Mercenaries in Iraq

[Don't panic]

So this is where my taxes are going?


Apartheid assassins meet match in Iraq
By Gavin du Venage in Cape Town
April 27, 2004

SOME of the worst human rights violators of the apartheid era, including a man who helped kill 14 civilians while they slept, have been employed as security contractors in Iraq.

A South African killed in Iraq two weeks ago once worked for a secret apartheid death squad known as the Civil Co-operation Bureau. The CCB specialised in assassinating civilians who sympathised with black liberation movements.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9400583^2703,00.html

what do people think of the 15.000 mercenaries in Iraq?

[toontra]

So this is where my taxes are going?



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9400583^2703,00.html

what do people think of the 15.000 mercenaries in Iraq?

I think the term "mercenaries" is probably more or less accurate for the thousands of private "security" guards flooding Iraq - this is certainly how they are perceived by the locals. I shudder to think about the vetting these people have (or haven't) had, and how they interact with the civilian population. For example, when they kill people, how is this accounted for - is it included as part of the occupational military action, or a straight-forward civil murder?

Common sense would tell us that, with the money being offered to anyone brave, or mad, enough to protect the coalition's commercial interests, this would be a magnet for all manner of thugs and undesirables, and therefore shouldn't surprise anyone when it turns out they have served as mercenaries in the past.

But you shouldn't feel too bad about your taxes paying these people's wages - it is the ordinary Iraqi's oil revenue which will be paying the main part. So that's OK then.

[mactastic]

Another question is how do we respond to private security guards who are killed over there. Do we besiege an entire city because some contractors disregarded rules about venturing into town unescorted and got killed? Is our military responsible for cleaning up the messes these guys make?

[diamond geezer]

I think it was more about how they got killed, rather than the fact that the were killed.

[mactastic]

I think it was more about how they got killed, rather than the fact that the were killed.

You mean because they were mutilated we had to do something, but if they'd just been shot in the head our response would have been different?

[Don't panic]

You mean because they were mutilated we had to do something, but if they'd just been shot in the head our response would have been different?

it sounds harsh, but i think that is probably correct.

[Desertrat]

Are the security guards hired by Michael Jackson "mercenaries"? Do people in Iraq who believe they are at risk have any right to hire security guards?

True "mercenaries" are those who joined organized, private military groups, such as Hoare's in Africa, with full light-infantry equipment. The guys in Iraq are not at all of this style of operation.

Yeah, the pay is high. The most hazardous of the jobs, from what I've read, is that of truck driver--particularly oil-tank semis.

Soldier of Fortune magazine has had a couple of articles about these guys. While they seemed to focus on the common armaments, there was a fair amount of background story. As far as weapons, they seem mostly to be handguns or no more than the occasional M-16. One problem for them is that they don't have much--if any--backup.

Vetting for personal history? If you're hiring a security guard in such a situation as Iraq, what would your criteria be? Would you prioritize a nice-guy record over a high level of skills?

[mactastic]

So 'Rat, what's your opinion of our military being used to avenge the deaths of private 'security guards'? Particularly security guards who broke the rules?

[zimv20]

Scotland on Sunday link (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=465802004)


Hundreds of army officers resign to cash in on Iraqi security boom

BRIAN BRADY


THE Ministry of Defence has begged private security firms working in Iraq to stop ‘poaching’ its best soldiers amid fears that hundreds of officers are leaving the army to cash in on the spoils of war.

Scotland on Sunday can reveal that the number of officers requesting Premature Voluntary Release has soared since Saddam Hussein was ousted. Some 350 senior soldiers have applied to leave in the past six months alone, compared with the previous year’s total of 499.

The army - which is already struggling to maintain numbers - can ill afford to lose so many officers in such a short period. MoD bosses recently approached ex-servicemen running many of the private security firms in Iraq and asked them not to recruit from among serving soldiers.

But it is unclear what impact, if any, the request will have. As attacks by insurgents claim the lives of increasing numbers of coalition soldiers, civilian workers, politicians and policemen, the need for private ‘muscle’ in the country grows.

Serving soldiers realise they can massively increase their army salaries, earning as much as £1,000 a day providing protection.

Special forces have been particularly badly affected by the exodus, with around 40 SAS operatives quitting the service since the fall of Saddam.

(more)

[Thanatoast]

what i object to is the characterization of them as "contracters", as if they're installing tile or something. "four american contracters were mutilated in Iraq today", as opposed to "four privately hired soldiers were attacked and killed after disobeying regulations about military escorts".

it sucks what happened, but the whole situation has now gotten out of hand with the misrepresentations, threats, questioning of leaders' penis size :eek:, seige of an entire city, and threat of nation-wide violence. bush's opportunistic handling of the situation has created even more troubles, and it's almost as if he's trying to paint himself into a corner where he *has* to attack. kinda like he did with the whole war. :mad:

[Ugg]

Scotland on Sunday link (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=465802004)

Where's Frohickey? I'm sure that he would be saying that this is market forces at work and we should be ecstatic.

'Rat, as far as your definition of mercenaries goes, the world is a changing and definitions need to change along with it. Anybody who is hired in Iraq and is issued a gun should be considered a mercenary.

[mactastic]

bush's opportunistic handling of the situation has created even more troubles, and it's almost as if he's trying to paint himself into a corner where he *has* to attack. kinda like he did with the whole war. :mad:

Of course, once you have deliberately placed yourself in a position where turning back isn't an option, you can accuse your opponent of 'aiding the enemy' or cowardice if he/she doesn't support you.

