US use of "soldiers of fortune"

[Kadagar_AV]

In 2004, four american "civilians" were killed in Falluja. This made George W Bush order a overwhelming offensive against the city. US troops slaughtered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.

American press described the "civilians" as humanitarian aid workers, in reality they were soldiers of fortune, working for Blackwater Worldwide.

This made me interested in the US use of mercenary troops in battle.

Today, these mercs are in Baghdad. It has been estimated that as many mercs as US-army troopers are stationed there.

They are NOT controlled by the same laws and regulations as official army troops. They don't even wear uniform. You can see polaroid sunglasses, bandanas, T-shirts...

Now, as they don't belong to the official army, they do not have to follow the laws of war set by the Geneva convention.

Am I the only one seeing this as a problem?

On a further note: They have legal immunity, meaning they can murder whoever they want, and get away with it.

It has been known that they have opened fire on unarmed civilian targets. Again, they can not be held responcible for this.

So, how do they get cash? Who pays this?

Well, the US has set a "build up" burget for Iraq, money supposed to, doh, build up the country.

30% of the allocated 2 billions are used to fund these mercs.

Am I the only one finding it a tad strange that money supposed to build up the country is used for mercs?

So what are the political gains of this?

First of all, it limis the political pressure, as dead mercs are not listed in the official statistics. No planes landing in the states with Marine troopers carrying coffins with the american flag on it. Also, the official cost of the war is lower, as money to support these kind of operations are taken by other means than listed in teh national american budget for military spenditure.

Also, these mercs can do stuff the Us army can not, as they are, as mentioned, more bound by laws and regulations.

For people interested, I can recomend the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army...

I do not understand how the American population can put up with this

If my goverment acted like this, I would try and do something about it. I think most people over here would. But america is quiet... Why?

Or is it ignorance?

By the words of Marshall Adame,

In January 2008, Marshall Adame, a Democrat running for Congress in North Carolina's 3rd District, took part in a live question-and-answer forum where he was asked a question about Blackwater. Adame, who had served as a State Department official in Iraq recounted, "I saw them shoot people, I saw them crash into cars while I was their passenger. There was absolutely no reason, no provocation whatsoever." He then stated, "There is no place in the American force structure, or in American culture for mercenaries, they are guns for hire; No more, no less."

[Ronin]

why do you hate freedom??

[CrossLOPER]

THIS IS ALL FINE IF YOU ARE NOT RUSSIA.


EDIT: lol this is joke hahaha

[yesdachi]

The use of Blackwater can be spun to anyone’s agenda. I would rather masturbate with a handful of broken glass then try and change the mind of someone that has already taken the “I hate the USA” stance. Perhaps we should nuke Blackwater.

[Kadagar_AV]

The use of Blackwater can be spun to anyone’s agenda. I would rather masturbate with a handful of broken glass then try and change the mind of someone that has already taken the “I hate the USA” stance. Perhaps we should nuke Blackwater.

Use of mercs can be spun to anyones agenda? I dont get your logic?

"I hate the USA stance", refering to me?

I think there is good and bad in USA, just as in any other country.

Nuke blackwater... huh? Oh well, when you argue on the internet...........

[KarlXII]

Haven't you played Army of Two?

[Kadagar_AV]

Haven't you played Army of Two?

Nope, why?

[Vladimir]

Nope, why?

Anyway...

The Chief of Staff of the Army asked his Sergeant Major, who was both Ranger and Special Forces qualified, which organization he would recommend to form a new anti-terrorist unit. The Sergeant Major responded to the General's question with this parable: If there were a hijacked Boeing 747 being held by terrorists along with its passengers and crew and an anti-terrorist unit formed either by the Rangers or the Special Forces was given a Rescue/Recovery Mission; what would you expect to happen?

Ranger Option

Results of Operation: The Rescue/Recovery Operation would be completed within one hour; all of the terrorists and most of the passengers would have been killed, the Rangers would have sustained light casualties and the 747 would be worthless to anyone except a scrap dealer.

Special Forces Option

Results of Operation: The Rescue/Recovery Operation would take two weeks to complete and by that time all of the terrorists would have been killed, (and would have left signed confessions); the passengers would be ruined psychologically for the remainder of their lives; and all of the women passengers would be pregnant. The 747 would be essentially unharmed, the team would have taken no casualties but would have used up, lost, or stolen all the "high speed" equipment issued to them.

Swedish Special Forces Ski Instructor Option

Nuke Amerika!

[Kadagar_AV]

Thank you for your valuable insight Vladimir.

However, please dont spam.

[KukriKhan]

One small point, before the fireworks resume:

US troops murdered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.

By definition, 'troops' cannot 'murder', only kill. Being a troop (or having been one), I'd have thought you understood that essential bit of the social contract between soldiers and their citizenry.

