Iraq: U.S. Troop and Mercenary Escalations
- Thread starter hundredmillionlifetimes
- Start date
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
?? Quite apart from them being war criminals who should be brought before the Hague court, this escalation is totally contrary to their (Bush and Blair's) public pronouncements, to mainstream media propaganda about the "winding down" of Iraq-occupation operations, and to the generally accepted perceptions of the wider public. Yes, you're supposed to be confused.
borderpolice
Well-known member
Yeah and? I didn't say that mercenaries are combat troops
only. Incidentally, organisations like Blackwater have Logisitcs &
support Medical MP Intelligence IT & Communications Finance & HR too
Yes, so what? There are also important differences between the french
and the american army. And yet both are armies. As I mentioned these
differences include the nature of ownership, legal status and public
perception. My point is and has been that in both cases, the employes
of both types of organisations exchange financial reward against the
unlimited willingness to use industrial scale mass violence on
command, with no questions asked. This exchange for financial reward
is at the moral core of the term "mercenary", and because the empoyees
of reguar armies, where they are not conscripted, do make this exchange,
hence they are at the core mercenaries.
I would also like to point out that there is a very significant
exchange of staff between state armies and Blackwater type
organisations. Without having empirical data at hand, I conjecture
that the great majority of private army staff has previously worked
for public armies. Career trajectories the other way round are
probably much more rare. This easy exchange of employees suggests that
the kinds of jobs to be done in both cases points to a great
similarity in tasks.
So what?
Interesting. You equate an important part of the Invasion force with
el kaida. Given that you seem to be quite fond of mercenaries, you must
be happy with el kaida as well?
Not off the top of my head. I'm sure if you contact some army, they'd
be happy to supply the relevant texts.
By refusing to agree that the emporer's new clothes are beautiful, I'm probably
also making his adulation difficult?
Police forces also have contractual obligations of providing violence
on demand, against financial compensation. So there are mercenary
aspects here as well, but the nature of violence is usually more
small-scale, and domestic, targetting a different kind of threat.
I have never claimed that mercenaries or common soldiers are crazed
killers, and it is telling that you (and others) constantly
misrepresent my position. Such individuals may exist, but i suspect
only rarely -- for a start looneys would probably mostly be bad
soldiers. My position has always been that: the fundamental contract
that the core employes of (1) organisations like blackwater, and (2)
organisations like the UK or US armies is the same namely: the
exchange of money against the willingness and ability to exert
unlimited industrial scale mass violence on demand.
Can you please acknowledge that you understand this point of mine?
otherwise continuing this discussion would be pointless. Note that my
point does not preclude other differences between the respective
organisations. They may for example wear different coloured clothes.
Not in a focussed way, why?
No, I don't mean "media I disagree with". A few weeks ago I read a
really good article on the BBC website that I wholeheartedly agree
with for example. I mean a certain socio-economical construct, namely
media industries that
- are professional organisations, i.e. is based on employees with typical career structurs, and a feedback between political opinions
and (perceived) career prospects.
- operate with substantial capital investments (say an operating budget of more than 50 Million Pounds PA) which has (until recently)
be vital for significant public reach.
- have a large scale audience base (at least 6 figure numbers).
- have a high degree of public trust and reputation.
- a tight integration with other economic spheres by way of financing them selves to a significant degree through
advertising. Alternatively: a tight integration with governements
through public funding, and easy career-paths between politics and
media.
Almost all media I consume (and presumably virtually everybody else)
fits this pattern. One thing I have learned from these media
organisations in the course of my life is that one cannot trust
these media organisations in times of war.
Of course I do, and so do you. I only know that Iran exists, that Iraq
exists, that both have oil, that we need oil, that there is somehting
like el kaida, that there is a war in iraq ... and just about
everything else in this world from these mainstream mass media
outlets. I know that this is hard to accept for most people -- and
indeed it took me a while to accept this -- but most of reality
(i.e. what we conceive of as true) is laregely the result of the mass
media.
