Iraq: U.S. Troop and Mercenary Escalations

surge2.jpg


Utterly astonishing - and a serious suspension of disbelief necessary - but there is increasing evidence emerging that both the numbers of U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq and the numbers of mercenaries in Iraq contracted to Private Security Companies are steadily but surely rising, and at an alarming rate. It is now estimated [see below] that there will be over 200,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq by the end of 2007, while the number of mercenaries currently in Iraq is believed to be somewhere between 100,000 and 130,000. And none of the U.S. presidential candidates (Rep Ron Paul admirably excepted), much less the mainstream media in the U.S. or Europe, question any of this imminent nightmare ...


Bush administration quietly boosting troop levels in second 'surge' :

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

When additional support troops are included in this second troop "surge," the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 — a record high number — by the end of the year.

McCaffrey: 600 U.S. Contractors Have Been Killed in Iraq :

According to retired U.S. Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, there are roughly 130,000 contractors in Iraq, and about 4,000 of them have been wounded and 600 have been killed.

McCaffrey spent roughly a week touring Iraq, meeting U.S. military personnel, U.S. and Iraqi political leaders, and Iraqi regional leaders.​

100,000 mercenaries, the forgotten "Surge":

What is striking about the current debate in Washington - whether to "surge" troops to Iraq and increase the size of the U.S. Army - is that roughly 100,000 bodies are missing from the equation: The number of American forces in Iraq is not 140,000, but more like 240,000. The private contractors are Americans, South Africans, Brits, Iraqis and a hodgepodge of other nationalities. Many of them are veterans of the U.S. or other armed forces and intelligence services, who are now deployed in Iraq (and Afghanistan and other countries) to perform duties normally carried out by the U.S. Army, but at salaries two or three times greater than those of American soldiers.

They work as interrogators and interpreters in American prisons; body guards for top U.S. and Iraqi officials; trainers for the Iraqi army and police; and engi-neers constructing huge new U.S. bases. They are often on the front lines. In fact, 650 of them have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion

Their salaries, are, in the end, paid directly by the U.S. government - or tacked on as huge additional "security charges" to the bills of private American or other contractors. Yet the Central Command still doesn't have a complete list of who they are or what they are up to. The final figure could be much higher than 100,000.

iraqjp.JPG

Philippino mercenaries in Iraq, contracted to Dyncorp. [Clearly, Dyncorp executives had a mis-spent youth watching Sergio Leone spagetti westerns ... ]


And in Britain, meanwhile, Blair has simply replaced the British troop withdrawal with a growing private army of mercenaries:

'Mercenaries' to fill Iraq troop gap:

MINISTERS are negotiating multi-million-pound contracts with private security firms to cover some of the gaps created by British troop withdrawals.

Days after Tony Blair revealed that he wanted to withdraw 1,600 soldiers from war-torn Basra within months, it has emerged that civil servants hope "mercenaries" can help fill the gap left behind.​

Anatomy of a Mercenary Thug - Iraq's Mercenary King:

As a former C.I.A. agent, the author knows how mercenaries work: in the shadows. But how did a notorious former British officer, Tim Spicer, come to coordinate the second-largest army in Iraq—the tens of thousands of private security contractors?

[ ... ]

But then, somehow, two months later, Spicer's company, known as Aegis Defence Services, landed a $293 million Pentagon contract to coordinate security for reconstruction projects, as well as support for other private military companies, in Iraq. This effectively put him in command of the second-largest foreign armed force in the country—behind America's but ahead of Britain's. These men aren't officially part of the Coalition of the Willing, because they're all paid contractors—the Coalition of the Billing, you might call it—but they're a crucial part of the coalition's forces nonetheless.

[ ... ]

During a posting in Northern Ireland in 1992, Spicer experienced his first taste of public controversy when two soldiers under his command shot an unarmed teenage father of two in the back, killing him. The soldiers were tried, convicted of murder, and imprisoned for life. However, as part of a murky deal at the time of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the soldiers were released. Spicer successfully argued for their return to their unit. In November 2006 the mother of the murdered teenager threatened to explore legal action against the British government unless Spicer's company was barred from other British-government contracts in war zones.

0801441145.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Of course, U.S. private military contractors are not simply confined to Iraq - they now operate secretly in dozens of countries, a Western-capital sanctioned privatisation of military terrorism. Just to take one example, Consultants Advisory Group (CAG), which currently specialises in totally illegal, terrorist Black-ops in such exotic places as Haiti, Panama, Kenya, and Somalia. Their website, which makes them sound like they're selling burgers rather than being a terrorist group, boasts: "Established in 1997, CAG INTERNACIONAL S.A. is a privately owned international business corporation closely held by American expatriates and staffed by the finest independent contractors from the CIA, FBI, US and Foreign Military Services, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Justice and Commerce."
 

vimothy

yurp
Private military contractors are everywhere, of course, and their numbers are set to increase in coming years.

