It's a sad state of affairs when the US Government has to rely on mercenaries to protect its personnel in Iraq. Why can't the US Army do this job?

Because it isn't the U.S. Army's job to babysit the State Department's personnel, perhaps?

Yes, but what does Murtha have to say about this. I'm sure he will not rush to judgment.

Max, one might as well ask why shopping malls can't have cops patrolling the corridors and parking lots during business hours, instead of private security.

It's a question of manpower and the efficient and effective use of that manpower.

Another interesting point I just ran across: Blackwater was exempted from United States Armed Forces regulations that are supposed to be covering private security firms by order of the United States State Department.

Submitted for your consideration.

*Because it isn't the U.S. Army's job to babysit the State Department's personnel[.]*

So MPs didn't do this job during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al.? The current batch suddenly too good to do the job "The Greatest Generation" did? hmmm...

J, your examples are prior to the Clinton Administration's drastic downsizing of the Armed Forces.

Thank you, however, for providing the proof that said downsizing was a bad idea.

"Thank you, however, for providing the proof that said downsizing was a bad idea."

Course, to be fair, Clinton was assuming that that next administration wouldn't be stupid enough to drag us into an unnecessary war, requiring the extra manpower...

arbotreeist - You mean like the Balkans? Why did he start bombing there again without seeking approval? Why are we still there? What American interests are we protecting?

Or did you mean allowing Sadaam to evade his cease fire obligations for the entire term of the Clinton Presidency so that it would be someone else's mess to clean up? It's sort of like the deal he negotiated with North Korea where there started cheating day one and everyone knew it. Bill Clinton, leave the messes behind!

No wonder he was so popular internationally, he never did much.

Don't forget President Clinton turning down the opportunity to grab Osama. That really turned out well, didn't it?

no j, mp's did not provide security to diplomats operating in soveriegn foreign countries during Vietnam and I doubt they did during Korea and WWII.

And Marines are stationed in the embassies, not MP's.

"Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with Imperial Communism gone, that process can be accelerated. ... The Secretary of Defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me: The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

--George H. W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 1992

you see, *this* is why i don't trust anyone who says they are a die-hard conservative OR a die-hard liberal, because they simply aren't capable of being honest. yes, clinton cut the military budget, as any right-winger will tell you. but they *won't* say he was merely continuing--and expanding, no doubt--a trend begun under bush sr. (likewise with a liberal: they'll blame bush [sr. & jr.] for everything under the sun before they'll entertain a disparaging thought about *either* clintons.) partisanship simply isn't honest, as CY and his apparatchiks here have demonstrated.

"Thank you, however, for providing the proof that said downsizing was a bad idea."

hmmm: odd that you didn’t say peep when your bedfellow “Looking Glass” suggested in a previous combox that we support Blackwater USA because “The Armed Forces of the USA are increasingly hamstrung by political correctness. A private company under the control of USA commanders is the best way around this”, effectively suggesting we phase out the military structure as we know it all together.

iconclast, you are more than likely right. now insert "marines" where i've written "MPs" and let’s take it from there. CY’s amnesia (“it isn't the U.S. Army's job to babysit the State Department”) suggests that this has never been a role filled by any military personnel.

Uh, J, there was another President between 1992 and today.

Did that President stop and/or reverse those cuts in the armed forces?

lame, CCG. that's already been addressed ("yes, clinton cut the military budget, as any right-winger will tell you. but they *won't* say he was merely continuing--and expanding, no doubt--a trend begun under bush sr."). what hasn't is your inability to acknowledge that the cutback woes this military faces goes back further than clinton and to place blame where it is due: bush sr. AND clinton--not just the latter.

J - I don't recall anyone above blaming the cuts entirely on Clinton, but nice try. He continued the trend started by Bush Sr. and the lows military spending in the past 25 years were on Clinton's watch. Here's a link to some stats:

http://www.cdi.org/news/mrp/us-military-spending.pdf

Isikoff and Corn also have a pretty devastating account of what Clinton allowed to happen to our intellingence gathering capabilities in their apologia for Plamegate, Hubris. Your attempts to paint the analysis as pure partisanship ring pretty hollow in the face of facts.

Is J an abbreviation for jaundiced?

no, "jaded". on the right-vs-left BS. reflect carefully what bush sr. was saying: cut the defense budget by nearly a third (!) by 1997, well into the next president's term, _whomever_ that might be. i acknowledged that clinton expanded the same, and blame both equally for our having to use companies like blackwater to supplement our forces for reasons noted in another combox.*

*[their contracts siphon off funds earmarked for the effort, than for the reasons that they are hard to keep accountable, are not under US military command, have ever-increasingly co-opted jobs traditionally done by american GIs, and their interactions with iraqis frequently raise the risk-levels for US forces and their allies. … does it not erode troop morale to see blackwater agents getting paid many times more than our troops for doing the same work, and taking the same risks?]

The things that far left fanatical kooks like j forget are: The first World Trade Center bombing, Kobar tower bombing, 2 American embassies bombed, and the Cole bombing. During all these terrorist attacks Clinton continued to cut the military.

i acknowledged that clinton expanded the same

Thank you for proving my point for me.

J - I read what you had to say and it's nothing new. I hear old timers at certain U.S. bases bitch that newer recruits don't get the same punishments they did when they entered the service, such as KP, because the kitchen function has been outsourced. Is that outsourcing you want to complain about too or is it just outsourcing that gets more visibility or because you may disagree with the Iraq war? What is your real point other than justifying an antiwar position?

J - I've got a suggestion for you. Why don't you do a quick survey and figure out who is doing all the complaining about these security contractors. Is it a bunch of nutroot bloggers and antiwar organizations or is it broader than that? What are the specific complaints?

Daley, you expect J to actually do (gasp) research?

He doesn't know how, he just parrots the usual talking points.

C-C-G - No, I don't actually expect him to do anything to back up his positions. Does the U.S. military object to the security contractors? That would be an interesting data point for me. Who gives a darn if a bunch of lefties who want us out of Iraq even if there is a chance of achieving an acceptable outcome, even if it means losing our credibility as an ally in future crises, even if it means losing influence for the forseeable future in the Middle East, all because of an irrational hatred of George Bush and an overarching desire to return to power.

Daley, I read somewhere (and have been searching for the site, with no luck so far) that many of those that Blackwater hires for positions that might involve combat are armed forces veterans. Assuming that is true, I can't see that the armed forces would object too strenuously to those particular Blackwater people.

However, I can certainly understand if the armed forces object to Blackwater employees being placed in combat positions without having at least some experience under fire, be it in the armed forces or in law enforcement (which these days are becoming very similar, for good or for ill).

Speaking from Experience as a Contractor in Baghdad (and NOT with Blackwater): The Majority of the Blackwater Personnel, at the beginning of the Insurgency (I.E. 2003-Early '04) were made up of what we in Baghdad refered to as "The Cowboys" They tended to be prior service SF and Special Ops people who were making sick dinero and didn't care who was int he way. They tended to be clannish and rather anti-social toward other "Non-Elite" Contractors... I tended to avoid being around them as they were usually heavily armed and somewhat on the trigger-happy side.

Occasionally there were also 'wannabes' in the Blackwater Teams as well... guys with bogus resumes and faked DD214s... they tended to get weeded out quickly, but still, the occasional 'nonprofessional' would slip through the cracks, and this could also lead to issues... think of scene in Ronin with Sean Bean: " What's the color of the boathouse at Hereford?"

Anyways... per usual...

BC, thanks for that. I hadn't considered the "trigger-happy" types, I imagine the armed forces would take a dim view of having them in-country and armed.

thanks indeed, Big C. i can't imagine the standard US soldier--the guy WE're supposed to be rallying 'round, contractors be damned--being in support of anything remotely resembling your description of blackwater.

“[F]igure out who is doing all the complaining about these security contractors.”

The “complaining,” as you call it, from military personnel started right off the bat, especially after abu graib. in this 2004 article, the captain grasped early the consequences of widespread use of contractors for security personnel; his points and opinion follow:

From “Outsourcing the Profession: A look at Military Contractors and their Impact on the Profession of Arms,” by Marc O. Hedahl, Capt, USAF NRO/IMINT/IGO

1—“[T]he final report written by Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones and Maj. Gen. George Fay on Abu Graib concluded that the use of private contractors as not only translators but interrogators were a key part of the problem. 50% of interrogators at Abu Graib at the time of the abuses were private contractors; 36% of the proven abuse incidents involved private contractors, and 35 % of those contract interrogators have not had any formal military training.” [why were none of them held accountable, unlike their military counterparts?]

2 – “We do not have sufficient oversight directly managing these contracts. There are currently only 14 people managing the greater than $18B of private contracts in Iraq.” [that was then. look at the US GAO report issued last December to see how little has changed.]

3 – “[Blackwater] reports that 30% of its current labor force lacks formal military training.” [see marine colonel (ret.) thomas x. hammes’ recent interview with “Frontline” on his experience in iraq dealing with contractors’ (as a whole) lack of any formal military training and the predictable results.]

4 – “The Outsourcing can also negatively impact the ability to retain crucial, skilled personnel within the military itself. For example, there are reportedly more former British Special Forces soldiers working for PMFs in Iraq than in the entire British Armed Services.”

5 – “Worst of all, we have ripped the profession apart. We have fractured our training, our accountability, and our ethical codes. I do not believe that the crisis has yet reached the point where talk of the military profession is meaningless, but I know that we cannot fight alongside and independently of large numbers of mercenaries for extended periods of time without becoming mercenaries ourselves, not because of the effect that their actions will have on ours, but merely because their existence destroys the ability for the profession to exist at all. If we ever reach such a point, our uniforms, our medals, and even our codes of honor truly will become nothing more than anachronistic window dressing.” [wow. one man’s opinion, to be sure, but still: wow.]

(http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE05/Hedahl05.html)

on another, but related, note, reports like this one from 2005 have been trickling out of iraq since the beginning of the war, reports in which military (former or current) personnel have themselves been sources for stories detailing abuse by contractors:

“U.S. Contractors in Iraq Allege Abuses

“There are new allegations that heavily armed private security contractors in Iraq are brutalizing Iraqi civilians. In an exclusive interview, four former security contractors told NBC News that they watched as innocent Iraqi civilians were fired upon, and one crushed by a truck. The contractors worked for an American company paid by U.S. taxpayers. The Army is looking into the allegations.
“The four men are all retired military veterans: Capt. Bill Craun, Army Rangers; Sgt. Jim Errante, military police; Cpl. Ernest Colling, U.S. Army; and Will Hough, U.S. Marines. All went to Iraq months ago as private security contractors.
….
“They worked for an American company named Custer Battles, hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. They were so upset by what they saw, three quit after only one or two missions.”
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/)

it all begs the questions--what ever becomes of these allegations? what security contractors were held accountable for abu graib? why is it only ever the military who is held accountable when an iraqi civilian is killed in a firefight? what impact has this double standard had on military morale?

J - You sound like a truther, raising questions without attempting to answer them. Abu Ghraib interrogators are not a security detail. Having only 30% of a work force not ex-military doesn't sound like a lot. What experience did the rest have, police or other law enforcement or nothing? Hasn't the British military gone through an even more drastic downsizing that the U.S.? Where do ex-British professional soldiers find work?

