I am kinda torn on how i feel about these seemingly lawless security firms in Iraq allegedly "protecting" diplomats and foreign business interests.

One thing i want to say is when this trend of sending private security firms over the iraq got into full swing it was on the heels of countless kidnappings and hijacking of non military convoys. Let us not forget it was every other day a handful of foreign contractors where kidnapped. Let us not forget what fate was usually in store for those abducted,as we were all shown on videos of the be-headings.. Let us not forget the families on the television begging and pleading,,,,,So we are lead to believe that because of these private security details it is safer to travel from A to B in a war torn country.

I was contacted by a security group that was working in iraq. I was a police officer for less than a year and they tried to recruit via letter It seems former military experience or law enforcement experience was all the prerequisite needed to be considered. They were very blunt on how things operated over there. I don't want to go into details on the pitch,and i don't have the original document,but it went to the effect that you can male 250-500k tax free a year.You were practical guaranteed "live combat situations",and marks on your police file/military jacket were not necessary a problem and that they only had one initial drug test was required.


To me that in a nutshell told me what these groups purpose was. They basically where going to serve as mercenaries. They are going to strong arm their way into an already sensitive situation and crack skulls to get their job done.

I see a typical blackwater employee or other similar company employee and they are mostly former police officers who couldn't cut it because of various reasons mainly due to not being able to follow proper conduct,or former military personal who either didn't have the "luck" of serving the bulk of their time during an urban war time situation or simply couldn't follow orders...... in all cases they would much rather shoot first and ask questions later.... I personally would much rather not shoot at all. In those cases where I did have to shoot. I promise i re-trace my steps daily and try to figure out if there was another way....i guess i was never cut out to be a mecenary...

so it all brings us back to the reason they are there in the first place and why the US military allows them.... We must all realize war is horrible. Innocent people do get hurt in the mix. it is why the US at all costs prevent any altercation to be fought on American soil. Innocents get hurt in the mix....

I think that if the military can have these people come in and if they kill one innocent for every 10 bad guys they kill,then there is no blame on the US military yet the job gets done and these companies feel the minimal heat... it is a win win situation.

But part of me feels that if these innocent people stop harboring and protecting these insurgants... and could find it in their stubborn ways to let us do what we are here to do(because lets face it.. Bush,Clinton,Romney,Oboma,or anyone else isn't going to pull the troops at once).... there would be no real demand for these companies to be here in the first place.... So does that mean that innocent iraq deaths is justified to prevent kidnapping of foreign contractors... of course not.....it just shows how delicate this situation is and how a clear cut answer is not right there in front of us.

I admit to knowing very little about this whole program, but have always wondered where the term BLACKWATER came from. Definitely not something I would name my company. Then I saw a really scary movie recently with the same title. ~shudder~ Guess it's a pretty scary biz they're in.

Enjoyed your post, LF... very informative.

:)
SMW

Good post liquid. I agree about the types of people who join those groups.

How about we save some money and have the military do their own support functions again?

Unfortunately when these companies come in and indiscriminately kill civilians (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/17/blackwater-is-part-of-bremers-legacy-the-trophy-video/) then there is blame for the US because we are the ones occupying their country and forcing companies like Blackwater on them despite the fact that their government demanded they leave.

DB

the fact that their government demanded they leave.

DB

I might be wrong as i haven't been following this the past week as much as i would like,but didn't the iraq government make it very clear they wanted a full investigation (independent of course) and judging by the outcome a possible removal of this company from the country was the option. I do not believe anywhere i read where anyone of any power demanded this company to simply pack up and go... although they most definitely should.

It seems former military experience or law enforcement experience was all the prerequisite needed to be considered. They were very blunt on how things operated over there. I don't want to go into details on the pitch,and i don't have the original document,but it went to the effect that you can male 250-500k tax free a year.You were practical guaranteed "live combat situations",and marks on your police file/military jacket were not necessary a problem and that they only had one initial drug test was required.

Not quite, at least according to Blackwater's website. For example, here are the requirements for their Personal Security Specialist position:

8 years of US Military Service with a Special Skill Identifier within SOF (Special Operations Forces) i.e US Army Special Forces, Ranger's, US Navy SEALs, USMC Force Recon/MARSOC, US Air Force CCT, PJ.