[toontra]

Of course, once you have deliberately placed yourself in a position where turning back isn't an option, you can accuse your opponent of 'aiding the enemy' or cowardice if he/she doesn't support you.

That's right. Blair's mantra is now "You may have been against the war, and I respect that view, but we must put that behind us now and all pull together to sort this out".

In other words, you must forgive and forget all my past errors of judgment, no matter that they impact on everything we're now seeing in Iraq and the middle east every single day.

Wishful thinking!

[Desertrat]

mac, is not our military performing as police? Aside from any sort of combat in places like Fallujah, are they not trying to maintain order? When people are murdered, is it not the duty of the policing establishment to try and catch the murderers? Is it wrong--or unusual--for soldiers-as-police to feel outrage at seeing mutilated bodies?

Ugg, the problem with your very-broad definition of "mercenaries" is that it's a sloppy use of language, which inevitably leads to sloppy thinking. Further, it makes any sort of discourse rather difficult, since not all would agree with your terms or understand your meaning. One question I see is that your definition with respect to Iraq and people with guns applies just as readily to bodyguards here in the U.S. Or truckers here who carry guns to defend against highjacking, for that matter.

Some of the "contractors" are exactly that: In a contract to drive trucks, and carrying some personal weapon for self defense.

Others are purely individual, working as bodyguards. Some employers may have several such guards. Some of these employers are not Iraqi; some are. SFAIK, none of them are functioning in the usual meaning of "military". Mercenaries are definitely military.

'Rat

[toontra]

When people are murdered, is it not the duty of the policing establishment to try and catch the murderers?
'Rat

Surely the point is that these guys aren't acting on behalf of the whole community. They are hired to protect the occupying forces and their commercial interests.

I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if they would take any action to protect Iraqi civilians from attack.

[SlyHunter]

what i object to is the characterization of them as "contracters", as if they're installing tile or something. "four american contracters were mutilated in Iraq today", as opposed to "four privately hired soldiers were attacked and killed after disobeying regulations about military escorts".

it sucks what happened, but the whole situation has now gotten out of hand with the misrepresentations, threats, questioning of leaders' penis size :eek:, seige of an entire city, and threat of nation-wide violence. bush's opportunistic handling of the situation has created even more troubles, and it's almost as if he's trying to paint himself into a corner where he *has* to attack. kinda like he did with the whole war. :mad:
When I exited the military I was given the opportunity to become one of them mercenaries. They are contractors. My job would've been to monitor a multi channel radio set up at an oil rig in Saudi Arabia. I would've been required to work when necessary 24/7, no alchohol, no girls, and armed at all times with a M-16 to protect my equipment from attackers if/when necessary. Odds were I would have never had to fire a shot just like in the Army for there were guards around the compound who were suppose to protect me, my equipment, and other stuff so I wouldn't necessarily have to. It required a 16 month contract with no out clause. I turned it down. I would have been stationed in Saudi Arabia 1987.

You cannot expect these companies to do work in a hostile environments without bringing protection. These guys aren't hired to fight a ware but to protect the business personel from attacks while they go about doing their business. It is dangerous in Iraq simply to build a power line or a telephone pole they need armed escorts. You can't ask the army they have other priorities. Either you bring your own protection or you don't go at all and none of their infractructure is rebuilt. Some companies are now refusing to do business in Iraq because of the deaths of these guardians. If the army doesn't move to help protect them there will be no one left to build the roads, the sewer systems, etc in Iraq. These private security are only suppose to hold out until a real military or police force arrives to take control of the situation they are not suppose to fight the battle action for them except to protect the business interest. Those private security contractors who prove to be gun ho idiots end up fired and transfered back to the states blackballed and unable to gain work in the field again.

[SlyHunter]

Surely the point is that these guys aren't acting on behalf of the whole community. They are hired to protect the occupying forces and their commercial interests.

I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if they would take any action to protect Iraqi civilians from attack.
Yeah the commercial interests of the power company, sewer company, telephone company very very selfish company interests.

[blackfox]

Surely the point is that these guys aren't acting on behalf of the whole community. They are hired to protect the occupying forces and their commercial interests.

I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if they would take any action to protect Iraqi civilians from attack.
Sure, I do not think that these guys are acting on behalf of the whole community...but it is not their job to. It can be looked at as if every group (or individual) has a "mission" from a mandate of some sort given to them...It is my understanding that this is how complex undertakings get done...military or otherwise...when you add up all the "missions" accomplished successfully, you get the larger "mission" accomplished...it does not matter if your mission is "to drive a truck from a to b" or "protect VIPs" or whatever...it must be taken as part of a larger construct...I agree, that in many times, this can have morally repugnant results, but hey, the world ain't pretty, and much of it does not understand, let alone follow, our 'liberal' ideas of social justice and morality...you've got to forge ahead, regardless...

[mactastic]

mac, is not our military performing as police? Aside from any sort of combat in places like Fallujah, are they not trying to maintain order? When people are murdered, is it not the duty of the policing establishment to try and catch the murderers? Is it wrong--or unusual--for soldiers-as-police to feel outrage at seeing mutilated bodies?

'Rat, is our military any good at functioning as a police force? Have we not discussed that point over and over?

As to whether it's wrong or unusual for soldiers to feel outrage at seeing mutilated bodies, first it wasn't the soldiers who saw the bodies that are making the decisions regarding who and what we lay siege to. That happens in DC. Second, do those soldiers feel outrage at seeing the mutilated bodies of Americans only, or would they feel that same outrage at seeing mutilated Iraqis? Would we take the same actions if those contractors had been Iraqi police?

