Contractors In Iraq Have Become U.S. Crutch

[Nomad559]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081901314.html
When years from now historians and government officials reexamine precedents set by the U.S. experience in Iraq, many "firsts" are likely to pop up.

One still playing out is the extraordinarily wide use of private contractors. A Congressional Research Service report published last month titled "Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues," puts it this way: "Iraq appears to be the first case where the U.S. government has used private contractors extensively for protecting persons and property in potentially hostile or hostile situations where host country security forces are absent or deficient."

Only estimates are available for the total employment by contractors in Iraq that perform "functions once carried by the U.S. military," according to the study. Testimony at an April 2007 congressional hearing gave the impressive figure of 127,000 as the number working in Iraq under Defense Department contracts. Breakdowns don't exist, but one Pentagon official said less than 20 percent were American.

CIA and the Pentagon intelligence agencies have hired contractors in Iraq, but the tasks and the funds involved are secret.

Surge or no surge, the work that contractors do there remains highly dangerous. The study reports that private contractors risk death and injury handling security for convoys that carry gasoline, oil and all sorts of supplies and equipment into and around Iraq.

[acmavm]

1. There are (from what I was reading) as many 'security' contractors in

Iraq as there are military personnel. Why don't we just pull out the military people and let the mercs handle the situation? I mean, that's why they're making the big bucks, right?

I often wonder if part of the reason we can't take our troops out is because if we do Blackhawk could be in for some serious trouble.

[bemildred]

2. Mercenaries. They are called mercenaries. nt