Blackwater - a private army - your thoughts?

Maklershed

Maklershed

CAGiversary!
Feedback
77 (100%)
First off, let me be clear. I barely know anything about Blackwater save for the fact that they're a billion dollar private military group employed in Iraq by the US Government. I'll also admit that I'm scared shitless of them, hate the idea of them, and I'm generally suspiscious of their existence. For one, I'd like to know what it is they're doing that our very own troops cant do. Second, I'd like to know if they're answerable to American law, Iraq law, or Geneva Conventions. Finally, and most importantly, I'd love to know what exactly will happen to their billion dollar organization when the war is over and their services and numbers are no longer required (at least to the extent being utilized now anyway).

Call me paranoid, but the way civil liberties are seemingly stripped from us every day in the name of our "safety" I'm very worried that some day Blackwater will be the new S.S., quickly being dispatched to any dissenters. Ok, thats an exaggeration .. but I'm concerned none-the-less.

So what are your thoughts on Blackwater?

On a related note, I was very amused to see today, a day after being questioned by Congress, the angels at Blackwater miraculously save a diplomat. Now I can truly see their presence is necessary and shouldnt be questioned :roll:
 
I think you're being a little paranoid about them being an "SS" like outfit but I agree that the idea of a private "security" firm playing a major role over there is disturbing.
 
I completely agree with everything you said Maklershed. I share your distrust of a "private military" and think that military strength is one thing that should remain completely within the realm of the government.

If you're reading this PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go see the documentary titled "Why We Fight". It is premised off of Eisenhower's farewell address which warned the Nation about the dangers of a standing army (which we never had before WWII) and the dangers of the what he refered to as the industrial military complex (aka the business of war). It was great and really helped me understand about the business of war. I urge people to see this like I urge people to go see "An Inconvenient Truth." I'm a sucker for documentaries.

Haliburton, Boeing, and basically everybody that profits from the multi-billion dollar industry have enormous political clout, and the corporations do things such as make sure that they have many employees spread out amongst all of the politician's territories so that every politician's constituents will be pissed if defense funding gets cut and they lose their jobs. Saying NO to war means your constituents in your community get fired and are unemployed.

The documentary basic point is very well demonstrated by considering Blackwater a Microcosm of what happens when capitalism and war are mixed without enough governmental oversight.
 
PMCs aren't just a danger to American citizens. Because they are, in essence, a private army, anyone rich enough to buy them, can. And not everyone rich has the scruples or moral compass to use them, for lack of a better word, for 'good'. I doubt PMC soldiers' loyalty is that solid. If it were, they'd still be working for their respective governments.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I completely agree with everything you said Maklershed. I share your distrust of a "private military" and think that military strength is one thing that should remain completely within the realm of the government.

If you're reading this PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go see the documentary titled "Why We Fight". It is premised off of Eisenhower's farewell address which warned the Nation about the dangers of a standing army (which we never had before WWII) and the dangers of the what he refered to as the industrial military complex (aka the business of war). It was great and really helped me understand about the business of war. I urge people to see this like I urge people to go see "An Inconvenient Truth." I'm a sucker for documentaries.
[/QUOTE]


Eisenhower did more to create and foster the military industrial complex than any president besides Reagan.
 
Bottom Line: Our government shouldn't be paying private mercenaries 6x-10x what they're paying our own armed forces.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='munch']Eisenhower did more to create and foster the military industrial complex than any president besides Reagan.[/QUOTE]


Really? How about that! It definitely sounds reasonable. He did come from a Military background and was crucial in helping Americans win WWII.

Perhaps he did, and then realized the dangers of maintaining it, namely that if we have it, we will be forced, or encouraged to find a use for it. After all, a new Abrams tank or Black Hawk isnt doing any good in a garage. He definitly used a great chunk of his farewell address to the Country to warn us citizens of the dangers of the military industrial complex. "Why We Fight" re-broadcasts a good portion of it.