And you neatly dodged my question about whether or not we should be cleaning up the messes left behind by private industry with our government instruments? Take it a step further. If those 'contractors' had been caught with their pants down raping a local woman and they had been killed and mutilated would you still advocate the same response? What if they were peace activists? Would you lay siege to a city for them? Have we reacted so viscerally to any of the other 'contractors' that have been killed there?

IMHO, it's not a good response because it tells the enemy that if they mutilate our dead they can draw us deeper into a fight that we, as a nation, aren't really prepared for nor have the willpower to finish. I can understand the need to respond with force, but not by putting yourself in a position where your choices are house to house fighting with high US casulties or an ariel bombardment with high 'collateral damage' that will inflame the Muslim world.

Ugg, the problem with your very-broad definition of "mercenaries" is that it's a sloppy use of language, which inevitably leads to sloppy thinking.

Kinda like the 'death tax' or 'political hate speech'? ;)

[takao]

...there are more contractors in iraq than UK soldiers.... even if you add the japanese,polish ones you have less....

[Thanatoast]

When I exited the military...Good post, but it still doesn't address Bush's poorly-thought response.

[diamond geezer]

When people are murdered, is it not the duty of the policing establishment to try and catch the murderers?

'Rat

Except if the killers are US soldiers and the victims Iraqi's.

How many times have families in cars be shot up for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Army says that the incident is "under investigation", then nothing happens.

†hese are not the actions of a "police force", but an invading occupier.

[SlyHunter]

Except if the killers are US soldiers and the victims Iraqi's.

How many times have families in cars be shot up for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Army says that the incident is "under investigation", then nothing happens.

†hese are not the actions of a "police force", but an invading occupier.
Then you have incidents where the military took too much caution and the car full of families blows up in their face. Its easy to understand an accident every now and then when they have such tactics being used against them. Doesn't make it right but it does make it understandable. Those who do so on purpose on the other hand should be tried under the UCMJ to the full extent of the law.

[skunk]

Then you have incidents where the military took too much caution and the car full of families blows up in their face. Its easy to understand an accident every now and then when they have such tactics being used against them. Doesn't make it right but it does make it understandable. Those who do so on purpose on the other hand should be tried under the UCMJ to the full extent of the law.
Unfortunately, since nobody seems to keep any records of dead or injured I-raqi folk, and because of the number of stories of snipers "keeping their eye in" by targeting any old woman, ambulance, kid or dog in the open, the unavoidable suspicion is that this kind of "accident" is common practice.

[mactastic]

Then you have incidents where the military took too much caution and the car full of families blows up in their face.

Kinda hard to prosecute those in little pieces now isn't it?

[SlyHunter]

Unfortunately, since nobody seems to keep any records of dead or injured I-raqi folk, and because of the number of stories of snipers "keeping their eye in" by targeting any old woman, ambulance, kid or dog in the open, the unavoidable suspicion is that this kind of "accident" is common practice.
That just proves you don't watch ABC. They advertised one of their anchors was going to read the list off today. I didn't bother watching so I don't know if they actually did or not.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Then you have incidents where the military took too much caution and the car full of families blows up in their face.

Kinda hard to prosecute those in little pieces now isn't it?
the goal is to win and you don't do that by allowing them to get close enough to you to blow you up into little pieces. Error on the side of caution.

[mactastic]

the goal is to win and you don't do that by allowing them to get close enough to you to blow you up into little pieces. Error on the side of caution.

So if a group of Iraqis wiped out a couple of our soldiers, you'd say the same thing? That they were just being cautious 'cause the Americans surely would have killed them given the chance? Or would you want the heads of those Iraqis?

IOW is erring on the side of caution only something Americans get to do?

[SlyHunter]

So if a group of Iraqis wiped out a couple of our soldiers, you'd say the same thing? That they were just being cautious 'cause the Americans surely would have killed them given the chance? Or would you want the heads of those Iraqis?

IOW is erring on the side of caution only something Americans get to do?
I am member of team America not team Iraqi so yea I root for my own team.

[mactastic]

I am member of team America not team Iraqi so yea I root for my own team.

That's why we have more terrorist enemies today than we had on 9/11/2001.

[Desertrat]

Hide the matches, there're a bunch of straw men out tonight!

mac, what does the efficiency of the military at policing have to do with anything? Post-combat-phase, they've been assigned as cops, as peacekeepers, no matter that others have decided to shoot at them--that's just a fact. Away from the combat areas, they're trying to maintain order--that's just a fact.

"Mercenary" is a defined word; its meaning is specific. This ain't "Alice in Wonderland" with some UggQueen saying, "Words mean what I want them to mean."

Going totally off-topic, yes, the inheritance tax is indeed a death tax. Somebody's gotta die before somebody else can inherit. Ain't that easy? :D

'Rat

[mactastic]

Hide the matches, there're a bunch of straw men out tonight!

mac, what does the efficiency of the military at policing have to do with anything? Post-combat-phase, they've been assigned as cops, as peacekeepers, no matter that others have decided to shoot at them--that's just a fact. Away from the combat areas, they're trying to maintain order--that's just a fact.

"Mercenary" is a defined word; its meaning is specific. This ain't "Alice in Wonderland" with some UggQueen saying, "Words mean what I want them to mean."

Going totally off-topic, yes, the inheritance tax is indeed a death tax. Somebody's gotta die before somebody else can inherit. Ain't that easy? :D

'Rat

So you're just straight up going to dodge the question of whether the US military should be responsible for avenging dead civilians that didn't follow the rules?

