Oct 15


More pots and kettles

by Terry 15 October 2007


“Contractors” is such a neutral word. When I first heard it in relation to Iraq, I conjured up pictures of construction and oil rig workers, laboring to restore infrastructure in a battle torn country. I never once pictured them carrying guns. How deluded I was.

During the initial phases of the war in Afghanistan, the US filled the prison at Guantanamo Bay with what they called “unlawful enemy combatants,” those who they say engaged in battle against the United States without being a member of a regular army. Now there are those who say the US has, through the use of contractors like Blackwater, likewise used non-military personnel in aggressive acts in a foreign country.

From the LA Times:

“To what extent is it appropriate to have people not in the chain of command under the president of the United States involved in the application of force?” the official asked.

Any doubt on the legal status of the contractors is likely to open the United States to further criticism from the international community.

John Hutson, a former top Navy lawyer, said he did not consider contractors to be unlawful combatants.

But that will be a difficult argument for U.S. officials to make, he emphasized.

“We are going to be hard-pressed to draw a distinction between the guys in Blackwater carrying automatic weapons and the bad guys setting bombs along the side of the road,” said Hutson, now dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire.

U.S. officials have described many of the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliates it holds at Guantanamo Bay as unlawful combatants either for taking part in hostilities against the United States or by supporting the hostilities while not part of a nation’s military.

By that standard, some of the private guards in Iraq and Afghanistan also could be seen as unlawful combatants, particularly if they have taken offensive action against unarmed civilians, experts said.

“If we hire people and direct them to perform activities that are direct participation in hostilities, then at least by the Guantanamo standard, that is a war crime,” Schmitt said.

Once, the US actively prosecuted war crimes. Now we could be accused of them. We’ve armed and inserted mercenaries, exempt from military and civil laws, into a war zone where they act with impunity. And they act in our name and we do not prevent them. As more and more incidents come to light, maybe the press can do what the public cannot; force an accounting of the damage they’ve done. Applying the correct label is a place to start.

Tagged:

6 Comments

6 Responses to “More pots and kettles”

  1. BLACKWATER DISARMS U.S. TROOPS… on October 16th, 2007 7:17 am
  2. Lynn on October 16th, 2007 9:27 am

    The military is stretched thin, and contractors are nothing new. Since the drawdown of the 90s, the military has contracted out non-essential jobs to civilian companies. Instead of recruiting and training a military person to, for instance, manage vehicle fleets, it’s much more efficient to take bids from outside companies who can do the job. Lowest bidder wins, and the humvees, planes, etc, get serviced as usual but it’s not military doing the job.

    Now, carry this forward to today, where the military is REALLY stretched thin trying to cover deployments to war zones and you end up with more contractors. This time, covering some jobs that are essential, such as policing, because there aren’t enough military to do the job. So the contractor label is quite familiar to those of us who’ve been around the military for eons, but yes, contractors hired to police and provide protection are mercenaries. Totally different than the contractor hired to drive the gas truck across the desert, though in fact he’s probably armed too.

    We can’t call all armed contractors mercenaries, because I guarantee you that defense contractors doing work on non-violent stuff over in a war zone are probably carrying weapons. So there is a line, but where is it? If your job is primarily to provide muscle, and you use a gun to do it, then probably you’re a mercenary. Unfortunately, this is the face of the future in warfare. You can’t recruit enough soldiers to fill the military jobs, but you can pay very very very handsomely for a civilian to do it. And it still costs the gov’t less to pay a civilian a 6 figure salary for service in a war zone than it does to recruit, house, train, equip, and feed a soldier.

    You know me, Terry. I’m not taking up for Blackwater at all. I’m just adding my military perspective to the mix. :) We know who to thank for getting us into this mess. This is a protracted war that will keep us in the ME for many years to come. Promises to pull out are empty, no matter which side is making them. It can’t be done, not yet.  (Quote)

  3. Terry on October 16th, 2007 1:04 pm

    I’m always happy to have your perspective, Lynn. My interest in this is the label “unlawful combatant,” which the present administration has been so eager to apply to others. It does seem to be that it applies to Blackwater and other security contractors as well.  (Quote)

  4. Lynn on October 17th, 2007 9:45 am

    Well, this current administration is a bit, um, well, hmm. They haven’t handled anything to do with this war very well. But again, with the military stretched thin and security needed on the ground, short of instituting a draft, they have to allow for private contractors. And if we’re going to encourage them to go, we’re going to have to protect them from prosecution by another country.

    Sucks, and I don’t necessarily agree (though I sure sound kind of right wing at the moment, which horrifies me you can be sure). If only the guy we elected in the first place had gotten the job, we might not be in this predicament. :( As entangled as we are over there, we have need of far too many security forces and we don’t have enough people in uniform to do the job. Perhaps mercenaries need to be held to the same UCMJ code as the military. Maybe that’s a solution. Wish I knew, but talking about it is how we find solutions, so this is a good subject to explore. :)  (Quote)

  5. Ahistoricality on October 17th, 2007 11:49 am

    As entangled as we are over there, we have need of far too many security forces and we don’t have enough people in uniform to do the job.

    If we can’t do the job right, then at least we need to do the job honestly. Instead of farming out combat and police operations to mercenaries, not to mention State Department security (didn’t the Marines used to do that?), we should be doing what we can and making it very clear what we can’t do without legitimate outside help and Iraqi support.

    Frankly, I think a blazing but honest failure would bring us — and the Iraqis — more support than the dribbling, blinkered, oozing mess we’ve created.  (Quote)

  6. Terry on October 18th, 2007 2:31 pm

    I respect the job done by those in the military, but there’s a big difference between using contractors in peace time and wartime. They’ve got to be bound by some type of law, military or otherwise. To not hold to that standard makes them unlawful combatants, by Bush’s own definition.

    A, you’re right that we’ve created a sucking wound with no good exit. There has to be accountability.  (Quote)

Leave a Reply

Terry likes gravitars to personalize comments. Don't have one? Make one at gravatar.com!