* Must have or recently held a USG "Secret Clearance"
* Must be a native US Citizen
* Valid Drivers License
* Current Passport
* Must be in good physical condition and height/weight proportionate
* Honorable Discharge

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/employment/contract_position_securityspecialist.asp

A personal security specialists I would imagine serve more as a body guard. I am sure an convey escort is a little less difficult. Oh I am sure as the need for security progressed their requirements changed. Blackwater being the largest company over there i am sure they might have some stricter policies. I was approached by a lesser but in the top five company.
After the recent problems most people of never heard of Blackwater,or cared enough to look that information up. I am sure they have changed their tune.

The security clearance they are requesting is a background check that even people that are over there cooking food,and washing clothes had to get. I don't know all it entails but it is probably a little more than a supped up backround check. A friends of mine had a brother who went over there to work washing clothes and is making 90k tax free a year last i knew.

The whole landscape for what is needed in iraq as far as outside contractors is constantly changing. I am not even sure if you can go over there to work anymore even fore small jobs like cooking or washing clothes...

I might be wrong as i haven't been following this the past week as much as i would like,but didn't the iraq government make it very clear they wanted a full investigation (independent of course) and judging by the outcome a possible removal of this company from the country was the option. I do not believe anywhere i read where anyone of any power demanded this company to simply pack up and go... although they most definitely should.

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/):
Iraq's Interior Ministry has revoked the license of Blackwater USA

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/):

Thats funny?...This is what I just read that came out today.It pretty much goes with what i said that at first they were going to bounce them out then decided to await an formal investigation. Then again your source is a week old.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq said on Monday no action would be taken against U.S. private security firm Blackwater over a shooting in which 11 people were killed until after a joint investigation with U.S. officials.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had vowed to freeze the work of Blackwater, which guards the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and prosecute its staff over the shooting eight days ago which he called a crime. But Iraq has since appeared to soften its stand.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Blackwater's future would rest on the outcome of a joint inquiry by Iraqi and U.S. officials into the conduct of private security companies.


the full article http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070924/ts_nm/iraq_dc_7

so if I am former military I can make 250K a year in Iraq as a mercenary? that would be sweet.

so if I am former military I can make 250K a year in Iraq as a mercenary? that would be sweet.Depending on specialty, fitness reports, commendations/awards and connections.

Then again your source is a week old.


Correct. You said you didn't know of Iraq ever demanding that Blackwater leave and I am pointing out that last week that is exactly what they were doing.

But as I said last week, Blackwater will not be leaving Iraq because the Iraqi government is a joke and has no authority over their occupiers. Their call for Blackwater to leave isn't going to go any farther than their demand that the US set a timetable for withdrawl. The government of Iraq will do what the military occupying their country tells them to do, and that isn't going to go over well with the citizenry of Iraq who make up the insurgency.

.

Correct. You said you didn't know of Iraq ever demanding that Black water leave and I am pointing out that last week that is exactly what they were doing.

But as I said last week, Black water will not be leaving Iraq because the Iraqi government is a joke and has no authority over their occupiers. Their call for Black water to leave isn't going to go any farther than their demand that the US set a timetable for withdrawl. The government of Iraq will do what the military occupying their country tells them to do, and that isn't going to go over well with the citizenry of Iraq who make up the insurgency.

.


Have you ever considered maybe they are in a way needed over there? I mean it is horrible how they act like they are in a small town with no sheriff and this isnt hollywood we cant call steven segal to clear them out... but since have been there,the kidnapping,be headings and other violence against civilian contractors have been kept to a minimum

Have you ever considered maybe they are in a way needed over there?

Yes, I considered it and dismissed the idea.

What they need over there are troops who are actually going to secure the peace and not run around shooting civilians indiscriminately.


.

Yes, I considered it and dismissed the idea.

What they need over there are troops who are actually going to secure the peace and not run around shooting civilians indiscriminately.


.

