it isn't. But I do know that we don't know that it isn't just because it's a new solution.

So again, why should I be concerned about this? The cost? How much money does the government save by not having to train these people? Do I know that this solution is cost effective? No. Do I know that it is not? No.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a passionate believer in the federal government's ability to make bad decisions. I just want to have a good reason for calling this one, before I do so.

So, can you offer me one?

0 Replies

Privatizing is siphoning the best of the best into more lucrative private operations.

They aren't under military law.

It is taking almost 25% of the budget for the rebuilding of Iraq.

I couldn't find the article I read on the subject, but here is another that shows detailed results of this trend.

http://www.globalvillageidiot.net/tangleye.htm

0 Replies

Scrat

Pentagon's call to mercenaries

By Katty Kay
BBC correspondent in Pennsylvania
Jason is taking part in military training in rural Pennsylvania. But he is a mercenary, not a government soldier, and this is America's latest boom industry. Private armies are being increasingly used by the Pentagon

Once seen as shady, men like him are fast becoming mainstream. Private companies like Northbridge Services do jobs governments can't or won't extend to. The Pentagon has given $300bn of contracts to companies like these over the past decade alone. "Private armies put the skills at a higher level," says Tom Patire, President of the International Training Commission. "They also learn to use limited resources. Governmentally, whoever hires these people doesn't have to put up with all the costs. "It's a flat fee, there are no medical expenses. There's no insurance. They hire them for a job. When the job's over, they let them go." Overstretch The industry grew from providing bodyguards for celebrities. Now it's more than that. Mercenaries are training to do the kind of work the US Government can't afford to have its own soldiers doing. And in a couple of weeks some of them will be shipping out to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Will US soldiers like these one day be hired?

But why are private armies in demand? It mostly boils down to overstretch. US forces in places like Iraq cannot keep up with the work. Are mercenaries the answer? For some jobs maybe. But there is still a huge resistance to privatising peacekeeping. "The big risk is one of political accountability," says Michael Vickers, of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "There's a sense that even if they're operating under US or international command, the standard that one would expect of them for political accountability - if there are accidental deaths - would likely be higher that it would be for governmental troops." When United Nations peacekeepers operate in places like Bosnia, they are bound to a national military code of justice and can be held responsible for their actions. Mercenaries are subject only to the laws of the marketplace. Hiring muscle for money raises serious ethical questions. But it's only a matter of time before the world's next humanitarian crisis demands troops and looks for them under a corporate flag.

0 Replies

Thank you for the link

Sorry au1929 it looks like bad reporting to me. There is no way the Army is going to hand over its security to mercenaries, so at best the story is wrong about what they are guarding. “Hired guns are charged with the security of the occupation authority's headquarters in Baghdad” no way. Are there any former military out there who would disagree with me? Sound off.

0 Replies

Scrat
Found this on the web. You will have to form your own opinion whether you agree or disagree with the practice.

Quote:

Here's an interesting article.. I've been noticing for months now an unusual patern of civilian deaths by armed paramilitary US and International individuals in Iraq. Some estimates are that there are as many as 10,000 private security personel in Iraq. This presents a variety of problems... The economic justification for such a thing, is that it saves the US tax payer money when it comes to our military operations.. The truth is that most of these individuals are payed 5 times what our soldiers are payed.. and that cost gets billed back to the US government, burried in the various contracts.. ie.. Halliburton is hired to build a new telephone plant.. rather than allocate a a few platoons to gaurd it... Halliburton hires its own private army, at 5 times the cost, bills the US government for their security needs... Also, there have been several interesting articles about people within these mercinary armies killing or terrorizing Iraqis.. they are not held accountable to any law. Also, they hide the real cost of the war in both $$$ and lives.. private security forces deaths have never been counted.. and with 10% of the US armed personel in Iraq being a private mercinary force.. well, one might suspect that around 60 have died due to hostile fire.. i've seen at least 15-20 deaths in newspaper articles.. This policy misleads the public, puts lawless unregulated paramilitaries in Iraq, and gets companies like haliburton rich, while draining taxpayer coffers.. I think it deserves some more serious scrutiny.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/10/29/240886-ap.html

0 Replies

Emclean
You can believe whatever you want to. Facts be damned.