I dont want to get off topic and take attention away from Blackwater, but all of this--the whole general issue--boils down to whether a nation is safer being feared or loved. Maybe it is a good idea to maintain and spend more than the other five superpowers combined on our military strength. Is "world peace" ever really possible? Humans are aggressive animals, history is littered with war and why would anything change?

Either way, if we fight we should wage combat with our army, not our businesses.
 
[quote name='munch']Eisenhower did more to create and foster the military industrial complex than any president besides Reagan.[/QUOTE]


I don't know that that is true but it sounds reasonable. He did come from a Military background and was crucial in helping Americans win WWII.

Perhaps he did, but realized the dangers of maintaining it, namely that if we have it, we will be forced, or encouraged to find a use for it. After all, a new Abrams tank or Black Hawk isnt doing any good in a garage. He definitly used a great chunk of his farewell address to the Country to warn us citizens of the dangers of the military industrial complex. "Why We Fight" re-broadcasts a good portion of it.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Really? How about that! It definitely sounds reasonable. He did come from a Military background and was crucial in helping Americans win WWII.

Perhaps he did, and then realized the dangers of maintaining it, namely that if we have it, we will be forced, or encouraged to find a use for it. After all, a new Abrams tank or Black Hawk isnt doing any good in a garage. He definitly used a great chunk of his farewell address to the Country to warn us citizens of the dangers of the military industrial complex. "Why We Fight" re-broadcasts a good portion of it.

I dont want to get off topic and take attention away from Blackwater, but all of this--the whole general issue--boils down to whether a nation is safer being feared or loved. Maybe it is a good idea to maintain and spend more than the other five superpowers combined on our military strength. Is "world peace" ever really possible? Humans are aggressive animals, history is littered with war and why would anything change?

Either way, if we fight we should wage combat with our army, not our businesses.[/quote]

Doesn't have to be either. I'd settle for tolerated general apathy or at least friendliness. It would not be in the best interests of foreign nations to be too enamored w/ the US as they usually lead to obligations. Obligations which usually mean pledged military support for unpopular military maneuvers like, oh, say, a war in the Middle East. I recently spoke to my relatives in the Philippines, and while they still generally like the US, they didn't like filipino soldiers being sent to Iraq when they have their own homegrown terrorists to deal with (Abu Sayef - the filipino off-shoot of Al Qaeda). And they've been dealing w/ them even before 9/11. It's also not in the best interests of any nation to be too feared as the world will wait for any excuse to tear that nation off its pedestal as it seems to be the case for the US.

Personally, I think if a nation wanted to conquer the world, it'd be better to do so economically. It's not as transparent as an overt invasion; it's more subtle. Take Japan, for example. Japan (until the recent recession) has done a pretty good job of turning their global reputation around from 'Asian Menace of WW2' to 'Japan: Home to video games, cell phones, anime, school girl outfits, and global economic power'.
 
In short: I agree with everyone here. I don't truck with 'mercs. The lack of oversight is appalling.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Machiavelli, lol.[/quote]

That's funny because Machiavelli was the first thing I thought about when I first heard the news about Blackwater.

George Bush obviously never read the "Prince" when he ran for office.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Bottom Line: Our government shouldn't be paying private mercenaries 6x-10x what they're paying our own armed forces.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

:lol: If nothing else, the Blackwater scenario serves as solid, solid, solid fuckin' evidence that any pro-privatization fuckwad is a complete and total liar when they make claims about how (1) the free market provides better self-governance and oversight than the government can, (2) private companies are run more efficiently, and (3) privatization will reduce already bloated government expenditures.

All of that is a lie. Always. Private prisons didn't prove it. Hiring private military contractors such as Hallburton, KBR, and Lockheed Martin didn't prove it. And Blackwater blows it the fuck out of the water by providing a great means of comparison (just how much tax money is being wasted on private military resources).

If you get a chance, pick up the new issue of Harper's; not just for Naomi Klein's "Disaster Capitalism" (cover story, BTW), but it also breaks down a Blackwater contract. I was amazed with how much power they have. They answer to nobody; not their employees, not their families, not the government of the US or Iraq...fuckin' nobody.
 
Politicians are always saying "Support our troops! Support our troops!"

I know nobody asserted that Blackwater is supporting our troops, but the government is allowing the company to exist and do what it does. How do you think it makes a US soldier feel to know Blackwater employees make 6-10 times more than he does?
 
I'm actually considering dropping the Army and going to Blackwater. They're the biggest, but remember that they're also not the only ones in America, and certainly not the world. I'm not going to say anything about the moral/ethical implications of their existence, but I will say that $600 a day and primo health insurance is more than a bit better than what the Army is offering me. Additionally, from what I've gathered from interviews and observation is that the soldiers are better trained at Blackwater (this is of course when they're not just hiring 45 year olds because they were rangers at one point).

On an efficiency level, military privatization is a great option. On a moral/social level? Hmm.

I will tell you this though, when I talked to the recruiter from their head office he made mention that Blackwater was eventually going to start hiring out a BATALLION of contractors. Take that for what you will.
 
it does help that the owner of Blackwater has strong ties to the republican party/bush administration. We pay them 6 times the amount of the soldiers we have over there, why not just pay the soldiers more so more people would want to join. Also I love how bush's reasons for not prosecuting is that the FBI is stretched far enough, that is such BS, if we hire mercenaries we are responsible for their actions. Hence forth we should make them responsible to their own actions.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']First off, let me be clear. I barely know anything about Blackwater save for the fact that they're a billion dollar private military group employed in Iraq by the US Government. [/quote]
I subscribe to their weekly newsletter: "Blackwater Tactical Weekly"

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/archive/btw_subscribe.asp

You all should too. Know your enemy. Read their propaganda.

Also, check out the documentary dvd: Iraq for Sale, The War Profiteers.

And if you think that Blackwater only works in the Middle East, you're wrong. They were providing their "services" during Katrina too.

edit: Since this is a gaming site, anyone know what the premise is for Army of Two? check out the new trailer for it, it sums it up quite well. i d/l it from gamersyde.com
http://www.gamersyde.com/leech_4818_en.html at about second :46

edit: man... still haven't seen "Why We Fight". It's on on my To Watch List. I have seen one with a similiar name but it was a Hollywood made Pro-US propaganda film during the WWII era, shown to new recruits. Got it for 1 dollar at Walmart. Consider me a CAH, Cheap Ass Historian.
 
[quote name='level1online']edit: Since this is a gaming site, anyone know what the premise is for Army of Two? check out the new trailer for it, it sums it up quite well. i d/l it from gamersyde.com[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking about this, too. The trailer I'm thinking of has ol' Ike doing his "do not become beholden to the Military-Industrial Complex" speech, but the game, of course, is about mercenaries. The fun of co-op aside, I've been debating whether I want to even pick the game up, due to subject matter I don't really condone. I hate to be one of those people, but . . .
 
[quote name='trq']I've been thinking about this, too. The trailer I'm thinking of has ol' Ike doing his "do not become beholden to the Military-Industrial Complex" speech, but the game, of course, is about mercenaries. The fun of co-op aside, I've been debating whether I want to even pick the game up, due to subject matter I don't really condone. I hate to be one of those people, but . . .[/quote]

That's a dumb excuse to avoid playing a game. I don't condone carjacking someone or sleeping with strippers but I'll still play GTA:SA. I don't condone killing people in real life but it's not gonna stop me from playing GRAW, GoW, Halo or any number of FPS games. I don't even condone bullying kids but I'll still play Bully. I don't condone machivellian plots that affects millions of lives in real life but that won't stop me from playing RTS games like Starcraft or 4X games like Galactic Civilizations 2.
 
Blackwater is an odd group. They were around a bit while I was in Iraq but we never worked with them.

They don't do anything that the Army or the Marine Corps can't do. The issue is that the active duty armed forces are much smaller than they used to be and as a result (unfortunately), Blackwater is used to fill in gaps.

The only problem is that they don't do a great job of filling in those gaps. They're well trained but often under equipped in terms of quantity (ie - sending 3 SUVs to escort a convoy that the USMC would send 8-10 various gun-trucks with air support to escort) and they tend to shoot first, ask questions later. This is the exact opposite of the operations I saw where Marines were often risking their lives to avoid having to shoot anyone. I don't think they're evil guys on an individual basis but there are less mechanisms in place to rein them in.

I don't trust them but I'm also not worried about them trying to take over the US.
 
I don't like it. They can pretty much do anything and not get in trouble for it. All that does is make the Iraqi people hate the US even more, even if those who caused the trouble weren't US citizens (I hear they hire people from all over the place).
 
[quote name='jaykrue']That's a dumb excuse to avoid playing a game. I don't condone carjacking someone or sleeping with strippers but I'll still play GTA:SA. I don't condone killing people in real life but it's not gonna stop me from playing GRAW, GoW, Halo or any number of FPS games. I don't even condone bullying kids but I'll still play Bully. I don't condone machivellian plots that affects millions of lives in real life but that won't stop me from playing RTS games like Starcraft or 4X games like Galactic Civilizations 2.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I kind of agree ... but then, I kind of don't. I mean, there's a certain level of "fantasy" that seems to make most of those conceits work. I enjoyed Mercenaries plenty, and it's obviously the exact same subject matter, but there's a difference in tone I'm unsure about. Not to Godwin this, but it's like Return to Castle Wolfenstein -- I played a bunch of multiplayer, and half the time, you're a Nazi. But the context wasn't especially offensive; there was no "Exterminate the Jews!" goal. So, yeah, I'm even annoying myself by being wary of the handling of the subject matter ... but nonetheless, I am.
 
[quote name='trq']Yeah, I kind of agree ... but then, I kind of don't. I mean, there's a certain level of "fantasy" that seems to make most of those conceits work. I enjoyed Mercenaries plenty, and it's obviously the exact same subject matter, but there's a difference in tone I'm unsure about. Not to Godwin this, but it's like Return to Castle Wolfenstein -- I played a bunch of multiplayer, and half the time, you're a Nazi. But the context wasn't especially offensive; there was no "Exterminate the Jews!" goal. So, yeah, I'm even annoying myself by being wary of the handling of the subject matter ... but nonetheless, I am.[/quote]

See, that's where I would differ. I would have no problem playing Nazis because, for me, it's no different than playing an Imperial trooper for the Galactic Empire or a Dark Lord of the Sith in Star Wars. Both (Nazi & Sith) represent highly fascist organizations that were responsible for the near extinction of a group hated by said fascists for the 'great crime' of having different viewpoints (and not to mention a host of other horrific crimes). In one group you have Jedi and the other you have Jews. While one is fictional, the other is true. But does one thing having a basis of truth making it 'queasier' to play than the fictional version simply due to its 'real' nature? I asked my Japanese friend if he had a problem playing an American soldier in Medal of Honor: Rising Sun who basically killed Japanese soldiers. He told me 'no' since he was raised in America and can also easily divorce himself since it was way before his time. To him, it was just another game. Ditto for me. I'll tell you right now, in Starcraft, I used to love PKing and backstabbing because I know the only thing that gets 'wounded' is my ally's ego, even if they are my friend in real life. My friend laughs it off and stabs me in the back in the next game because he finds it amusing. But, we're both intelligent enough to know that doing something like that in real life is probably a stupid idea.
 
I figured that everyone in Iraq that wasn't a resident was basically a paid mercenary, directly or indirectly (soldiers + contractors).

Years ago in college I remember seeing recruitment posters for CSC (Computer Sciences Corporation) with a man dressed in soldier uniform holding a laptop. I would be willing to bet they were the same thing as Blackwater back then, but probably not as much anymore.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']it does help that the owner of Blackwater has strong ties to the republican party/bush administration. We pay them 6 times the amount of the soldiers we have over there, why not just pay the soldiers more so more people would want to join. Also I love how bush's reasons for not prosecuting is that the FBI is stretched far enough, that is such BS, if we hire mercenaries we are responsible for their actions. Hence forth we should make them responsible to their own actions.[/QUOTE]

Well I agree the troops should be paid more but that wouldn't have been necessary if we paid for decent equipment to begin with. I mean instead of having private companies handle it where they basically steal most American's tax dollars in the process. Seriously if you're going to send this shit off to Corporations with the argument that the government is too bloated, too many positions, too much spending, only one option: get a NOT for profit Corporation otherwise your example is shit because it will end up costing more or materials will be shit or undercut. When you're talking in regards to Blackwater and Military people that are non-Civilian I would say Governent then.
Interestingly enough Eisenhower also made a comment on the U.S. not being able to be a Service Economy or something as well.
 
