Vax
Member
+42|6267|Flyover country

Dilbert_X wrote:

They are doing a job which would normally be carried out by the security services and military personnel of the US state.
If they are being paid to carry arms for a foreign country in a third country that pretty well meets the definition.
Just because you choose to call them 'contractors' instead of 'soldiers' doesn't change a thing.
I can't think of a country besides the US which contracts out this kind of work, not on this kind of scale.

Either it was due to shortage of troops, lack of will to impose a draft or they wanted their buddies in the defense industry to make a few billion at the expense of Joe the Plumber, take your pick.
They work mostly for the state department, which I would imagine has not run into a situation quite like Iraq before

...Of the State Department's dependence on private contractors like Blackwater for security purposes, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told the U.S. Senate: "There is simply no way at all that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts."

That being said, I personally would prefer they had a bigger US military arm for that purpose. That would be a better solution: there would be more oversight, and it would be cheaper.

People want to call them 'mercenaries' because of the emotive impression it gives(hired killers) which shores up their particular views. I don't think it's an informed or accurate use of the term, but it works for those who like to spew rhetoric..


However, I'd say in this case Blackwater made their own beds
Too many loose cannons and too many poorly addressed complaints by Iraqi civilians, culminating in the Nisoor Square incident has left a bad taste, and the Iraqis are fed up. I can't really blame them, they have the authority to make the decision, and the people do not want BW given a permit to operate.

To be fair, in that incident Blackwater employees claimed they were attacked first, and evidence does support that
The shooting strained relations between Washington and Baghdad and fueled the anti-American insurgency in Iraq, where many Iraqis saw the bloodshed as a demonstration of American brutality and arrogance. Five former Blackwater guards have pleaded not guilty to federal charges in the United States that include 14 counts of manslaughter and 20 counts of attempted manslaughter.

Blackwater maintains the guards opened fire after coming under attack, an argument supported by transcripts of Blackwater radio logs obtained by the AP. They describe a hectic eight minutes in which the guards repeatedly reported incoming gunfire from insurgents and Iraqi police.

Last edited by Vax (2009-01-30 12:52:41)

Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|6117|College Park, MD
Good riddance
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6821|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484864,00.html

Good news amidst all the economic carnage! I find the concept of hired armies quite frankly repugnant. Monetarily driven military outfits are an important part of what makes up the scum of the earth.
Mercenaries aren't so bad in principle.  Private armies have been around for centuries.

The problem with their use in Iraq is that they became so expensive.  We initially hired them to cut costs, but eventually, we passed the point where they were cost-effective, because we were hiring so many for so many things that our own Army used to do.

Privatizing war only works in small doses.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6826|'Murka

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, they don't. They are not being hired to serve in another nation's military. None of the employees of any of those companies (at least in Iraq and Afghanistan--I don't know about their operations in other countries) are employed by any nation's military. None of those companies in Iraq or Afghanistan are doing military missions.
Your defining a military mission and security detail is separate. But, what are the US military doing in Iraq?

Providing security.

What are (were) Blackwater doing in Iraq?

Providing security.

They are carrying out identical missions that the US army were. They might not be hired to serve in another nations military, but they are being hired to act as another nations military. I'd equate them almost to the standard the Praetorian Guard in Rome.
Providing security for diplomats is different than what the US military is doing in Iraq. That's why it's not a military mission.

You can argue semantics all you want. I'll stick with facts.

The Praetorian Guard was the personal protection of the Caesar. The Secret Service is the US equivalent...and they aren't anywhere near Iraq.

Blackwater (and the other security contractors) don't serve in any military anywhere. Thus, they are not mercenaries. Period.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6826|'Murka

prototype wrote:

blackwater = mercenaries

the US goverment hires them so they have plausible deniability
Put up or shut up.

I'm fairly sure you can't find any evidence of Blackwater being used for military/direct action missions under US military orders...since it's never happened.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|7065
The whole concept of a privately funded army is fucked up and I'm surprised it took this long tbh. Srsly what kind of bellend pays even allows this shit...it's just wrong.

good riddance I say sir
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6927|Gold Coast
You guys should watch Shadow Company. Good insight.

Personally Id like to see contractors there. I think that soldiers are getting underpaid for what they do, whereas the contractors pay are fine. But since things are slowing down, the pay and commitment can be decreased.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
Lai
Member
+186|6566

Stubbee wrote:

usmarine wrote:

lowing wrote:


I guess the IRA got all of their resources for free huh?
yup.

and arent all modern militaries "hired" and "paid" to fight?
A standing army and a mercenary outfit are apples and cow patties dude. You should know better having served (serving?). Do you just always say the opposite of people like Cam or do you actually think once and a while?
I concur to this. I suppose we can all agree on an ex spec-ops killing Africans for Shell (or anything along that line) being a mercenary and one of dubious nature. However, as soon as 'mercenaries' are hired by a recognized government, things can get a little blurry. Technically speaking thé Legion is also a band of mercenaries; what about them? I think most people with objections against 'mercenaries' regard the Legion a little different. If we jump into the archives: what do ye think about the French Irish brigade or the Vatican formally still contracting Swiss mercenaries for its protection?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard