« Walt, Mearsheimer, and Anti-Semitism | Main | Lords of the Land »
October 02, 2007
Are The Private Contractors Helping Our Forces?
Some of you suggested that the exorbitant amount we're paying for private military contractors is justified, because they're just so awesome. I mean, do you want a bunch of Beetle Baileys in Iraq, or Dick Marcinkos? So then the question becomes: Are the contractors helping the effort in Iraq? And the answer there may well be no.
October 2, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It seems, like, totally obvious that mercenaries, making more money than they ever have before in their lives, or ever will again, are not going to be real interested in bringing all of this to a quick and peaceful conclusion.
You can see this wherever people are working a lot of overtime. They naturally feel that hiring more staff and going back to 40-hour weeks would be inefficient.
Posted by: serial catowner | Oct 2, 2007 2:00:17 PM
They probably are highly skilled, which would be fmore useful if we were still trying to win a real war, instead of, y'know, stabilizing a hostile & fragmented country. The lack of honor & accountability would be a problem regardless, but it's exponentially worse in the current environment, because it translates into Americans = savage brutes.
I can't believe anyone's even debating this, actually.
Posted by: latts | Oct 2, 2007 2:31:16 PM
I too can't believe anyone bothers debating this. For me, all you have to do is bring up how fond the settlers in North America were of the Hessian mercenaries England brought over to help settle that pesky Revolution we tried back in the late 1700s. We pay them a ton of money, they have no accountability, and they're not Iraqi. What kind of idiot thinks that this will have a net positive effect on our presence in the country?
Posted by: Persia | Oct 2, 2007 3:09:35 PM
Dick Marcinko? How do you know about him? I pray to god he isn't involved with Blackwater or any of the Mercs in Iraq.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 2, 2007 3:44:12 PM
The notion that the Blackwater guys are better soldiers than the regular armed forces is just nonsense. They are basically people who served in the regular military and are now paid an incredible amount of money (relative to a regular soldier) to be armed and unaccountable. It's a terrible, terrible idea all the way around.
I have a nephew who was in the marines during the invasion and when his time was up was offered around $500 a day to stay working for Blackwater. (He said no thanks.) I have former clients (all ex-marines) who have done the same. I was very surprised to learn that one was on a detail protecting John Negroponte when he was ambassador there. I just couldn't see the U.S. laying out this kind of money for that type of detail. But of course we were.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Oct 2, 2007 4:03:02 PM
Like so many things about Iraq, I think the problem here is that there's no good answer; the people most likely to understand the military situation in Iraq, how to handle themselves in near combat (or actual combat) situations, and provide security... would be former soldiers. The military can't both do its military mission (indeed, it can't really just do the military mission) and the security work. Enter Blackwater.
This is the problem with the Republicans romance of "privatization." It all sounds good in theory... but this is an area where professionals with years of experience seem flummoxed about some simple things, like accountability, discipline, and dealing with criminal acts. The fog exists because it's almost impossible to anticipate every scenario, and because public-private contracting has to, by nature of government's process-oriented approach, account for almost everything. And it can't. We can make arrangements, we can hope for the best.. but no one, realistically, can say that we were likely to end up someplace other than where we are now - with a "security force" of contractors who are mostly in it for the money, executives who are desperate for protection, and a lawless environment that's not conducive to anyone's safety. Under the circumstances, there's not much that's been described that's surprised me.
I reiterate, there are no good answers here. Blackwater exists because there was a need, and almost no one else can fill it. If you don't have a Blackwater, it's entirely likely that you leave senior officials and others highly vulnerable. That can't be an improvement. Even - and especially - if we pulled out our military forces, we'd still likely need a Blackwater, or a security detail that does what Blackwater does. I'm not happy about Blackwater - and I, too, have a friend whose buddies work for Blackwater and who himself was offered upwards of $600 a day to go back to Iraq and do the work (he's a marine, and he would have done it, save for his impending marriage) - but do I have an alternative? Nope. Does anyone?
Posted by: weboy | Oct 2, 2007 4:50:44 PM
Were these private contractors also awesome when they were serving their terms in the regular military, or does mercenary boot camp just make them awesome?
