Warfare Inc.

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Yet another sign of a corrupt administration at work...



Quote:

From the NYT



They have come from all corners of the world. Former Navy Seal commandos from North Carolina. Gurkas from Nepal. Soldiers from South Africa's old apartheid government. They have come by the thousands, drawn to the dozens of private security companies that have set up shop in Baghdad. The most prized were plucked from the world's elite special forces units. Others may have been recruited from the local SWAT team.



But they are there, racing about Iraq in armored cars, many outfitted with the latest in high-end combat weapons. Some security companies have formed their own "Quick Reaction Forces," and their own intelligence units that produce daily intelligence briefs with grid maps of "hot zones." One company has its own helicopters, and several have even forged diplomatic alliances with local clans.



Far more than in any other conflict in United States history, the Pentagon is relying on private security companies to perform crucial jobs once entrusted to the military. In addition to guarding innumerable reconstruction projects, private companies are being asked to provide security for the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer III, and other senior officials; to escort supply convoys through hostile territory; and to defend key locations, including 15 regional authority headquarters and even the Green Zone in downtown Baghdad, the center of American power in Iraq.



With every week of insurgency in a war zone with no front, these companies are becoming more deeply enmeshed in combat, in some cases all but obliterating distinctions between professional troops and private commandos. Company executives see a clear boundary between their defensive roles as protectors and the offensive operations of the military. But more and more, they give the appearance of private, for-profit militias ? by several estimates, a force of roughly 20,000 on top of an American military presence of 130,000.



"I refer to them as our silent partner in this struggle," Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican and Armed Services Committee chairman, said in an interview.



The price of this partnership is soaring. By some recent government estimates, security costs could claim up to 25 percent of the $18 billion budgeted for reconstruction, a huge and mostly unanticipated expense that could delay or force the cancellation of billions of dollars worth of projects to rebuild schools, water treatment plants, electric lines and oil refineries.



In Washington, defense experts and some leading Democrats are raising alarms over security companies' growing role in Iraq.





Yah... I'd raise alarms too if I were a Congressman. FUBAR.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 76
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Yet another sign of a corrupt administration at work...









    Yah... I'd raise alarms too if I were a Congressman. FUBAR.




    If one death occurs as a result of an action by one of these "security firms" all parties involved should be tried for murder!



    They are not soldiers they are not police they are private citizens and should be held responsible accordingly!!
  • Reply 2 of 76
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    If one death occurs as a result of an action by one of these "security firms" all parties involved should be tried for murder!



    They are not soldiers they are not police they are private citizens and should be held responsible accordingly!!




    There is not likely to be any responsibility under this Administration. Instead, apparently, when some of these mercenaries die while on duty, the response is for the Marines to move in and wipe out anything that moves.
  • Reply 3 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Yet another sign of a corrupt administration at work...









    Yah... I'd raise alarms too if I were a Congressman. FUBAR.




    I know that I am opening up a can of worms by asking but, How does security companies in Iraq equal the admin here being corrupt?



    I do not see the connection.
  • Reply 4 of 76
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I know that I am opening up a can of worms by asking but, How does security companies in Iraq equal the admin here being corrupt?



    I do not see the connection.




    Who allows these civilians to be and work in Iraq?
  • Reply 5 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Who allows these civilians to be and work in Iraq?



    A lot of people work over their and carry guns. They are all allowed to exist by the same people.



    Connection to corruption please.
  • Reply 6 of 76
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    A lot of people work over their and carry guns. They are all allowed to exist by the same people.



    Connection to corruption please.




    I suppose that the allegation is that, instead of using reconstruction funds to rebuild Iraq, the Administration is using it to enrich close friends in the private security industry.
  • Reply 7 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney

    I suppose that the allegation is that, instead of using reconstruction funds to rebuild Iraq, the Administration is using it to enrich close friends in the private security industry.



    Is that a stretch or is it just me?



    Soldiers can't be guarding banks and escorting people all day. I hear complaining but no new solutions. Typical.
  • Reply 8 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    And that's another benefit for the admin - deaths of these private citizens don't go on the record as US military deaths.



    They can do more and more tasks the military should be doing and when they take the hits (and they do) there's no impact on the US casualty toll.



    Hey ! I just found the corruption ! Young guys (mainly reservists) are getting sent to Iraq to risk their lives for minimal pay and even in some cases have to buy their own equipment or go without because of 'costs' while the job they should be doing is hijacked by some private contractor and farmed out to a mercenary who gets to make what..twice as much you think ? Three times ?



    And Bush not only sits back and watches - he set it up ! And everyone gets richer off the backs of the contractors who make enough to pay the mercenaries and send Bushco a nice fat dividend while Iraqis and ordinary GI's continue to wind up dead.



