OT: Privatized War

[geoschmo]

The question isn't whether they are aware of the standing ROE for the theater or not. The question is to whom are they responsible if they violate it. Since they don't fall under the military chain of command, how do you punish them if they commit illegal acts? Who has jusrisdiction? The CPA? The local authorities?

We've seen this week even soldiers under military command can do some really monumentally stupid things. We really need to be sure everyone there exercising authority is subject to some responsibility.

As far as the private security firms becoming the core of a future Iraqi military, I am pretty sure that would be highly illegal. Their preseance now is a bit of a gray area. They don't fit the legal definition of mercenary according to the UN because they are not a third party but actually citizens of the US and, at least theoretically, under the control of the US. If they transition under the direct authority of the Iraqi government, then they become Mercenaries in name as well as deed. Unless they all become citizens of Iraq first.

[sachmo]

Originally posted by alarikf:
Wouldn't they be "governed," albeit perhaps less strictly, by the ROE for the theater? I'm just thinking that it'd be awfully weird if they were allowed to go into theater and weren't briefed on the ROE in place, since that is a theater level decision and they'd be responsbile to/hired by the Combatant Commander, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sachmo:
I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.

---

From everything that I have heard, they seem to be supervising themselves. Very spooky stuff. For instance, and obviously I'm only going off of what I hear from the news reports, in the prison scandal, there is reportedly a case of a civilian contractor raping a male Iraqi prisoner. The military has no jurisdiction over this man, and has recommended that he be fired by the company he works for. Now, I'm not sure what else can happen to him, maybe the Iraqi government can arrest him? I don't know, but I think eventually, one of these forces is going to attack the wrong building, or shoot up the wrong car, or some other horrible situation will arise. I just can't see a good outcome to that, and our military would be wise to stay as far from that as possible.

[solops]

Privatized war is one of the symptoms of the Beginning of the End for any republic or democracy.

[Puke]

I contend that the current war does not serve the general public interest, unless you believe in the trickle-down effect. It serves the interest of a handfull of large and powerfull corporations - oil companies, import/exporters, construction firms, and military contracters.

If those companies do well, it might stimulate certain other sectors of the economy, but is it really worth the investment for the rest of us? Why dont they foot the bill themselves?

Standard Oil and Lockheed Martin can afford their own 'security contractors,' and they have the most to gain. why not let them fight their own wars?

As can be seen now, plenty of private citizens are willing to sign up for work in these 'security companies' if the price is right. the down side, is that the taxpayer still foots a large portion of the bill. The security companies can pay a higher salary because they dont have to foot the training bill. it costs about 1 million to train each soldier, and the contractors recruit from pre-trained ex-military. so we pay to train them, then they go work for someone else.

perhaps military service should come with a non-compete agreement (like in private sector employment) prohibiting a soldier from defecting to another militant company for some number of years after his military career ends, or until he has served some minimum length of service.

[sachmo]

In one report they said that some "security specialists" can make $10k to $20k per month in Iraq. That's hard to walk away from.

[geoschmo]

Puke, I can never quite tell when you are being serious or simply sarcastic.

[Baron Munchausen]

Many of the abuses not yet made public may have been committed by these 'private contractors' as well. That means there is no clear legal jurisdiction for many of these crimes. Not only will this be a scandal for the US, it's probably going to lead to a new UN treaty about the use of 'private contractors' in war.

[ May 04, 2004, 21:51: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[AMF]

You're right. Prior example, well documented: In Serbia, a number of contractors for Dyncorp were running private brothels with enslaved serbian underage women. Someone blew the whistle on them, I think, after many months. What could be done? Nothing. They weren't responsible to anyone but the company, and so...they got fired. I think that's it, since the crimes were committed abroad they couldn't really be prosecuted for them...I'll google it to get more info, but IIRC that's what happened...remarkably similar to the grey area here...(er, there) in Iraq...

EDIT: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/163052.html

Or just Google "Dyncorp serbia scandal" et al

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Many of the abuses not yet made public may have been committed by these 'private contrators' as well. That means there is no clear legal jurisdiction for many of these crimes. Not only will this be a scandal for the US, it's probably going to lead to a new UN treaty about the use of 'private contractors' in war.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by sachmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.

---

No, they shouldn't have been there. But they are there, and it sounds like the US military isn't backing them up.

Wether you agree with them being there or not, now that their there, the US military has a responsibility to them. And a responsibility to make sure they follow the ROE.

As far as the private security firms becoming the core of a future Iraqi military, I am pretty sure that would be highly illegal. Their preseance now is a bit of a gray area. They don't fit the legal definition of mercenary according to the UN because they are not a third party but actually citizens of the US and, at least theoretically, under the control of the US. If they transition under the direct authority of the Iraqi government, then they become Mercenaries in name as well as deed. Unless they all become citizens of Iraq first.

Sorry, maybe it was just posting somewhere between 12:00 and 1:00 at night, but it sounded like at least half where Iraqi citicens.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:14: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[sachmo]

Narf,

My point is that the military has a lot to lose by backing these guys up. If these contractors were under strict military control, then I would have no problem with them getting military support, but without it, I don't see how it's possible.