EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
Some US Troops Out of Iraq, More Mercenaries to Go In
US to Rely on Contractors in Iraq
The US State Department is to more than double the number of security contractors it employs in Iraq to around 7000, filling a gap left by departing troops, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
Members of the last American combat brigade in Iraq crossed into Kuwait early on Thursday as the military neared its Aug. 31 deadline to end combat operations. (Maya Alleruzzo/Associated Press) The newspaper said the contractors would be deployed to
defend five fortified compounds that will be left behind as US combat
forces exit Iraq and the US mission switches from a military-led to a
civilian-headed operation.
Citing unnamed administration officials, the Times said private security contractors would operate radar to warn of enemy fire, search for roadside bombs, and fly surveillance drones.
They could also staff "quick reaction forces" dispatched to rescue civilians in trouble.
The massive increase in security contractors is an indication of the unusually large role that will be assumed by US diplomatic staff after combat troops leave Iraq.
The last US combat brigade left Iraq at dawn on Thursday, leaving behind some 56,000 US soldiers who will gradually be drawn down over the coming year.
The Times said more than 1200 specific tasks currently handled by US troops have been identified for handover to US civilians or Iraqis or to be phased out.
The State Department meanwhile, seeking to outfit its employees for the next phase of their mission, plans to purchase 60 mine-resistant vehicles from the Pentagon and to expand its inventory of armoured cars to 1,320.
It also plans to add three planes to the sole aircraft it has now, and expand its helicopter fleet - to be piloted by contractors - to 29 from 17.
The increased reliance on security contractors could cause conflict with Iraq's government, which is sensitive to the use of foreign security personnel because of their alleged involvement in incidents involving civilian deaths.
But the forces employed by the State Department will not have immunity from Iraqi prosecution, will be required to register with the country, and will be trailed by State Department regional security officers for extra oversight.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



82 Comments so far
Show All"Citing unnamed administration officials, the Times said private security contractors would operate radar to warn of enemy fire, search for roadside bombs, and fly surveillance drones."
I wish that these supposed journalists would call these people the correct name. These people are not contractors - they aren't building houses. They are a paid army. They are MERCENARIES.
Ditto cedross. The article even refers to these contractors as 'civilians'. What a joke. Call them what they are - MERCENARIES.
I really wish I could unplug from the Matrix because you have to be insane in order to follow this administration’s logic. We’re pulled all combat troops, but we’ll leave 56,000 solider who have been trained for combat but not really. Oh, and we’ll add several thousand mercenaries to the mix to guard 5 mega compounds and over 150,000 civilian personnel. But don’t think about that, nothing to see here, just a little Empire building going on. Unplug me please!
Obama and Democrats must still be held accountable, we still need to reduce our huge, costly 'presence' in Iraq.
The propaganda on t.v. last night about the withdrawl of 'combat forces' was just a show.
Welcome to the insidious world of double speak:
'contractors' instead of 'mercenaries',
'fortified compounds' instead of 'military bases' and 'fortress embassy',
'diplomatic staff' instead of 'CIA operatives'.
Deception, lies, and disinformation rule.
Bait & Switch, Obama-style.
And the media as "evening news" put such a "We are leaving !!!" spin on it.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Hello ED,
I think that it should read "Master Bait & Switch, Obama-style".
Especially as most (if not all) of those "contractors" are former military personnel. Why else would Blackwater--Oops!--Xe be hiring them at such great wages?
Which raises another point not being covered: Mercenaries cost many times what US military personnel cost, so the drain on the national budget will go up, not down, just adding much more to Bush's--and now Obama's--deficit at no gains to the country, and adding to screams from the right and the so-called center to cut spending (on, of course, social programs).
I don't understand how reasonable people would believe anything the United States government says.
It is a real shame that any politically, intelligent American knows that they cannot believe anything they are told by our corrupt regime in D.C. It is soooooo bad now that even if they tell the truth one has to believe there is some ulterior motive behind it! One thing we know for sure is: you cannot believe anything you are told by our Government. So sad.
If any representative or senator or the president told me the sky was blue I would have to look out the window to verify.
You speak the truth. Yet, to me it is very sad that our government has been corrupted so bad that like the boy who cried wolf, we don't believe what they say and we turn them off. I know I am not the only one who has turned Obama off and don't listen to him speak anymore. I click the channel or turn off the tv so I don't have to listen to his LIES.
there are currently over 95,000 private contractors in iraq - doing the jobs that were traditionally done by the military......
but hey it doesn't make the news when they get killed......
so we're still looking at upwards of 150,000 personnel in iraq - and that's considered the "end of combat duties"
talk about double-speak.....
hell who even needs double-speak when the media simply parrots whatever the gov puts out and refuses to act as reporters and ferret out the information as the media is supposed to do....
