Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nation: Obama's Mercenary Position (Frankly I agree)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:38 PM
Original message
The Nation: Obama's Mercenary Position (Frankly I agree)
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 12:41 PM by Flabbergasted


From The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

snip

"If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it's in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it's in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures," said the senior adviser. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law."

But therein lies a problem. The US Embassy in Iraq is slated to become the largest embassy in world history. If Obama maintains that embassy and its army of diplomats and US personnel going in and out of the Green Zone, which his advisers say he will, a significant armed force will be required for protection. The force that now plays that role is composed almost exclusively of contractors from Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy. And at present, these contractors are not held accountable under US law. Obama and a host of legal experts, including in the Justice Department, acknowledge that there may be no current US law that could be used to prosecute security contractors for crimes committed in Iraq, such as the killing of seventeen Iraqi civilians last September in Baghdad's Nisour Square.

Obama's proposed increase in funding to the diplomatic security division would ostensibly pave the way for a protective force composed entirely of US government personnel, but the process of building that force would likely take a long time. Short of dramatically reducing the US civilian and diplomatic presence in Iraq that necessitates such a security force, Obama may have no choice but to continue the contracting arrangements with firms like Blackwater if he is elected President.

The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power. Even if it does and Bush signs it, serious questions will remain unresolved about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner.

Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives. "We are in a situation where, because of bad planning and a series of disastrous policy choices by the Bush Administration, we're forced to rely on private security contractors," says the senior adviser. "What we're focused on at the moment is getting the legal architecture in place that will hold these guys accountable to the same standard that enlisted US military personnel."

In Iraq right now, the number of private contractors is basically equal to the number of US troops. While Obama advisers say they plan to "have a serious look" at the role of contractors in Iraq, one adviser seemed to indicate that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. "These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They're rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they're doing logistics, they're driving trucks, and the important question is, If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military."

But, the senior adviser notes, "ideally we would have diplomatic security personnel, US government personnel, not subcontracted but US Bureau of Diplomatic Security agents providing security to all our ambassadors."

Says another Obama adviser, "If we could start this whole war from the beginning, what would we have done versus what can we do now, now that we're in the middle of it? In an ideal world, we would not have these contractors, but that's not the world we operate in right now."

The State Department has only an estimated 1,450 diplomatic security agents worldwide who are actual government employees, and only thirty-six are deployed in Iraq. In contrast, Blackwater has nearly 1,000 operatives in Iraq alone, not to mention the hundreds more working for DynCorp and Triple Canopy. Moreover, the State Department says it could take years to identify prospective new agents, vet them, train them and deploy them. In short, this would be no small undertaking by a President Obama. As Ambassador Ryan Crocker said in late 2007, "There is simply no way at all that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am not cool with that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Understandable: I don't like it either. But I think it's a situation that can be rectified.
Whether Obama has the political will to do so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. How many private security contractors are in Iraq right now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. "In Iraq right now, the number of private contractors is basically equal to the number of US troops"
While Obama advisers say they plan to "have a serious look" at the role of contractors in Iraq, one adviser seemed to indicate that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. "These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They're rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they're doing logistics, they're driving trucks, and the important question is, If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military."

snip

Blackwater has nearly 1,000 operatives in Iraq alone, not to mention the hundreds more working for DynCorp and Triple Canopy. Moreover, the State Department says it could take years to identify prospective new agents, vet them, train them and deploy them. In short, this would be no small undertaking by a President Obama. As Ambassador Ryan Crocker said in late 2007,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. How can we ever leave if he's going to keep that many
there. The war is breaking us now. If private contractors are kept there to protect them how much at $400,000 per yr, per person is that going to cost? Why is such a lg embassy needed, and why is BO going to follow those plans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. What is the problem? He's being realistic. He has to play the hand he's dealt--
it sounds all well and good to say, let's get rid of Blackwater, but IT'S NOT going to happen. We HAVE to shoot for accountability (which is what he wants)--this isn't a matter where we can be purists--lives are at stake, and the DoD will tell him that. Make the contractors and firms accountable under US law, make them adhere to military standards in terms of rules of engagement, and then let them do their job, unitl we can draw them down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. The question is what to do afterwards...
I agree that they are there, and we need to be realistic about how to deal with them until we withdraw from the war in Iraq. The question is, are they going to be banned from being put in such a position again? Are PMCs in general going to be outlawed in the United States. I'd like to see that, but I doubt it'll happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. It's not right for our young men and women to be over there
fighting and dying for this country for no more than $40K a yr and have the contractors making $400K a yr for the same job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well, realistically, we are not going to start paying our troops that--
and they don't sign up for the money anyway (my husband is active-duty military, so I know this!). If these civilian contractors want to gamble their lives for big bucks, let them. They're not defending our freedom and our way of life, they're just guarding diplomats and facilities. Our troops are the ones who really don't belong there--and they don't have a choice either. Let our troops come home first, or get sent somewhere where they can have a real impact on our security. I'm not too worried about the mercenaries--it's a privatized, profit-earning occupation, let the money boys have Iraq all to themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. It will take years to undo the damage that idiot child did
no matter who is President.

This is just one issue of many. I'm glad to see that Obama has a number of plans for the intervening time (make the contractors accountable under US law)... I'm sure that Bush will veto it, but hopefully Obama can sign it shortly after taking office... and then, over the course of the next few years, get rid of the Blackwaters of the world, hopefully to the point of putting them out of business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. The dirty little secret is
contractors have taken the place of drafted personnel. It's indicative of the whole misguidedness of the Rumsfeld concept of an lean army of conquest and that can hold conquered countries indefinitely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. but the question remains unasked
what is his MERCERnary position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. On the short list for VP I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
90-percent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. merc vs. enlisted
Edited on Sat Mar-01-08 01:43 PM by 90-percent
I think the number is almost equal!

180,000 enlisted and around 180,000 mercs!

And about 900 mercs have died - completely off the USA NEWS radar.

-90% Jimmy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. That's what I figured
We're in a helluva mess. At least we'll get someone in the White House who will tell us the truth and I sure don't think Hillary will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC