Let's Talk About Blackwater

And let's set aside that their founder probably named this mercenary group after the old cartoon "Pirates of Darkwater".

There's a lot to say about them. They are a private U.S. mercenary/security force which allegedly has 160,000 forces in Iraq right now. That is about as many official U.S. troops are in Iraq, so the force occupying the nation is almost twice the size of what U.S. citizens are led to believe. Blackwater is not covered by the Military Code of Justice, nor are they covered by any laws since in Iraq they are not subject to US laws and they just ignore Iraqi laws. They have been paid approximately $1.2 Billion by the United States government. Iraq is trying to kick them out of their country because they open fire on unarmed civilians. They have also disarmed U.S. troops in the Green Zone, made them lay on the ground, and searched them.

The United States has expanded the term "unlawful combatants" to a very large extreme, and Blackwater certainly seems to fit the definition of this term that is used by the White House.

There's something fundamentally wrong about the combination of the words "private", "military" and "company." I'm not a huge fan of the military in general, but at least with the US Armed Forces, I know 1) who they pledge allegiance to and 2) who they're held responsible to. With companies like Blackwater, it's difficult to answer those questions. I see the existence of such entities as a potential threat to our national security.

Blackwater is in Northeastern North Carolina, where there are swamps. The swamp water is black, thus, Blackwater.

ShiftyPowers;2420733 said:

There's a lot to say about them. They are a private U.S. mercenary/security force which allegedly has 160,000 forces in Iraq right now. That is about as many official U.S. troops are in Iraq, so the force occupying the nation is almost twice the size of what U.S. citizens are led to believe. Blackwater is not covered by the Military Code of Justice, nor are they covered by any laws since in Iraq they are not subject to US laws and they just ignore Iraqi laws. They have been paid approximately $1.2 Billion by the United States government. Iraq is trying to kick them out of their country because they open fire on unarmed civilians. They have also disarmed U.S. troops in the Green Zone, made them lay on the ground, and searched them.

Click to expand...

So...basically...YOUR country is paying these mercenaries to make YOUR country's operations in Iraq even more fu*ked up?

How certain/confirmed are those figures?

If you're talking American billions which you almost certain are as this is American,

1'200'000'000/160'000 = 7500

$7500 per soldier? That you could hire someone to do a tour in Iraq for enough less than $7500 that you can make a decent profit seems to be bordering on the ridiculous to me. And that's not factoring in equipment/arms/transportation etc. Somehow I seriously doubt these figures.

But checking out the blackwater website, there certainly seems to be veiled layers there. "Blackwater USA, has a proven track record of superior advisory support to government agencies and private organizations. We are in position across the globe ready to provide rapid planning consultation, rapid mobility/logistics, and security assistance support in areas devastated by war or natural disasters." "Security Assistance Support" could mean literally anything up to the actual fighting of the war.

Am I opposed to the use of private military in Iraq? Not really, if it helps to get the job done, though in this instance it obviously isnt. Am I opposed to the concept of a private military? Not really, a soldier is a soldier is a soldier, though inevitably something of this size can only exist with the funding and support of the government, which is slightly more worrying. Is this an actual private military, or just a "dirty work" division? But yes, it does concern me that this is basically a way that the military can get away with extreme humanitarian abuses and I definately think there should be strict international law surrounding and monitoring of such organisations.

Wikipedia said:

"Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security staff was involved in 195 shooting incidents; in 163 of those cases, Blackwater personnel fired first. 25 members of staff have been fired for violations of Blackwater's drug and alcohol policy and 28 more for weapons-related incidents"

Click to expand...

Sounds like it's full even more so of the moronic trigger-happy imbecile soldier type than the bog standard army eh?

Dragan T;2420877 said:

So...basically...YOUR country is paying these mercenaries to make YOUR country's operations in Iraq even more fu*ked up?

Click to expand...

Hate to be peculiar but a mercenary refers to someone who's hired to fight for a foreign army... they're just military contractors. Slight difference but a significant one nonetheless.

Are you serious about this Blackwater thing? Not thaat surprising I guess, what won't the US do?

Sir Sir_Didier_Drogba;2420898 said:

Am I opposed to the use of private military in Iraq? Not really, if it helps to get the job done, though in this instance it obviously isnt. Am I opposed to the concept of a private military? Not really, a soldier is a soldier is a soldier, though inevitably something of this size can only exist with the funding and support of the government, which is slightly more worrying. Is this an actual private military, or just a "dirty work" division? But yes, it does concern me that this is basically a way that the military can get away with extreme humanitarian abuses and I definately think there should be strict international law surrounding and monitoring of such organisations.

Click to expand...

Well, whilst nice in theory, there are some obvious problems with the concept of private armies. Firstly, it is a slippery slope when one allows private armies - standard armies are accountable to their government and therefore international laws. Private armies aren't, at least they are only accountable to the government of their 'host nation'. Basically the company could base itself anywhere and then have a free reign over its operations. International conventions go out the window once this happens. Not to mention the impact on the illegal arms trade that such organisations will have.

Private armies are the best. They make money.

I was thinking of hiring Blackwater.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/contact/download.asp

ooooh...I like their website...their courses are amazing to read about.

What an awful company name from a marketing point of view, eh? I mean, the immediate vibes and perceptions that I get as soon as I hear that name is ones that are sinister, spooky and scheming. It's just all disquieting and gloomy, man.

Sir Sir_Didier_Drogba;2420898 said:

How certain/confirmed are those figures?

If you're talking American billions which you almost certain are as this is American,

1'200'000'000/160'000 = 7500

$7500 per soldier? That you could hire someone to do a tour in Iraq for enough less than $7500 that you can make a decent profit seems to be bordering on the ridiculous to me. And that's not factoring in equipment/arms/transportation etc. Somehow I seriously doubt these figures.

.

Click to expand...

I think that figure is just the amount that they've received in contracts from the government so far and not their total profits/expenses. Their "Security consultants" make between 500-1000 a day, or 90k-250k a year....tax free too, I think.

Anyway. Good topic, Shifty*z.

For more background, Blackwater was also the private security force in charge of policing New Orleans after Katrina and one of their key roles was "confronting criminals." They were heavily armed, and their presence cost something like $240k per day which was awarded to them as a no-bid contract by the Bush Administration.

The criminals they confronted were generally the "looters" who were stuck in New Orleans after the levees broke and were breaking into grocery stores to feed their families. I'm pretty sure Blackwater shot some of them.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=92177&ran=4586

rhizome17;2421809 said:

Well, whilst nice in theory, there are some obvious problems with the concept of private armies. Firstly, it is a slippery slope when one allows private armies - standard armies are accountable to their government and therefore international laws. Private armies aren't, at least they are only accountable to the government of their 'host nation'. Basically the company could base itself anywhere and then have a free reign over its operations. International conventions go out the window once this happens. Not to mention the impact on the illegal arms trade that such organisations will have.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying, but I am not trying to condone the existence of private armies, merely to say that if they do exist, I do think it would sometimes be a good idea for governments to employ their services for certain conflicts. They are still accoutable to international law, but it would be nice to see specific internation legislation brought in to regulate their activities. Personally, though, I do not subscribe to Weber's theory of legitimate force and therefore I do not regard swearing alliegiance to a nation to be any more reassuring than swearing alliegiance to a corporation.

One doesn't have to subscribe to Weber's theory of legitimate force in order to accept it as a reality though. And the fact is, as long as there exists multinational organizations such as the UN etc. (which I guess you accept due to your desire to see specific international legislation that regulates the activities of Blackwater), AND as long as the constituents of those organizations are Nation States, then the reality is that such nation states are the only groupings that are able to exert legitimate force. Which is where the standing army comes in.

Personally, I would rather not see armies at all, but the reality of the world dictates otherwise. The existence of security firms such as Blackwater and their employment by nation states is simply an expression of the further corporatization of state power. I would however prefer to see an organization that is governed by international regulations than one that isn't being used in a place as volatile as Iraq. Private security firms should only be used on a when it is a matter of peace keeping, and under strict supervision. In such cases they would be directly employed by the UN and I can see a place for them at the moment given the reluctance of many nations to contribute to peace keeping functions. They would also be useful as they would bypass many of the issues that confront many peace keeping missions at the moment (i.e. they are not made up from this-or-that nation etc. and thereby engender even more trouble in the country in which they are stationed).

Who started the discussion of Weber? Was it you right above?

^^My interminable Protestant work ethic did.

Vagegast;2421469 said:

Hate to be peculiar but a mercenary refers to someone who's hired to fight for a foreign army... they're just military contractors. Slight difference but a significant one nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Dude, quit being unnecessarily pedantic about the word. A mercenary is usually a soldier whose sole angle is that of monetary gain, and that's exactly what these private personnel are, man.



BTW, this post is brought to you by my Protestant work ethic, even though my mother claims that I was raised in an "indecisive" and "open-minded" Catholic household.

Joe;2422600 said:

Who started the discussion of Weber? Was it you right above?

Click to expand...

Sir_Didier_Drogba.

I feel trapped in an iron cage.

I mentioned Weber because I think his definition of sovereingty is kind of pivotal to the question of whether private armies are legitimate and acceptable. Weber defined the sovereign state as having a "monopoly of the legitimate use of force", which is clearly and unequivocally juxtaposed to the concept of private armies. However, I have a fundamental problem with Weber's definition in that as the world stage and international relations is purely anarchical, and that there is no higher power, it is impossible to establish what constitutes legitimacy when it comes to the use of force, and that because as we all know that sovereign equality of states is a myth, and that some are in fact malign, I dont think it is at all proper to say that states should have such a monopoly. Therefore, in my opinion, as the principle argument which forebays all but sovereign players from taking part in military endeavours is flawed and in practice unviable, there is a strong case that can be made for the use and acceptablity of so called private armies in that they are infact no less cloaked in legitimacy or excused by morality that those armies of states.