I cannot accept such a simpleminded statement. There is no such thing
as "American corporate interest". There are plenty of organisations
that think they would benefit from violence in iraq (e.g. arms
manufacturers) and plenty who don't think they benefit from violence
in iraq (e.g. the airline industry).
I never said that mercenaries are purely destructive deranged
psychopath whose main interest in life is to shoot anything that
moves. I characterised the mercenary position as the willingness to
exert violence on demand, for monetary gain. Is this so hard to
understand?
borderpolice
Well-known member
I have never held this position, see above.
borderpolice
Well-known member
Crackerjack in "the world sometimes doesn't pay fair wages" shocker! In other news: water is wet and the pope is....
borderpolice
Well-known member
Exactly, that's one of their main advantages, that's why they are hired. They tend to be more professional and better trained in many cases as well.
borderpolice
Well-known member
Well, that's also my position. But that's orthogonal to whether they exchange money for the willingness to exert mass-scale violence.
borderpolice
Well-known member
It makes a difference legally. For example under protocol I of 1977 amendment to the geneva convention, mercenaries (as defined therin) do not have the right to be combatants or prisoners of war. But activities of mercenaries do not compromise the neutrality of their state of origin.
borderpolice
Well-known member
You forgot one of the key other legal differences between regular armies and private armies (maybe the most important): <I>The activities of the latter do not compromise the neutrality of their state of origin.</I>
This is very important, because it pertains to legal issues of just war/self-defense, e.g. if private US contractors get caught in iran doing nasty things, this would be very different from regular US army
folks doing the same stuff.
borderpolice
Well-known member
> So to respond to borderpolice's original question, there are clearly
> important, well-defined distinctions between a regular member of a
> country's armed forces and a mercernary.
Legally there are difference, I have never denied that, substantially
there are not. The initial question was: are the members of the UK/US
armed forces mercenaries in a substantial sense? Let's for fun read
Protocol Additional GC 1977: Article 47. Mercenaries as quoted above
in detail:
> A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or
> abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
UK/US soldiers: check.
> (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
UK/US soldiers: check.
> (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the
> desire for private gain
UK/US soldiers: check.
> 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;
Not applicable
> (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident
of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
Not applicable
> (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
Not applicable
> (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.
Not applicable
Doesn't look good for you.
all this suggests to ditch the regular army/mercenary distinction in favour of the analytically more powerful (allowing better prediction) following two distinctions
- Conscript (army) vs mercenary (army).
- privately held army vs publically held army.
Imagine -- $200,000 for a six month IT tax free contract in Iraq, and who is making that kind of money? Deserving people who just want to do good for their Iraqi friends, or typical American frat boys with boring suburban lives and a steady intake of Fox News? My direct experiences are that they are of the latter category.
There is no meritocracy involved in deciding who goes. It's either 1) connections made in the service or 2) resumes posted online at Heritage foundation etc...etc...(see Chandrasekan and the Simone Ledeen stuff).
The only thing that puzzles me about this thread is the assumption that mercenary armies would only be considered "bad" if they were slaughtering people wholesale. Is that really the extreme you would need to see? I guess massacre is the free market definition of "instability." Theft, insecurity, kleptocracy, and blatant stupidity can be overlooked...
The Iraq war is not about jihad. The war is a massive social program / redistribution of wealth to people who are connected on investing in these private companies and lapdogs for Republicans. What would Hayek say?
Where's Osama?
There is no meritocracy involved in deciding who goes. It's either 1) connections made in the service or 2) resumes posted online at Heritage foundation etc...etc...(see Chandrasekan and the Simone Ledeen stuff).
The only thing that puzzles me about this thread is the assumption that mercenary armies would only be considered "bad" if they were slaughtering people wholesale. Is that really the extreme you would need to see? I guess massacre is the free market definition of "instability." Theft, insecurity, kleptocracy, and blatant stupidity can be overlooked...
The Iraq war is not about jihad. The war is a massive social program / redistribution of wealth to people who are connected on investing in these private companies and lapdogs for Republicans. What would Hayek say?
Where's Osama?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well isn't there a difference there, in the word 'specially'? Regular soldiers are not 'specially' recruited, they sign up by walking into a recruitment office or, in times of dire national need in the past, are conscripted.
A mercenary is employed by an agency - a private company - that is then sub-contracted by a nation's government to undertake military actions. A regular soldier is employed directly by the government; in effect, he is a public-sector employee. That's the difference. Of course they are both paid to fight, no-one's contesting that.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
borderpolice said:
The difficulty here is your use of the word "professional" in relation to mercenaries: rather, it is the case that professionals are to civil society what mercenaries are to war/conflict zones, those whose libidinal economy is fundamentally dictated by the capitalist imperative, amorally making money far beyond need etc. You seem to be attributing some higher (moral) status to "professional", but ask yourself, what's the difference between an "amateur" athlete/footballer/sportsperson and a "professional" one? When the opposite (moral) position is clearly the case ... the most sickly recent example that comes to mind is in relation to "professional" charity executives I recently met who had just awarded themselves - free of any real or effective public accountability - salaries of around 200 grand a year while simultaneously spouting and spining disingenuous and condescending garbage, without even blinking, about their lifelong "commitment" to eliminating world poverty ... on the contrary, their actual agenda is self-aggrandising, elitist and egotistical - such professional charities are the enemies of poverty, exploiting and perpetuating it in order to enrich a corrupt "professional" elite - i.e. they are the civil equivalent to mercenary sickos. I've much more respect for common criminals, a sentiment that I made quite clear to them in no uncertain terms ...
[now calming down from rage]
I thing one of the articles I linked to earlier, the one about Tim Spicer, who now controls or supposedly oversees most of the mercenary companies in Iraq, well summarises who most of these mercenaries are:
Who are these contractors? Watch the passengers in Dubai waiting for flights to Kabul and Baghdad and you'll get an idea. Half of them are fortysomething, a little paunchy, their hair thinning. They haven't done a pull-up or run an obstacle course in 20 years. You have to suspect that many are divorced and paying alimony, child support, and mortgages on houses they don't live in. The other half, in their late 20s and early 30s, have been enticed into leaving the military early, quadrupling their salaries by entering the private sector. They bulge out of their T-shirts, bang knuckles, shoulder-bump. They can't wait to get into the action.
The mercenaries crowd the duty-free counters buying boxes of Cuban Cohiba cigars and bottles of Jack Daniel's—nights on mortar watch can be very long. There's no doubt they can afford it. Men with service in an elite military unit have been known to make up to $1,500 a day. More typically a Western military contractor will earn $180,000 a year. Depending on the contract, benefits can include a hundred days of leave, kidnapping insurance, health insurance, and life insurance.
Iraq is not exactly a place you'd want to call home, but after a tough day on Baghdad's bloody streets there's always the Green Zone, an air-conditioned trailer, a Whopper, and an iced latte. Other than the very real threat of getting killed, the only cloud on the horizon is having your job outsourced. As private security companies have learned how to do business in Iraq, they also have figured out how to reduce costs, often by hiring less expensive help. Chileans, Filipinos, Nepalese, and Bosnians come a lot cheaper. Almost three dozen former Colombian soldiers are suing Blackwater USA, one of the largest private military companies in Iraq, for breach of contract. According to the Colombians, Blackwater at the last minute reduced their rate of pay to $34 a day. It's virtually slave labor compared with what a Brit or an American gets.
The mercenaries crowd the duty-free counters buying boxes of Cuban Cohiba cigars and bottles of Jack Daniel's—nights on mortar watch can be very long. There's no doubt they can afford it. Men with service in an elite military unit have been known to make up to $1,500 a day. More typically a Western military contractor will earn $180,000 a year. Depending on the contract, benefits can include a hundred days of leave, kidnapping insurance, health insurance, and life insurance.
Iraq is not exactly a place you'd want to call home, but after a tough day on Baghdad's bloody streets there's always the Green Zone, an air-conditioned trailer, a Whopper, and an iced latte. Other than the very real threat of getting killed, the only cloud on the horizon is having your job outsourced. As private security companies have learned how to do business in Iraq, they also have figured out how to reduce costs, often by hiring less expensive help. Chileans, Filipinos, Nepalese, and Bosnians come a lot cheaper. Almost three dozen former Colombian soldiers are suing Blackwater USA, one of the largest private military companies in Iraq, for breach of contract. According to the Colombians, Blackwater at the last minute reduced their rate of pay to $34 a day. It's virtually slave labor compared with what a Brit or an American gets.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Nobody has a "legal right" to break the law, to engage in criminal behaviour; surely this is self-evident? Mercenaries are civilians and as such are subject to the same laws, national and international, as "normal civilians" [a private security guard in the West - for instance a Tesco or Walmart or nightclub bouncer - has no special rights over and above those attending such venues]. All of the mercenaries (and those who engage them) who are engaging in hostilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other countries are engaging in criminal acts - both nationally and internationally: this means, of course, that the US and UK governments, where they employ private security contractors to engage in hostilities, are commiting criminal acts; the problem, however, and as already mentioned, is the total absense of accountability. Indeed, of the three countries with the greatest number of private security companies - the U.S., the U.K., and South Africa, only the latter has been making serious efforts to control the proliferation of such companies, while the former two continue to actively encourage and fund them.
Internationally, the Geneva Convention's Protocol Additional of 1977 defines mercenary, but the more recent UN Resolution 44/34: International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, goes much further in specifying the legal implications. This Resolution was introduced in 1989, but because of enormous opposition from particular states - especially the U.S. - it only entered into force on 20th October 2001, while negligible resources have so far been put in place to effectively implement its provisions.
So in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan where national governments are either helpless, corrupt or illegitimate, it seems that at present only this international law can be applied to private security companies. But who is actually going to do so, given the lame duck status of the present UN? It will require renewed political commitment - including enforcing existing international norms and creating new ones. Past attempts by the United Nations to regulate mercenary companies have been notoriously weak, as the delay in implementing the above International Convention indicated: not only did it take over a decade to enter into force, but it also relied on a deficient definition of 'mercenary,' had no monitoring mechanism, and was ratified by only a minimal number of countries. These international efforts are hardly up to the task in an era where powerful governments are actively encouraging the emergence of security companies that would in any event easily fall outside the Convention’s definitional remit.
Perhaps the U.S. and the U.K. and other countries might follow the example of South Africa [France criminalized mercenary activities in 2003 in accordance with the Geneva Protocol], but don't hold your breadth:
South Africa has been in the forefront in drafting new regulations - partly owing to the notoriety of Executive Outcomes, the mercenary company staffed by former South African soldiers that played a key role in conflicts in Angola and Sierra Leone. New national legislation in South Africa has aimed to distinguish carefully between providing foreign military assistance and participating in mercenary activity.
The Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, passed in July 1998, did not use the more limited, traditional definition of mercenary used in international conventions. Instead, it defined mercenary activity as "direct participation as a combatant in armed conflict for private gain." Engagement in such activity - including recruitment, training, or financing - is not only prohibited within South Africa but applies to South Africans acting outside of the country as well. While such legislation is a major step forward in both intent and word, the Iraq conflict has demonstrated the difficulty of enforcing these new regulations.
A South African firm named Meteoric Tactical Solutions is currently providing protection services in Iraq and training new Iraqi police and security forces. Erinys, a joint South African-British company, has received a multimillion dollar contract to protect Iraq’s oil industry. Neither company has yet received formal approval from South Africa's National Conventional Arms Control Committee; Erinys failed to apply at all. Yet their operations are still under way.
The Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, passed in July 1998, did not use the more limited, traditional definition of mercenary used in international conventions. Instead, it defined mercenary activity as "direct participation as a combatant in armed conflict for private gain." Engagement in such activity - including recruitment, training, or financing - is not only prohibited within South Africa but applies to South Africans acting outside of the country as well. While such legislation is a major step forward in both intent and word, the Iraq conflict has demonstrated the difficulty of enforcing these new regulations.