This thread is a little confusing though. What would you like coalition governments to be doing hmlt?
 

borderpolice

Well-known member
there will be over 200,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq by the end of 2007, while the number of mercenaries currently in Iraq is believed to be somewhere between 100,000 and 130,000.

Why does it make sense to distinguish mercenaryies from U.S. soldiers? As far as I am aware, the U.S. army is not composed of conscripts, but of volunteers who are paid for services. Hence The U.S. army (like the british army) is a mercenary organisation and "our boys" are mercenaries, killing for financial gain.
 

vimothy

yurp
Why does it make sense to distinguish mercenaryies from U.S. soldiers? As far as I am aware, the U.S. army is not composed of conscripts, but of volunteers who are paid for services. Hence The U.S. army (like the british army) is a mercenary organisation and "our boys" are mercenaries, killing for financial gain.

True in one sense, but ultimately too reductive and moralistic a description, surely.
 

vimothy

yurp
Surely not. What's the benefit of being euphemistic about merceneries?

I'm not asking you to be euphemistic (the opposite, in fact). Merceneries are no more good or bad than any other role or job. They are not in Iraq simply to kill people, and neither are the army. I'm sure that you recognise this fact: they provide security. If the mecenaries do nothing but kill Iraqis, they will decrease security and stability. What company would pay money for that?

I believe we will see increasing instances of mercenaries used by both governments and private companies in the future. China already has a steadily growing horde in Africa to protect its investments there.
 

borderpolice

Well-known member
I'm not asking you to be euphemistic (the opposite, in fact).

Really? That's surprising! I find it hard to make sense of your objection to the factually correct description of US/GB soldiers as mercenaries ("ultimately too reductive and moralistic a description") in any other way, to be honest.

Merceneries are no more good or bad than any other role or job.

Nonsense. Just about any prominent moral system I am familiar with disapproves of mercenaries. If there was no opprobium attached to the term, why would for example the US army not use the self-description "mercenary army"? In fact, you would not have complained about my desription if the term was morally neutral or even positive.

They are not in Iraq simply to kill people, and neither are the army.

you need to distinguish individual motivation from overall purpose. whether you like it or not, the contract a mercenary (like a british or US soldier) signs is basically about the unconditional provision of extreme violence (and some other services) on demand, no questions asked, in exchange for money. Whatever the motivation of the buyers of the mercenaries services (e.g. the british or US public, via their elected representatives) may be is a different question, but that's irrelevant to the job desription of those who carry out the violence on demand.. It is very simple really. Have a think about it for a bit before you reply to my post.

I'm sure that you recognise this fact: they provide security.

Are you taking the piss? The security in Iraq has massively decreased since the invasion of the mercenary forces. Just have a look at the killing rates in Iraq pre/post invasion.

If the mecenaries do nothing but kill Iraqis, they will decrease security and stability.

I didn't say that killing for money is the only thing they do. It is just the most publically visible act, and the one that sets them apart most from other jobs.

What company would pay money for that?

Those that benefit from a decrease security and stability. There are plenty of those, keywords: exploitation.of.natural.resources!

I believe we will see increasing instances of mercenaries used by both governments and private companies in the future. China already has a steadily growing horde in Africa to protect its investments there.

I agree with this ... and it's a terrible development.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Nonsense. Just about any prominent moral system I am familiar with disapproves of mercenaries. If there was no opprobium attached to the term, why would for example the US army not use the self-description "mercenary army"? In fact, you would not have complained about my desription if the term was morally neutral or even positive.

The US army doesn't use the term "mercenary army" to describe itself because it isn't. I personally have no objection to the term "mercenary" or people who make their living as mercenaries. I was objecting to your description of our troops as basically "killing for financial gain".

you need to distinguish individual motivation from overall purpose. whether you like it or not, the contract a mercenary (like a british or US soldier) signs is basically about the unconditional provision of extreme violence (and some other services) on demand, no questions asked, in exchange for money. Whatever the motivation of the buyers of the mercenaries services (e.g. the british or US public, via their elected representatives) may be is a different question, but that's irrelevant to the job desription of those who carry out the violence on demand.. It is very simple really. Have a think about it for a bit before you reply to my post.

I disagree, it's all still too reductive and moralistic, only this time you've gone even further. The mercenaries are there to provide security for the various contractors and organisations, the troops are there to provide security for Iraq, to stabilise the country and to help the reconstruction. Individual motivations may vary, of course. I'm sure that there are probably some soldiers or mercenaries who signed up to kill people, but I disagree that overall the armed forces are basically in Iraq to kill people for cash.

Are you taking the piss? The security in Iraq has massively decreased since the invasion of the mercenary forces. Just have a look at the killing rates in Iraq pre/post invasion.

Do you mean the regular army or the mercenary army?

In any case decreased security has more to do with the failure of the Iraqi state, post invasion. Mercenaries are the result of that, not the cause. And of course, paranoid police states are normally pretty stable.

I didn't say that killing for money is the only thing they do. It is just the most publically visible act, and the one that sets them apart most from other jobs.

Well, I was only objecting to your description of soldiers as killers for financial gain as I thought ity was too reductive.

Those that benefit from a decrease security and stability. There are plenty of those, keywords: exploitation.of.natural.resources!

- Al Qaeda and Iran then.

I agree with this ... and it's a terrible development.

Not necessarily, though it's probably not going to be a very comfortable ride. Mercenaries mean more non/sub-state actors waging war, increasing the trends we are currently seeing in the middle east and dispersing them across more of the globe. But on the other hand, they're also the solution to a problem, they're pretty functional.
 

borderpolice

Well-known member
The US army doesn't use the term "mercenary army" to describe itself because it isn't. I personally have no objection to the term "mercenary" or people who make their living as mercenaries. I was objecting to your description of our troops as basically "killing for financial gain".

Do you also object to the description of prostitutes as providers of sexual services?


The mercenaries are there to provide security for the various contractors and organisations, the troops are there to provide security for Iraq,

As you may have already noted, this distinction is invalid.

If you want a factually serious distinction between mercenary forces like the british/american armies and forces
like Blackwater, I recommend to look at organisational structure, ownership, equipment types of contract, size public image
and so on. There are clear differences, but not at the basic exchange level: money for the willingness to exert extreme violence on demand.


I'm sure that there are probably some soldiers or mercenaries who signed up to kill people, but I disagree that overall the armed forces are basically in Iraq to kill people for cash.

Those who sign up for organisations like the US/British armies sign contracts. These contracts state quite clearly what the exchange is about: money against unquestion the willingness of exerting extreme violence. if you don't like it, why don't you contact the MoD and ask to see a copy of the contracts that combat forces need to sign.


Do you mean the regular army or the mercenary army?

As I told you already several times, in the present context they are they same.

And of course, paranoid police states are normally pretty stable.

That's true, and those who provide the violence to run a police state, where they are not recruits are ...?


Well, I was only objecting to your description of soldiers as killers for financial gain as I thought ity was too reductive.

By "reductive" you mean "spot on"?

Al Qaeda and Iran then.

They may well be among those, if the right-wing corporate media is to be believed. So what?



they're also the solution to a problem, they're pretty functional.

Nuking the region would be even more functional.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Do you also object to the description of prostitutes as providers of sexual services?

In the army alone I can think of:

Combat troops (the "killers")
Logisitcs & support
Medical
MP
Intelligence
IT & Communications
Finance & HR
etc...

As you may have already noted, this distinction is invalid.

If you want a factually serious distinction between mercenary forces like the british/american armies and forces
like Blackwater, I recommend to look at organisational structure, ownership, equipment types of contract, size public image
and so on. There are clear differences, but not at the basic exchange level: money for the willingness to exert extreme violence on demand.

Leave it out mate, of course I want a factually serious distinction. That's basically what I'm getting at. There are clear and important differnces between national armed forces and mercenaries. There's a lot that can be applied to the current role of mercenary forces from 4GW literature, and that's pretty much how I'm reading them at the moment. Mercenaries are analogous to international terror networks like al Qaeda.

Those who sign up for organisations like the US/British armies sign contracts. These contracts state quite clearly what the exchange is about: money against unquestion the willingness of exerting extreme violence. if you don't like it, why don't you contact the MoD and ask to see a copy of the contracts that combat forces need to sign.

It's not really a question of whether I like it or not. But I'm interested in army contracts; can you provide a link?

As I told you already several times, in the present context they are they same.

By refusing to make the distinction you're confusing the issue and making debate more difficult.

That's true, and those who provide the violence to run a police state, where they are not recruits are ...?

Mercenaries? Liggers? I don't know, you've lost me.

By "reductive" you mean "spot on"?

By reductive I mean sweeping generalisations that do no justice to the army's real role. The Gulf War mark II is over. If it were simply a case of killing people, our armed forces would find it a lot easier.

Are you reading Petraeus and Kilcullen and the like?

They may well be among those, if the right-wing corporate media is to be believed. So what?

Come off it, you don't need the "right-wing Corporate media" (by which I assume you mean "media I disagree with") to help you make the obvious assessment that al Qaeda stands to benefit from reduced oil output in Iraq. Ditto Iran.

As for so what, I was just pointing out that American corporate interest is very squarely on the side of increased stability, increased investment opportunities, increased oil output, etc.

Nuking the region would be even more functional.

