Officially, the US occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. (I didn't know that, did anyone else?)

But in reality the US is still in charge. Among the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer is Order #17 which grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to US courts.

I wonder if the Iraqi people realize that their nation is no more than a satellite of the US.

"I wonder if the Iraqi people realize that their nation is no more than a satellite of the US."

Given that 93% or so of them support attacks on Americans, I would say that they do realize they are pawns in a game they don't understand and have no interest in playing.

I hope the Dems get behind this and support the request by our "ally." This would do more to end the surge than any other course they could take ...

I was also shocked by a little paragraph in a cnn article :
The report [Congressional Research Service report] added, "Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq.
Contractors fall under Justice Department and FBI jurisdiction for alleged crimes, said a Pentagon official, who confirmed the accuracy of the congressional report."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/index.html

I wonder who else they can't prosecute in their own country? Does that apply to other types of private companies operating in Iraq?

I'm sensitive to using the term "mercenary" about someone who indeed might be a criminal, because "mercenary" has a fairly specific meaning in the Geneva Conventions. The context there is that the individual is taking active part in combat, motivated solely by money.

At Abu Ghraib, there were contract interpreters and mercenaries that indeed may have violated, if they were military personnel, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). I freely admit to being confused here, as I thought that contract employees in Iraq had been placed under the UCMJ. Might that have been only contractors to the Department of Defense, and, if the individuals in this case were under Department of State contract, the UCMJ might not apply?

Apropos of the "market", some years ago, GEN Creighton Abrams, then Army Chief of Staff and, by all accounts, a highly ethical man whose term was cut short by death from cancer, introduced the Total Force concept, which was, along with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a means of preventing inappropriate use of the military without Congressional approval.

In what now seem the innocent days of Vietnam, it was seen as a very major step, and a strong Congressional move, to mobilize Reservists. Reservists are always Federal, while the Guard must be Federalized to go under regular military command.

Army forces are categorized as combat, combat support, and combat service support. Combat arms are specialties that are expected to involve themselves directly in fighting, such as infantry, armor, special forces and artillery. Combat support often will be close to battle, such as military intelligence, signal (i.e., communications) and, especially in Iraq, military police. The system has trouble deciding if the Engineers are combat arms or combat support.

Combat Service Support organizations are needed to sustain combat, but, with exceptions, don't usually engage in it. These include supply, maintenance, transportation and medical.

Under Total Force, all but a minimum of Combat Service Support, and a good deal of Combat Support, went into the Reserves, and the idea was that Congressional action would be necessary to support a longer-term deployment requiring support services.

This Administration has managed to side-step Total Force by contracting out many Combat Service and Combat Service Support functions. It's been done in the name of economy, but, in reality, it circumvents the Army-developed means of getting Congressional approval of major deployments.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You're correct in pointing out that there are multiple missions or types of contracts being handed out to these companies and not all of them are combat related. There was a great story (I think it was on Frontline but I'm not sure) about the growing frustration within the military at the most mundane of tasks such as cleaning of latrines and laundry and food services having all largely been "out sourced" leaving many soldiers, not necessarily in combat mission roles, with little or nothing to do. In addition it is making some of those same services infinitely more expensive for both the tax payers and the soldiers themselves. This is absurd and obscene. And it's incredibly inefficient.

I look at how much impact our industrial base, logistics, and design had to do with our country's success in the Second World War. Standard parts were the order of the day - such as on our armored vehicles. Many of them and their components were based on one central design with common parts making manufacturing and in-the-field maintenance much more cost effective and practical. We've gone in the exact opposite direction with modern weapon systems and the logistical support needed to operate them in distant theaters. It's an invitation to waste both in lives lost (see lack of properly armored vehicles reaching Iraq in a timely manner) and money wasted (see everywhere you look in our military today). It really seems as though instead of thinking of the military as a whole or the soldier in particular the desire was to make sure there were enough slices of war pie to go around to all the different companies pulling chairs up to the table. Not smart.

But of the legions of contractors in Iraq, there are also a large number of them in actual combat rolls. These are an even more severe problem in my mind than the immensely wasteful logistical contractors. These people in many cases are ex-military so they are at least familiar with the conduct that is expected of a soldier within the theater of operation. But of course in these cases there is no clear system in which to monitor or enforce any violations. Actually, given the lack of any clear rules, it could be argued that there can be no legal violations since there are no rules. When and how the Geneva Conventions can be applied has already proven to be about as important to this administration as our Constitution. And as conscienceless as our administration is, big business has even less. And it is all driven by and large by money. Most of these contractors are there for it. Whether they are driving supply trucks or escorting them, most are lured to Iraq by the promise of a big payday. I'd be shocked (and extremely skeptical) if any of these "contractors" were there for humanitarian reasons or to help get Iraq back on it's feet. Sure they might SAY that they are, but I'm becoming much more reliant on the old adage - actions speak louder than words.

most mundane of tasks such as cleaning of latrines and laundry and food services having all largely been "out sourced" leaving many soldiers, not necessarily in combat mission roles, with little or nothing to do

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

While contractors working directly for the military in support roles are subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), they are actually a small minority of the mercenaries in Iraq. Those working for State, CIA, or civilian firms contracted by the Pentagon (think Haliburton, though there are plenty more), operate in a vacuum, a weird no-law zone that is specific to the Bush Administration. They are exempt from any law the Iraqi government might pass and there is no US law governing their conduct. They are beyond any constraint and may kill and maim and torture as they see fit and the Iraqis have no recourse. I am shocked that more Americans have no idea of the numbers of Iraqi young men who disappeared into Abu Grabe and other less famous places never to emerge. They died in US custody and were quietly buried with no acknowledgement that they had ever been taken from their homes. Much of this was farmed out to the mercenary firms. There was no way to attach criminal liability to them. It is as dispicable and revolting as anything the US government has ever done and happened while you and I were supposed to be watching.

Again, I urge staying close to the Geneva definition of mercenary, and considering other definitions of criminality. There is the banning of privateering under the Treaty of Paris of 1856, actually in an annex to the main treaty, which ended the Crimean War. Relatively few nations actually ratified it, but there were a sufficient number of prosecutions that a privateering defense is probably not acceptable under customary international law.

The legal doctrine of hostis humani generis has been interpreted to be within the rights of any nation to enforce. It speaks of enemies of humanity, which, in this context, means pirate or slave trader. One could argue that any national presence in Iraq could apprehend these individuals under this doctrine, and either the US would have to disavow them -- probably making them pirates -- or accept responsibility. They might be immune from US or Iraqi action, but what about British?

It would be a reasonable Democratic action to introduce legislation that any US contractor in an area of military operations (i.e., where there is a military area command) must be subject to the UCMJ. Bush might veto it or give a signing statement, but that would be political dynamite.

I'm not saying you are using it in this manner, but there is an unfortunate tendency to use "mercenary" as an epithet rather than as a legal term. More use of the legal definitions, and of related issues such as pirates, could contribute to bringing irresponsibility under control.

Consider the other national contingents, and remember that a desire from justice can be found in the damndest places. Look up Georg Konrad Morgen sometime, and find a legal officer within the Nazi SS who searched out corruption, but resisted Allied pressure, at Nuremberg, for individuals for which he did not believe there was evidence of guilt. By all accounts, he was an exceptionally just man.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

C'mon HC, the streets of Baghdad are not some Harvard debating society, the doctrine of hostis humani generis won't help when the RPG's are coming your way. Spreadin' democracy is dangerous business.

If Cheney/Bush and Co. can flush the US Constitution down the turlet, they sure as hell aren't goin to give a hoot about some words written on a paper in, for Gawd's sake, Paris France, in 1856.

By creating a new "set" of "security contractors", one which intersects the otherwise statutorily separated sets "soldiers" and "cops" the Masters of Blackwater et al have oddly subverted the mandates of posse commitatus.

The result, an unaccountable, thoroughly militarized police force with total impunity for any crimes.

Suppose: Blackwater + Katrina like emergency + blanket presidential pardons on group basis* for all past and future acts done in furtherance of executive order blah blah blah....

Hello permanent Republican majority, goodbye republican government.

*a domestic rule 17, if you will...

Mr. Pinochet didn't find the Spanish in a Harvard debating society. Mr. Eichmann did not debate the Israeli team, and Mr. Noriega did not debate the people playing loud rock music along with a goat wearing red underwear.

I'm being slightly facetious here, as the idea of one sovereign state going into another to arrest them, especially in the Pinochet case, in the name of acts done in a third case, is not something I particularly like.

Nevertheless, whether a third country makes the arrest or the US comes to its senses and no longer has Bush and Cheney in office, there will be an opportunity to have laws that deal appropriately with contractors. A fairly straightforward general principle for the US, not having to reach back into the twisty turny passages of the Treaty of Paris, is to put all US contractors, in an area of military operations, under the UCMJ.

In the real world, where covert operations are sometimes ways to avoid much larger killing, the National Clandestine Service may be an exception. Of course, when one plays covert, one presumably is intelligently waiving certain protections and disciplines.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I was just watching a Today Show story of a student persistently asking Kerry why he didn’t challenge vote tampering. He’s pulled away and later tasered by the campus police. Anne Curry excuses the police because the student did seem to want attention. Of course, they don’t show the video of Reverend Lennox Yearwood getting his leg broken by security outside of the Petraeus hearing.

At the bottom of the BW newsletter is Chaplain’s Corner, an article by Chaplain Staton, VBPD (?). He coldly explains how the victims in N.O. are to blame for their predicament. I guess it’s kind of a pep talk:

A volunteer tells of his experience trying to work with the evacuees... 10% give appreciation... 10% give no reaction... 80% are rude and ill mannered. Able- bodied evacuees will not lift a hand to help themselves even in setting up sleeping facilities. Many evacuees do not want water, they want soft drink, beer or liquor. Nourishing food is sneered at... they want McDonald's. These were the one's bussed to Houston... the reason for all this bickering is simple... they were and are resisting change. They want what they are used to.

A police officer is followed around in a WalMart being looted. What is she doing? Looking for looters. All of the background has people moving to and fro picking up items, pushing items in baskets or on pallet movers or carrying arm loads... they are resisting change... they want what they want now, even if they do not need it.

Blackwater (scroll down) is hiring for policing the Big Easy (this is a dated newsletter)! Let’s not forget that BW and others were rushed into New Orleans after Katrina and there were reports of civilians shot by private security contractors there and no charges.

I shouldn't be astonished or depressed by this but I am.  I went to the Blackwater site and read two o things.  The first was a story, the header of which read

New Orleans Cops Soldier on Despite Losses
New Orleans police are used to long hours and big events. They handle the million-plus crowd at Mardi Gras and are unfazed by Super Bowls, Sugar Bowls, Final Fours, political conventions and the everyday throng of tourists - many of whom come to New Orleans and immediately cast caution aside.

I then read the section which Don Key refers to above:

Blackwater USA has an immediate need for Security Professionals for the New Orleans area. Interested candidates must posses the following:

• Current Law Enforcement Officer (if not current, must have maintained credentials and been separated or retired within the last two years.)
• At least 4 years Military Experience with duties involving carrying a weapon
• Ability to commit to a 30 day contract
• There are visible, physical standard requirements, must be in excellent health, Height and Weight proportionate and readily able to pass a physical training standard.
• This opportunity is for immediate deployment. Earning potential up to $9000 a month. Interested, qualified candidates, contact Blackwater (My emphasis).

I then went to the New Orleans Police Department Website and read the recruiting section on salary and benefits:

• Police Officer - Recruit  $35,297. Including Uniform Allowance 
• Police Officer  I $42.170. Including Monthly State Pay

In other words, a Blackwater employee can make more than twice what a New Orleans Police Officer makes, for performing duties probably less hazardous.  I should mention to be absolutely fair, that a police officer with a Ph. D. could make $4000 per annum more.  Big Whoop.

Privatization sure does provide a cheaper alternative doesn't it?  If we have to look for problems in the public safety apparatus I don't think we need to look further than this.  Of course, the same thing obtains between the military and the contractor in Iraq.  Want to make big bucks?  Be a private contractor.

aMike

I can understand your desire to properly use the word mercenary (as dictated within international treaties) and I agree with you. But I disagree with you in terms of most of these contractors, be they in combat roles or not.