On the other hand, and back on-topic: Mercs, in my AO (if I were in charge) would be expelled, or apprehended, or otherwise neutralized, as 'non-national combatents'. They, by definition, interfere not only with the tactics on the ground, but also with the essential social contract I cited above.

In the Iraq case, they are a holdover from Rummie's "war on the cheap" policy. Gen Petreaus should toss them out of the country, the same as he would a Syrian with an RPG.

[PanzerJaeger]

US troops murdered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.

You're quickly becoming a one trick pony aren't you?

Anyway.. pathetic, and not worth the effort...

[Papewaio]

By definition, 'troops' cannot 'murder', only kill. Being a troop (or having been one), I'd have thought you understood that essential bit of the social contract between soldiers and their citizenry.

They can murder someone who is not involved in combat ie non combatent or surrended. Frag grenades into rooms filled with villages... Death Camps... surrended wounded enemy combatents who are then shot out of fear etc.

[Koga No Goshi]

The use of Blackwater can be spun to anyone’s agenda. I would rather masturbate with a handful of broken glass then try and change the mind of someone that has already taken the “I hate the USA” stance. Perhaps we should nuke Blackwater.

So because of the person who posted the topic, you have no problem with completely unaccountable, exorbidantly paid private mercenaries fighting our wars?

[Husar]

I wonder how good the photos are that they can make with those Polaroid sunglasses...
Eh I mean the opening post does indeed seem a bit biased to me and a link instead of some book recommendation would be very nice, otherwise, as has been said, this can be spun to anyone's agenda.
In my opinion being a mercenary does not make someone evil by itself, some of them are paid to protect certain buildings inside Baghdad, if we ignore the bigger guns, what makes them so different from a security guard in a bank or a policeman guarding a protest? Yeah, there are probably evil mercenaries out there but then there are also evil kings so doesn't it bother you that sweden has a king?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If the mercenaries are as or more cost effective than regular troops, I see no reason why they should not be used on the battlefield to supplement forces, or to be used to free American soldiers for use elsewhere.

[Koga No Goshi]

If the mercenaries are as or more cost effective than regular troops, I see no reason why they should not be used on the battlefield to supplement forces, or to be used to free American soldiers for use elsewhere.

They're only more cost effective because Blackwater lets the U.S. military do the initial training at taxpayer expense, and then pocket/brain-drains vets into private Blackwater service.

While we have a recruitment shortage and argue over troop benefits...

and wonder why there are morale problems..

[CrossLOPER]

If the mercenaries are as or more cost effective than regular troops, I see no reason why they should not be used on the battlefield to supplement forces, or to be used to free American soldiers for use elsewhere.

That's not the argument.

[spmetla]

I'm glad we use Blackwater. It means we can assign those guys to do things like guard KBR convoys and protect State dept. related people. Yeah soldiers would traditionally be the people to do this but like you pointed out this would require more soldiers. Yes it is politically expedient to use Blackwater and other security contractors but from I know and have seen they are not being used as soldiers. The US isn't hiring Blackwater to takeout insurgent strongholds, conduct any sort of raids or do regular patrolling. Instead they are being tasked with manpower intensive 'security' operations of a defensive nature.

The issue with Blackwater not being able to be court martialed has been brought up already in congress and Mr. Prince has had to defend his company. Because of the problems associated with Blackwater when they do kill Iraqis (such as during the well known convoy incident) there is a legal dilemma. Issues such as the legal status of of private security contractors ARE being hammered out right now between the US govt. and the Iraqi govt.

US troops murdered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.

So do you consider Swedish soldiers that have to kill people in Afghanistan murderers as well? Or do the Swedes do no wrong?

Yes, the US has killed innocent civilians, the greater majority of them being accidental. Of course in war there are soldiers that illegally kill civilians, those incidents though when found out do prompt a court martial.

@Crossloper: There are people such as myself that support Russia in actions such as the recent war with Georgia so don't think that all Americans are double standard when it comes to Russia/USA.

[Kadagar_AV]

KukriKhan, troops can murder just like anyone else.

In this particular case you are correct though, "slaughtered" would probably be a better word, as I am sure not all deaths were pure murders, very few in comparison to be exact.

But as I former trooper, I mus say that I on the contrary know there is a thin line between sanctioned kill and outright murder. If you feel threatened, you tend to shoot first and think later, meaning a lot of unneeded happens in each and every war. Specially if teh combatants dont share a language.


PanzerJaeger, very constructive.


papewaio, Indeed. As I said, murders are quite common in wars.



Husar, wrong word there... tehee...

I gave you a link in my OP. But a quick google search will give you tons of information, what I included was the wiki page of Blackwater.

I don't see how lawless forces used in combat "can be spun to anyones agenda". Could you please elaborate?

