If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Blackwater group
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Sorry if this has already been done, I had a quick look and it doesnt seem to be there.
Basically, for those of you who havent heard, one of the bigger private armies has been kicked out Iraq because of the murder of at least 11 civilians.
These mercenaries have total immunity from any charges under a law the US pushed through the Iraqi government, so they can basically do what they like.
Is this the future of warfare?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7024370.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7000645.stm
Basically, for those of you who havent heard, one of the bigger private armies has been kicked out Iraq because of the murder of at least 11 civilians.
These mercenaries have total immunity from any charges under a law the US pushed through the Iraqi government, so they can basically do what they like.
Is this the future of warfare?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7024370.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7000645.stm
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Bodyguards, yes. Ok. But the private security firms and armed forces opperating in war zones makes my blood boil. The fact they are essentially a military for hire - for whatever cause - is one of the most despicable things.
Mercanaries have been about for years, yes. But this, with the weaponary of today, is something I'd ban. The amount of disgusting behaivor and practices shown by many firms in Iraq proves this for me.
Surely the use of mercenaries is the opposite to a war-centric economy?(by which I assume you mean an economy geared soley or mainly towards war).
Mercenaries are used because they're cheap, you don't need to equip them (and hence they can buy more from abroad) and you don't need to worry about the pensions issues. Contrary to popular belief the majority of mercenaries in iraq are not well paid US citizens, but groups like Filipinos or Fijians etc on about $20 a day or so.
They're actually used to keep costs down and prevent the move towards war-centric productions. One of the criticisms in the use of mercenaries is that they're being used so that the US and UK don't have to put the money needed into defence and equipping and training their own soldiers.
From interviews from squadies who have joined similar security groups I know you can earn up to 10 times as much as a security contractor in Iraq than you would as a soldier. That'd be tempting to many, and so would the knowledge that you are all but exempt from the law.
mercs are used because it enables you to reduce troop numbers, well in name alone for politics.... and passes the buck as subcontracting lends itself towards
It's relative. $20 a day is pretty good pay if you're unemployed in Fiji.
ETA - it also works both ways. mercenaries aren't covered by the laws of war and can be treated as an unlawful combatant.
Well it depends; I would elaborate that the economy, in terms of private ownership of production does, in the case of rising companies like Blackwater, point to a situation where private companies increasingly profit from conflict in a way that they did may not have done previously (specifically these companies).
The source of profit (that which drives all business) is thus enhanced by breaking open markets; conflict drives market demand. Blackwater need equipping and training and feeding; they will themselves look to cut costs, and buy from other companies. The ideology being that the benefits of an increasing market will filter down the production chain.
The paradigm of 'war-centric' production isn't the same as, for example, that which gave the US it's post-WW2 booming economy. At this stage we have a great deal of the actual performance of War being outsourced, rather than just some logisitics.
Spending money on state military (though certainly in some cases objectionable) is still a spend on public service; something like adequate mental health support for service personnel and decent accomodation are (I would argue) completely apropriate and neccessary.
On another note; What is being outsourced here is also accountability, and the ability to make people accountable in a timely and effective fashion.
and they'll try to cut costs, but then so does the state. The British in WW1 had labour units scouring old battlefields for bits of equipment which could be reused.
It may or may not be objectionable, but it doesn't seem to me we're entering anything radically different from what's gone on before. Some people profit from war, some profit from peace.
The bowyers you cited would only have made a tidy sum off of the amount of arrows proportional to the amount of Frenchmen that required shooting. In any case that particular example took place in a vastly different world, where conflicts and economy function at vastly different levels, while also being interconnected in many different ways.
My concern is that it is now in the direct interest of companies like Blackwater to maintain situations of instability and conflict because of their market position.
In short it looks like 17 civilians were killed and Blackwater employees came under no fire (the report states the convoy was 'not even hit by a stone')
The Iraqi cabinet is now reading the recommendations and plans to 'take legal steps to hold the company to account'.
Will be interesting to see how this compares to the State Department's investigation which has been handed over to the FBI.
Oh and for those that missed it - the 2003 agreement that granted contractors immuity for prosecution was or is being changed to bring contractors under Iraqi law following this incident at al-Nissor square.
More details -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7033048.stm
Which is the very same reason why some terrorist suspects grabbed by the US have in the past turned up in places like Syria, you let them do the torturing and they share the results.