Your examples are sound and reasonable. And I can fully agree that there are indeed indispensable people that our nation may need to call upon in times where their particular talents and knowledge could be vitally important. But how many of these civilian contractors do we now have in Iraq? And would it even be necessary in the examples you cited if we simply were more prepared? Certainly 30 years of experience is something that is virtually impossible to replace. But if that is the case doesn't the situation dictate that the system needs to be reevaluated? So one person retires and there's no one to replace them? How about 10 or 100 people? Can no one retire without breaking the system?

But there are now literally about as many "civilian contractors" over there as there are troops, maybe more. Just how many documents are there to be translated or tanks are there needing upgrading that we need this many people over there? On top of that, where are the results? How long are these tasks supposed to take? Is there anyone even watching these people? Where's the water and power? Where's there anything even remotely resembling improvement (outside of the posh Green Zone and our Club Med embassy)? The entire thing reeks of profiteering. What's occurred is that like most things that American capitalism touches, we've found a way to break something in order to continue to make money off of it. And there's no way to slice our new privatized army that even comes close to being efficient, effective or practical. It's simply been turned into a gigantic maze full of trap doors for people to slip in and out of carrying large sacks of tax payer money. And that's how these people make "the big bucks." Ask us Californians about our nation's energy policy and how "privatized" businesses financially raped us. These same sorts of "businessmen" are doing the same thing here only in this case a lot of people are dying while they swindle billions. It's disgusting and there can be no forgiving these people. Period.

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page D01

There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.

The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.

The number has certainly gone up since then (and this is WaPo!). And (this is unverified) a friend of mine mentioned that part of Patreaus' drawdown plans for some of the troops included and equal number of civilian contractors to take their places. So as of last year the Pentagon (an agency notorious for it's inability to accurately count ANYTHING) said there were 25,000 "security contractors" in Iraq. My guess is that the number is probably closer to 40,000 or even 50,000 of these supposed "security" personnel. But who really knows? It all depends on who's matrix you use I guess. But however you count it, that certainly qualifies as an army in my book. An army being paid money from private entities, from businesses, to perform armed activities in a hostile war zone. And what ever word we end up using to label these people we need something a little more vile and accurately descriptive than "civilian contractors" or "security contractors".

I think that the idea of the Total Force policy is fundamentally sound but seems a little simplistic and it neglects the element that is the primary problem here which is the civilian or rather commercial sector. The web that links politician to business exec to generals is as shady as it is complex. For example, there are pet "defense" programs (which aid a generals future, a politicians constituents and a execs bottom line). These things can last for decades and run into astronomically large amounts of money. So these three players have found it necessary to work together in order to keep the gravy train rolling. If anything, they've actually created and implemented their own version of the Total Force policy.

Thanks for an extensive response. I'll focus on a few things.

And would it even be necessary in the examples you cited if we simply were more prepared?

Certainly 30 years of experience is something that is virtually impossible to replace. But if that is the case doesn't the situation dictate that the system needs to be reevaluated?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I've never really understood the problem with translators.  Why aren't our good friends in Mossad and even Saudi Arabia assisting in translation?  Sure there are probably some things you might not want them involved in but they could probably handle a large bulk of the not so top secret and leave the double super secret stuff for our own translators.  It might even be informative to give both Mossad and Saudis the same documents to translate just to see if the results matched.

Why does not our Princeton PhD Commander order only arabic spoken at mess and off-duty...How long would it take for the "translation" problem to be obviated?

The only reason our entire occupying force is not as fluent as the graduate of any *Berlitz total immersion program is that we (apparently...)do not want them to be.

*What is it, two weeks, three weeks? I forget....

I thought that contract employees in Iraq had been placed under the UCMJ.

They apparently were.

Jan 8 2007
U.S. Military Contractors operating in combat zones are now subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Congress quietly made this change as part of the FY 2007 Military Authorization Act.