Why not follow some of your own red herrings to their own conclusions Jaded? The $18 billion of contracts you throw on the table are not all security contracts. Who made the decision to employ security contractors? Was it the State Department or people holding the contract awards? Is this standard practice is third world type contries with a high degree of risk? It's easy if you try a little honesty rather than partisanship.

Okay, J, what's your solution to this problem?

Pull soldiers off the surge and jeopardize the gains we have made, so that Iraq backslides?

Pull State Department people out of the country?

Complete withdrawal from Iraq, and thus cause the genocide that even the NY Times admits will happen?

It's easy to sit in your comfy chair and bitch and moan and complain. Now do some hard work and come up with a workable solution.

C-C-G - I haven't seen it yet, but I'm waiting for J to make the usual lefty objection that if we can't provide security for our people we had no business starting this illegal war in the first place. It all just illustrates what a quagmire it is to people like J.

I for one feel this has turned into one major
Cluster F**k...You have JAG lawyers under every
rock,insane REO,Soldiers scared to shoot because
of the REO...2 SF Snipers up on Murder charges
for doing their job as ordered...A Marine spec-ops unit thrown out of Afgahnistan for a supposed
10 mile running gun battle for lack of trainning
"Give me a break" by the way both charges were
brought by the same Perfume Prince LT Gen kerny.
A press corp who wouldn't know the truth if it
bit them in the arse...A Democratic party who
under mine the troops at every turn(My party by the way) You tell me how you win like that!!!!
And Radical Islam watching and waiting with a
very big simle on their face...

Oh, I imagine my comment will provoke that reaction.

What J and lefties like him/her don't realize is that we do not inhabit a perfect world--or a perfectable one, either. Sometimes you have to go with a less than ideal solution because it is better than the alternatives.

Using contractors for security fits that description, I think. It's not ideal, but it's better than removing soldiers from more critical missions, and I'd venture a guess that's precisely why it's being done.

BTW, the Iraqis claim they have a videotape that shows the Blackwater guys shooting without provocation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6941512,00.html

Yeah, VOR, and OJ claims he's innocent.

Let's see this video, if it exists. Just claiming to have it means nothing.

While you split hairs on inanities, your hired mercenaries kill more innocent people on the roads of yet another nation.

Disarm and jail these thugs. They are no different from the fanatics in their suicide trucks. Both kill innocent people and claim the moral high ground.

A proliferation of morons let loose by a nation so full of itself and so blinded by its own sense of righteousness that it has lost the ability to see the consequences of its actions.

Shubhs, what about the members of the Party of the Donkey who want us to pull out and leave the tribes to a real civil war, thus causing genocide? What about the ability to see the consequences of those actions?

But that's okay to idiots like you... if a difficult situation develops, you're content to tuck tail between your legs and run, rather than face it, and the consequences, and try to make it better.

Better see a doctor about that BDS before January 2009.

J:
OK: Abu Ghraib. Been there personally. Done that. Up CLOSE and PERSONAL I grow weary of all you armchair assholes taking the MSM version without actually asking or KNOWING anything from a first person point of view.

The interrogators at Abu Ghraib were resolved and absolved COMPLETELY by the Taguba investigation. The ONLY contractors who had ANY true involvement were part and parcel from the Titan Corporation and not only that, but were actually Lebanese and Local/Third Country Nationals who were hired by Titan as translators and subcontracted through CACI. I know this for a fact as many if not all of the interrogators were/are my friends and I worked with them for almost two years. (BTW part of the reason we never heard anything else about it was that the Christians In Action don't like any press coverage)

No, I myself am not an interrogator, nor do I speak for any of the companies in any way shape or form. What I am is a Patriotic American who would rather see a POS terrorist go through humiliation and physical discomfort rather than lose a single American Soldiers life. The Quote Torture UnQuote utilized is far less harsh than what a standard US Fraternity puts its pledges through. I for one grow weary of that dead horse being dug up and flayed every time soemthing untward happens here. Its the Lefts Pentultimate Example of "American-Military-Evil" and is used every single time to whip and beat down those who disagree with them. It's the Lefties "Nuclear Option" so to speak.

And for those of you who think I'm wrong on this: To give an idea of how jacked up the situation is in dealing with 'detainees'... An Iraqi male was found immeadiately after an ambush of a convoy in which one female soldier lost her life. Said Iraqi male was caught WITH an RPG-7B shoulder launcher IN HIS HANDS. According to Iraqi law, BECAUSE he wasn't caught ACTUALLY in the act of firing said rocket, the presumption of innocence is maintained. In other words, despite having caught this joker with literally a 'smoking gun' in hand, he was released within a week because his claim was that he had 'found' the launcher sitting on the ground... this being the case in the Majority of circumstances. Yeah... they are all 'innocent'...

Many times in the Local Employment screening cells would we find former 'Fedayeen Saddam' trying to gain employment on Bases shortly after their release from the Division or Battalion Holding Areas. (They were easy to spot as they have tatoos on the back of thier hands) and after being caught and asked exactly what they were doing, they would for the most part invariably and openly admit that they were there to gain a job on base to first infiltrate and then set up 'something' to try and kill as many Americans as possible. One guy even had the brass to ask me for a cigarette and openly admitted that he had just gotten released from Abu G for having fired rockets into Balad...

As long as this kind of crap goes on, and the partisan bullshit keeps erupting, we're never going to get anywhere in this....

Thank you Big Country. It is amazing to me how the left in this country attempts to speak with an air of authority yet proves its ignorance time after time.