Perhaps, but I remain supportive of the US led efforts at COIN and reconstruction.
 

vimothy

yurp
As for so what, I was just pointing out that American corporate interest is very squarely on the side of increased stability, increased investment opportunities, increased oil output, etc.

...And therefore won't benefit from mercenary inspired systemic disruptions, or be happy with mercenaries who directly or indirectly cause Iraqis to give more support to the various insurgencies going on in Iraq at present.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Do you also object to the description of prostitutes as providers of sexual services?

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. If that analogy held water, troops would not receive a salary at all, but would be on commission, i.e. a set fee per Iraqi killed.

The quality of a soldier is not proportional to how many people he's killed, and anyone who thinks otherwise should not be serving in an armed force. If there are people who think like that serving in the US/UK forces at the moment, that's regretable, but it's certainly not what the forces are there for. If it were the official line, there'd be no troops in Iraq at all, as the Americans would have nuked it and killed every man, woman, child and goat in the place in a matter of minutes, right?
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
The quality of a soldier is not proportional to how many people he's killed, and anyone who thinks otherwise should not be serving in an armed force.

And that is particularly true in the midst of such a vicious and sustained insurgency. COIN should seek to de-escalate and avoid violence where ever possible, to build trust with the locals and isolate the insurgents. You might not recognise this, borderpolice, but the command in charge of OIF does, they literally wrote the book on COIN.


Edit: you can read it (FM3-24) here, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
As I told you already several times, in the present context they are they same.

Boy are there gonna be some pissed off squaddies when they fiind out they're no different than people earning 10 times as much as them
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Boy are there gonna be some pissed off squaddies when they fiind out they're no different than people earning 10 times as much as them

...who probably also have rifles that don't jam all the time and blind you with ejected cartridges if you happen to be left-handed!
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Boy are there gonna be some pissed off squaddies when they fiind out they're no different than people earning 10 times as much as them"
Dunno about pissed off but I guess they are having some ideas on what to do as soon as they leave the army (assuming they survive).
 

nomos

Administrator
afaik, the important difference between enlisted soldiers and 'military defence contractors' is that the latter are not bound by international conventions. they can operate without legal oversight and are therefore great candidates for carrying out jobs that would otherwise be considered war crimes if undertaken by representatives of a state, rather than employees of an independent corporation. so effectively, you have a shadow army operating with no legal constraints. they don't officially count as soldiers, whether for legal, budgetary or pr purposes.

(sorry if this got mentioned in the exchange upthread)
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
afaik, the important difference between enlisted soldiers and 'military defence contractors' is that the latter are not bound by international conventions. they can operate without legal oversight and are therefore great candidates for carrying out jobs that would otherwise be considered war crimes if representatives of a state, rather than an independent corporation, were to carry them out - i.e. a shadow army operating with no legal constraints.

(sorry if this got mentioned in the exchange upthread)

No it didn't but thank you for that bit of common sense rationalism. It's exactly right and the real issue at stake here. MDCs have no rules of engagement, no state to answer to...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
afaik, the important difference between enlisted soldiers and 'military defence contractors' is that the latter are not bound by international conventions.
I've never understood the legal status of mercenaries. If I went to Iraq and starting shooting people I would be a considered a criminal, how does it make it different if you are wearing a uniform and working for a profit making organisation?
 
afaik, the important difference between enlisted soldiers and 'military defence contractors' is that the latter are not bound by international conventions. they can operate without legal oversight and are therefore great candidates for carrying out jobs that would otherwise be considered war crimes if undertaken by representatives of a state, rather than employees of an independent corporation. so effectively, you have a shadow army operating with no legal constraints. they don't officially count as soldiers, whether for legal, budgetary or pr purposes.

(sorry if this got mentioned in the exchange upthread)

Yes, and this is why no mercenaries operating in Iraq have ever been charged with commiting crimes, not even those directly involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal, among numerous others.

" These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force... They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."===> Brigadier General Karl Horst, deputy commander of the Third Infantry Division in charge of security in Baghdad after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, commenting on DynCorp and other mercenary companies in Iraq, September, 2005.

Though private mercenaries and mercenary companies are not bound by those conventions that apply to enlisted soldiers of a national or supra-national army, they are nevertheless subject to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I, 8th June, 1977), which is the most widely accepted definition of a mercenary (though, predictably, the U.S. is not a signatory to the Protocol):

Protocol Additional GC 1977: Article 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.​

The difference, then, is that a captured soldier is a "protected person" with Prisoner of War status whereas a captured mercenary is (putatively) treated as a common criminal (not that any of this has any real substance in the context of the entire Iraq invasion and occupation being a war crime under the terms of the Geneva Conventions ...).


[BTW, Webster's dictionary defines a mercenary as "one that serves merely for wages; especially a soldier hire," but this is obviously a generic definition, and is useless for distinguishing between regular combat troops and private military contractors].
 
Top