The provision makes a very small, but important change to Article 2 of the UCMJ. Under previous law, the UCMJ only applied to civilians in combat areas during periods of war declared by Congress.

The new provision changes this paragraph to read: "In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field."

The law also defines "contingency operation."

The term "contingency operation" means a military operation that --

(A) is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force; or

(B) results in the call or order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, or 12406of this title, chapter 15 of this title, or any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.

This means that civilian contractors in locations such as Iraq or Afghanistan can now be court-martialed or punished under the provisions of Article 15 if they violate any of the punitive articles of the UCMJ. For example, a civilian contractor who mouths off to a commissioned officer in Iraq could conceivably be court-martialed and sentenced to prison for up to one year for violating Article 89, Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer.

The legal change is the work of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said it would “give military commanders a more fair and efficient means of discipline on the battlefield” by placing “civilian contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the field under court-martial jurisdiction during contingency operations as well as in times of declared war.”
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/civucmj.htm

In principle, this is an excellent idea, although you aren't going to get professional fluency. The basic Arabic course at the Defense Language Institute runs 62 weeks of total immersion.

That being said, any level of language is useful in the field, and, not infrequently, foreign militaries, in the same mess hall, can be quite happy to help with language. Sometimes there are sensitivities.

I speak only a few phrases of Arabic, although I recognize more transliterated ones. Last year, I was in the hospital for a mystery intestinal bleed, and was not getting a lot of attention from the first hospitalist. The second said something that made me realize he was Pakistani, and, as he was leaving and said "I think you will be OK, but we don't know why yet", I responded "Inshallah".

Literally, that's "God willing", but it has a lot more cultural context. The doctor looked like he hit a glass wall, spun around, and said "WHAT did you say?" I repeated it. He asked me why I chose to say that, and I muttered something of it was polite. He went out, turned, and said goodbye in Arabic, and I answered correctly. That more or less exhausted my Arabic unless I was ordering dinner.

About an hour later, two nurses came in and asked what I had done to the doctor. They said he came out of your room, grinning from ear to ear, which he rarely did, and told them he wanted me taken care of as if I was family.

When a friend's son, a Marine reservist, was activated to go to Iraq, his father asked friends what he should take with him. When I confirmed he had a CD player, I suggested some how-to-speak-Arabic disks, and pointed out it could save his life.

Another Army friend did urban patrols in Iraq, and, while in no way fluent, studied some Arabic. He learned that offering cigarettes is socially important, and, while he's a nonsmoker, he started carrying them. His comment was that just a few courteous words, and an offered cigarette, made an enormous difference in reaction to him. While the orders were not to accept food, when he was offered ceremonial tea or coffee, and especially bread, he took it with respect.

Within a couple of weeks, Iraqis were whispering IED and arms cache locations to him. He's one of the most professional soldiers that I know, illustrated by knowing that his rifle and armor isn't always the most important thing to have with him.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Blackwater et al were needed in New Orleans because the National Guard was otherwise occupied.

Mea Culpa.  Your original post used present tense, so I assumed Blackwater was hiring for New Orleans now, not in 2005.  The Blackwater server was messed up when I signed on this morning and the 2005 date was not headlined on the page.

aMike

~

Why aren't our good friends in Mossad and even Saudi Arabia assisting in translation?

Who says they aren't?

We'd be the last to know.

~OGD~

No, it's my culpa, not yours. I phrased it badly and added a parenthetical note in the original that wasn't clear. My appy polly loggy...

Considering Bush's very loose definition of "enemy combatant" could these mercenaries not be charged and tried either in the US the Hague or elsewhere? If not Bush's rule then what is the international law's stand on mercenaries.

The immidiate start of such legal processes against the companies, the individual men, and the people who hire them, might have a sufficient damping effect (money drain) on these mercenaries to make it difficult for them to profit from their occupation armies.

Wouldn't it be fun if Duhbys as the Commander In Cheep of these mercenariy forces were found guilty under international law of being a mercenary

"I wonder if the Iraqi people realize that their nation is no more than a satellite of the US."

In light of all this, I would say "colony" might be a more appropriate term.

dc

Do the Dems have the guts to get behind anything of substance on Iraq -NO!