Iraq War: Mercenaries and thinking about soldier misconduct

The blogger Kos took considerable flak a few weeks ago for questioning the role of soldiers-for-hire in the Iraq War.  He uses the common designation "mercenary" for them.  I prefer the term semi-mercenarary or soldier-for-hire, because under international law American hired guns fighting in Iraq are not mercenaries in the definition of the law, because they are nationals of one of the belligerent parties.  If they violate the laws of the country in which they operate, they are not entitled to combatant status under the Geneva Convention, but rather can be treated as ordinary criminals.

Today Kos is commenting on the reports of soldiers engaging in torture and/or humiliation of Iraqi prisoners, for which several American soldiers are being prosecuted.  One of the things that has emerged from the reporting on these incidents is that hired guns ("security consultants") have been involved, even directing US soldiers in conducting interrogations.

Kos has been a persistent critic of the Iraq War.  So I want to call attention to how he treats the issue of misconduct by American soldiers:

This is upsetting on so many levels. One, it smears every American in Iraq, where the vast majority of our men and women in uniform are noble, brave, kind-hearted people. They are not there because they choose to be there, they are there because Bush ordered them there. Yet their reputation is being besmirched by these lunatic [word not allowed by AOL Terms of Service] at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Two, it fuels Iraqi and worldwide perception that the US is no better than Saddam. That is NOT true. In theory. In practice, the Iraqi people have seen none of the "freedoms" promised by Bush's rhetoric. There is no Democracy. Their press gets shut down for criticizing the CPA. Their electricity is even less reliable now than under Saddam. Crime is up. Safety is down. The US is killing thousands of Shiites and Sunnis.

Antiwar writers and activists are not having any trouble distinguishing between soldiers doing their duty and soldiers violating their duty and violating American law by this kind of conduct.  Nor are they having any trouble distinguishing between the policies that are causing the results and the soldiers that are required to carry them out.

No one should be Pollyannish about this.  (Okay, Pollyanna herself should get a pass.)  Because a long occupation in what is essentially a colonial situation often leads to more and more abuses as the organization of the occupying army starts to break down.  In fact, the incidents at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison should be an alarm bell for a possible breakdown in military discipline in that chain of command.

But when Republican blowhards try to claim that criticizing the war is not "supporting the troops", those not stoned on Oxycontin may want to remember that in the real world, critics can and do make these distinctions.  Also, Republicans who call for more killing and less restraint in civilian areas somehow don't include that kind of criticism as being unsupportive of the troops.

And Kos justifiably takes the occasion to respond to those who blasted him for his earlier criticisms of soldiers-for-hire (as I said, he uses the common term "mercenaries"):

And finally, it's just yet another example that merceneraries are the scum of the planet. Indications are that mercs ran the prison and had a role in the abuses at the prison. Yet they cannot be punished under military law. Again, lawless mercenaries are complicating our occupation and attempts to rebuild Iraq.

Anyone who defends mercenaries hates our troops. Plain and simple. The actions of those mercenaries have been getting our soldiers killed. And now, they have guaranteed the loss of our battle for the hearts and minds of Iraq's people.

It's past time for Congress to get a handle on this soldiers-for-hire business in Iraq.  This is the Iran-Contra mentality on a much larger and even more consequential scale.  Running soldiers-for-hire as a major part of our war effort - there may be more of them in Iraq fighting for the "coalition" than there are British troops - looks very much like it is allowing Executive Branch officials the ability to have hired guns commit acts in violation of American and international law without the proper chain of accountability.  And doing so in a way that could seriously endanger American lives in Iraq and American policy there.

The news that American soldiers were acting as interrogators under the direction of hired guns is very significant.  Congress needs to be investigating and finding out what's really going on with these "security consultants."  Why are American soldiers taking orders from mercenaries/soldiers-for-hire?