They are a privately owned company. They should be liable for all their people like every other business in this world. The Iraqis, the Americans (as their home base) and anywhere else they operate should have jurisdiction over them. Anything else is quasi-government, which they most definitely are not.

I wish I could find a business where the government gives me a billion to do a job that they assume all liability for.

It's sad watching the Iraqis have to come hat-in-hand to us to get something done about a private company in their country. Disgusting.
 
UPDATE: Blackwater guards granted immunity.

Yes, all of them.

"As a result, it will likely be months before the United States can — if ever — bring criminal charges in the case that has infuriated the Iraqi government."

In essence, any case against them has to be made without their own statements incriminating them, and frankly, that doesn't leave much to go on. I realize that bringing criminal charges to bear in a war zone is the equivalent of wrestling a hurricane (look at the Haditha case), but this is disappointing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21533017/
 
Very unfortunate. It is not lost on me that their biggest punishment will probably (should) come from within themselves. I guarantee you BW or any other private security firm "blacklisted" these guys who will probably never be allowed to set foot in Iraq again. (not that that is a bad thing).

True, there should have been some official punishment for the individual perpetrators and BW as a corporation via respondeat superior (vicarious liability). Seems tough to investigate and prosecute because BW can argue that anything that the soldiers did that was inappropriate or violated the Rules of Engagement was a frolick and detour and therefore not done within the course and scope of their employment.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I guarantee you BW or any other private security firm "blacklisted" these guys who will probably never be allowed to set foot in Iraq again. (not that that is a bad thing).[/QUOTE]

Based on what? Their accountability vis-a-vis this recent happening? Eric Prince's *promise* to Congress that he would fire anyone who knowingly opened fire on innocents? Are we satisfied, believing that we are the beacons of civilization for the rest of the world, knowing that our hired mercenaries would merely be fired for unloading firearms in public places?

How shall this be extended to the US CJ system? Should the next person who opens fire in their workplace be fired, or should they only be prosecuted if they were fired prior to the shooting?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Based on what? Their accountability vis-a-vis this recent happening? Eric Prince's *promise* to Congress that he would fire anyone who knowingly opened fire on innocents? Are we satisfied, believing that we are the beacons of civilization for the rest of the world, knowing that our hired mercenaries would merely be fired for unloading firearms in public places?

How shall this be extended to the US CJ system? Should the next person who opens fire in their workplace be fired, or should they only be prosecuted if they were fired prior to the shooting?[/quote]

The gurantee was based on a normal risk/benefit analysis that most companies use when deciding whether to take an action that will expose them to potential liability. It is simply not self-interested for BW to keep these fools on their payroll. Eric Prince's promise surely wouldn't hurt since it would look so bad if the mercenaries involved in the incident were to return to action; but its not based on that alone.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the "beacons of civilization" but since I don't beleive that I guess that makes me unqualified to answer for those that do. We're a pretty good country, but don't know if we're thought of as beacons of civilizaiton.

And (hate to give you a lawyerly answer) but the answer to your last question is: It depends. It depends on whether the worker opened fire in a place where our criminal laws apply? If he did, then yes he should be prosecuted regardless of employment because employment does not really have very much relevance to criminal law. He should also be fired IMO but this is not a legal issue. It goes back to the risk/benefit analysis I mentioned earlier. Its simply not in the post office's best interest to keep workers there who shot up their other employees. A good employee is damn hard to find and rehiring/continuing to employ co-worker killers is bad business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top