Privatizing war.

Au, you already said the only thing that matters: " loyalty is owed not to one's country, but to whoever gets the contract."
And isn't that the same as what Bush is doing here in America? Yep, pretty much!

As mentioned in a previous post, I was in Special warfare during the Vietnam War. My life expectancy inn combat was twelve minutes. When I was ready for disharge from active duty, I was approached by a rabbi to work for an international corporation. All I had to do was "Teach people what you've learned in the US Army." The pay way four times that of a paratroooper buck sargent and better benefits. I was tired of fighting to see the next day, I refused.

In 1985, I was approached by an old buddy from Vietnam to "fly with the wild geese." I asked how his Spanish was and how he liked rice and beans. He was recruiting for Noreaga.

Don't tell me about there not being mercenaries that are paid to kill. In a combat zone, the ones in control have the power of life and death in their hands. I know

Who said there are not? I can say that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the US is hiring mercs specifically for combat ops in Iraq. (But I haven't dug very deeply on this one either...)

November 11, 2003

The Pentagon is increasingly relying on private military contractors to help it wage its aggressive wars in Iraq and elsewhere.

A recent report from the Brookings Institute estimates that there are currently 10,000 to 20,000 private military workers on the Pentagon payroll in Iraq. These private personnel are engaged in a wide range of military activities and support work, including guarding U.S. top administrator, Paul Bremer, operating missile defense batteries, and piloting reconnaissance planes. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney's Halliburton is under contract to provide support work at U.S. military bases throughout Iraq, handling everything from construction to mail delivery and cooking. This enables the Pentagon to shift regular soldiers from support work to front line combat.

In addition to Iraq, the Pentagon is employing private military contractors to fight in Afghanistan, Palestine, Liberia, Colombia and other countries.

At least 90 U.S. corporations are involved in military contracting work, earning as much as $100 billion/year. Many of these corporations are headed by retired Pentagon officers and staffed by former U.S. green berets, ex-CIA operatives, etc. They are generally equipped with the same military equipment as regular U.S. soldiers.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is a big proponent of this privatization of military operations, emphasizing that these contracts enable the Pentagon to spread its military forces to more countries while dramatically increasing the percentage of active duty military personnel who can engage in combat. According to an executive at one of these firms: "It's a massive business boom for the private security field."

Private contractors are generally free of any Congressional oversight and their casualties are not counted in reports of combat deaths and injuries.

Duplicate post

I keep thinking I am watching a movie and any moment a mercenary army under control of an evil genius who will try to take over the government by force. James Bond where are you?

I love two things about this source:

1) The phrase "aggressive wars".

2) The way the author lumps mercs in with everyone down to people who deliver the mail and do the cooking, so they can run up the numbers for us. "10,000 to 20,000"??? Are they really that unsure of the numbers? (That's quite a range.)

Aggressive wars as opposed to wars where you had an actual reason for the declaration, I suppose.

Gee, I wonder if the offer my friend got to do armed security work would have been counted as work the military should have been doing? He would have been sent out of the country to protect a group of people delivering aid to locals. Did I mention that it was a church group who wanted to hire him?
Would he have become one of the "private military contractors to help it wage its aggressive wars in Iraq and elsewhere. "

Yes this is work the military should be doing. If we are going to insert ourselves into places such as Iraq we should accept the responsiblities that come with those actions. It should not be left to any private aid agency in those situations to hire private guards.

It isn't that I can't come up with a definition for the term, but that the phrase is unbelievably biased, as is your notion that any war could be termed to lack an "actual reason".

But since you want to define the term "aggressive wars" for me, and you've defined it as being one for which we lacked an actual reason", you name the war, and let's see whether it passes your test; if I can show an actual reason for the war, it wasn't an "aggressive war".

So, name a war...

Hey, you asked! I was trying to be helpful.
How abot this war: OIL, Operation Iraqi Liberation (aka Freedom)

This was is NOT just about oil, how can you forget the contracts for Halliburton, and the ammo makers, and who can forget the "10,000 to 20,000" mercenaries the army has hired to fight for it.

Oh and the thousands of people that no longer live under a dictator. Sorry every one forgets about them having a chance to get involved in their own rule. We may have gotten into this war the wrong way, but at least there is a chance of good to come of it.

I didn't say it was just about oil.
That's an acronym some marines use.

emclean


Is that "chance" worth the price we are paying?

yes, or do you think we should walk out now?

Emclean
AS I have said over and over again Bush made our bed and we have to lie in it. Of course we cannot cut and run. However, will the outcome, be worth the Blood and treasury we put into it. IMO the answer to that is a resounding no. We jumped or at least Bush pushed us into the fire and we are getting burned.

WORLD

US relies on private security in Iraq

Posted: Tuesday, April 27, 6:26am EDT

The blurring of lines between active-duty US soldiers and contracted security personnel is causing unease in Congress, as violence continues to rise in Iraq. Some lawmakers worry that private security forces operate too far outside US military control - and laws. And experts wonder what would happen if a contractor did something tragically wrong, like shoot an Iraqi child.
Thirteen Democrats wrote Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this month to argue that providing security in a hostile area is a classic mission for the military.

"It would be a dangerous precedent if the United States allowed the presence of private armies operating outside the control of a governmental authority and beholden only to those that pay them," wrote the Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

In Iraq, they said, the private armies need proper screening and supervision, or they could increase Iraqi resentment.

Roughly 20,000 private security contractors from dozens of companies operate in Iraq under contract with the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US-led governing body in Iraq, plus the Defense Department and other US agencies. Thousands more are on assignments for the United States and others worldwide, including in Afghanistan, taking on jobs like guarding officials, protecting buildings and supply convoys, and training police and soldiers.
This is the first gilimmer that someone is awake in congress. Of course they had to read about it in the newspaper.

Okay, the current war in Iraq. The "actual reason" for this one was to get rid of Saddam and replace his thugocracy with a government that is more stable, more Westward facing, more embracing of civil rights...

That's the "actual reason".

Next war?

Scrat wrote



You couldn't actually believe that, could you? That was Bush excuse #? The only thing that Bush was trying to liberate were the Iraqi oil fields.