I agree..... safety for one group at the expense of another group is very wrong.... But how can our troops fight the war and play bodyguard to the rebuilding process when you and most of America want to cut funding and even put less troops over there.... I dont want to be a prick or starting fight with you (your furious lately) But the military has one arm ties behind its back and the other in a cast because your dems back home... Maybe the need for these types of people is an offshoot of that?

But how can our troops fight the war

We won the "war" in Iraq a long time ago.

Let it go.

We need to stop trying to fight imaginary "wars" and let the Iraqis rebuild their country already.

Everyone would like to do that. Sensible ones realize that's not immediately possible.

http://atlantic-community.org/index.php/articles/view/Europeans_Want_America_to_Stay_in_Iraq

However, the reigning sentiment was for continued military involvement to secure a still tenuous security situation, and against any rushed exit from Iraq for the sake of short-term political goals.

Blackwater is a beneficiary of the peace dividend. In down-sizing the standing army from nearly 1mm to 500k a lot of the service jobs in the army got out-sourced, including security details for civilians. You want to get rid of blackwater you're going to see the defense budget get expanded to hire more soldiers.

Depending on specialty, fitness reports, commendations/awards and connections.

what are you saying? That you have more connections then me????

You want to get rid of blackwater you're going to see the defense budget get expanded to hire more soldiers.

Or pull the soldiers from elsewhere.

Oversight is for wimps

Blackwater and the State Department to Congress: Back off.
Tim Grieve

Sep. 26, 2007 | It turns out that this whole separation-of-powers congressional oversight thing can be a real drag, especially if you're the one being overseen and you've spent six long years not really having to deal with it at all.Exhibits A, B and C: The State Department's dealings with Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In a letter sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Tuesday, Waxman complains that the State Department is blowing off his committee on three fronts.

Blackwater: The State Department has told Blackwater USA that it cannot provide the committee documents or information regarding its security work for U.S. diplomats in Iraq -- including the incident earlier this month in which Iraqi civilians were killed -- without getting the State Department's approval first. In a letter to Blackwater, State Department contracting officer Kiazan Moneypenny -- no, really -- reminded Blackwater that its contract with the State Department prohibits the company and its employees from communicating "to any person any information known to them by reason of their performance" of that contract. In a second letter sent Tuesday, Moneypenny backed down a bit, saying that Blackwater can produce unclassified documents to the committee but must give any classified documents to State for its review first.

In a separate letter sent Monday, one of Blackwater's lawyers asked the committee to "refrain" from even "asking questions" during an Oct. 2 hearing "that might reveal sensitive operational and technical information that could be used by our country's implacable enemies in Iraq." Among such information would be just about anything the committee might want to know about how Blackwater works: the size of security contingents; the identities of Blackwater employees involved in particular incidents; the number and nature of the weapons Blackwater deploys in incidents; the "structure" of how its convoys operate; and the backups that are available in case of an attack.

Iraqi corruption: Waxman's committee wants testimony from the State Department about corruption in the Iraqi government and State's efforts to deal with it. The response from State so far: State Department witnesses won't be allowed to give even "broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption" in any open hearing before the committee, let alone discuss the actions of specific Iraqi government officials.

Rice's testimony: Waxman's committee wants to hear from Rice herself about Iraq and other matters. But Waxman says that Rice's staff told him this week that the secretary is simply "unavailable" to testify before his committee.

A State Department spokesman tells the Washington Post that this is all just one big "misunderstanding" and that all the information the committee has requested "has been or is in the process of being provided."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ate/print.html

Or pull the soldiers from elsewhere.

You don't think that if they could do that they wouldn't. :rolleyes: It would be miles cheaper.

I find it very distasteful that nations are once again using mercenaries to do the dirty work for them,specialist forces from around the globe have been depleted since Iraq started,these people come under no law,and roam at will.

what are you saying? That you have more connections then me????I really don't know how many connections you might have.

I find it very distasteful that nations are once again using mercenaries to do the dirty work for them,specialist forces from around the globe have been depleted since Iraq started,these people come under no law,and roam at will.

guarding diplomats, prt teams, supply convoys is dirty work?

You don't think that if they could do that they wouldn't.

Clearly they can, but choose not to.

.

Its using these people to represent the United States that Im uneasy with.