    Nice set-up.



    You know I'm beginning to think the government has finally been bought by the mob or something - the answer to any problem is always a hit and some of these scams.....




    You people seem to embrace assumptions. I see no proof of what you are asserting in this thread. So far I have heard of very few civilian security deaths. Because some seem to embrace controversy, they now just assume that the rent-a-cops are taking over for the military and that GWB designed it that way.



    It is really getting old I can't wait until this election is over.
  • Reply 9 of 76
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    If one death occurs as a result of an action by one of these "security firms" all parties involved should be tried for murder!



    They are not soldiers they are not police they are private citizens and should be held responsible accordingly!!




    What if they are returning fire? I think you're knee is jerking a bit to violently.
  • Reply 10 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Yeah. Right. Iraq had ties to 911? Saddam was an immediate threat? Saddam had massive weapons stockpiles? Iraq was going to be a walk in the park? Iraqis would be dancing in the streets (and I don't mean the ones hired by the US for the money shot in Baghdad). MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?



    Now who has a greater track record of making assumptions?




    With the exception of the stockpiles, were hyped by the media and partisans, so I would guess that your point should be applied to the real culprits.
  • Reply 11 of 76
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    A lot of people work over their and carry guns. They are all allowed to exist by the same people.



    Connection to corruption please.






    Do this: go to your local gunshow with your five favorite buddies. Buy a bunch of assault rifles and ammo. Now buy a ticket to Syria or Iran or Saudi Arabia with your weapons in tow (or shipped ahead or whatever), and see how easy it is is to get to Baghdad and start up a little security clan.



    You're being a bit obtuse I think. The only logical explanation for multiple security firms with dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of members each, and each posessing all kinds of automatic weapons, grenades and the like... is that the military / government allows them to be there / brings them there.



    If the government didn't want them there, they wouldn't be there... period.
  • Reply 12 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Do this: go to your local gunshow with your five favorite buddies. Buy a bunch of assault rifles and ammo. Now buy a ticket to Syria or Iran or Saudi Arabia with your weapons in tow (or shipped ahead or whatever), and see how easy it is is to get to Baghdad and start up a little security clan.



    You're being a bit obtuse I think. The only logical explanation for multiple security firms with dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of members each, and each posessing all kinds of automatic weapons, grenades and the like... is that the military / government allows them to be there / brings them there.



    If the government didn't want them there, they wouldn't be there... period.




    So what. Even if your assumptions were true, how does that spell corruption?
  • Reply 13 of 76
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    i think the real question is why are we outsourcing roles that the military should be playing. these security firms are chickens with their heads cut off, and if we have a grand strategy for the country they shouldn't be there....
  • Reply 14 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    i think the real question is why are we outsourcing roles that the military should be playing. these security firms are chickens with their heads cut off, and if we have a grand strategy for the country they shouldn't be there....



    Says who?



    Nce rhetoric.
  • Reply 15 of 76
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    NaplesX, defend the stupidity of having private foreign citizens with guns in a unstable country all you want. In fact, defend this practice right now... I would like to see your defense.
  • Reply 16 of 76
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Says who?



    Nce rhetoric.




    Says me. Isn't great that some of us have material behind the eyes and between the ears?
  • Reply 17 of 76
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    NaplesX, defend the stupidity of having private foreign citizens with guns in a unstable country all you want. In fact, defend this practice right now... I would like to see your defense.



    I don't even want to waste your or my time.



    I do not run the coalition forces or anything over there so I would not pretend to know what is best.



    Why posture on something neither of us know anything about.



    I have to go out now but when I get back I will bounce some thoughts off of you if you would like.
  • Reply 18 of 76
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    thinking is the best way to understand the world.



    just start throwing hypotheticals into the mix. our government is responsible for protecting its citizens in foreign countries (as are all other governments their citizens). Our government has to protect the people it is hiring to protect its operations, wtf???
  • Reply 19 of 76
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    So what. Even if your assumptions were true, how does that spell corruption?





    Well gosh Naples, I guess if you're into that sort of thing, it doesn't. Maybe you just don't care about a blurring of the line between civilian and military authority in this country, or about the government allowing private companies to bankroll their employees in return for the "service" of killing foreign nationals. And that's just the tip of the philosophical iceberg in this case. There's a REASON the military has always been separate from the private sector in most developed nations... see if you can figure out what it is.



    But obviously anything done "in the name of freedom" is OK by you.
  • Reply 20 of 76
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The same people who cry and whine over this are the same people who cry and whine over our troops doing a job they weren't "trained" for. So the US hires someone that does that job and now they cry and whine that private firms are doing a job that the troops should be doing. Can't have it both ways.
Sign In or Register to comment.