[diamond geezer]

Then you have incidents where the military took too much caution and the car full of families blows up in their face.

Can you please find me one incident of a car full of families, blew up in their face.

[toontra]

Am I wrong or is this thread drifting. Surely the point of the originating post was that mercenaries were serving as coalition "security guards". We're not talking about the military. That was my understanding anyway.

I think it would be possible to define these private security forces as mercenaries in a sense. They are paid large amounts (far higher than the military, no doubt, which would explain the mass defection of regular soldiers) to safeguard commercial interests, have the capacity & authority to use lethal force to protect themselves and their commercial masters, are accountable to no-one in the usual legal way, and all this in a country under occupation.

The only two major differences that I can see are that, unlike mercenaries who are used to working in isolation (usually in secret), when they ****** up they are protected by the full might of the coalition armed forces. Secondly, they are able to say that, when they kill Iraqis, they are doing it for the good of Iraq.

[radhak]

When I exited the military I was given the opportunity to become one of them mercenaries. They are contractors. My job would've been to monitor a multi channel radio set up at an oil rig in Saudi Arabia. I would've been required to work when necessary 24/7, no alchohol, no girls, and armed at all times with a M-16 to protect my equipment from attackers if/when necessary. Odds were I would have never had to fire a shot just like in the Army for there were guards around the compound who were suppose to protect me, my equipment, and other stuff so I wouldn't necessarily have to. It required a 16 month contract with no out clause. I turned it down. I would have been stationed in Saudi Arabia 1987.

You cannot expect these companies to do work in a hostile environments without bringing protection. These guys aren't hired to fight a ware but to protect the business personel from attacks while they go about doing their business. It is dangerous in Iraq simply to build a power line or a telephone pole they need armed escorts. You can't ask the army they have other priorities. Either you bring your own protection or you don't go at all and none of their infractructure is rebuilt. Some companies are now refusing to do business in Iraq because of the deaths of these guardians. If the army doesn't move to help protect them there will be no one left to build the roads, the sewer systems, etc in Iraq. These private security are only suppose to hold out until a real military or police force arrives to take control of the situation they are not suppose to fight the battle action for them except to protect the business interest. Those private security contractors who prove to be gun ho idiots end up fired and transfered back to the states blackballed and unable to gain work in the field again.

Informative post, Sly.

As many have said before, this is a no-win situation for the people in the middle, which in this case is the army and the contracting companies. they have been ordered by somebody safe in faraway Washington DC to keep peace / rebuild infrastructure for somebody else who don't want them to. Rock and a hard place, no less. And the longer it takes, the more the resistance from the occupied.

The problem is, this was not totally unforeseeable, and was actually predicted by many in the days leading to the war; Bush Sr. had stopped in his tracks just because all this came up in discussions even in his times. But then, he had less of a 'bring them on' attitude than his son has, particularly when danger is not personal to him or his.

Reminds me of Shrek, when the tyrant king wants the 'bravest of the kingdom' to go out and rescue the princess from the dragon, and says, 'Some of you may die, but its a sacrifice I am willing to make'.

[mactastic]

The problem is, this was not totally unforeseeable, and was actually predicted by many in the days leading to the war

Yeah this was one of those 'known unknowns'. And not entirely unknowable either. ;)

[skunk]

Yeah this was one of those 'known unknowns'.
:D

[Desertrat]

mac, "So you're just straight up going to dodge the question of whether the US military should be responsible for avenging dead civilians that didn't follow the rules?" is totally irrelevant to anything I said.

But I'll play if you'll expound: What do you mean by "avenging"? You say "civilians"; theirs or ours?

I don't see any search and arrest efforts by those acting in a police capacity as "revenge" or "avenging", if that's what you're driving at.

There are a lot of common sense rules that apply, as well: When you're around nervous guys with guns, don't make sudden moves. Don't appear hostile to them, either. These rules apply whether the gunners are Good Guys or Bad Guys in your view.

As long as we're off-topic, I got a question: Shouldn't Iraqis be familiar with the concept of roadblocks and armed men? Weren't there Saddam's checkpoints in many places around the country? Is it a great intellectual challenge to figure out that armed men at a checkpoint might be upset if you don't stop but attempt to run through it? I have great difficulty with the notion that people trying to drive at high speed through a checkpoint are all that innocent. This might be part of that other-culture complexity that Ugg spoke of elsewhere, but to me it seems like candidacy for a Darwin Award.

'Rat

[toontra]

There are a lot of common sense rules that apply, as well: When you're around nervous guys with guns, don't make sudden moves. Don't appear hostile to them, either. These rules apply whether the gunners are Good Guys or Bad Guys in your view.

As long as we're off-topic, I got a question: Shouldn't Iraqis be familiar with the concept of roadblocks and armed men? Weren't there Saddam's checkpoints in many places around the country? Is it a great intellectual challenge to figure out that armed men at a checkpoint might be upset if you don't stop but attempt to run through it? I have great difficulty with the notion that people trying to drive at high speed through a checkpoint are all that innocent. This might be part of that other-culture complexity that Ugg spoke of elsewhere, but to me it seems like candidacy for a Darwin Award.

'Rat

With respect, I don't think anyone has the right, without knowing more about the nature of these engagements, to suggest that Iraqis are being somehow naive for provoking the occupying forces to shoot at them.

We're mainly seeing and being told about only what the occupying forces want us to see - we are still in a "truth as first casualty of war" situation.

To be honest I actually find it offensive of you to imply that these are stupid people who are getting what they deserve (as in the "to me it seems like candidacy for a Darwin Award") quip.