The fascist, whore MSM is reporting non-stop that the war is over in Iraq after 9 years because all combat troops are leaving. This is not even worthy of a response except to say: HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-!
Yesterday on CNN, when they were making a big deal about the last combat envoy leaving Iraq, I knew something was way off. The American public will know look at this news in one of two narrow views:
1. The Obama dopes still hanging will lie their teeth out and say "See, Obama got us out of Iraq" the same way they lie about health care reform. Watch for them to say that as they try to campaign to keep the Democrats in power.
2. The rightwing pro-war bulldozers trying to get their Repukes elected will invent more campaign smears about Al Queda rising from withdrawing the troops from Iraq.
The rest of us who have read from independent sources such as this site knew all along that the war turned occupation was only destined to get worse. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan will go down in history as two of the worst US occupations with a deadly mix of war and greed.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Not only are these non-contractors really mercenaries but they do what mercenaries do best. Ignore all rules and whenever things look bad cut and run. They have done this since Hector was a pup.
To understand the strategy of the Pentagon/White House in Iraq one must understand that the war in that country became a U.S. occupation when President Bush signed SOFA-Iraq. Occupations are easier to sell to the 'home front" but they are riskier than wars especially when the occupier in this case intends to maintain a "heavy footprint in Iraq". The strategy seems to be: "let the mercenaries defend themselves, hope for the best, and may the occupation last indefinitely, thereby turning Iraq into a U. S. fiefdom". At least that seems to be the policy/strategy of the State Department which is chomping at the bit to become the major player in Iraq.
What if the worst happens namely another "Fallujah" or series of "Fallujahs" next year? Then President Obama will be either forced to ignore SOFA-Iraq and return "combat units" to Iraq or do a "Reagan" and order all troops, mercenaries, and diplomats out of Iraq.
SOFA-Iraq expires on 31 December 2011. Without a new SOFA agreement it is unclear whether any armed mercenaries can legally remain in Iraq. I think that Iraqis can then legally kill any armed American.
If supporters of Mr. Obama believe that he is out of the quicksand and onto solid ground they will eventually be in for a rude awakening. Iraq will remain a quagmire as long as our country is its illegal occupier.
Since SOFA was signed with a government created as a result of a War of Agression nothing that procedes from the criminal war is legal.
The Iraqi's definitely have the right to kill any USAan involved in a criminal war or it's illegal occupation.( I do not condone violence)
"Some US Troops Out of Iraq, More Mercenaries to Go In"
Actually the enlisted troops are nothing more than mercenaries serving the American corporate imperial military. They signed up for the job and get paid to kill people to back up the American global corporate empire.
There are still about 100,000 private contractors in Iraq and 50,000 troops with combat potential despite the Obomber spin. And now they are adding more contractors to pick up the slack.
This is, of course, at the expense of the American taxpayer obligated to fund an illegal occupation designed to support the corporate takeover of Iraq's oil and economy. Cost to date is at least $3 Trillion. (Stiglitz) But our government is bankrupt and our economy in ruins.
And what could be the cost of a 100 year occupation until Iraq's oil is depleted ?
But only time will tell. The Iraqis resisted the earlier British occupation for decades before the bloody Brits were forced to withdraw.
The Romans, the British, and many others in history eventually went the way of imperial over-extension. End of empire.
"Actually the enlisted troops are nothing more than mercenaries serving the American corporate imperial military"
Pathetic ignorance.
mightymite please state your untenable case.
Actually I was going to retract this as a useless comment. Since I can't and you asked, its simply that ANYONE that would call our service personel "mercenaries" is absolutely ignorant of service and what they do. Knows nothing of what it takes to be a serviceman or woman. (almost got into trouble with the ladies there)
Frankly anyone that insults their service and their duty is too naive to live in any time frame.
If anyone objects to the use of our armed services, I wish for a change they would look to the people in charge. Those that make the decision to commit them, keep them there and define their mission.
As a last point, if there was any actual knowledege present, anyone would know the contempt the mercenaries are held in by our troops.
Pretty simple, I'm sick of the "kill the messenger" B.S.
But I do appreciate you asking for my comment which you obviously prejudged "untenable case". Frankly, its nice of you to ask before telling me what I meant and how wrong I was. Thanks!...and thats not sarcasm. :)
Thanks for the reply MM, but the simple timeless truth is that 99% of the time soldiers are recruited for negative adventures.
And when one pulls the trigger, THAT very person has the greatest responsiblity for the wrong being done.
At this point in time in the aftermath of 4.5 million dead Southeast Asians and 1 million Iraqi's in a clearly Criminal War against the Peace and all the associated warcrimes as DU and Wiilie Pete any person of honor would disassociate themselves with any support or affliation with any part of the attempt at USA full spectrum dominance.
Thats one view, but as you well know, its not mine. And I simply cannot fathom the mindset that believes that we should have no military, no army. Nor can I see any defense for that argument thats not fantasy.
Also it samazing how that figure for Southeast Asia keeps balooning. It was approximately 2 million of which about 1.5 million was attributed to us. These figures are in agreement with Viet Nam's own, including the NVA. It was bad enough, lets not let it grow like an urban legend.
I understand your sentiment, but its like many things, the right answer comes in many envelopes so to speak.
Your civility in disagreeing is admirable and appreciated. I am NOT unaware that I hold the minority viewpoint on CD about those that serve and who is responsible for their actions.
The 4.5 million, is the Current estimate by the Vietnamese Government.
When was the last time the USA was involved in a non criminal war?
Do you know anyone who would bet that the next USA war will be just?
Then how can anybody join the USA armed forces and not know they will be involved in criminal endeavors?
All people who support criminal endeavors are criminals.
If you absolve soldiers of responsibility for participating incriminal wars then you are denying their humanity and relegating them to the status of guard dogs.
As a compromise I suggest a small armed forces that is only capable to be used and is sworn to only be used in defense.
And has the instruction to refuse to participate in any war that is criminal.
Actually the soldiers indvidually have that right now but are too fearful to use it.
"The 4.5 million, is the Current estimate by the Vietnamese Government."
I guess the current gov. finds urban legends useful.
Its useless to speak of criminsality.
"As a compromise I suggest a small armed forces that is only capable to be used and is sworn to only be used in defense."
Frankly I agree. Our armed forces could be smaller, cost far less and be far stronger and far more effective. They aren't supposed to be used except for defense now. Politicians cannot be trusted.
Why is it useless to speak of criminality.
That is OilyBomber speak.
MightyMite you compare soldiers to an inanimate object.
They have as much responsiblity for there actions as does anyone else.
All who participate in a criminal war as Iraq and Vietnam ( I would also say Afghanistan) are criminals by anyone's standard except those close to the criminal endeavor.
By your logic a Mafia hitman is innocent and only his Capo is a criminal.
I think I get it, in your worldview blind feality to National Endeavors ( we can not say protection of nation because these wars are destroying the nation)
trumps all morality.
In fact you propose to keep on murdering in a criminal war even if it destroys the nation you
accede your morality to.
None of the above is true of course. The simple truth is that an academic discussion is not applicable to the real world. You either have an army or you do not. Under the criteria you seem to be suggesting, you do not have one.
I believe we need one, thats the difference.
MM
JUST WHO is saying the US should have NO MILITARY, NO ARMY!! What the overwhelming majority of the posters keep trying to tell you is the MIC is out of control running amuck!!
MIC refers to the Military-Industrial Complex!. Do you acknowledge the existence of such an entity? Signing off!!!!!
You must have missed many of the posts here over the years. Please pay attention, we are speaking of our troops, not the MIC. Try and keep up.
4.5 Southeast Asians possibly 2.0 Vietnamese
If you initiate a war all the deaths are on your plate.
Well it was a civil war and it was initiated by the North Viet Namese so I agree. But on the other hand I take your point and as we had no business there, its a good argument.
In any case it makes little difference to the dead, they are still dead. And I knew far too many of them.
WE didn't lose a single politician the whole time damn it.
ahh but that is an assumption your making, which makes an ass-out of you....and well just you. See the numbers you threw out may be infact accurate numbers, i dont believe they are but my knowledge in the exact numbers is not great enough for me to venture down that path, what I do know is that the "Evil USA" as you like to call it is responsible for very few. Back when you would hear on the news about casualty numbers and bombings did you happen to pay attention to the casulties to the Iraquis? Based on your statement I think not. But with an overwelming majority of the bombing cases they are caused by a terrorist, not an american, going out and blowing people up killing 1 maybe 2 americans and around 15-20 Iraqi. This is not limited however to bombing but also to engagement.
The Military didnt go out and just shoot people, especially the numbers you so elegantly tried to prove your point with. Good try though!
I sincerely find your comments interesting. I have no experience with Military Service since I was a Vietnam era draft resister but I have heard that there are many in Military Service that feel that they are "doing good", "protecting the innocent", "fighting for ideals that they believe in", "opposing evil". We also know that there are many (some?) in the Military that are psychopathic killers, profitters, sadists, etc. I think you are a Veteran and can give us some of your thinking on this subject and what service means (at least to you) beyond what we hear on TV. I would like to know something about this support for the troops but criticism for the leaders - - is that the Military leaders or the Political leaders that you allude to or perhaps there is no difference. Perhaps you can restate your position concerning the US (NATO?) military effort in Afghanistan. I would really like your opinion because it is, as I understand it, a significant one and should be understood.
"I have no experience with Military Service since I was a Vietnam era draft resister"
Good choice!
I cannot see the significance, there are many combat veterans around.
I was drafted, but I served two tours because I could not leave my guys to inexperience.
No man can serve in the armed forces if he does not value and believe in his country, believe he is serving it, even when he knows he is in the wrong place. Suffice to say that if he serves more than one enlistment he understands that his country cannot survive without a viable and strong military. Every serviceman knows this. Combat veterans have seen it.
The military has its share of bad guys, rapists, murderers, sadists, etc....they are a given, just as they are in society. Thesum is always better than the parts in the end and they are usually found fairly quickly.
To me duty, honor and country is much, much more than a slogan and I appreciate the men that fought and died with me, some for me. Frankly explaining combat and what it means to those that have not experienced it is like explaining the color blue to the blind.
I think the hardest thing to understand is that men serve, even if they don't agree with the mission or the war because they know that it has to be done to keep the protection intact. Maybe if I tell you that very few of us there blamed any of you for not being there...does that make sense?
About as clear as mud so far I'm sure.
Supporting our troops to me simply means not denigrating them or their service. They are serving their country, not the war. Think of it as an axe. You want the best axe you can have if you need to go to work. But an axe can cut down trees and build a cabin or it can devestate a forest. It depends on how you use it.
As to Iraq or Afghanistan, thats easy. About the same as Viet Nam except with it in our rear view, they really should have know better. We should never sent our troops there, never engaged in unwarrented attacks on countries that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We shouldn't have gone there, we shouldn't be there. It has only generated death and destruction for everyone concerned. NATO my foot.
Our military leaders were dead set against these attacks for the most part and said so. There is an element in the Officer corp and the Pentagon that were like the neo-cons...just couldn't wait. But the good ones like Sashakeveli (?) Patreaus, Goodson, Jones, etc, said no.
The politicians are responsible, totally for the use of our armed forces. And in particular the President. These "wars"...a joke, the Republican Guard and the Iraqi army were about as dangerous to us as the Little Sisters of Charity. The Afghans had nothing.
The President (Bush) is solely responsible here because it was his decision and his alone to commit our forces. He may send in the Marines at any time, any place without need of Congress's permission. Something many miss. Now Obama wears the blood too.
Bush refused to serve and so did Cheney or any other of their neo-con trash. They might not have been so anxious if they had to do something aside from drink beer when it was their turn. Obama could stop this useless crap today if he pleased. He doesn't for political reasons.
Does this make sense?
I think you made your position very clear. I disagree and oppose it on many points. Group psychology is very strong and this "love of country" is apparently very powerful. Thanks for a conscientious reply.
If you disagree, I'd be most interested in how you would defend our country without an armed force and why you believe we have reached an era that is totally different than any other in history?
Time and time again the naive notion that we need no viable army is proclaimed and I just do NOT understand how intelligent people can believe it.
I did not address the issue of the necessity of armed forces defending USA - - this is another issue that you are interested in but I am not. The Marine Corps is part of the USA; that is the reality. What the Marine Corps is doing, I think, would be a more interesting discussion. I believe that you would say that the Marine Corps is defending USA but what are they defending and how are they doing it? What are they doing? It is curious to me that you replied to my statement that I was a war resister by saying: "good move." Why would that be a good move when you are filled with pride and enthusiasm for your service. Let's clarify this: you oppose the wars Obama is perpetrating but you support (approve of, admire, defend) those that are doing the destruction and killing - - is that correct? What would you advise a young Marine to do if he was questioning his service and didn't know what to do about it? If you say to him: get out if you are not Semper Fi - - in this case I would say to mightymite: get out. If you would say: suck it up, stay with your comrades in arms, do what you are supposed to do, adhere to your oath, follow orders to destroy, cause fear, and kill, then I woud like to know if that is what you think and feel. Perhaps there are other possibilities - - you tell me.
Lets be clear here. Forget the "Mercenaries"
Don't let them kid you for a moment. Yes the last Army "combat" brigade left Iraq. The Army designates differences in its units because all do not fight.