We now live in societies and economies whose theoretical/philosophical underpinnings are individualism and self-interested participation in the labour market. Humans are expected to (and are increasingly forced to) behave individually to "rationally" maximise their economic gain/utility. In the past, soldiers were often motivated by nationalism or the belief that they were protecting their home territory (or its interests). Now, when Western powers need (or desire) to enter assymetric military conflicts over economic resources (that will be exploited for profit by multinationals/commercial enterprises) against adversaries who do not represent an existential threat to us, soldiers are faced with a paradox. Why should they risk their lives in a conflict which does not entail a direct threat to us, and at most represents a very abstract protection of "our" interests? Most soldiers could make more money in other sectors of the economy, without the risk of invalidity or death. An economically rational soldier would thus refuse to fight in such conflicts, or more likely not sign up in the first place. The "intangible" motivation just isn't there for them now. Coerced labour (concription) isn't going to be popular. Thus, we increasingly rely on mercenaries; who are under no pretence that their motivation/acceptance of risk is purely motivated by individual economic gain.
I'm not convinced they do influence market demand. Blackwater may fulfil a need, but the evidence they started the Iraq war is slim.
and to be honest its not in Blackwater's interest to perpetuate the situation. its in their interest to do a good job, so that they're employed again. Enflaming the situation doesn't count as doing a good job - protecting your principals does. Given that the FBI is now investigating Blackwater I wouldn't be suprised if we very shortly seen a termination of contract
Soldiers don't behave in a economically rationale way (does anyone?). In fact soldiering is probably one of the most economically irrational things you can do...
I've never met a soldier who's prime motivation was money. There's many things which keep soldiers in harm's way. Of which the most important are loyalty (to your immediate superiors, the boys under you and your friends) and the much derided machoismo (to be man amongst men or if I run I'll be ashamed in front of those who I value). I've head soldiers grumble about pay, but then I've heard soldiers grumble about anything (too hot, too cold, they're bored, too busy) and whilst plodding through the Welsh mountains overladen with kit, in the pouring rain, starving hungry and with hardly any sleep I can certainly remember feeling that they don't pay me enough.
But the professional, regular soldier in the end just shrugs and gets on with the job. There's a bit in Zulu when the Colour-Sergeant is asked why we're here and he replies 'because we're here and nobody else'. which isn't to say that soldiers are either apolitical or amoral, but most see themselves as servants of the state and they go where the state says and leave whether its in the national interest and the moral questions to people sitting comfortably at home. If there is a paradox, few soldiers notice it.
nor neccessarily are mercenaries totally motivated by money. Some no doubt are. But others belong to the old fashioned warrior caste, to whom the minutia of peacetime soldiering holds no appeal. Others are retired and a job working in iraq with other ex-soldiers is more interesting than some part-time work for help the aged or growing sunflowers in the back garden. Others are disillusioned by a country which sees mained servicemen being scorned by a civilian world which cannot understand their values and see not future in civilian life. and others want to use their skills which the military taught, but to do so on their own terms and to have more time at home with wives and kids.
Two things; Firstly to clarify, by maintaining situations of instability and conflict I mean that a need for their service continues, and hopefully expands. This need not be in the same theatre, nor in the same geographical location. Nor does manipultion of markets mean simply the crude exercise of murdering civilians; their involvement in a security situation that is tied into not only democractic and civil issues, but also issues of raw materials and world markets, is of greater concern.
There is nothing to stop a convergence of interests between interested parties from energy concerns, and those in the private security industry pursuing 'synergies' (in the Business acumen) between themselves to increase market share. Of course, the main point is that we cannot predict how interested parties will act in the future, but it is reasonable to assume that elite groups tend to attract interdependencies and take on each others interests when there is a profit to be made. This isn't an issue at the level of the invididual soldier, so much as how the elites who control their paychecks function.
Secondly; of course they didn't start the Iraq war and I don't think I even suggested that.
The Iraq war, if you look at its main proponents in the Bush administration, was the realisation of a long held plan amongst those who have occupied senior positions within the military-industrial complex (Rumsfeld, Cheney and of course Bush). It is also about elite ideology - if you look at the senior string pulling elites within the administration, a great deal of them subscribe to the original Neo-Conservative leanings of Leo Strauss - a man whose philosophy centred around an America united in battle against a monstrous 'other' (which at the times was the Soviets).
Blackwater's position has been a privilaged one; just look at the law the Americans wrote into the Iraqi legislature, absolving private security firms of responsibility (now of course repealed). Separately, one of the only surviving relics of Saddam-era Iraqi law has been Saddam's brutal anti-labour laws banning unions and collective bargaining. These two are examples of how elites interests tend to find their slippery way into the structure of accountability that develops when such interests guide military action and subsequent rebuilding. On a more literal level we only have to look at the 'no-bid' contracts awarded automatically to Haliburton.
In short, the question is not one necessarily of action at the level of the individual soldier but at the level of ownership and consolidation of elite interests.