Swimming Through Blackwater
There has been a lot of discussion in the Blogosphere about the four American security contractors (or mercenaries) killed in Fallujah on March 31.
Since I have been following the issue of private military contractors and related matters, I want to make a few points.
I
The media referred to the four victims primarily as "civilians" and only secondarily as "security contractors." See, e.g., the headlines and first paragraphs of the accounts from the Washington Post and the New York Times.
It is, of course, grossly misleading to label them "civilians." They are (euphemistically) security contractors, or (straightforwardly) mercenaries. They were contracted out by Blackwater Security Consulting, a subsidiary of Blackwater USA, a North Carolina military and police training and services corporation. Their "security contractors" are armed, wear military vestments and are extremely well-trained professionals. Three of those who died were former Navy SEALs. (The term "Blackwater" refers to covert SEAL missions undertaken by elite divers at night. The company was founded by a former Navy SEAL.)
Among other duties, Blackwater security contractors (not U.S. troops) are responsible for protecting CPA administrator Paul Bremmer. They seem to serve as his Praetorian Guard:
In the northern city of Mosul, where Mr. Bremer met with about 130 carefully vetted Iraqis on Thursday, Blackwater guards maintained a heavy presence, standing along the walls facing the Iraqi guests with their rifles cradled. More than once, Iraqis and Western reporters moving forward to take their seats in the hall were abruptly challenged by their guards, with warnings that they would be ejected if they resisted.
I wonder when the White House will employ Blackwater for press conferences.
II
The circumstances under which the four died were curious. Consider the following details provided by Dana Priest and Mary Pat Flaherty from the Washington Post:
The men, all employees [sic] of Blackwater Security Consulting, were in the dangerous Sunni Triangle area operating under more hazardous conditions -- unarmored cars with no apparent backup -- than the U.S. military or the CIA permit.
[snip]
A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops under a subcontract to a company named Regency Hotel and Hospitality.
[n.b. Blackwater does not, strictly speaking, hire its personnel as employees. According to Blackwater's Web-site, "BSC does not hire you; we contract you as an independent contractor (IC)."]
According to this account, then, the four victims were undertaking a mission too risky for the U.S. military or even the CIA to help deliver food to troops.
I'm surprised I didn't see more outrage about this. Why were they used in such a high risk operation for an end of such low priority? Military commanders typically weigh risk and reward before sending their soldiers on dangerous missions and would only risk their lives for important strategic goals.
Frankly, I wonder whether these security contractors are subject to exploitation, especially given the light regulations on the industry. What is to prevent them from being used in ways inappropriate for normal soldiers, especially when the risks of using them do not bring the same costs? The security contractors are not included in the U.S. military casualty figures, and they are not, strictly speaking, "employees" of the company. Thus, they may be put in harm's way whether it's worth the risk or not, with limited political and legal costs to the U.S. and to their contracting companies (with the exception of the scenes from Fallujah).
[It is worth noting here that Blackwater claims to provide security contractors "for any threat scenario, whether low or high risk."]
All of this assumes, of course, that the official account is correct. I personally find it highly suspicious. I doubt that they would have been put in such a high risk situation simply to deliver food. Nevertheless, it's damning in either case: either it's damning that they would be used to deliver food to troops in a mission too dangerous for even CIA agents, or it's damning that they lied about their true mission.
III
Criticism of private military contractors is becoming more prevalent. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D -- Illinois) has been an outspoken critic on the issue:
"I continue to oppose the use of military contractors who are not subject to the same kind of scrutiny and accountability as U.S. soldiers ... When things go wrong for these contractors, they and their families have been shamefully forgotten by their American employers."
I would like to focus on two legal/philosophical objections to private military contracting.
First, it raises the worrisome possibility of the independence of military power from the control of the government.
One common way of defining the state is in terms of its monopoly on coercive power (e.g. Hobbes, Weber). On this conception, to allow military power to float free from the state threatens damage not only to individuals but to the state itself.
As Barry Yeoman notes in his Friday New York Times Op-Ed entitled "Need an Army? Just Pick up the Phone":
Gary Jackson, the president of Blackwater, envisions a day when any country faced with peacekeeping duties will simply call him and place an order. "I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world," he told me.