Uh, Big C., aren't you thinking of Army Provost Marshall Donald Ryder's report made prior? Because if anything, Taguba later buried the Ryder Report. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," the Taguba Report said. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. "I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

"I grow weary of all you armchair assholes taking the MSM version..."

Uh, read my post again, Big C: I was quoting a paper written by a USAAF captain who was himself referencing a report written by two Army generals and their findings. No MSM sources there, champ.

"The interrogators at Abu Ghraib were resolved and absolved COMPLETELY by the Taguba investigation."

Uuh...maybe we're dealing with a reading/comprehension thing here because aren't you thinking of Army Provost Marshall Donald Ryder's report made *prior*? Ryder merely stated that there was *potential* for abuse, and not actual abuse at the time of his writing. Later, Taguba *buried* the Ryder Report. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," the Taguba Report said. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. "I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

From MY armchair, that hardly sounds like a 'complete absolution'.

my apologies for the double post; got a blank screen after the first attempt.

J - What does Abu Ghraib have to do with contract employees pulling security duties again? Aren't you just looking for any black mark against contractors to deride the whole process rather than follow the subject of the post?

@CCG: "what about the members of the Party of the Donkey who want us to pull out and leave the tribes to a real civil war"

Mate, to us outside the cosy world of the United States, these are just your internal politics...irritants, tangential to the real issue.
This situation wouldn't be there in the first place if you, the 'foreign fighters' there, let us not forget, didn't poke your fat ignorant nose there five years ago. Of course, hindsight is 20-20 and all that...yada yada. Pardon my naivete, but arming a bunch of trigger-happy thugs and letting them loose with a mandate to kill at will, civilians included, isn't what the rest of the world understands to be conflict resolution. My country won't let a bunch of unregulated indisciplined armed mercenaries like these even enter our airspace.

J - Have you read "Unhinged" by Michelle Malkin? It does a pretty good job documenting violence and looniness of the left in this country in pursuit of its political goals, although she doesn't try to tar everyone. Anne Coulter does try to tar the entire left with most of her columns, which is closer to what you are trying to do with contract employees in Iraq. Do you like Anne Coulter or being on the receiving end of Anne Coulter columns? How do you think contract employees or relatives of contract employees feel about being described as murderers and thugs by your uninformed ilk?

J:
To finish this in short but sweet mode... (I had attempted to post a longer response but the damned thing got eaten! GGGGRRRRRRR!!!)

Essentially: Abu G has not one damned thing to do with the current issue. The "Scandal" is used as a bludgeon on any and all opposition to the Leftist Dogma of "Contractors Out of Control" or "Evil Military Out of Control."

You use incorrect terms like "security contractors at Abu Ghraib" and other such terms in order to create the idea that they are somehow tied to the current Blackwater issue. Its the whole Goebbels Ideal of 'repeating it enough makes it a valid truth.' *(Thus I can equal Progressives/Liberals with Nazism... and seeing that Socialism is part and parcel of the Progressive Agenda it bears that the National Socialist Party WERE the NAZIS!)

But besides that, I have to say that no one, not any of the Witless Neocon AIPAC scum nor Ted 'Learn to Swim' Kennedy or their ilk have ever set foot on the ground in Iraq for any REAL time or meaningful experience.

Us contractors work 12 to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week... its been 9 months since I saw my wife or kids, and 6 months since I had my last beer on a 2 day trip to Egypt. We sacrifice huge amounts, and get damned near "NO respect" as the late great Rodney would say, and sure, we make good $$$, but thats what has to be done if we want to get ahead in the current economy. Until you've been on the ground, you really have NO idea whats going on over there.

J:
To finish this in short but sweet mode... (I had attempted to post a longer response but the damned thing got eaten! GGGGRRRRRRR!!!)

Essentially: Abu G has not one damned thing to do with the current issue. The "Scandal" is used as a bludgeon on any and all opposition to the Leftist Dogma of "Contractors Out of Control" or "Evil Military Out of Control."

You use incorrect terms like "security contractors at Abu Ghraib" and other such terms in order to create the idea that they are somehow tied to the current Blackwater issue. Its the whole Goebbels Ideal of 'repeating it enough makes it a valid truth.' *(Thus I can equal Progressives/Liberals with Nazism... and seeing that Socialism is part and parcel of the Progressive Agenda it bears that the National Socialist Party WERE the NAZIS!)

But besides that, I have to say that no one, not any of the Witless Neocon AIPAC scum nor Ted 'Learn to Swim' Kennedy or their ilk have ever set foot on the ground in Iraq for any REAL time or meaningful experience.

Us contractors work 12 to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week... its been 9 months since I saw my wife or kids, and 6 months since I had my last beer on a 2 day trip to Egypt. We sacrifice huge amounts, and get damned near "NO respect" as the late great Rodney would say, and sure, we make good $$$, but thats what has to be done if we want to get ahead in the current economy. Until you've been on the ground, you really have NO idea whats going on over there.

Shubs - What is your country Mate and is it at war? Does it have foreign suicide bombers infiltrating it to kill its own citizens and those trying to bring peace to it? What exactly is your frame of reference Mate?

Big Country, when ya get back, if you're near the panhandle of Idaho, drop me a line. I'll buy you a steak and a beer. :)

Hey, J, I note that you've replied several times and yet not answered my question. So I'll repeat it so you don't have to scroll back.

What is your solution to the "problem" you think you've exposed?

Or are you just someone who delights in saying "that's not the way to do it," without having any idea what the right way is?

@daleyrocks:
"What is your country Mate and is it at war? Does it have foreign suicide bombers infiltrating it to kill its own citizens and those trying to bring peace to it? What exactly is your frame of reference Mate?"

Yes, to all of the above. We have been in a proxy war with an Islamic state for the last three decades. Long before your countrymen knew how to even spell 'terrorism'.
My country has foreign terrorists infiltrating it on a regular basis to try and kill our citizens. Does yours? Fact check: Iraq is not 'YOUR' country. The only infiltrators you get in your country are there to earn a quick buck, and I don't think Canadians are really dying to get into the US.
My country has not invaded any other country, and we don't have armed mercenaries killing civilians in any other country.
So, I think I am entitled to a little moral superiority here. Thank you.

America's way is not the only way, nor is it always the correct way. An intelligent people will acknowledge that, and try to correct a bad situation. You can only rectify something when you admit it is broken. Hubris does not help resolve anything.

An unregulated armed militia like Blackwater is no different from the Mahdi Army...dispensing instant justice from the barrel of a gun. For once, step back and look the truth in the eye. These arguments are for argument's sake. You know it as well as anybody here.

They screwed up. They should pay for their crimes.
But they won't.
Because they are Americans.
Because in your eyes an American thug's freedom is worth more than the life of an unknown Iraqi.

That is my frame of reference my friend. And if you care to wake up and look around, you will find it is the frame of reference of most people around the world.
This war's time is up. And Blackwater is just the first step to that end.

Big C., i bear you--or anyone else in this--no ill will. as you say, in a multi-faceted situation as you're in (and the rest of your family, by proxy), the truth of a matter is hard to discern for the rest of us. stateside, we're made to rely on information that is often inaccurate, regardless of who is putting it out, and it can create an atmosphere of distrust among individuals that more often than not are seeking the same thing. i look to what the military has said in its official capacity when i mention abu graib, not to broadbrush contractors into an easily digestible lump you've called "Contractors Out of Control," or some other such thing--for that reason my posts listed non-blackwater groups such as CACI and Custer Battles, etc. i *know* you aren't all in the same boat, and perhaps a more careful reading of the general point i--and others far more qualified than i--have tried to make would reflect that. i accept responsibility for my tone, however, and apologize if it sounded judgemental or condescending--as an american, you are entitled to whatever honest work you've set yourself to. i wish i could say i said it first, but i'll say it anyway: enjoy that first bottle of suds when home. cheers, j

Shubs - Your comments says nothing. It's a bunch of platitudes signifying a bunch of crap. If you think you've got moral superiority, good on ya, you just sound like another superior Brit or euroweenie with an I hate America fetish.

daleyrocks:

I was just waiting for the 'anti-american' card to be waived...and right on cue, here it is!

Yet another convenient, all-encompassing label to hide and justify any kind of uncomfortable truth.

Anyway, not my war and not my country.

But get this straight. The only 'platitudes' the world is tired of hearing are of the moral kind that come from the current American administration as they go about reducing nations to rubble, killing people and destroying lives and societies, all in the pursuit of the elusive goal of global domination. All the while frothing at the mouth preaching about freedom, democracy and liberation.

And sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not European and I don't 'hate' America. It's only in caricatures of your perceived enemies that you see this 'hatred'. It does not exist. Nobody 'hates' you for your 'freedoms'. That logic, that line of thinking is so inherently stupid that it defies belief that people of an advanced and educated nation like yours can even fall for it.
But I don't think you are ignorant of that fact either. It's just that your pride does not allow you to back down from a point of view that you know is wrong.

CCG, i haven't ignored your question; indeed, i've thought long about it and have no off-the-cuff answers. part of me alikens it to a doctor telling his patient, 'look, you continue in the fashion you're going and you'll be dead in a year', knowing the patient is going to go home and do nothing different. only difference is, our patient is the gov't of the good ol' US of A and at this point, it has made it clear that doesn't *want* to implement change--the supplanting of the GI from yesteryear's brown boot army IS THE POINT. the blueprints were on the table long before 9-11 or iraq: smaller, faster, more efficient. in-and-out of a hotspot. get the job done and go home. hire out someone to peel the potatoes: our guys don't have the time to sit around and cook sh*t like the mess sarge on M*A*S*H. sounds good, no? well, that's what they thought--and the rummy plan was in full effect when WHAM! they ran into an engagement like iraq. and now they're FUBAR, like their pretty plans. our allies are scratching their heads, thinking, wtf? and our enemies like china and russia are laughing their asses off.

well, imo, the only way out is the way we came in. sure, we can expect it'll be a mess, but nearly anyone who'd really want to--and be able to--sucker punch us at this point could, and this isn't making anyone more apt to pick up democracy anywhere it already isn't. so why are we, a two-ton gorilla, swiping at gnats? just because they landed a good one, once or twice? hell--even *that* could've been prevented if they'd given operations like able danger a chance to work, imo. i am firmly in the camp that says, any country as internationally active as ours *has* to come to grips with a constant threat of terrorism. russia has, the UK has, india has, israel has, etc: you sleep around, you'd better be willing to risk an STD, regardless of how you wrap it. the real question is: does terrorism really pose as existential a threat to the US as does, say, china? not hardly, imo.

so about the contractors: they're a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. recall the troops, re-tool and re-build: every country has had to do it and it didn't necessarily mean their end. NOT recalling them in time COULD, however, as it did for the USSR after their afghan safari. so:

1-recall the troops: we did in vietnam and, even though old scores were settled after we left, the domino effect in the southeast never happened. i mean, think about it before you shout, "Cut&runner!!"--what did we *really* lose? we STILL split the sino-soviet axis AND started SALT talks--i.e., our biggest enemies and threats (the ones we were trying to impress by staying in Vietnam) didn't seem to think less of us.

2-re-tool: dump the humvee; more MRAPs. invest in better armed, longer-ranged Predators, etc. more eyes-in-the-skies and whatnot. papers will be written, theses developed and debunked, and "What should the 21st century US Army look like?" questions asked. has happened since rome was trounced at carrhae.

3-rebuild: invest in the soldier, dammit, not just his rifle. first thing to do is ram a sizeable increase in pay thru congress and restructure the VA. rebuild defense from the ground-up. whittle the contractors' pool down to a nub, like it once was. sure, they need to come on base to teach a class in arabic or run a cable line into housing on-post, but that should be it. "No guns for the hired help" should be a rule, because the hired help isn't going into battle, bottom line. also, as a fan of smedley butler, i think posse comitatus should apply outside of the US as much as it does within.

these are a few thoughts. you asked, and i gave your queston the value of my time i think it deserved. no doubt others think differently, but such is our american way and i wouldn't have it any other.

So MPs didn't do this job during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al.?

Ummm, no. What do you think the department of state's DSS is for? Fetching donuts?

Shubs - I don't believe you were waitng for the anti-American card to be played in the thread, I believe you played it. Here are a few of your quotes:

A proliferation of morons let loose by a nation so full of itself and so blinded by its own sense of righteousness that it has lost the ability to see the consequences of its actions.

This situation wouldn't be there in the first place if you, the 'foreign fighters' there, let us not forget, didn't poke your fat ignorant nose there five years ago.

I don't go in for your cheap mind reading tricks of assuming you know what others think so you can buzz off on that. You continue to claim moral superiority without revealing its source. Sweet!

So, J, you'd withdraw and leave the Iraqis to the genocide that even the NY Times says would happen? Even if the "domino effect" never happened in Southeast Asia, millions lost their lives that might have been saved if we hadn't pulled out. Ever hear of the killing fields?

You say we didn't really lose anything... does the massive loss of life after we cut and run mean nothing to you? Do the lives of those who look different--different skin tone, different eye shape--mean nothing to you?

You just dug yourself a real deep hole there, neighbor.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/24/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

J - It was good of you to take some time and effort to construct a comment rather than use stale talking points.

Nice

now before we rush to judgment, lemme say this: not necessarily gonna happen, even if the Times says it will. consider:

1- iraq has no history of sectarian violence; our presence (and make no mistake, it would be the same if it were russia's or saudi arabia's) is, according to some, *itself the catalyst* for the sectarianism. even during the iran-iraq war, there was little evidence that the shia bloque in iraq costituted a fifth column within, working with the iranians. instead, iraq--largely shia--fought *as one* against the only other shia gov't in the middle east. the longer we stay, i think, the deeper the hole is being dug for a once and future iraqi gov't, as anyone who works with the coalition is immediately out any street cred.

2-iraqis don't want to see iraq split into three fractions/factions, but the US is going ahead with it anyway. why? consider this news article from the other day:

"BAGHDAD (AFP) — Hundreds of Shiites and Sunnis marched on Wednesday in protest at the building by US troops of a tall concrete wall separating their northwest Baghdad neighbourhoods, an AFP photographer said.

The protesters complained that the wall would promote sectarianism and demanded its removal."

(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9vMA27D7Fu1r_4jW_jmdsEa1KKg)

i take their protests to be a good sign, one that says they're willing to fight for what's theirs. without that, this whole thing will surely have been a failed venture, imo.

3-what to do with the kurds, however? they are certainly not going to give up any of their hard-won sovereignty, and even if they *are* our most reliable allies in the country, their increased autonomy threatens the whole region, from turkey to northern iran. i am at a loss here; it gets even stickier, with rumors of ongoing israeli-kurdish arms-and-cash deals going down all the time.

4-iranian influence is *not* welcome in iraq, itself also a good sign. (wish i could add to this but am short on time.)

5-Ahmadinejad is a delusional fool, but kept on a short leash by Supreme Leader Khamenei, who is himself commander-in-chief; head of all security ops and intel; and alone possesses the power to declare war. ergo, i think 90% of the president's rhetoric can be disregarded, and mention him only to preempt any suggestion that he's another reason we have to stay.

in short, it isn't that i feel nothing for iraqis. rather, it is *because* i think highly of their capacity to get over this *if we let them* that i think that iraq is salvageable. iraqis are dying NOW and fleeing the country NOW: the threat of "it's all gonna go to hell if we leave" is tautological. so is it really just a matter of deciding how much hell-at-once or how little hell-over-a-longer-time are they gonna have to endure before they get their country back? i wouldn't like to think so, but that might be the $64K question.

@daleyrocks:
Whatever. Just don't put your cowboy boots on my nation's soil.

Stay out, and maybe we can be friends.

J: Thanks for the kind rebuttle... nice to see a non-hostile response. I also, after reading your last, happen to agree with you on the majority of your points. The Iraqis... the 'everyday Joe Iraqi' on the street tends to want this whole mess to blow over... The biggest issue which NO ONE on either side has EVER really touched on was the violence that keeps happening (i.e. kidnapping and murder and general thievery) can be attributed in large to desperation AND the fact that Saddam opened the door to every single prison in Iraq as the invasion commenced.

To give you perspective on this: Imagine every single jailed inmate in the state of New York being released and in some cases, armed by their former jailers... Thats according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (googled it) That would be upwards of 75,000 criminals cut loose all at once. Just imagine the chaos that would happen if only 10% of them return to crime or even violent crime.

Throw in the raging unemployment, the standing military of 1.5million men under arms being suddenly 'out of work' but still armed, the influx of 'foriegn fighters' and a culture that pretty much encourages "Getting what you can when you can" in the Body Politic, and you have a recipe foor complete and total breakdown of any and all services.