And I do not claim the mercs are "evil". However, they have other instructions AND other options than normal soldiers. In effect, they can break the geneva rules of war whenever they want to without being held responcible.


Evil_Maniac From Mars, first of all, as Koga mentioned, the state has already paid for the training. Secondly, the MAIN issue here is not cash, is it? Or is case more important to you than, oh say, laws of war and stuff?

As CrossLOPER explained.

[Koga No Goshi]

Don't feel too isolated like this is Swede vs. America, Kadagar. I'm American and I agree Blackwater has no legitimate place in an occupation and the heavy use of Blackwater is less an issue of saving money-- more an issue of "selling the war on the false premise that it needed fewer troops" and pushing the "privatize the military" ideology.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's not the argument.

He asked if we thought it was a problem - I said no.

They're only more cost effective because Blackwater lets the U.S. military do the initial training at taxpayer expense, and then pocket/brain-drains vets into private Blackwater service.

They take the veterans after the veterans retire from the military. Once a soldier finishes his term, he can leave and do what he likes. If Blackwater pays better, good for them - increase army salary, limit the number of Blackwater employees that are hired, or, in an extreme case, control the salaries of Blackwater through government mandate (alright, the last one was sarcastic). I don't think outsourcing military power is a good idea, but I certainly think using mercenaries where necessary, as supplementary forces, is a good idea.

[Koga No Goshi]

He asked if we thought it was a problem - I said no.



They take the veterans after the veterans retire from the military. Once a soldier finishes his term, he can leave and do what he likes. If Blackwater pays better, good for them - increase army salary, limit the number of Blackwater employees that are hired, or, in an extreme case, control the salaries of Blackwater through government mandate (alright, the last one was sarcastic). I don't think outsourcing military power is a good idea, but I certainly think using mercenaries where necessary, as supplementary forces, is a good idea.

This would be a totally moot point if we took the billions going to Blackwater and used it for better combat pay or sign on bonuses or rewards for serving multiple terms. And since taxpayer money is paying for it anyway I'd prefer to have the people going around under an American flag with weapons overseas to be accountable to some kind of standard.

I don't think outsourcing military power is a good idea, but I certainly think using mercenaries where necessary, as supplementary forces, is a good idea.

Which undermines the defense you just made of it. They weren't used because they were necessary. They were used because the Bush Admin sold the war on the idea that it could be done with fewer troops than many of the generals said it could be, and retired the ones like Shinseki who refused to sign off on the lie.

[Kadagar_AV]

So do you consider Swedish soldiers that have to kill people in Afghanistan murderers as well? Or do the Swedes do no wrong?

Yes, the US has killed innocent civilians, the greater majority of them being accidental. Of course in war there are soldiers that illegally kill civilians, those incidents though when found out do prompt a court martial.

@Crossloper: There are people such as myself that support Russia in actions such as the recent war with Georgia so don't think that all Americans are double standard when it comes to Russia/USA.

If the Swedish combat doctrine teached to throw in a handgrenade before entering a house I would call them murderers yes. I have had some deep talks with American officers about this, but they would not budge. Swedish forces then refused to do mission alongside US troopers.

The Afghan forces traiend by the swedes uses flashgrenades. More risk for the soldier, but much less civilian casualties.

Don't get me wrong though, we have had swedes do some up things. And some have went to jail for it.

And that is my point, when swedish, or American forces breaks the laws of war, we are held responcible for it.

When Blackwater does it, there is no one to hold them responcible.

Take the incident with the torture and sexual harasment tapes from teh Iraqi prison. American army did it, and american army got nailed for it. They had to repent, and they did. just as it should be. See, I have much less problem with the american army than mercs. American army try to, along with the combat training, also teach some sence of moral perspective. Just look at the damn marine Corps, they are todays knights in shiny armour. They RARELY mess up. Them, you would rather see take a bullet to protect a civilian than shoot a civilian.

However, mercs have no code of honour, no LAWS to regulate them... Heck, contrary to normal troops they dont even have a cause they BELIEVE in, they are there to make cash. Yes, I see a problem with that. You do not?

EDIT: When I said "I" have had some deep talks, I actually meant on a personal level. The decision not to go on combat ops with Americans are, for obvious reasons, not for me to decide. I'm not exactly a general...

[KarlXII]

The problem is not just the taxpaying money, it is also, if I recall correctly, that Iraq has actually prohibited Blackwater from operating in the country, while the US has granted it legal immunity. If, what is essentially a mercenary coporation, is allowed to operate illegaly but with immunity, this creates a very strange and tense situation.


Kadagar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_two

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This would be a totally moot point if we took the billions going to Blackwater and used it for better combat pay or sign on bonuses or rewards for serving multiple terms. And since taxpayer money is paying for it anyway I'd prefer to have the people going around under an American flag with weapons overseas to be accountable to some kind of standard.