[yahooz]

With respect, I don't think anyone has the right, without knowing more about the nature of these engagements, to suggest that Iraqis are being somehow naive for provoking the occupying forces to shoot at them.

We're mainly seeing and being told about only what the occupying forces want us to see - we are still in a "truth as first casualty of war" situation.

To be honest I actually find it offensive of you to imply that these are stupid people who are getting what they deserve (as in the "to me it seems like candidacy for a Darwin Award") quip.

These people have been dealing with roadblocks for a long time. To run through it because a white face is manning the area, is negligent and naive. They get whatever they deserve if they dont stop at the checkpoint.

[mactastic]

mac, "So you're just straight up going to dodge the question of whether the US military should be responsible for avenging dead civilians that didn't follow the rules?" is totally irrelevant to anything I said.

But I'll play if you'll expound: What do you mean by "avenging"? You say "civilians"; theirs or ours?

I don't see any search and arrest efforts by those acting in a police capacity as "revenge" or "avenging", if that's what you're driving at.

Nope, you missed my point. Those 'civilians' (some are calling them mercenaries, I'm not to avoid having to argue semantics with you) from what I've heard drove into Falluja against the advice of the military, who said everyone should be escorted by a military convoy, in lightly protected vehicles. They were killed and mutilated. We laid siege to the city as a result. Now, the question is, is that an appropriate use of our military, to be cleaning up the messes made by civilians? What if they were peaceniks? Would that change anything, or would you still lay siege to a city over 4 hippies that put themselves in harms way against the rules? We're not talking about search and arrest efforts, we're talking about the standoff in Falluja that had the potential to inflame both the entire country of Iraq and a decent portion of the so-called 'Muslim street' around the world if we bungle it. Is it worth risking that to avenge the deaths of those 'contractors'? Have we reacted similarly to any of the other 'contractor' deaths over there, or was this a face-saver by the American political establishment?

There are a lot of common sense rules that apply, as well: When you're around nervous guys with guns, don't make sudden moves. Don't appear hostile to them, either. These rules apply whether the gunners are Good Guys or Bad Guys in your view.

As long as we're off-topic, I got a question: Shouldn't Iraqis be familiar with the concept of roadblocks and armed men? Weren't there Saddam's checkpoints in many places around the country? Is it a great intellectual challenge to figure out that armed men at a checkpoint might be upset if you don't stop but attempt to run through it? I have great difficulty with the notion that people trying to drive at high speed through a checkpoint are all that innocent. This might be part of that other-culture complexity that Ugg spoke of elsewhere, but to me it seems like candidacy for a Darwin Award.

'Rat

The rest of this is irrelevant to anything I said. ;)

[toontra]

These people have been dealing with roadblocks for a long time. To run through it because a white face is manning the area, is negligent and naive. They get whatever they deserve if they dont stop at the checkpoint.

If you're going to use the quote button I'd appreciate it if you would at least read what your quoting and respond to the content in some way.

For starters, how do you know the people being shot are driving at speed through road blocks? What percentage of those killed have been killed in this manner? How fast were they driving? How fast is too fast? Is driving anywhere in town a shootable offense?

'Rat was suggesting that merely "acting twitchy" around security guards was stupid behavior liable to be punished by death. I have to point out, it is actually their country, not yours or mine! I don't like people using military might to play God.

[radhak]

As long as we're off-topic, I got a question: Shouldn't Iraqis be familiar with the concept of roadblocks and armed men? Weren't there Saddam's checkpoints in many places around the country? Is it a great intellectual challenge to figure out that armed men at a checkpoint might be upset if you don't stop but attempt to run through it? I have great difficulty with the notion that people trying to drive at high speed through a checkpoint are all that innocent. This might be part of that other-culture complexity that Ugg spoke of elsewhere, but to me it seems like candidacy for a Darwin Award.
'Rat

I think an average Iraqi must be much more aware of sudden death and shootings in the street than the average american. I am sure even kids there are more adept at ducking while crossing streets to avoid murderous snipers from either sides.
I don't think Iraqis feel so secure today that they would go for a casual drive and crash thru roadblocks by mistake. The truth is even worse : they want to kill/maim/attack US positions so much that they don't mind the danger of death.

The question is, why are people trying drive through checkpoints even so? Why are so many mercenaries needed to protect property and lives in country that the US is supposed to have liberated? Why is there so much more evidence of hatred than gratitude against the US Army or anything US? Simple : they are not needed there.

As I see it, this situation is only going to worsen : there is more 'people involvement' today in the violence there than 6 months ago, ominous in itself. And in the same period, it has become similarly more dangerous for an american, which means only the foolhardy, or mercenaries as quoted here will opt to remain there to protect US interests (other than the army). And when news pieces like this spread the word, the average iraqi is going to feel more 'occupied', and the circle shall go on...

i hope i did not sound too optimistic there...

[mactastic]

These people have been dealing with roadblocks for a long time. To run through it because a white face is manning the area, is negligent and naive. They get whatever they deserve if they dont stop at the checkpoint.

Is that how you feel about the 'contractors' who were killed and mutilated? That they 'got what they deserved' for not following the rules?

Or do you only root for 'Team America' too?

[zimv20]

fwiw, last night abcnews (ted koppal) showed several minutes of broadcast footage from al jazeera, w/ translation.

AJ is claiming:
1) american snipers are shooting anyone who moves
2) the americans broke the ceasefire and started an offensive

so while it may be easy for some in the US to judge iraqis for getting themselves shot, maybe we don't know the whole truth here.

also -- yesterday there was footage of an iraqi waiting all day at a fallujah checkpoint. he was speaking. same footage, but the original abcnews translation of what he was saying was incredibly different from whoever did the translation of the AJ footage. night and day.

i don't speak arabic, so i can't say whose translation was accurate.

[SlyHunter]

fwiw, last night abcnews (ted koppal) showed several minutes of broadcast footage from al jazeera, w/ translation.

AJ is claiming:
1) american snipers are shooting anyone who moves
2) the americans broke the ceasefire and started an offensive

so while it may be easy for some in the US to judge iraqis for getting themselves shot, maybe we don't know the whole truth here.

also -- yesterday there was footage of an iraqi waiting all day at a fallujah checkpoint. he was speaking. same footage, but the original abcnews translation of what he was saying was incredibly different from whoever did the translation of the AJ footage. night and day.

i don't speak arabic, so i can't say whose translation was accurate.
How could he had spent so much time at a Fallujah checkpoint if we were shooting everything that moves?

[skunk]

How could he had spent so much time at a Fallujah checkpoint if we were shooting everything that moves?
He was obviously keeping really still. :)

[Sayhey]

OK, if true this is some pretty disgusting stuff.

The US army confirmed that the general in charge of Abu Ghraib jail is facing disciplinary measures and that six low-ranking soldiers have been charged with abusing and sexually humiliating detainees.

Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.

One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young, male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

Hired guns from a wide array of private security firms are playing a central role in the US-led occupation of Iraq.

The killing of four private contractors in Falluja on March 31 led to the current siege of the city.

But this is the first time the privatisation of interrogation and intelligence-gathering has come to light.

The military investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in Abu Ghraib.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html)

Seems like a very good case for why mercenaries should not be used in Iraq.

[toontra]

OK, if true this is some pretty disgusting stuff.



Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html)

Seems like a very good case for why mercenaries should not be used in Iraq.

Thanks for the link, Sayhey. This goes to the heart of the problem - hired hands, dubiously screened, engaged in sensitive operations with little or no accountability and, as I said earlier, when they ****** up the military have to cover for them.

This is a shameful situation and should not have arisen. If you are planning to invade and occupy a country you should damn well plan on having adequate numbers of appropriately trained personnel to deal with the policing which you will be obliged, under international law, to undertake.

It seems they invaded, realised they were short of manpower, and were forced to phone out for agency backup! But don't worry - I'm sure there are several (mainly US) companies doing very well out of these contracts, all paid for by the Iraqi oil revenue!

[Desertrat]

toontra, my apologies for not having made myself more clear: I figure the average Iraqi is smart about the whole package deal of roadblocks and checkpoints. It's my opinion that any shot up car with an Iraqi or some Iraqis in it most likely had Bad Guys on board, and that shooting at a "runner" is a natural and quite probably justified action. No proof, of course, but I think the opinion is logical given the circumstances.

As far as the torture of prisoners, I can guarantee you that the commanding officers' careers are over. Any one of them with direct supervisory responsibility, if not several of them, will probably face some charges of dereliction of duty. The military guys who actually did the bad actions will most likely do hard time in Leavenworth. The folks who run Leavenworth have no sense of humor.

If the operation in Iraq is anything like the way things were done in Afghanistan, I'd bet the "Interrogator" was CIA.

Separately: I ran across a tidbit at another forum that some Germans are accused of the same sort of maltreatment at some other prison in Iraq. I don't have any link to a source.

[mactastic]

It's my opinion that any shot up car with an Iraqi or some Iraqis in it most likely had Bad Guys on board, and that shooting at a "runner" is a natural and quite probably justified action. No proof, of course, but I think the opinion is logical given the circumstances.

You give the benefit of the doubt to the US military. Iraqis give the benefit of the doubt to those killed without provocation. Who's to say who's right?

[skunk]

It's my opinion that any shot up car with an Iraqi or some Iraqis in it most likely had Bad Guys on board, and that shooting at a "runner" is a natural and quite probably justified action. No proof, of course, but I think the opinion is logical given the circumstances.
Probably that a large proportion of cars in Iraq are shot up, and most of them will be carrying Iraqis.
US troops have a reputation, in Iraq and elsewhere, for being trigger-happy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later kinda guys, so I'd expect Iraqis to be nervous around them, and prone to misunderstanding barked orders in English. Too many cases have been reported of ambulances, private cars and vans being shot at by US troops indiscriminately or without due care. The US claims to be there to bring justice to the people of Iraq, and Bremer says "we don't want the kind of politics that comes from the barrel of a gun". Don't they realise what they're saying? Don't you realise what you're defending?

[numediaman]

As the day goes along, more stories and web sites are emerging concerning the 60 Minutes II story.

This link is from The Memory Hole. If you recall, these are the guys who got the photos of the flag draped caskets using the IOIA request from the Pentagon.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

I got this link from Juan Cole's site. He writes:

Photographs of Abused Iraqi Prisoners

Screen captures from the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast of photographs of abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghuraib prison are available at memory hole. Others are floating around the internet that are even more explicit, and appear to involve forcing female prisoners to perform sex acts on male ones. There was also apparently coerced male on male sexual activity. The genteel mainstream news reports of this scandal (which have given it less attention than it deserves or than it will get in the Arab press) have not commented on the explicitly sexual message sent by the abusers, which is that Iraq is ********.

[Desertrat]

I am only referring to those cars shot up in an apparent attempt to run through a roadblock/checkpoint. Okay? I'm not talking about cars being driven around in what reasonably should be seen as normal activity. For the specific circumstances, then, yes, I'm quite willing to take the GIs' word.

I am not at all talking about some Iraqi driving around and a GI gets suspicious and is then "trigger happy". That's a different deal. Even there, while I have no doubt that it happens, I don't think it's as common as some seem to believe.

Quien sabe? Maybe the world has changed all that much, as some folks here have implied. Maybe we shouldn't have an all-volunteer army; maybe an army with Draftees wouldn't be so "trigger happy".

'Rat

[PickledSquirrel]

Maybe we shouldn't have an all-volunteer army; maybe an army with Draftees wouldn't be so "trigger happy".

'Rat

Maybe it wouldn't be so large, either ;)

And while we're on the subject of iraqi cars, here's a link that shows the sad destiny of one. Well... at least they let the guys get out first... what if the camera hadn't been running, I wonder :(

http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/sick/DontLoot.wmv

[SlyHunter]

Maybe it wouldn't be so large, either ;)

And while we're on the subject of iraqi cars, here's a link that shows the sad destiny of one. Well... at least they let the guys get out first... what if the camera hadn't been running, I wonder :(

http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/sick/DontLoot.wmv
Ok which is it either we did not send in enough troops or we have too many troops???? Like it or not we need more troops to insure the proper defense of our country and our country's needs.

[skunk]

Ok which is it either we did not send in enough troops or we have too many troops???? Like it or not we need more troops to insure the proper defense of our country and our country's needs.
We shouldn't have sent in troops at all. In what way are YOUR thugs defending your country? In what way are ours? The only ones defending their country are the Iraqis.

[Desertrat]

skunk, do you see any difference between problem analysis and the issue of should-have/should-not-have? :)

Odds are that had we had more troops on the ground at the time the first stage of combat against the Iraqi army ended, we could have had a stronger "on the street" presence, which possibly might have held back those now arrayed against us. However, this is pure speculation.

We have two problems with our military structure, I think, and it has little to do with Clinton, who rather dramatically reduced our total number of men; or Bush, who is using what we have: The first and most obvious is that we're spread too thin for what we have. If we weren't, we wouldn't be in the arguments about a Draft, or about how to find more men to send to Iraq.

The second is our broad-spread public notion that war is a TV Thing, and that only "those guys" should get hurt or killed. IMO, that's why we can do so well in our aerial softening prior to ground action; hardly anybody from any country is truly competitive with our high-tech toys. Our guys don't get hurt or killed, basically. And, it's obvious what our speed and mobility mean when we're on the atack and dealing with a third-rate force. Since little in the way of Bad Things happened during Gulf War I and in the Balkans, nothing bad should ever happen anywhere.

Consider: What would today's reaction be--stipulating for the moment worldwide and nationwide agreement to a war--if we lost as many as we did at any one insignificant island in the Pacific in WW II? Or lost on D-Day?

'Rat

[skunk]

skunk, do you see any difference between problem analysis and the issue of should-have/should-not-have? :)
I think so. But in view of the coming US elections, it is essential that the full, hideous enormity of what Bush - supported of course by Blair - has done is not forgotten. That is, not only going in in the first place without bothering to persuade anyone else it was necessary, but also failing to have any plan at all to deal with the consequences.

Odds are that had we had more troops on the ground at the time the first stage of combat against the Iraqi army ended, we could have had a stronger "on the street" presence, which possibly might have held back those now arrayed against us. However, this is pure speculation.
Of course it would have helped, once the original mistake had been committed.

We have two problems with our military structure, I think, and it has little to do with Clinton, who rather dramatically reduced our total number of men; or Bush, who is using what we have: The first and most obvious is that we're spread too thin for what we have. If we weren't, we wouldn't be in the arguments about a Draft, or about how to find more men to send to Iraq.
It's not that you're spread too thin, it's that you're trying to do too much too cheaply. Why take on two countries at once by choice, in addition to the strategic garrisons you are scattering all over the shop?

The second is our broad-spread public notion that war is a TV Thing, and that only "those guys" should get hurt or killed. IMO, that's why we can do so well in our aerial softening prior to ground action; hardly anybody from any country is truly competitive with our high-tech toys. Our guys don't get hurt or killed, basically. And, it's obvious what our speed and mobility mean when we're on the atack and dealing with a third-rate force. Since little in the way of Bad Things happened during Gulf War I and in the Balkans, nothing bad should ever happen anywhere.
Aerial softening, eh? Sounds nice and fluffy.

Consider: What would today's reaction be--stipulating for the moment worldwide and nationwide agreement to a war--if we lost as many as we did at any one insignificant island in the Pacific in WW II? Or lost on D-Day?

'Rat
Much less gung-ho and much more inclined to diplomacy, I expect.

[Desertrat]

The "But in view of the coming US elections, it is essential that the full, hideous enormity of what Bush - supported of course by Blair - has done is not forgotten." sort of commentary has been chanted verily like unto a mantra. If that's the necessary lead-in or exit from every post, why should anybody bother to try to figure out the "why?" of the bits and pieces? Why try to analyze anything at all? Why try to explain anything? Let's just chant "Bush Bad!" "Blair Bad!" and have done with it.

'Rat

[skunk]

The "But in view of the coming US elections, it is essential that the full, hideous enormity of what Bush - supported of course by Blair - has done is not forgotten." sort of commentary has been chanted verily like unto a mantra. If that's the necessary lead-in or exit from every post, why should anybody bother to try to figure out the "why?" of the bits and pieces? Why try to analyze anything at all? Why try to explain anything? Let's just chant "Bush Bad!" "Blair Bad!" and have done with it.