Personally, I hope we get the hell out soon, despite the fact that it'll leave me unemployed ;)

CCG: Appreciate it sir! I may just have to tell you to do me a favor and take a Iraq Vet out to dinner instead... he or she deserves it much more than I!

Besides... 30 Days and I got me some R&R... or I&I... (Intercorse and Intoxication!!!!! LOL)

Stubs - Since you haven't disclosed your country, it makes it a little hard to refute your points. I suppose that is the way you want it.

J - Your point #1 - No history of sectarian violence - Do you mean because the Shia were firmly under the boot of the Sunni.

Now that things have changed, plus with Iranian support of some of the leading Shia clerics (where did they spend their exiles?), and some of the factors Big C mentioned, it's a whole new ball game there. The Sunni aren't used to being out of power and the Shia want their turn at the top along with some revenge for sins of the past IMHO. Every one has to become convinced of the benfits of working together and sharing power.

"Do you mean because the Shia were firmly under the boot of the Sunni[?]"

inside the corridors of power, this was true. iraqi christians were overrepresented (vis-a-vis their numbers in the country) in saddam's gov't to the exclusion of the shia, even. but in the neighborhoods of baghdad, shia-and-sunni intermarriages were common, and christians largely unmolested. *outsiders* were seen with distrust, and kurds (and iranians and saudis, et al) were considered outsiders.

"with...some of the factors Big C mentioned, it's a whole new ball game there."

again, to a certain degree, yes. Big C brought up a very relevant point about the prisoners that gets zero play in the media when it comes to hard-core discussions on iraq, and *has* to be brought into play on the matter. now, not all of the ex-cons were of the worst stripe--many were simply political/religious enemies of saddam or his family. but enough of them were that they have to be considered a factor in the insurgency, at least in it's earliest days. with that said, i'm not sure i'd say it's a "whole new ballgame" but it *does* factor into this, somehow; it's just out of my league to opine on how, exactly.

"Every one has to become convinced of the benfits of working together and sharing power."

i couldn't agree more, and i think the purple fingers were proof that the street long ago become convinced that a.) it was a good thing to be rid of saddam and b.) it's do-or-die time, with regards to keeping iraq intact.

No history of sectarian violence?

Uh, J, you conveniently forget Saddam's gassing of the Kurds.

I'd say a gas attack by a member of one sect (Sunni) upon another sect (Kurd) is "sectarian violence."

Stop believing everything MoveOn tells you.

Big Country: I happen to know a Marine Sergeant quite well (I believe he's commented here once or twice) and he knows he's got a standing invitation for a steak. Alas, the closest he's gotten to my grill has been Utah, so far, but he keeps promising to come around someday.

Iraq has serious problems and will continue to have them for years to come. Our own nation was conceived in blood in 1775, but we did not establish our constitution until 1788, thirteen years later. Why do we expect overnight magic in Iraq?
After WW2 US troops remained in Germany and Japan for several years (hint they are still there). Attacks against our troops in Germany continued well past 1985, FORTY years later! While stationed there in the mid 80's, we were constantly reminded to be vigilant bacause groups supported by enemies of freedom opposed us. The majority of the attackers were foreign, but we also faced abuse from home grown America haters. I was stationed at Pirmasens, home to the green party. Many members of my unit were attacked while down in town.
Outsourcing has its ups and its downs. Generally contract employees are cheaper to maintain for many functions from cooks to gate guards. Many needs go beyond what soldiers are capable of. I'm not dissing troops here, I'm being real. A lot of our kids in the Military have a high school diploma and little more. True officers all have college educations, and most senior NCOs as well, but joe the private is often fresh out of high school, full of patriotic zeal, and in need of good guidance. Its hard to put up a good security detail for state dept from that. Blackwater et al are specialists. With prior experience, these guys provide a level of security higher then most MP companies can accomplish. Units like the OSI cando it, but they are already taxed to the max with their own details. I doubt they could spare ten men for a convoy for one day, let alone every day.
Looking back at Vietnam, it had its economic reasons. At the start of the war, it was a primary source of rubber, before we learned to synthisize plastic from crude. It was a crucial chess piece for many years. Were atrocities comitted there? Yes they were, hundreds of times, maybe even thousands. 99.9% by the NVA and VC units. Its the same then as now, Dan rather reported back then.
If you think nothing happened when we left, think again, and learn to do research. Many Vietnamese were killed by the communists. They even killed Viet Cong because they had leadership skills. The educated masses were slaughtered. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, killed because they had educations that taught them about life beyond the walls of communism. The murder also spread, Laos, Cambodia, even into Thailand. Millions died for no reason except that we supported bad policies, and let communists infiltrate our colleges here at home.
Wise democrats should support the troops in Iraq, and an invasion of Iran. Islam opposes all that is dear to democrats.
Furthermore, think what a full blown civil war in Iraq would do to the WORLD economy. The violence would spread. be assured of that. People would flee to surrounding countries for safety, and those countries would be attacked by the radicals because they provided shelter. These groups will behave like Mafiosos given the chance. The world depends on oil. sorry, its a fact. Desert storm was about oil. Bush Sr. admitted it, only fools deny it. This is about oil too, but its not about stealing it as so many try to imply. Its about staving off economic disaster, and ecological disaster as well.
We all though Saddam had WMD. That was a common train of htough on both sides of the isle. That was not the only reason for kicking his ass out of power. It is the only reason not proven valid. BUT it has also not been proven invalid either. It never will be either way. Saddam may have had them and may have shipped them to Syria, or crazy as it sounds, Iran.
Yup, bitter enemies them two! ROFL@U. Saddam sent his air force into Iran to save them from destruction by the USAF prior to desert storm.
Anyone remember the joke? what does Saddam call his airforce? Its the I Ran Air Force. Old but so true!

