IS Blackwater and Triple Canopy Just Another Example of Terrorism?

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by many944s

Wars were so much more effective when the media wasn't involved!

Yea, pretty soon nobody will want to make war any more.

Then what will we do?

[on-ramp]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Yea, pretty soon nobody will want to make war any more.

Then what will we do?

war is big business. there will always be war

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Yea, pretty soon nobody will want to make war any more.

Then what will we do?

With all that idle time more folks will get into building hovercrafts, collecting spoons and designing 3 story tents!

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77

With all that idle time more folks will get into building hovercrafts, collecting spoons and designing 3 story tents!

We are a bunch of misfits in this forum.

Don't forget the jet-pack (swingset fire + extingusher) lensdaddy made.

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally Posted by kach22i

We are a bunch of misfits in this forum.

Don't forget the jet-pack (swingset fire + extingusher) lensdaddy made.

ya, forgot about that! fun stuff...

[jyl]

Seems to me there is an economic angle, an operational angle, and a political angle to the use of private security forces by the US government.

The economic angle is that the cost of recruiting, training, equipping, deploying, sustaining, treating, and retirement for a US soldier is . . . well, I couldn't find a really good estimate, but looks like it is around $120,000 per soldier per year. http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-13---2007/copy-of-volume-13---issue-1/expanding-the-us-army

Using a private security contractor carries fewer long-term costs than recruiting a solider. The contractor doesn't get a military pension, if he's wounded you don't have to treat and rehabilitate him at Walter Reed, when the need is over you terminate the contract. So arguably if a contractor can be supplied for even, say, $200K/yr, it could be cheaper than using a soldier.

So is it in fact cheaper to use contractors? I don't know, I haven't found much info about the actual headcount at Blackwater and similar companies. But take one particular contract. Blackwater is notorious for charging the State Department $320MM since June 2004 for providing security for US officials and some foreign officials. But is that so much? It is $106MM/yr, if those were US soldiers it would be about 900 soldiers ($106MM/$120K). Plus the long-term costs avoided by using contractors, discussed above. Plus presumably the $106MM/yr includes all the logistics - equipment, vehicles, supplies, lodging, transport, etc. So, if Blackwater is providing, say, 400-500 contractors under that particular contract, it might well be more economical than using the US military. But if Blackwater is providing, say, just 100-200 contractors for that contract, then it looks pretty darned expensive. Again, I don't know the answer but I cannot conclude that we, the US taxpayer, aren't getting our money's worth.

(Oh, I did just read that Blackwater has appx 1,000 contractors in Iraq. Do they have work other than just the State Dept protection contract?)

The operational angle is that the US military is stretched very thin right now. I think that's pretty clear. Look at the struggle to come up with the Bush "surge" of an additional 30,000 troops this summer, which can't even be maintained past mid-2008. I've got to think there are provinces and cities in Iraq where even 1,000 additional troops would make a big difference for the field commanders. So it seems plausible to me that the US government is short enough of troops that it would need to use private contractors for things like escorting government officials around Iraq.

The political angle is, of course, that anything that minimizes the reported number of US troops in Iraq is politically helpful to the Bush Administration. So using, say, 1,000 contractors instead of 1,000 soldiers is politically helpful. Not to mention the additional Guard and Reserve callups that would be necessary, the additional casualties that would be suffered and reported, to get the additional soldiers. I'm not too sympathetic to this political angle, but it is part of reality.

Now, note all of the above applies to use of contractors by the US government. If you are a private company trying to operate in Iraq, then I would think you have even less choice. The US Marines are not going to provide security for some private businessman going to meetings - I would think.

So, all things considered, I guess I can see why there are private security contractors working in Iraq, including working for the US government, and - in principle - it doesn't bother me.

I'm sure there is some hellacious overbilling and non-competitive contracting going on. But relative to all the other f-ed up things about the Iraq war/occupation, I don't see Blackwater and other private security contractors as a big deal. Really, $106MM/yr is peanuts. The war is costing very roughly $100BN/yr, that is $270MM/DAY or $11MM/HOUR.

I'm also sure that the contractors shoot innocent civilians sometimes when they shouldn't. But, again, relative to all the killing that is going on in Iraq, I doubt they are more than a drop in the bucket. Something like 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (I know we've gone through the numbers in earlier threads) since the US invaded. Do you think private security contractors have been responsible for even 1/4 of 1% of that number? I doubt it.

(Confession: my initial view when I read this thread was "mercenaries are bad, Blackwater is evil, etc etc". But the more I thought about it, I came to a different view.)

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77

I love the wife: Oh God, I hope the neighbors aren't looking!

Most of the contractors are not operating in a soldier capacity. They are typically assigned to protect the diplomats, politicians, contractors, and businessmen. They provide the vehicles, helicopters, weapons, etc. For what they provide, the price does not seem outrageous.

Should they have to answer for their actions? Of course. But most of them are not running around killing civilians either. They are a necessary evil, because they let the troops focus on the job at hand.

[Rick Lee]

AFAIK, no contractors are ever involved in offensive combat ops. Sure, a lot of them do security work. But I think an even larger number of them are truck drivers, food line workers and general logistics stuff that the military is better off farming out than using their own troops for.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by jyl

Using a private security contractor carries fewer long-term costs than recruiting a solider. The contractor doesn't get a military pension, if he's wounded you don't have to treat and rehabilitate him at Walter Reed,

i believe that all contractors working for the military in Iraq, are by law required to be taken care off by the military if they get wounded, but from certain reports i've read that they don't even do that, even if it's supposed to be so

http://www.oandp.com/edge/issues/articles/2007-09_02.asp

"All civilian contractors supporting troops overseas are covered by a federal workers compensation statute called the Defense Base Act (www.defensebasecomp.com). Pitts pronounces this federal workers compensation law as "very good-probably the best in the world."

By law, any worker who becomes ill or gets hurt overseas is entitled to the following:

* Reasonable and necessary medical care for the rest of his life, from the doctor of his choice.
* Weekly compensation (until he reaches maximum medical improvement) at a rate equivalent to two-thirds of his average weekly wage, up to a maximum amount that is adjusted annually. (In March 2005, the maximum was $1,047.16 per week, tax-free.)
* Compensation for any permanent disability.
* Free legal representation. If the attorney successfully prosecutes a client's claim and wins benefits for him, the attorney is reimbursed by the insurance company for his time only. (If he fails to win the case, the attorney earns nothing.)
"

and from what i hear, they get stonewalled by the contracting company and everybody else, and no lawyer want's to pick up the case because if they loose it , they get no money from it...

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "there will always be war'
_______________

Some are necessary, some are the result of mad men on a quest for...???
But those five little words are so true.

But hey, where else is our demand for true Heroes gonna come from? Politics? Hollywood? NASCAR? Sports? The Theater?

NOTE: If you have never been in combat, with your life on the line, do not bother to respond.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by on-ramp

personal attack removed - chill - ns
this is the war you support....it's reality . if you don't want to see those photos, and there are thousands of other similar ones, then don't support the man who started it. Blind arrogance and hatred defines you.
What "we' have done in Iraq is unspeakable....and I don't see any politicians in the electric chair over this, do you? There is no accountability. War was based on WMD, oops, none found, "we're sorry". life goes on..

So you get wood looking at pictures of burned up Americans hanging on a bridge? Are you James Brolin? I figure you must be him 'cause he's the only person I've ever seen, capable of fogging up a mirror, with a such a poorly functioning brain as you, and there just can't be two people this f*cked up.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

AFAIK, no contractors are ever involved in offensive combat ops.

I've seen reports they (contract firms) are more and more involved in "intellegence gathering". They hold a lot of private information of many Americans and people are starting to worry about the lack of oversight. Information is power afterall.

Anyone who wants to see a super large version of that bridge picture just PM me with your e-mail address. You can't even tell they were once people. Disturbing yes, to ignore or moderate it out as if it never happened is unAmerican.

[Rearden]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

No contractors:
"Our military should never be protecting the diplomats, politicians, contractors, and businessmen"

With contractors:
see this thread.

[jyl]

I didn't know that. Hmm, might change the math some.

Originally Posted by svandamme

i believe that all contractors working for the military in Iraq, are by law required to be taken care off by the military if they get wounded, but from certain reports i've read that they don't even do that, even if it's supposed to be so

http://www.oandp.com/edge/issues/articles/2007-09_02.asp

"All civilian contractors supporting troops overseas are covered by a federal workers compensation statute called the Defense Base Act (www.defensebasecomp.com). Pitts pronounces this federal workers compensation law as "very good-probably the best in the world."

By law, any worker who becomes ill or gets hurt overseas is entitled to the following:

* Reasonable and necessary medical care for the rest of his life, from the doctor of his choice.
* Weekly compensation (until he reaches maximum medical improvement) at a rate equivalent to two-thirds of his average weekly wage, up to a maximum amount that is adjusted annually. (In March 2005, the maximum was $1,047.16 per week, tax-free.)
* Compensation for any permanent disability.
* Free legal representation. If the attorney successfully prosecutes a client's claim and wins benefits for him, the attorney is reimbursed by the insurance company for his time only. (If he fails to win the case, the attorney earns nothing.)
"

and from what i hear, they get stonewalled by the contracting company and everybody else, and no lawyer want's to pick up the case because if they loose it , they get no money from it...

[svandamme]

well, i doubt it applies to any of the asian or other contractors doing any work there,

furthermore you can have 2 blackwater or whatever outfit employees
both working side to side in some security job
one will be an American ex military, and another one will be perhaps ex military from India, or the Fillipines or whatever

the latter will earn 3000 dollar a month where the American will get 20 000 a month
for doing the exact same job...
off course 3 grand in the Fillipines is a lot of money, but it's just a wrong concept
they both have the same responsibilities, and both run the same risks

guess i know where the CEO's get there bonusses from , and it's not from the 20K a month employees

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by on-ramp

There's much suffering out there. and a lot of filthy rich CEOs and politicians over here.... doesn't seem right. "we" are killing the world for the Almighty dollar.
God Bless the Almighty Dollar

One thing is for sure, On-Ramp will never be successful in life as long as he hangs onto this "poor little old me" attitude. Obviously he thinks that ANYONE who makes more money or holds any job that is regarded as loftier than he does, deserves to be flogged.

Excuse me while I chuckle while trying to feel sorry for On-Ramp.

Odd......I did not know that people who live "in a van, down by the river" have internet access.

If a republican is elected president in '08, it will be fun to watch some folks implode What I wouldn't give to have Jeb Bush in the Whitehouse. That would definitely push a few off the edge.

[M.D. Holloway]

I'll implode if Sillery or Ol Bama gets in - if Headwards gets elected I will move to Mexico!

[Mule]

OK lefties, let's say we ban war & the muslims dont? Get out your prayer rug & wait for the call allah smackbar.