People are actually making the argument that the Blackwater times are worth the cash because they are extra good? Really?
Posted by: josephdietrich | Oct 2, 2007 5:16:29 PM
I reiterate, there are no good answers here. Blackwater exists because there was a need, and almost no one else can fill it.
There was a service dedicated exactly to what Blackwater is currently doing but those well-trained and efficient forces were cut back and essentially disbanded. So Blackwater didn't come about because there was a need but because a need was created.
"I want to show more clearly what unhappy results follow the use of mercenaries. Mercenary commanders are either skilled in warfare or they are not: if they are, you cannot trust them, because they are anxious to advance their own greatness, either by coercing you, their employer, or by coercing others against your own wishes. If, however, the commander is lacking in prowess, in the normal way he brings about your ruin. ... Experience has shown that only princes snd armed republics achieve solid success, and that mercenaries bring nothing but loss; " Machiavelli
It would help us all if the current administration didn't need to be retaught everything that history has repeated.
Posted by: Hawise | Oct 2, 2007 5:43:18 PM
The problem sounds to me to be less about Blackwater per se, and more about how the defense department, the customer, contracts with and manages Blackwater. There’s no inherent reason why a private contactor can’t be accountable; this is what contracts are for. But, if the customer doesn’t want to hold them to account, then that’s a different story.
It seems difficult to say whether these security contractors are helping or hindering our cause when the cause itself is f*’d up. The referenced article talks about Blackwater being involved in 195 "escalation of force" incidents, but this is largely irrelevant on it’s own; it really needs to be compared to the military’s performance since they’re who the contractor’s are replacing.
Posted by: DM | Oct 2, 2007 5:46:07 PM
DM,
I am more than skeptical about how one can manage this kind of "contractor." Are we really comfortable allowing private actors to engage in lethal force in our collective names? [Hint -- I'm not -- not the least little bit.]
If we are going to engage in these grand and glorious kinds of military adventures, we need a military of sufficient size to carry them out without the use of mercenaries. Or we could consider not engaging in such actions. But the use of mercs is deeply disturbing from about every angle I can consider.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Oct 2, 2007 5:51:37 PM
the people most likely to understand the military situation in Iraq, how to handle themselves in near combat (or actual combat) situations, and provide security... would be former soldiers. The military can't both do its military mission (indeed, it can't really just do the military mission) and the security work. Enter Blackwater.
If the military can't do the security work, then why would we expect ex-military to be able to do it? Iraq War critics have been saying for years that the US military presence there is inadequate - opposition to Bush's surge is that it's too little, too late, and it sends more soldiers to an impossible task, not just that it sends more soldiers. So if the military can't accomplish its mission, Blackwater isn't going to help, unless they have around 200,000 mercenaries to send in.
Blackwater exists because there was a need, and almost no one else can fill it. If you don't have a Blackwater, it's entirely likely that you leave senior officials and others highly vulnerable.
There is a market for Blackwater, not a need. Since Blackwater is made up of ex-military, uses military equipment and bills itself as a private military force, ISTM that the "need" Blackwater fills is one that a nation's military is more suited for.
As for the vulnerability of senior officials, the US Secret Service seems to have a fairly good record of protecting high-profile targets in a wide variety of environments. Surely the money being spent on Blackwater to protect US officials could be better spent making an already successful protective force.
The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of a democracy, Blackwater is an entirely superfluous and dangerous organization. We absolutely do not need them and should be scared out of our wits that the US government is using them so extensively.
The political leaders of the USA are supposed to govern according to the will of the people - even if they "know better." If the American people cannot be bothered to join the military in sufficient numbers to invade and occupy Iraq, then we should have never gone. If our leaders were so convinced of an existential threat, there are mechanisms in place to institute a draft.
Hiring mercenaries to accomplish what should be done by the military is just a way to sidestep the people, to accomplish in secret what the public won't allow. It's wrong, and as I said, dangerous. Darrell Issa, who was just on a tear today, warned Henry Waxman about investigating Blackwater because they would be the people providing security for any trip that Waxman takes to Iraq. If a President, or Army General wanted to get rid of a troublesome member of the opposition party, what better way than to use some Chilean or Russian national working in his security detail? No worries about patriotism, about a chain of command, about the mercenary heading back to Podunk, Iowa and telling his mom what he did.