0 Replies

Quote:

Emclean
You can believe whatever you want to. Facts be damned.

Read what I said

Quote:

There is no way the Army is going to hand over its security to mercenaries, so at best the story is wrong about what they are guarding.

Halliburton protecting Halliburton plants (or facility whatever) what is the problem? I believe if you look there is armed privet security in a lot of places. Why should Iraq be different the Gary?

Halliburton protecting the US military, is Bull S*&t

0 Replies

I don't object to the use of private soldiers in warfare, just the over-use as well as the lack of leadership being provided by this administration.

Here are many more reasons why private soldiers are loose cannons in Iraq and other war zones and why the private companies who are legitimate are having a hard time doing their jobs effectively.

In another article I read, the private comanies were complaining that their men were put into situations where they had no choice but to help out the military, yet they weren't given the proper equipment. One man reported that he called for a helicopter that didn't show up.

I included a few excerpts from the article, along with highligting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1103566,00.html

And in Baghdad or Bogota, Kabul or Tuzla, there

are armed company employees effectively licensed

to kill. On the job, say guarding a peacekeepers'

compound in Tuzla, the civilian employees are

subject to the same rules of engagement as foreign

troops.

But if an American GI draws and uses his weapon in

an off-duty bar brawl, he will be subject to the

US judicial military code. If an American guard

employed by the US company ITT in Tuzla does the

same, he answers to Bosnian law. By definition

these companies are frequently operating in

"failed states" where national law is notional.

The risk is the employees can literally get away

with murder. Or lesser, but appalling crimes. Dyncorp, for

example, a Pentagon favourite, has the contract

worth tens of millions of dollars to train an

Iraqi police force. It also won the contracts to

train the Bosnian police and was implicated in a

grim sex slavery scandal, with its employees

accused of rape and the buying and selling of

girls as young as 12. A number of employees were

fired, but never prosecuted. The only court cases

to result involved the two whistleblowers who

exposed the episode and were sacked.

"Dyncorp should never have been awarded the Iraqi

police contract," said Madeleine Rees, the chief

UN human rights officer in Sarajevo. Of the two court cases, one US police officer

working for Dyncorp in Bosnia, Kathryn Bolkovac,

won her suit for wrongful dismissal. The other

involving a mechanic, Ben Johnston, was settled

out of court. Mr Johnston's suit against Dyncorp

charged that he "witnessed co-workers and

supervisors literally buying and selling women for

their own personal enjoyment, and employees would

brag about the various ages and talents of the

individual slaves they had purchased".

There are other formidable problems surfacing in

what is uncharted territory - issues of loyalty,

accountability, ideology, and national interest.

By definition, a private military company is in

Iraq or Bosnia not to pursue US, UN, or EU policy,

but to make money.
The growing clout of the military services

corporations raises questions about an insidious,

longer-term impact on governments' planning,

strategy and decision-taking.

Mr Singer argues that for the first time in the

history of the modern nation state, governments

are surrendering one of the essential and defining

attributes of statehood, the state's monopoly on

the legitimate use of force.

But for those on the receiving end, there seems

scant alternative.

"I had some problems with some of the American

generals," said Enes Becirbasic, a Bosnian

military official who managed the Bosnian side of

the MPRI projects to build and arm a Bosnian army.

"It's a conflict of interest. I represent our

national interest, but they're businessmen. I

would have preferred direct cooperation with state

organisations like Nato or the Organisation for

Security and Cooperation in Europe. But we had no

choice. We had to use MPRI."

To me, the last paragraph underscores one of the most important reasons not to rely too heavily on private military.

0 Replies

Quote:

Mercenaries are subject only to the laws of the marketplace.

I have serious doubts as to the veracity of this statement. These men may not answer under the UCMJ, but they would have to answer under civilian and international law, just like anyone else.

0 Replies

Privatizing war.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know