'Rat
No, no, I don't think that would be very constructive either. But here we all are trying to figure out a way forward from a truly messy situation. This kind of damage limitation is only necessary because of the cavalier politics of those who put our armed forces and the Iraqi population in this situation in the first place, through inadequate diplomacy followed by inadequate planning. We should not forget this. This is not how international relations should be managed.
The difficulty of finding an acceptable answer is exactly commensurate with the foolhardiness of those who led our nations into this adventure. There are therefore two essential questions which need to be addressed: firstly, we need to find a way forward which has the integrity which our leaders lacked, and secondly, we need to ensure that we punish those leaders at the polls for their bad leadership. After hubris comes nemesis.

[Desertrat]

"There are therefore two essential questions which need to be addressed..."

Fine, but it works better if you take them one at a time.

The engineering approach is to take a complex problem and break it down into its component parts. You examine each part, separately. You determine the relative importance of each part. You then fix what can be fixed, and reassemble--and test.

My cynical opinion has it that complex political problems remain so because lawyers do the opposite: They gather up disparate pieces and create an unmanageable wad of messy nonsense and then wonder why it doesn't work. To create the perception of workability, they wrap it in some package with ribbons that say, "It's for the children."

:), 'Rat

[skunk]

The engineering approach is to take a complex problem and break it down into its component parts. You examine each part, separately. You determine the relative importance of each part. You then fix what can be fixed, and reassemble--and test.
:), 'Rat
I'm afraid I don't quite see what your analogy suggests we should do in Iraq.

[Desertrat]

Well, you raised two points. IMO, there are two "what to do" questions deriving from them, and they're separate. Say, for instance, that the election of Kerry would solve the Bush problem. Okay; fine. That still leaves the question of what to do in Iraq. "What should Kerry do?" is separate from "Bush screwed up."

'Rat

[skunk]

Well, you raised two points. IMO, there are two "what to do" questions deriving from them, and they're separate. Say, for instance, that the election of Kerry would solve the Bush problem. Okay; fine. That still leaves the question of what to do in Iraq. "What should Kerry do?" is separate from "Bush screwed up."

'Rat
Agreed.
The trouble is, between now and then, all hell could break loose. We have no idea what we'll be dealing with by November. As for immediate solutions, I really don't think there are any: expecting Bush to do anything radical at this point is hopeless. He can't - even if he had any non-fixed ideas - without seriously crippling his election efforts.
So I guess we have to sit it out and try to do as little damage as possible. Engaging local businesses and those in neighbouring countries to do more of the reconstruction work would probably reduce the cost, increase the safety and get it done more quickly, besides showing that "jobs for the boys" is not a motivating factor.

[Desertrat]

Ja, d'accord.

:), 'Rat

[Neserk]

We shouldn't have sent in troops at all. In what way are YOUR thugs defending your country? In what way are ours? The only ones defending their country are the Iraqis.

Wahoo! Someone with some sense. I got so sick last year of every saying that we were just defending our country. Hello! We invaded Iraq. Not the other way around!

[toontra]

I have a bit of first-hand info on the money these "security" guys are earning. A friend of my brother (ex-army) has taken 10 weeks off his salmon farming to work in Iraq for an oil company guarding the plant & workers. He was paid £30k, equaling £3k per week ($5k)! He's going back for another 10-week stint, and won't be salmon fishing again this year, if ever!

I wonder how this equates to the average Iraqi's weekly wage? Let's not forget these people are being paid, either directly or indirectly, out of the oil revenues. I wonder if there will be any profit left over for the Iraqis themselves, or will it all be swallowed up in wages, security, insurance and the no-doubt healthy profit margins built into the un-tendered contracts (almost entirely coalition awarded)?

[SlyHunter]

I have a bit of first-hand info on the money these "security" guys are earning. A friend of my brother (ex-army) has taken 10 weeks off his salmon farming to work in Iraq for an oil company guarding the plant & workers. He was paid £30k, equaling £3k per week ($5k)! He's going back for another 10-week stint, and won't be salmon fishing again this year, if ever!

I wonder how this equates to the average Iraqi's weekly wage? Let's not forget these people are being paid, either directly or indirectly, out of the oil revenues. I wonder if there will be any profit left over for the Iraqis themselves, or will it all be swallowed up in wages, security, insurance and the no-doubt healthy profit margins built into the un-tendered contracts (almost entirely coalition awarded)?
The reason they pay so high for these jobs is because nobody would take them otherwise.

[zimv20]

He was paid £30k, equaling £3k per week ($5k)! He's going back for another 10-week stint, and won't be salmon fishing again this year, if ever!
is he there on a no-bid contract?

[SlyHunter]

is he there on a no-bid contract?
I bet he's a sub-contractor.

[Desertrat]

One of the reasons I've tried to be specific as to "mercenary" is that in a military outfit of mercenaries, you have the mutual support of the armed guys around you, and it's much less hazardous on a daily basis than what most of these contract-civilians face.

SOME are bodyguards. MOST are in typical civilian jobs, but are just as much of a target as are our military or the bodyguards. And with the Bad Guys using RPGs as well as the more common pistols or AKs, it can be rather lonesome as a bodyguard with maybe one to three other guys and no military support. Given how much some Iraqis hate other Iraqis, being a bodyguard is no casual walk in the park.

They're getting paid some $1,000 per day, yeah. But, if you were asked to drive a truck across the more dangerous parts of Iraq, would you do it for $20 an hour? I darned sure would not. Not even sure a grand a day is enough...

'Rat