Private Warriors - Frontline's report

[KafirChobee]

The make up of the US supported mercenary force is a mix of nationalities. It is, however, the make-up of just a few companys (all surrounding Cheney's Halliburton, do remeber he was CEO there).

$20Billion to our mercenaries - and none have responsibility. Try to remember that 6 Marines were killed by them last week. They are a diverse group, got former Brit Commandos, US Seals (Rangers, and GBs). and Philipino Commandos (as an example).

KBR, an off shoot of Haliburton, seems to be the main supplier of (but, not the exclusive contributor) former soldiers (elitist) to Iraq. To guard, protect, and make money, as much as possible (more than their civilian lives allows or enough to satisfy a goal).

Comes down to playing on the confidence of men in financial trouble, or those that want just a bit of taste ... more. I do know how that feels.

We, the coalition in Iraq have a circumstance that has not really been seen for (what?) 400 years. Where an invading Nation has used as many mercenaries as it has its own troops (monetarily). How would you feel as a soldier, knowing that the truck driver you were protecting was making 20X your wages, or 50X? And, that the former CEO of Haliburton was responsible?

KBR, +20Billion for services. Military personell can eat lobster. Imagine. Lobster! Still, our men and women deserve the best .....

Say what? In all the service (and yes, PJ will use this, this time) of my family (1774-2005) the military menu never included lobster. In Christs name, I doubt my Granddad would have even known what is was (and if someone had said it was like an underwater cockroach - I think he woulda said thx anyway).

Question is, why so many mercs? And why aren't they coordinated and trained? I mean how hard it is for them to determine the good guys from the bad? Eight Marines dead ... by them (publicized, that is - see ones easies twoies are easy to conceal. It's those damned 5 - 8 - 10 - 12, that are difficult to detter the press from reality (even when one owns it).

Lobster! Imagine! Our troops can eat lobster. And. we get to pay for it .. the war ... their orphans .. the after math. And, we can have mercs.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I say trie half the mercs for treason to scare the other half away, and spend more money making ammo and lobster.

[PanzerJaeger]

A few points..

1) Friendly fire is not unique to the mercenaries. The US military, along with every military ever engaged in warfare, has also engaged in friendly fire.

2) For someone who is supposedly so worried about the welfare of young Americans sent into another vietnam, I would think you would applaud the increased use of people who not only chose to join the army, but choose to go into Iraq.

All and all our increased use of mercenaries only weakens further the leftist claim that Bush is sending our sons and daughters into a war like Vietnam. Not only did these half of our people there chose to join the army, the other half chose to go and fight directly in Iraq.

[bmolsson]

The life as a mercenary has it's advantages, just that the life expectency isn't that high though.....

[Spetulhu]

All and all our increased use of mercenaries only weakens further the leftist claim that Bush is sending our sons and daughters into a war like Vietnam. Not only did these half of our people there chose to join the army, the other half chose to go and fight directly in Iraq.

The enlisted soldiers aren't all too happy about being in a war zone, but they're doing what they promised to do. I can respect that.

Mercenaries aren't out to help anyone but themselves. Or do you see any of them refusing the money and demanding only the same as an enlisted man of their experience?

[Redleg]

And for a second I thought that you might be refering to this old article. (And if you believe that statement I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.)

Iraq commander is Canadian, eh?

By PETER WORTHINGTON -- For the Toronto Sun


While it's not exactly a secret, not many Canadians know that the second top-ranking soldier fighting "insurgents" in Iraq is a general in the Canadian army.

Maj. Gen. Walter Natynczyk, once Commanding Officer of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, is now deputy commander of the U.S. Army's III Corps in Iraq.

The corps, at 138,000 troops, is roughly seven times as large as the whole Canadian army. No Canadian general since WWII has commanded so many troops in a combat zone.


Yet here is Natynczyk, comfortable in the field and involved in operations -- with the approval of the Martin government and supported by Chief of Defence Staff, General Ray Henault.

How did this come to be?

Until ordered to Iraq, III Corps was based at Fort Hood, Texas -- one of the largest army bases in the world. It was responsible for North American defence, if such was needed, and traditionally a Canadian general has been deputy commander, along with a U.S. general as deputy commander.

A high command role in Iraq is an odd role for a Canadian general -- not because he's ill-trained or unqualified, but because his country, Canada, has opposed U.S. policy in Iraq. And that's putting it mildly.

In fact, there may be 20 or 30 Canadian soldiers involved in the Iraq war and its vicious aftermath -- soldiers attached to British or American units who've stayed with these units. At least one officer has been wounded.

A Canadian general as deputy commander of a legendary body like III Corps is also a considerable honour.

Formed in WWI, III Corps was then known as the "Phantom Corps" for its surprise attacks and liberation of 100 French towns and villages while taking 225,000 German prisoners.

During the Korean and Vietnam wars, III Corps trained more than 150 units.

Winnipeg-born Gen. Natynczyk was in the news recently, hammering a symbolic gold spike in the new 1,000 km paved highway through Iraq from the Turkish border to the Persian Gulf.

Today, III Corps is officially a multinational corps, comprising the military coalition trying to bring peace and order to Iraq, and working with the new Iraqi military and police.

Still, it's unusual that the Americans would trust a foreign national with the responsibility of deputy commander.

When one looks at the organizational structure of III Corps, it's intimidating, even for an experienced Canadian tank soldier. Apart from support "battalions" of military police, signals, medical and intelligence units, the corps includes the 1st Cavalry Division, artillery and engineer battalions, the 4th Infantry Division, an armoured division and several mechanized brigades.

No Canadian general has dealt with anything near the command structure that Natynczyk accepts as routine.

He joined up in 1975, attended Royal Roads and College Militaire de St. Jean, and served in Germany as a leopard tank troop leader in the Royal Canadian Dragoons -- the unit he later commanded in 1995.

As a brigadier-general, Natynczyk commanded the Canadian contingent in Bosnia, 1998-99, and before that had various command and liaison appointments, including a tour of peacekeeping in Cyprus. In the Balkans he was a sector chief of operations, in Bosnia and later in Croatia. After graduating from the U.S. Army War College in 2002, he was appointed deputy commanding general of III Corps.

With this background, and especially in the combat zone of Iraq, Natynczyk seems likely to vault over rivals to be appointed Canada's Chief of Defence Staff when Gen. Ray Henault takes up his new post in NATO -- especially if the Martin government wants to restore credible as well as cordial relations with the U.S.

On the other hand, to anti-Ameriks, this close relationship may argue against Natynczyk.

The U.S. and Canadian armed forces have a closer bond than exists in politics, but Natynczyk's experience commanding large numbers of troops in the field has to make him an attractive choice for CDS.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Column...05/807782.html

[Redleg]

The make up of the US supported mercenary force is a mix of nationalities. It is, however, the make-up of just a few companys (all surrounding Cheney's Halliburton, do remeber he was CEO there).

KBR, an off shoot of Haliburton, seems to be the main supplier of (but, not the exclusive contributor) former soldiers (elitist) to Iraq. To guard, protect, and make money, as much as possible (more than their civilian lives allows or enough to satisfy a goal).[/quote]


Come on now Kafir - Dynocorps is fairly good size also and I believe they are not a sub of Haliburton. And also has a large contract with the Government - probably as large as KBR.


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=672

[UglyandHasty]

Nice article Redleg, didnt knew we had a Canadian commander in Iraq. They dont brag about it here. What a governement of hypocrit ! At least they could do it like mans, and support USA in open light ! Personnaly i wish my country would do more than that.

I watch the Frontline report last night on private contracter(mercenaries ?). That was a well done report, the thing we saw, wow ! It make you realize that the war is far from over when they cant even secure the 10 miles road to the airport...

[t1master]

i watched it last night after listening to the author of the book the frontline episode featured on 'talk of the nation'.

i was sorta dissapointed in the frontline presentation, seemed it woulda been much better from what the npr 'advertisement' interview/call in session lead me to believe. turned out to be a hit piece on haliburton, fair enough, it is pbs... ;)

haliburton charges about 20 bucks a plate per meal per day at camp anaconda... holy crap, the troops could be eating lobster at that rate...


interesting point though, haliburton handles almost all the logistics, from getting the troops from the u.s. to the warzone, then builds all the bases, and handles all the supply and resupply.. these things used to be done by the military no?

[doc_bean]

Ever since Reagan there has been a thin line between the military and military contractors imho.

[Duke Malcolm]

$20Billion to our mercenaries - and none have responsibility. Try to remember that 6 Marines were killed by them last week. They are a diverse group, got former Brit Commandos, US Seals (Rangers, and GBs). and Philipino Commandos (as an example).

Try to remember that many more British soldiers were shot by regular American troops throughout the war. I would say that these men have as much responsibility as the U.S. Army...

[Xiahou]

i was sorta dissapointed in the frontline presentation, seemed it woulda been much better from what the npr 'advertisement' interview/call in session lead me to believe. turned out to be a hit piece on haliburton, fair enough, it is pbs... ;)

Yeah, there's a surprise huh? I hope Congress continues to defund this garbage. There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to subsidize TV and radio stations- no matter what their slant.

[PanzerJaeger]

It wouldnt bother me so much if they didnt put on a charade of "balanced journalism". Some people cant afford a different perspective - cable news or the internet - and this slanted view is the only one they get. Thats really the travesty of all this.

I can only imagine how messed up someones view of things would be if they depended on Frontline for real news..

[Lemur]

It wouldnt bother me so much if they didnt put on a charade of "balanced journalism".

Just watched the piece, didn't see any huge bias to it. Certainly it wasn't a "hit piece" on Halliburton. They covered the basic issues, the essential problems, and then they went away. If anything, it seemed that they could have done a much more in-depth look.

Advantages of PMCs that they or their guests mentioned:

* Frees up soldiers for fighting
* Provides essential support a downsized army sorely needs
* Clearly provides a higher standard of service than the military does by its lonesome (note the quality of the food and housing)

Problems mentioned in the program:

* No clear chain of command
* PMCs don't get the intel from the military in a timely manner (and don't seem to share much intel amongst each other)
* Lack of transparency and accountability

And that's about it. As far as Halliburton goes, they mentioned the investigations, covered a few basic issues, and concluded with a bit about how many people believe that there's no intentional wrongdoing, but rather that KBR was taken by surprise at the scope and duration of the mission. That was the conclusion. I don't see any bias there that will fit nicely into the left/right humbug.

If anybody who actually saw the piece would care to point out where the liberal bias was lurking, I'd be happy to hear about it.