There are still 50,000 of our troops in Iraq, quite a lot are Marines. All Marine units are combat units. I understand quite a number of combat veterans have been transferred to "advisor" Army units that will patrol with the Iraqi's.
Make no mistake here, the majority of our troops left in Iraq ARE combat troops. Its political fol-de-rol going on here as usual with this administration.
If I'm wrong you will see no more casaulty reports from Iraq. If I'm right you will see more useless deaths posted. The Iraqi need their country back, bring the rest of our kids home.
Hiring these clowns by the way is simply more payoffs. See whose employees they are.
"If I'm wrong you will see no more casaulty reports from Iraq. If I'm right you will see more useless deaths posted."
You are right, but I doubt that anyone will post the useless deaths and so we won't see them unless we do our own intensive research. It's been hard enough to find out what's been going on in Iraq for the last 18 months; it's going to be near impossible now.
Obiwan: "These are not the droids you are looking for."
Stormtrooper: "These are not the droids we are looking for."
Obiwan: "Move on."
Stormtrooper: "Move on."
Pretty good point! Great analogy!!
A small but important clarification.
The Geneva Conventions clearly and specifically prohibit the use of mercenaries as offensive combat troops, it is a specific war crime.
The USA mercenaries officially do everything but offensive combat.
Unofficially they are often assassins which for me qualifies as offensive combat.
Here my friend I believe you are too kind. Mercenaries by their very arrangement are nothing but hired killers that enter for money alone. They answer to no one in the military, they are NOT in the chain of command, they are not disciplined and are not constrained by the rules of engagement (no matter the lip service paid)
Our Marines hold them in utter contempt and will not associate with them. Even ex-Marines among them are not welcome in camp, especially them.
They and their use constitute a war crime by any measurement.
MM this distinction you so passionately insist on is wishful thinking. You have been corrected earlier in these posts and are trying to sustain a vestige of respectability. You cannot.
A standing army of professionals is only not mercenary when its purpose is to marshal a citizen's army and, in the interim, to provide instant defensive reaction in the event of an attack on the home country. When the intended use of the professional army is specifically exclusive of the draft in war time it is by definition mercenary. Furthermore, when its use is to invade another two countries for purposes of an economic agenda relating to their natural resources and global position, no self respecting professional soldier or Marine can follow orders.
Consequently, by your own admission you are logically forced by these wars to acknowledge that the use of the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan is 'a war crime by any measurement'.
Moreover, if you wish to remain a Marine now, your duty as a professional soldier is to remove the present chain of command.
Finally, you have now inadvertently done a good job of exposing the current illogical idiocy of the USA. You and your kind can lead the USA out of this idiocy if you acknowledge that the enemy of the USA is within.
This is not a facetious comment.
"A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict"...that is a mercinary. Dont call someone idotic if you dont even have the brain power to look up an ACTUAL definition and then create an arguement. You can have youre own opinion about what it is but dont try to put someone else down because you dont agree with the definition.
Oh and since they ARE our people in OUR conflict and not some swiss person then our MARINES are not mercinaries.
Limit the discussion with a limitation of the word, call this chosen meaning the ACTUAL meaning and you can hide away from the terrible truth being pointed to here.
The OUR perhaps indicates you wish to hide.
I was a Marine and I would NEVER have gone to Viet Nam for money. Nor would 99% of the others that went with me. Your argument is so full of holes it sinks. You simply have no exoerience.
MM you are begging the question.
In so doing you are displaying a lack of balance. A professional soldier, a Marine we can call it, is not a mercenary. He serves his country and humanity. But he knows, as much as if not more than any, that such as The Marines will always attract mercenaries. Mercenaries are paid in cash and kind and serve themselves. Some do the killing for the cash and some do it for psychopathic kindness they often term heroism and many do it for a mixture of both. All mercenaries have an interest in perpetuating war.
All Marines have an interest in controlling and obliterating mercenary tendencies. If they do not they effectively become mercenary.
For this reason a good soldier will ensure the army is the servant of the people. Consequently any truly professional Marines will take out a chain of command that that abuses and misuses them as mere mercenaries as indicated by my original post in this thread.
I suggest you read it again.
And you are finally right: I have not allowed anyone to make a mercenary of me.
but that isnt a chosen meaning it is the actual meaning of the word which is accepted by the rest of the world (apparently not you). Whichever world you live in where your "chosen meaning" of mercenary is true, where all of this nonsense becomes truth isnt earth. and no by our I didnt mean to hide I mearly meant to say our as in part of the countries, wether you are part of America or not.
oh and what you have been saying about the geneva convention is false look up protocol 1. art 47. there is what it ACTUALLY says