Blackwater is a huge problem. Wait a few years, when they move the corporation offshore to some "neutral" nation. Wait until these ex-Navy Seals and Army Rangers are employed by a nation hostile to the USA, and see how necessary they look.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 2, 2007 6:04:42 PM
Stephen - There are reams of problems with Blackwater, I agree. I don't think they need to move "offshore" - and really, I think some of their employees do it cause of the American imprimatur - those problems will come just from being here. No, they're not accountable, yes, it's about money, and all of it is very problematic.
Still, nuance would lead me to say we're both right - there's a market... and there's a need. And again, I see lots of frustration - I share it - what I don't see are good alternatives, at least not now.
Blackwater is not a manageable problem or a solution; it's a way to paper over a bigger problem. And I think it's entirely worth raising it (and I think it's interesting that conservatives seem unable/unwilling... or something... to respond), but I'm not sure where this is going to go. Even if you argue that senior government officials should get military protection, that's no answer for the American workers and public/private hybrid roles and companies also using Blackwater protection. That, to me, anyway, is the bigger mess. Mercenaries not under government contract in that place seem even more of a wild card, not less.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 2, 2007 8:27:16 PM
weboy,
Blackwater isn't really a problem if it's providing security for corporations doing business in Iraq. Certainly there is a need for that. In that situation their role is more likely to be restricted to providing security instead of acting as an unaccountable proxy for our nation's military.
I think we need to separate out actual security services provided to civil entities from Blackwater's (or whatever mercenary group) military operations, which would include providing security for American government personnel, since that is a function that our nation's military and police forces have always provided.
So really, there is a simple, easy alternative. Let private corporations hire who they need to provide security for their personnel. Let the American military do the job for which it has always trained, part of which is to protect American interests and personnel. Equip said military adequately.
In that scenario millions of dollars - billions? - is kept within our military for badly needed equipment, etc. Our soldiers do not find their operations undermined by overequipped, undersupervised cowboys. And American politicians don't find themselves with a well-equipped, ruthless fighting force that's free of our government's checks and balances that can be used to carry out illegal orders.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 2, 2007 8:39:35 PM
KTLN,
You have every right to be skeptical; from the looks of things, the Blackwater situation is going from bad to worse. But, I think there are ways to make a situation like this work in the future, if not today. What are Blackwater’s motives? They want to make a health profit. So you set up the contracts to get incentives in line: if they exceed a threshold for “escalation of force” issue they pay a penalty, etc. Create a situation where they need to be accountable and they will be; allow them to run rough shot and they will because it’s in their best interest to do so.
Here’s the think I think many are getting wrong: Blackwater’s doing something our military doesn’t necessarily do very well, security. Let’s face, out military’s designed for mass destructions, destroying other country’s standing armies and acquiring their real estate, not protecting small assets. This is a situation where a private contract has a comparative advantage. Even though the military may be able to serve this function, we’re better served if they keep combat troops in reserve and leave the job of security to someone better suited for it.
Posted by: DM | Oct 2, 2007 9:07:07 PM
Blackwater is replacing forces that were already doing a stellar job and that was the security arm of the diplomatic corps. The privatization of that task was not brought about because no one was doing the job but because the people who once did that job have been cut back and cut out. Blackwater isn't filling a military task but they are behaving like military forces and their behaviour is putting the soldiers at risk. We need to stop cutting back professional government people and replacing them with hired guns. Blackwater is a messy experiment in corporatizing the security of the diplomatic coprs and it would be totally unnecessary if we had retained control of that need in house.
If private corporations want to hire private security then let them but active government officials doing their service should be protected by the Service.
Posted by: Hawise | Oct 2, 2007 10:14:20 PM
Joe Klein's Conscience,
I had the same reaction to Ezra's Dick Marcinko reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko
Either Marcinko is more popular than I suspected or I have underestimated the areas of Ezra's expertise. Marcinko started a PMC called SOS Temps, Inc. So I imagine his finger's pretty deep in the Iraqi pie.
Posted by: beowulf | Oct 3, 2007 10:15:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