Shouldn't war be a government function? Why rely on the private sector for our national defense, even if it is largely a supporting role?
Yeoman's question raises a point of principle. One might wonder, however, why we should endorse the principle, when the practical benefits to the military of hiring private contractors are (supposedly) so great.
Yeoman provides some answers later in the article. For instance, there is a notable lack of accountability among private military contractors to the American public and international law that leads to exploitation and bad conduct.
But I want to take the problem to its extreme.
Let's say Gary Jackson succeeds in assembling "the largest, most professional private army in the world" (filled with Green Berets, Army Rangers and Navy SEALs), at a time when our armed forces are losing numbers.
What if Jackson decided to use it for his own purposes or for those of his political clients, even if those purposes go against the public interest?
What if several private companies assembled equally powerful "professional private armes" of their own, and decided to freelance in the same way?
At the ultimate extreme, aren't we talking about our very own wave of Mariuses, Sullas, and Caesars out for themselves, supported by their own armies, owing no allegiance to our Republic?
Or, to bring it more up to date, aren't we talking about a Philip Dick world, with private corporations employing their own armed forces to further their business and political interests?
Of course, this is all paranoid fantasy. (That's what we do here at WWDT.) Rest assured, Blackwater is fighting for freedom and democracy abroad (see below). No reason to be alarmed.
IV
The second question is whether these companies violate U.S. law.
As I discussed previously, the Virginia paintball jihadists were indicted under the Neutrality Act, which forbids U.S. citizens from "waging war against countries that are at peace with the United States." However, companies like Blackwater contract their "security consultants" to regions all over the world, sometimes independently from U.S. military actions and in countries "at peace with the United States." As Blackwater's Web-site advertises, "Blackwater Mobile Security Teams stand ready to be deployed around the world with little notice in support of US national security objectives, private or foreign interests."
The obvious response is that whereas the Neutrality Act forbids citizens from "waging war," these mercenaries are used purely for defense and security.
However, one may question the distinction made here. Can one draw such a fine line between "waging war" and "defense/security" in war zones (e.g. protecting a Columbian government installation from FARC guerillas)? They are certainly legitimate targets of their employer's enemies, insofar as they are armed and providing military support.
Furthermore, the original intent of the Neutrality Act was to avoid American entanglement in foreign wars. Yet clearly their presence in foreign countries can and does affect perception abroad of Americans and U.S. foreign policy. For example, consider the reactions of the Iraqis in Fallujah. Or consider the three Northrup Grumman contractors who have been held hostage by Columbian guerillas for over a year.
Moreover, why do they need to hire elite commandoes (Green Berets, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, etc.) for purely "defensive" or "security" jobs? Note the skills Blackwater seeks in its job applicants:
- Hostage Rescue
- Close Quarter Battle
- Structure Penetration
- Intelligence Collection/Interrogation
- Explosive Ordnance Disposal
- Forward Observer/Call-for-Fire
- Reconnaissance and Surveillance
- Sniper/Counter-Sniper Operations
- Visit, Board, Search and Seizure Operations
- Counter-narcotics/Counterterrorist Operations
- Small Unit Tactics
- Raid Conduct and Training
Do these all sound like "defensive/security" activities?
V
Blackwater USA is a large company offering a diverse set of products and services. Apart from their security consulting business, they also provide:
They also have a virtual "Pro Shop" with an extensive catalogue of merchandise, including casual and tactical apparel, coffee mugs, license plates, gun cleaning kits, flashlights and gun lights, and decals.
Gee, my birthday is about a week away (hint, hint).
Postscript: In light of the Fallujah attacks, private security contractors now want to use "massive firepower" (e.g. high-powered machine guns and grenades). According to Malcolm Nance, a former adviser to the CIA and NSA,
People are going into battle now. In military terms, we describe a hand grenade as a "break contact" device used as a final option to stop any contact in an enemy attack. Nobody I have employed out here uses them, but I would imagine that break contact devices will get used a lot more as a result of the incident in Fallujah.
And it turns out that some security contractors have been using special blended-metal ammunition outlawed among U.S. soldiers. For more on these bullets, plus a video demonstration at Blackwater, click here.
3:10:48 AM 
|