A South African firm named Meteoric Tactical Solutions is currently providing protection services in Iraq and training new Iraqi police and security forces. Erinys, a joint South African-British company, has received a multimillion dollar contract to protect Iraq’s oil industry. Neither company has yet received formal approval from South Africa's National Conventional Arms Control Committee; Erinys failed to apply at all. Yet their operations are still under way.
Guybrush
Dittohead
Shoot-out between Iraqi soldiers and some contractors in central Baghdad a couple of days ago, after what appears to have been a contractor killing an Iraqi driver for driving too close to his convoy:
U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad
These articles on Blackwater are pretty good, if a bit uncritical:
Blackwater: Inside America’s Private Army
U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad
These articles on Blackwater are pretty good, if a bit uncritical:
Blackwater: Inside America’s Private Army
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Blackwater again: ironically, it was the lynching of 4 Blackwater mercenaries in Fallujah in March 2004 that first brought the activities of private military companies in Iraq to public attention (as well as provoking the subsequent U.S.-led massacre of Iraqi's in Fallujah), as these articles penned that same month by Robert Fisk for The Independent - Occupiers spend millions on private army of security men - and by Tucker Carlson for Esquire - Hired Guns - demonstrated. Some levity was counter-provided by Counterpunch:
March 2, 2004
Iwaqies Are Such Sore Losers!
What I Did on My Vacation
By LITTLE TUCKER CARLSON (Aged 9)
As Told to Esquire Magazine
You can never guess what I did on my holsie! I went all the way to IWAQ!! Iwaq is a place far far far away, but Uncle Halli Burton who owns all of Iwaq (and also owns Uncle Dick Cheney) flew me there in an AEWOPLANE! It was so neat!
Iwaq is a tewwible mess, for we bombed and bombed and bombed them and killed thousands and thousands and thousands of them because their pwesident is howwid and has a moustache and Uncle Dick and Uncle Halli wants all their oil. So we did, and now the Iwaqis are all very dead and we won, SO THERE!
And Uncle Halli makes lots and lots of money to rebuild everything that we bombed. He has lots of fun! But guess what? The ones we didn't kill are cwoss with us and want to SHOOT us!! The Iwaqis are such SORE LOSERS! BOO to them! Just because we invaded them and killed them and bombed all their hospitals and houses, and they aren't even GWATEFUL! So we call them tewwowists!
But Uncle Halli is very very clever and hired lots and lots of mercenaries! I looked it up in my dictionary and it says a mercenary is someone you can hire to kill people so uncle Halli says it's much better to call them Secwuwity Consultants! It's weally good to have secwuwity consultants 'cause nobody can find out what they do all day and they can kill anyone they like and have lots of guns and go bang bang shoot shoot! And GUESS WHAT? They let me play with them! They are weally cool dudes and they even let me hold a REAL GUN! I was so excited my pee-pee got hard! It's TWUE! I even have a picture of me holding a WEAL GUN!!
And they work for all kinds of cool dudes as well like pwesident Taylor in Africa (that's where black people come from!). And it doesn't matter if they kill lots of howwid Iwaqis 'cause the Iwaqis don't use toilet paper!!!!!!! They DON'T! They are GWOSS!! And they don't like dogs either. I think all Iwaqis are horrid since they are sore losers and wipe their botties with their HANDS! YUCK!
When I gwow up I want to be a secwuwity consultant too and work for Uncle Halli and kill people all day long and make lots and lots of money. That's why I'm pwoud to be American, 'cause we can go bang bang shoot shoot anytime we LIKE!
So THERE!
Iwaqies Are Such Sore Losers!
What I Did on My Vacation
By LITTLE TUCKER CARLSON (Aged 9)
As Told to Esquire Magazine
You can never guess what I did on my holsie! I went all the way to IWAQ!! Iwaq is a place far far far away, but Uncle Halli Burton who owns all of Iwaq (and also owns Uncle Dick Cheney) flew me there in an AEWOPLANE! It was so neat!
Iwaq is a tewwible mess, for we bombed and bombed and bombed them and killed thousands and thousands and thousands of them because their pwesident is howwid and has a moustache and Uncle Dick and Uncle Halli wants all their oil. So we did, and now the Iwaqis are all very dead and we won, SO THERE!
And Uncle Halli makes lots and lots of money to rebuild everything that we bombed. He has lots of fun! But guess what? The ones we didn't kill are cwoss with us and want to SHOOT us!! The Iwaqis are such SORE LOSERS! BOO to them! Just because we invaded them and killed them and bombed all their hospitals and houses, and they aren't even GWATEFUL! So we call them tewwowists!
But Uncle Halli is very very clever and hired lots and lots of mercenaries! I looked it up in my dictionary and it says a mercenary is someone you can hire to kill people so uncle Halli says it's much better to call them Secwuwity Consultants! It's weally good to have secwuwity consultants 'cause nobody can find out what they do all day and they can kill anyone they like and have lots of guns and go bang bang shoot shoot! And GUESS WHAT? They let me play with them! They are weally cool dudes and they even let me hold a REAL GUN! I was so excited my pee-pee got hard! It's TWUE! I even have a picture of me holding a WEAL GUN!!
And they work for all kinds of cool dudes as well like pwesident Taylor in Africa (that's where black people come from!). And it doesn't matter if they kill lots of howwid Iwaqis 'cause the Iwaqis don't use toilet paper!!!!!!! They DON'T! They are GWOSS!! And they don't like dogs either. I think all Iwaqis are horrid since they are sore losers and wipe their botties with their HANDS! YUCK!
When I gwow up I want to be a secwuwity consultant too and work for Uncle Halli and kill people all day long and make lots and lots of money. That's why I'm pwoud to be American, 'cause we can go bang bang shoot shoot anytime we LIKE!
So THERE!
Guybrush
Dittohead
I retract what I wrote earlier about Iraqi soldiers’ being involved in the shoot-out: they were not. However:
Regarding whether to call them «contractors» or «mercenaries» I’m not sure. «Contractor» obviously is a euphemism straight out of Pentagon, and as such should be treated with scepticism, but I don’t think the term «mercenary» does the hired guns justice either, as it, to most people, implies that they could be fighting dispassionately for whichever side offered the best deal. This is clearly not the case here, while it was in Bosnia, for example. Still, there is something fishy about paramilitary millionaires’, financed by the U.S. taxpayers, recruiting the most able U.S. soldiers and putting them on assignments which the regular U.S. army could carry out for a third of the price or so—setting aside the fact that this would be difficult for political reasons (but on the other hand, most Iraqis seem to treat them as one and the same anyway, so the supposed gain of the contractors’ wearing civilian clothes and technically being hired by the Iraqi government is hard to discern at the moment.)
Regarding whether to call them «contractors» or «mercenaries» I’m not sure. «Contractor» obviously is a euphemism straight out of Pentagon, and as such should be treated with scepticism, but I don’t think the term «mercenary» does the hired guns justice either, as it, to most people, implies that they could be fighting dispassionately for whichever side offered the best deal. This is clearly not the case here, while it was in Bosnia, for example. Still, there is something fishy about paramilitary millionaires’, financed by the U.S. taxpayers, recruiting the most able U.S. soldiers and putting them on assignments which the regular U.S. army could carry out for a third of the price or so—setting aside the fact that this would be difficult for political reasons (but on the other hand, most Iraqis seem to treat them as one and the same anyway, so the supposed gain of the contractors’ wearing civilian clothes and technically being hired by the Iraqi government is hard to discern at the moment.)
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Except that they are indeed fighting for the side offering them the best deal. With up to 1m Iraqis now dead (and around 2m displaced refugees) versus 3, 450 U.S. soldiers (and 140 British?) and 650-800 Western mercenaries killed, its pretty clear on what side the lowest-risk "best deal" resides, all the time not forgetting the near-pathological levels of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism inculcated into these mercenaries since their nursery school days ...
vimothy
yurp
You said soldiers kill people for money, bottom line. I said that that was too reductive. The armed forces are made up of a variety of staff, some of which I listed, only one section of which are even involved in direct combat. I wasn't actually talking about Military Defense Contractors, although, yes, you're right it applies to them as well.