Clearly they can, but choose not to.

.


That was predictable. Where can they get them from?

Why would they choose to spend more than they had to?

I really don't know how many connections you might have.

actually I don't have any

This is bugging me for sometime.
Who is #21 of the 49ers?

Originally Posted by Shilohproject
I really don't know how many connections you might have.

actually I don't have any

Synaptic?

That was predictable.

Yet I notice you did not predict it. :lolhit:


Where can they get them from?

From one of our other 150+ bases on foreign soil around the world. But they choose to maintain all those bases instead of committing those troops to what is supposed to be the "defining battle of this generation."



Why would they choose to spend more than they had to?

Because Borrow and Spend is the standard conservative economic policy. Just look at Reagan and Bush Sr.

:thumbs:
DB

From one of our other 150+ bases on foreign soil around the world. But they choose to maintain all those bases instead of committing those troops to what is supposed to be the "defining battle of this generation." DB

and who mans the bases on foreign soil while thjey are away?? or are you suggesting shutting down a few bases overseas in dumb places... like Guam

or are you suggesting shutting down a few bases overseas in dumb places... like Guam

Yes, absolutely. And Japan and Germany. Why do we need those bases today? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, they serve no purpose.

I'll tell my son that they don't need Guam anymore.

:lolhit:

Yes, absolutely. And Japan and Germany. Why do we need those bases today? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, they serve no purpose.


To keep as many of our military units oversea as possible. Politicians do not want a strong military presence any where near them. They just might, someday, be forcibly removed from office.

To keep as many of our military units oversea as possible. Politicians do not want a strong military presence any where near them. They just might, someday, be forcibly removed from office.

LOL

funny...

Yet I notice you did not predict it. :lolhit:



From one of our other 150+ bases on foreign soil around the world. But they choose to maintain all those bases instead of committing those troops to what is supposed to be the "defining battle of this generation."




Because Borrow and Spend is the standard conservative economic policy. Just look at Reagan and Bush Sr.

:thumbs:
DB



Given up all pretense of rational thought drama says the military was so politicized in '03 that they determined to act as a sop to the administration. :thumbs:

Do you ever wonder why you're considered a dope?

This is bugging me for sometime.
Who is #21 of the 49ers?

Frank Gore, half back.

Politicians do not want a strong military presence any where near them. Cute, but you're kidding, right? Military bases in a district are some of the biggest things on a representitives wish list. Cha-ching!

Frank Gore,thanx Trav.

Given up all pretense of rational thought drama says the military was so politicized in '03 that they determined to act as a sop to the administration.

I did? Please show me where I ever said such a thing.

Why do you resort to bad lying so quickly? Is it because you are completely bankrupt of any logic or morals?


Do you ever wonder why you're considered a dope?

Only by complete dopes like yourself who have to resort to lies to keep up with me.

:thumbs:

Only by complete dopes like yourself who have to resort to lies to keep up with me.

:thumbs:


:lolhit:

keep up with me, oh that's good.

I did? Please show me where I ever said such a thing.

Why do you resort to bad lying so quickly? Is it because you are completely bankrupt of any logic or morals?



Only by complete dopes like yourself who have to resort to lies to keep up with me.

:thumbs:

Another in your long list of problems is you don't even understand what it is that you're saying.

So let's dissect your statement.From one of our other 150+ bases on foreign soil around the world. But they choose to maintain all those bases....
Now why would the military chose to maintain those bases? No existing security obligations to the nations in which those bases reside. No existing contractual obligations with those nations to maintain those bases. Your explanation Because Borrow and Spend is the standard conservative economic policy.

Iotw, because the military decided to support the conservative economic policy of borrow and spend they decided to commit less soldiers than they needed. You're saying the military did have an alternative (without clarifying whether it actually existed) but deliberately chose this alternative. Plain and simple the military had somehow become politicized by '03 (without offering any evidence to support your contention) that they chose to support a politically convenient economic policy over a military policy.

I don't need to lie to make you look like a fool, you do quite well for yourself.

Gee Waldo, you almost sound rational when you pick my statements apart and paste them out of context like that.

Almost... but not quite.

:rolleyes: