The Mercenaries' War

Karen DeYoung:

Blackwater security contractors in Iraq have been involved in at least 195 "escalation of force" incidents since early 2005, including several previously unreported killings of Iraqi civilians, according to a new congressional account of State Department and company documents. [...]

Waxman and other critics have said the State Department, which has paid Blackwater nearly $1 billion for security work in Iraq, allowed the company to operate with impunity. "There is no evidence in the documents that the Committee has reviewed," a memorandum released by Democrats said, "that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater's actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company's high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation."

You can read Waxman's full report (PDF) if you want all the gruesome details. Scott Horton chimes in:

Yesterday I sat in a conference room overlooking the Hudson River Valley in the United States Military Academy at West Point listening to an impressive array of military lawyers discuss the issues associated with the war on terror. One question kept asserting itself, even though it was missing from the formal agenda: “What are we going to do about the contractors?” As one retired JAG put it, “their conduct is dangerously undercutting the military’s performance of its counter-insurgency mission.”

Meanwhile, consider what a mockery the structural situation of the contractors makes of the notion that the mission in Iraq is primarily motivated by concern for Iraqi well-being. Why would you introduce into a country a largish group of heavily armed people who are licensed to operate with legal impunity? Well, I have no idea. It sounds like something you might wish on your worst enemies. It's certainly not something you'd do to help out.

Comments

Again, the Bush Administration or Congress could create a legal framework that would provide accountability for our contractors. Why haven't they done that yet? That's the real question.

Posted by joel | October 2, 2007 1:25 PM

"As one retired JAG put it, 'their conduct is dangerously undercutting the military’s performance of its counter-insurgency mission.'” Isn't that what Markos said that got him blasted by the wingnuts?

Posted by Th | October 2, 2007 1:36 PM

And this has been such a long time coming. Salon has done a great job in past years of revealing how DynCorp goons were "buying" and screwing 12-year-old girls in Bosnia, and they also followed up on the CACI goon "Big Steve" Stefanowicz, who was in the thick of the Abu Ghraib debacle, directing the patsies, choreographing the dog-on-man action, etc. .

This has been in front of us for a decade and nothing's been done about the fact that these people are operating utterly outside the law, in a Hobbesian state of nature. Pile another log on the bonfire of disgraces. This is our government, our nation in action, and the world is watching. No wonder they hate us.

Posted by elle loco | October 2, 2007 1:57 PM

"Why would you introduce into a country a largish group of heavily armed people who are licensed to operate with legal impunity?

Hmmm. Why would they do this? What possible benefit could a power-grabbing crypto-monarchist asshole of a president like George Bush and his allies see in injecting public money into private militias?

Could it be 1) pork for their friends and 2) increased future domestic paramilitary capacity?

Let's hope it's just the pork.

Posted by Junius Brutus | October 2, 2007 1:59 PM

The blackwater incident is symbolic of the logical contradiction that has undermined the U.S. occupation from the beginning. When Germany occupied France, they never pretending that they were doing it for the French benefit. The U.S. is playing that game, which means that we have premised our legitimacy in Iraq on our defense of the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. At the same time, we have premised our occupational strategy on systematically disrespecting Iraqi sovereignty. The result is schizophrenia - a disorder of the political right. It runs right through the weird pro-war sector - for instance, a rancorous and rancid hatred of Moslems, combined with the notion that we are in Iraq to 'help' Iraqis; the arrest of Iranians on Iraqi soil for violating Iraq's sovereignty, in spite of the fact that the Iraqis invited the Iranians to Iraq and have bitterly complained about the arrests; the passing of a Senate resolution that casually encourages the U.S., with no right under any law whatsoever, to split Iraq in three; and so on. In this way, the only strategy that could possibly work in the troop-lite calculations of the Pentagon - a reliance on Iraqi nationalism - is subverted and openly scorned by the Americans, who then expect to be occupying Iraq for the next ten years as 'violence decreases'.

It is a strain, arguing against an approach that not only defies all sound policy, but that really should have been seen through by anybody who has passed Piaget's eight year old stage, when children learn not to believe contradictory things.

By the way - the Post editorial today in defense of mercenaries is a good example of pre-eight year old thinking. This is the same editorial board that eagerly wants the U.S. to go to war with Iran - but today, the talking point is that the U.S. war effort would simply collapse without the mercenaries, as we don't have enough soldiers. The warmongers really are the mental age of bedwetters.

Posted by roger | October 2, 2007 2:41 PM

I'm just waiting for Fred/Al/Chris Ford to weigh in and tell us that the "escalations of force" are a few isolated incidents by a few bad apples and we shouldn't rush to judgment.

C'mon guys, where are you?

Posted by James Gary | October 2, 2007 3:04 PM

The basic problem is the denial of reality by those in power. If your goal is to protect the diplomats, then taking the type of action blackwater takes is neccessary (obviously this statement does not extend to things like drunkenly shooting vice presidental body guards but it does cover some of their more aggressive tactics). The question is why do they still need that kind of protection after 4 years? The answer is Iraq is not safe and won't be safe for westerners without blackwater protection anytime soon. Hence the entier effort is a failure.

Posted by nathaniel | October 2, 2007 4:03 PM

If your goal is to protect the diplomats...

Actually, the U.S. used to have some military people who took care of that sort of thing--guarding embassies and the like. If I recall correctly, they were called the "U.S. Marine Corps," or something like that. Whatever happened to those guys?

Posted by James Gary | October 2, 2007 4:32 PM

Why would you introduce into a country a largish group of heavily armed people who are licensed to operate with legal impunity? Well, I have no idea. It sounds like something you might wish on your worst enemies. It's certainly not something you'd do to help out.

It's something you might do if you, I don't know, sold the war on the cheap and didn't want to represent to the American people that you had, say 340,000 people in Iraq, but only had 160,000.

But, as it turns out, having those 180,000 extra people in Iraq (many of which are not actually fighting, but are doing support) isn't as *good* as having 180,000 additional soldiers in Iraq because you 1) don't have control of them and 2) they operate with impunity, which are two ways of saying the same thing.

"I'm just waiting for Fred/Al/Chris Ford..."

I was wondering that too. Maybe their therapy seesion hasn't ended yet.

Posted by Rihilism | October 2, 2007 5:54 PM

But, as it turns out, having those 180,000 extra people in Iraq (many of which are not actually fighting, but are doing support) isn't as *good* as having 180,000 additional soldiers in Iraq because you 1) don't have control of them and 2) they operate with impunity, which are two ways of saying the same thing.

MOST of whom are logistical support personnel. A report MY linked to Sunday said 48,000 of the 180,000 are armed security people.

Posted by Campesino | October 2, 2007 6:16 PM

"If I recall correctly, they were called the "U.S. Marine Corps," or something like that. Whatever happened to those guys?"

They're getting ready to invade Iran, since the Army doesn't have the balls to do it.

Unfortunately, their Marine landing ships are being targeted by swarms of Iranian anti-ship missiles - so I hope they swim as well as SEALS do with full packs...

Of course, the Straits of Hormuz aren't that deep...

Maybe they'll be okay.

Are there any sharks in the Straits?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 2:53 AM