Very good points, Jeremy.

Pulling out of Iraq would also embolden the Islamoterrorists... they'd be slapping each other on the back yelling, "we chased the Americans off!"

J - I think you need to do some more work on your Iraqi history. The Sunni dominated the Shia economically as a result of their political power. Look at WWII forward.

"...you conveniently forget Saddam's gassing of the Kurds."

no, i didn't forget, but their gassing wasn't an act of ethnic cleansing *per se*: they revolted against saddam's rule (making them more like chechen separatists), declared themselves part of a greater kurdistan, and received iranian funding and support as an iranian effort to give saddam hell, basically. while their ethnicity cannot be ignored as part of the larger context (ie, no doubt their brutal surpression was only made easier to carry out given their cultural differences with the rest of iraqis), it was not for this reason in-and-of-itself that they provoked saddam's ire. equally so with iraq's shia marsh arabs: they revolted with iranian support and were also surpressed, but not strictly *because* they were shia but *because* they revolted.

either way, however, these aren't the individual groups that the Times has earmarked for slaughter should we pull out. the kurds are the most heavily armed and organized group of the lot, and it would take a joint iranian, iraqi, turkish and possibly even syrian effort to break kurdistan--only iraq just isn't anywhere near being able to mount anything like that, and the other countries don't have the stones or organizational skills to do it. the Times has predicted widespread bloodshed in baghdad in particular, a city that simply does *not* have the history of sectarian violence it is currently beset by.

"The Sunni dominated the Shia economically as a result of their political power."

again, true, but it is a stretch to try and link that to the spate of sectarian violence currently plaguing the country, for the simple reason that now, NO ONE has the power. the multi-sect gov't is impotent, which means ALL (non-kurdish) iraqis feel impotent. *the coalition presence* seems to be the catalyst here, folks, in encouraging the sectarianism, and there is no reason to believe that that can't be alleviated by a coalition withdrawal. the longer we stay, however, the more bad blood is sown and the harder it will be for ANY future sharing of power.

You need to study your history, J.

In the mid-9th century the Abbasid caliphate began a slow decline. Turkic warrior slaves known as Mamluks became so prominent at the caliph’s court that they almost monopolized power. In 945 the Buwayhids, an Iranian Shia dynasty, conquered Baghdād. However, they allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in office as a symbol of continuity and legitimacy. In 1055 the Seljuks, a Turkic Sunni clan, drove out the Buwayhids and reestablished Sunni rule in Baghdād. The Seljuks respected the Abbasid caliph but allowed him to be only a figurehead. At the end of the 11th century Seljuk power started to decline.

In 1258 Baghdād was conquered and sacked by Hulagu, grandson of the great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. Hulagu had the caliph executed along with large numbers of Muslim clerics. Mongol horse cavalry and governmental neglect wrought havoc with the elaborate irrigation system that the Abbasids had established. Iraq became a neglected frontier area ruled from the Mongol capital of Tabrīz in Persia. In 1335 the last great Mongol ruler of this region died, and anarchy prevailed. The Turkic conqueror Tamerlane sacked Baghdād in 1401, again massacring many of its inhabitants.

Ottoman Turkish and Iranian rulers vied for supremacy in Iraq until the Ottoman Empire finally secured control in the 17th century. The region was brought under Persian control in 1508. The Ottoman Turks conquered much of it in 1534. The Persians recaptured Baghdād and large parts of Iraq in 1623, holding them until 1638, when Iraq was again brought under Ottoman rule. For almost three centuries thereafter Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire.

To summarize:

945: Shia take over.
1055: Sunni take over.
1258: Mongols take over, rule from Persia (modern day Iran).
1355: Anarchy.
1401: Turks take over with a massacre. Persian and Turkish rulers fight over Iraq for decades.
1508: Persia finally gains the upper hand.

In short, the ancient history of Iraq is one of almost constant warfare among the various tribes in the area. The only thing that stopped the warfare was the Ottoman Empire taking over and placing a heavy iron boot on the tribes, a tradition that continued through the British occupation and on to Saddam's day.

If we leave now, there is every possibility that those ancient tribal feuds will start up again.

J - You showed a brief spark of hope there but now you've gone back to displaying industrial stength stupid, conflating history with current behavior. No sectatian violence in Baghdad under Sadaam, why should there be any now if we leave?

Doh! Could it be brutal repression of regime opponents during his regime had anything to do with keeping the population cowering in fear? What's a few rape and torture rooms and mass graves between friends, after all? Relatives disappear? Don't worry, it's probably not because thet're from the wrong sect or tribe or said something against Sadaam, everyone is free to intermingle, intermarry and express their views here.

Do you actually believe what you write?

Just a fun one... Un-PC as Hell but it sticks in my mind: when asked abouit Iraq and the Iraqis, my best friend Lil Country responded vis-a-vis Saddam and his way of treating the population of Iraq

"Not that I would ever condon Saddam or his murderous tendancies... I totally UNDERSTAND it... three months here in Baghdad and I'm ready to commit genocide!"

Daley, J writes out of ignorance. Ignorance of the history of Iraq (as I pointed out this morning), ignorance of what is currently going on there, and just plain general issue ignorance.

Mind you, if he would arm himself with the facts he may in fact be intelligent enough to draw a valid conclusion from them; I cannot say, because his aforementioned ignorance makes it impossible to determine his intelligence.

Oooh, looky! A new troll! Or perhaps an old one with a new sock, if ya get my drift... time will tell.