I fully agree with you - what happened to the free market? Surely Blackwater should be making money for itself - and yes, that is serious. On the other hand, the government does have to pay for the mercenaries. The question is if you're getting bang for your buck - and that really should be the only question.

Which undermines the defense you just made of it. They weren't used because they were necessary. They were used because the Bush Admin sold the war on the idea that it could be done with fewer troops than many of the generals said it could be, and retired the ones like Shinseki who refused to sign off on the lie.

Not really. I defend using mercenaries when cost-effective, efficient, and necessary. That is all.

[spmetla]

US doctrine to toss in a frag first is for high intensity MOUT. High intensity MOUT is different from low intensity in that soldiers have already taken fire from a building or KNOW that enemy soldiers are inside. The US practices and emphasizes a lot of room clearing training for soldiers, very rarely do we practice high intensity MOUT because like everyone know there are higher civilian casualties with it as well as the fact that frags have a tendency to penetrate the crappy houses that so many people have thereby injuring the soldiers.

Bear in mind most of the time when soldiers enter a house it consists of knocking on the door and telling the inhabitants that their house will be searched for whatever reason (mortar launch in area, IED went off nearby, etc...). Also I know when I was deployed we got flashbangs instead of frags.

I get your point that you don't like the legal status of mercs but like I said that is currently being wrangled with by the Iraqi govt. I'm pretty sure that the Iraqi govt. pulled Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq after the convoy incident.
The State Dept. is supposed to ensure that civilians that have committed crimes abroad get prosecuted but unfortunately the State Dept. is too cowardly to do so. I'm positive that it would ensure that Blackwater contractors who did wrong within the US (such as during Katrina) would be prosecuted and its failure to do so in Iraq is its own double standard. Having said that you could say that the State department is illegally using/protecting security contractors. Believe me, I don't like their invulnerability as well but I appreciate the work they do because then I'm not stuck sending my soldiers on those jobs allowing me to better accomplish whatever mission I'm given better. I'd much prefer that they be held accountable for their actions than stop using them.

I'd also like to point out that most of the contractors in large number that are in Iraq have nothing to do with a weapon. They drive trucks, do laundry, serve food, do construction, run the MWR and other things of that sort. The number of security contractors is far smaller than the total number of regular contractors.

[spmetla]

Contractors working with the Department of State or the U.S. military (or with
any of the coalition forces) in Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat
immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities, and whose conduct
may be attributable to the United States. Section 552 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) makes military contractors
supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but due to
constitutional concerns, it seems more likely that contractors who commit crimes in
Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply extraterritorially or
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by
means of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). Generally, Iraqi
courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the
relevant member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq. Some contractors,
including those with the State Department, may remain outside the jurisdiction of
U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq.

It is estimated that some 50 private security contractors employing more than
30,000 employees are working in Iraq for an array of clients, including governments,
private industry, and international organizations such as the United Nations.

Armed services include
! static security — protecting fixed or static sites, such as housing
areas, reconstruction work sites, or government buildings;
! convoy security — protecting convoys traveling in Iraq;
! security escorts — protecting individuals traveling in unsecured
areas in Iraq; and
! personal security details — providing protective security to highranking
individuals.

Private Security Contractors in Iraq:
Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues

[Kadagar_AV]

Evil_Maniac From Mars, so... price before morale and laws, huh?


spmetla, You are right, I did in no way mean that US army toss in grandes first whenever entering a house.... And yes, knocking on the door is the method most commonly used;)

However, let's just say that there are times when an american trooper have more free hands to do as he please than, say, an austrian or a swede.


IF mercs would be held responcible I would have less of a problem with it.

I still would not like it though, for already mentioned reasons.

[KarlXII]

If the Swedish combat doctrine teached to throw in a handgrenade before entering a house I would call them murderers yes. I have had some deep talks with American officers about this, but they would not budge. Swedish forces then refused to do mission alongside US troopers.

That's the thing. No where does United States Military Doctrine state that clearing a house in a civilian zone consists of throwing a grenade. Typically, in the wars we are in, it consists of a boot kick to the door, followed by a shout for the inhabitants to get down and the soldier's reason for entering (As already mentioned, things tend to explode over there, they need to keep the civilians down and out of the way). If it is a building known to be occupied by insurgents, usually a grenade is necessary to clear it, be it frag or flash.

[Koga No Goshi]

If part of the "cause" in Iraq is "winning over hearts and minds", then legally immune, unaccountable armed contractors running around essentially free to do whatever they want, while civilian Iraqis have no recourse against abuses, doesn't seem like a good way to do it.

So I could care less if the U.S. is paying 50 cents a day for them to be there. They shouldn't be there.