Apparently the Daily Kos blog has been taking quite a bit of rhetorical flak for comments on the use of mercenaries in Iraq. I quoted one of his posts on the subject earlier. But that apparently was not the one that caused the most flak. The more controversial statement was something he put in the comments section on one of the posts at the blog, which he has since removed. I'm not sure I actually saw the original comment.
But the criticism he's getting seems way overblown to me. What's happened is that the Fallujah incident last week has focused new attention on an important subject, the use of private military corporations (PMCs), or mercenaries in plain English, as combat soldiers in Iraq.
The distinction between, on the one hand, bodyguards protecting celebrities or business executives or security firms providing guard services at office buildings, and, on the other hand, soldiers for hire in wars, is not a hard one for most people to make. I've mentioned in earlier posts some of the potential problems of the use of mercenaries as adjuncts (or even integral parts!) of American foreign policy. They range from the risk that the mercs will take actions that contradict or endanger American goals in a country to the potential for evading Congressional and judicial oversight by rogue executive operations like Iran-Contra.
Kos calls attention to this article that shows one side-effect the US toleration and encouragement of mercs is having: Crunch Time for Special Ops Forces Christian Science Monitor 04/06/04.
In the post-9/11 world, demand for the [Special Operations Forces] commandos is not only soaring within the military. Private firms and government organizations - including the CIA - are luring away troops with bigger salaries.
"It is a very lucrative opportunity right now for special operations folks to get out and take very high-paying jobs" with private security firms, says General Brown. A 20-year veteran leaving Special Operations receives about $23,000 in retirement pay, but can earn $100,000 to $200,000 in private industry, military officials say.
With no end to the demand in sight, the military must carefully allocate SOF [Special Operations Forces] while increasing their ranks. To fill the current gap, it is accepting added risks with less experienced forces.
Some Special Forces troops are now recruited directly from the civilian population, as drawing candidates from a stretched Army gets harder. So far, 120 of the "off-the-street" recruits have undergone schooling, and 38 are deployed abroad.
In other words, the merc companies are inhibiting the US military's ability to retain badly-needed Special Operations troops. And this is no case of the "free market" working its fabled magic to produce optimum results. For one thing, Americans signing up to be mercs are mostly trained at US taxpayer expense as Special Forces or other types of soldiers. And a lot of the market for mercs is made up governmental or quasi-governmental organizations.
And let's face it. The "free market" forces that drive high merc salaries are also based on a classical economic risk-return trade-off. The mercs demand higher pay than soldiers because they are taking on risks including a higher likelihood of being in dangerous situations and because their operations often take place in a legal twilight, when they're not dowright illegal. The risk of imprisonment and execution get factored into the higher risk of combat and death/wounding in combat.
This Washington Post piece describes an incident in Najaf, Iraq, this past Sunday in which mercs from Blackwater Security Consulting beat back an attacks on the US government's headquarters and rescued a wounded Marine: Private Guards Repel Attack on U.S. Headquarters by Dana Priest 04/06/04.
Here are some excerpts that illustrate some of the risks and complications presented by the presence of mercenaries in Iraq fighting more-or-less on our side (my emphasis). One of the complications is that the need for mercs is a reflection of Rummy’s decision to supply a dangerous small occupation force for postwar Iraq.
Before U.S. reinforcements could arrive [at the besieged headquarters in Najaf], the firm, Blackwater Security Consulting, sent in its own helicopters amid an intense firefight to resupply its commandoes with ammunition and to ferry out a wounded, Marine, the sources said. …
Thousand of armed private security contractors are operating in Iraq in a wide variety of missions and exchanging fire with Iraqis every day, according to informal after-action reports from several companies.
… The Blackwater commandos, most of whom are former Special Forces troops, are on contract to provide security for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Najaf.
That point is worth dwelling on for a moment. The US is employing private security firms to provide Special Forces troops (trained at US taxpayers expense) to provide basic, essential security services at a far higher price than the Army would pay for those same Special Forces. And it’s not only in Najaf. Even viceroy Jerry Bremer is guarded by “PMC” mercs.
Sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of Blackwater’s work in Iraq reported an unspecified number of casualties among Iraqis.
A spokesman for Blackwater confirmed that the company has a contract to provide security to the CBA but would not describe the incident that unfolded Sunday.
A Defense Department spokesman said that there were no military reports about the opening hours of the siege on CPA headquarters in Najaf because there were no military personnel on the scene. The Defense Department often does not have a clear handle on the daily actions of security contractors because the contractors work directly for the coalition authority, which coordinates and communicates on a limited basis through the normal military chain of command.
Let’s translate that paragraph out of circumspect reporter-speak. There actually were military personnel on the scene, complete with weapons and helicopters, and they were conducting lethal operations against the enemy. But they were mercenaries, reporting not to the US military as such but to the civilian Pentagon authorities (the CPA is a Pentagon responsibility until the promised July 1 handover of “sovereignty” to the Iraqis). That would be the civilians like Rummy and Paul Wolfowitz who gave us the WMD claims based on the lies of their Iraqi-exile allies.
It's hard to see how these forces would be cheaper or more cost-effective than US Special Forces serving in the military. But I can see how having a significant number of mercenaries not reporting to the military chain of command but to the civilians in the Pentagon would hold advantages in Rummy's eyes.
The four men brutally slain Wednesday in Fallujah [this refers to the civilians killed and mutilated, although early reports said one was a woman] were also Blackwater employees and were operating in the Sunni triangle area under more hazardous conditions – unarmored cars with no apparent backup – than the U.S. military or the CIA permit.
No comments:
Post a Comment