« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
It took a catastrophe that some say may ultimately prove "worse than Abu Ghraib," but finally the administration is thinking long and hard about oversight of security contractors in war zones. Bob Gates has a simple plan: put them under Defense Department control.
The New York Times reports this morning that the defense secretary, who shortly after the Nisour Square shootings pronounced himself dissatisfied with the apparent impunity exercised by private-security firms, wants a single, unified authority overseeing all security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not clear if the military would exercise command authority over security contractors -- something some ex-contractors support -- under Gates' nascent plan. But the State Department isn't so hot on relinquishing control over the contractors, like Blackwater, that guard its diplomats:
That idea is facing resistance from the State Department, which relies heavily for protection in Iraq on some 2,500 private guards, including more than 800 Blackwater contractors, to provide security for American diplomats in Baghdad. The State Department has said it should retain control over those guards, despite Blackwater’s role in a September shooting in Baghdad that exposed problems in the current oversight arrangements.In practical terms, placing the private security guards who now work for the military, the State Department and other government agencies under a single authority would mean that those armed civilians would no longer have different bosses and different rules. Pentagon advisers say it would also allow better coordination between the security contractors and American military commanders, who have long complained that the contractors often operate independently.
Gates is still making up his mind over how changes in contractor oversight should work. One as-yet-unresolved issue is whether additional legal clarification is needed to ensure that contractors don't operate in legal black holes:
Some military commanders in Iraq favor using the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a system they know well and trust. Other Defense Department officials support the model being considered by Congress, which would make clear that the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act would extend federal law to civilians supporting military operations.
The Times reports that Gates and Rice haven't spoken about the issue yet, as Rice is traveling in the Middle East. But apparently Gates is prepared to make a strong push for total DOD control over contractors: the paper says he's willing to go to President Bush directly for a decision.
Comments (21)
Tom in Dallas wrote on October 17, 2007 9:25 AM:It just gets better and better. Now the Secretary of Defense wants parallel militaries. One making far more money than the other without the necessity of the Mickey Mouse that is so much a part of the real military.
This seems incredibly stupid to me. What am I missing?
NCBlueneck wrote on October 17, 2007 9:45 AM:If we want the people in the military to make more money, just give them a pay raise. Heaven knows they need it.
The scary part of this story is that all despotic regimes the world over have had unaccountable para-military groups attatched to them. Why has the US jumped on this bandwagon?
Why do we need these military contractors in the first place? Shouldn't our military be handling security for our non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seem to me, this has been the way it has always been handled up to now. I can't see how you could possibly justify this under the usual "free market" malarky...
baffle 'em with bullsh-t! wrote on October 17, 2007 10:00 AM:So the solution is to:
OK wrote on October 17, 2007 10:20 AM:"...put them under Defense Department control."
But:
"It's not clear if the military would exercise command authority over security contractors..."
Huh? Howzat again?
I thought operating in legal black holes was the idea all along. Surely they don't want to change that.
DebT wrote on October 17, 2007 10:26 AM:This gets scarier and scarier. How far is this going to go? Will Blackwater or those like them be hired to protect officials in other countries?
I've already read that Blackwater is building their company for use in Central and South America. How far is that from hiring them to put a hit on Chavez or less notorious targets?
It puts me in mind of Iran-Contra - a shadow government with it's own military force. It's another extension of executive power. What if something happens before the 2008 election and Bush decides it's too risky to change leaders? No, surely not. That's too outrageous, isn't it?
Maybe I'm just having a nightmare.
Figbash wrote on October 17, 2007 10:28 AM:But apparently Gates is prepared to make a strong push for total DOD control over contractors: the paper says he's willing to go to President Bush directly for a decision.
Oh, yowzers, Gates don't make Boo$hy make another decision. I don't think he's up to it. His gibberish lately is even worse than usual and he'll probably decide he needs a Civilian Contractor Czar and name Torture Boy to the post.
Nell wrote on October 17, 2007 10:38 AM:Blackwater's contract is with the CIA as well as State. That's highly relevant to this issue, and I'd like to see the reporters (TPM and corp media) cover that more explicitly.
Scared! wrote on October 17, 2007 11:23 AM:I share DebT's nightmare because it's not at all too outrageous for the Bush/Cheney cabal to establish dictatorship.
Anyone who thinks this criminal bunch embraces unlimited presidential power so someone else can wield it is sleeping through the ongoing takeover.
It wasn't Osama, nor Saddam, nor Ahmadinejad who determined that, at the whim of Bush or his designees, I can be declared an enemy of my country, kidnapped, tortured, and held indefinitely without charges.
And, except for a few complaints, our Congress provides bipartisan support to see this change through. Perhaps they assume elimination of elections means they'll remain in office for life, but they won't even be needed anymore.
Can anyone tell me why this scenario can't or won't come to pass?
JimBob wrote on October 17, 2007 12:11 PM:This is nuts. If the DoD is going to exercise control (and it should) over ex-military forces making ten times what a soldier makes -- why not get rid of security contractors altogether, ridding the experienced military people an outside option for selling their services and thus giving them an incentive to stay in the military, then spend the money that would be spent on security contractors and up the pay and goodies for regular military, thus upping recruitment? Why not, in other words, make them all U.S. Military personnel? The economics of it are forehead-slappingly simple, are they not? Never mind that the ONLY people we should be sending overseas with guns should be U.S. Military personnel.
foggylady wrote on October 17, 2007 12:20 PM:After WW II, a universal question was, in various forms, "how could German citizens allow such a monster as Hilter to have so much power?"
As we watch our America slide into fascism, the answer is becoming clear.
Denial.
The idea of fascism..here...is simply too monstrous to fully believe.
So we pin our hopes that there will be salvation..
Oversight investigations, maybe...
hmmmm...nope...
ok, then the Dems now in Congress will rescue us.
uhhh...ok, the next election, then.
Yeah, that's the ticket...the future will save us.
Meanwhile, today, another brick in the wall.
I understand now...
DM wrote on October 17, 2007 1:03 PM:Oooohh, I may be opening a hornet's nest here.
Though I don't like the idea of these mercenaries at all...I tend to agree that the contractors should be under one unified command. Having read a great deal about our failures there, the overwhelming consensus is that we are not fighting a war, we're fighting a counterinsurgency. And as such, the rules of the game say that to win the counterinsurgency, you have to win the people. The military has finally realized this and has started to become culturally-sensitive, less "present", and less invasive/threatening to average Iraqis. The counterinsurgency lessons learned in Vietnam & Algeria are being dusted off and brought to bear. The Blackwater types are still operating off of the old rules whereby you point weapons at people, drive fast & dangerously through traffic, shoot first/ask questions later. These tactics have proven horribly misguided throughout the history of this horribly misguided venture. The contractors need to get with the plan. There is finally a "hearts & minds" strategy from a unified military command. The contractors are hugely counterproductive vis a vis that new unified command strategy.
Of course, all of this may be way too late in the game. But there's no sense in the contractors making more enemies out of generations of Iraqis. They need to get with the unified "hearts & minds" game plan...even if it is indeed way too late.
gps wrote on October 17, 2007 1:15 PM:JimBob wrote: "why not get rid of security contractors altogether, ridding the experienced military people an outside option for selling their services and thus giving them an incentive to stay in the military, then spend the money that would be spent on security contractors and up the pay and goodies for regular military, thus upping recruitment? Why not, in other words, make them all U.S. Military personnel?"
Because that's not Free Enterprise. Free Enterprise exists to transfer public money into private hands.
"The economics of it are forehead-slappingly simple, are they not?"
Yes, and that's the problem. If people realize that the economics of it are so simple, then they might speak out next against privatizing prisons (After all, what could be wrong with giving Big Business an incentive to put lots of people in jail for long periods of time) and water systems, or deregulating things like the electrical grid.
jolly ranchero wrote on October 17, 2007 1:29 PM:Something doesn't smell right, here. State should not be this resistant, unless there's something(s) more nefarious going on that we know. Otherwise, you'd think they'd welcome someone else taking on all that politcal liability and bad PR.
Something is telling me that Blackwater is performing other State functions, secretly, that they do not wish the rest of the US to know about.
Tassled Loafered Leech wrote on October 17, 2007 2:12 PM:There are several reasons to use contractors vs. military. On the economic side, once the mission is complete you get rid of the contractors. Not so with military personnel. So the cost (in theory)is higher for contractors in the short run, but much higher for military personnel in the long run (pension, VA benefits, etc).
I think that Gates has realized that the legal limbo of the contractors is in reality a bug, not a feature.
JimBob wrote on October 17, 2007 2:33 PM:You get rid of the contractors. Really? They just go off and get jobs driving tractors, flipping burgers, selling cars? No -- and okay, so it's not wholly an economic matter -- in the course of avoiding the political consequences of a draft or leaving Iraq or maybe not going there in the first place, you've created a band of Ronin who will now go looking for another war to fight. Is this good? Is it worth giving VA benefits to regular military so we the People can control who fights in the name of our country, how they fight, where they fight? I think it's well worth the expense. Creating independent armies who will continue to function -- and with political power and by the very fact of their existence, possibly even affect our foreign policy -- is a dangerous and unwise undertaking.
Anonymous wrote on October 17, 2007 2:46 PM:1. What is the mission of the US State Department in Iraq?
2. Is the goal of that mission attainable?
I've yet to see one single solitary person in Washington come close to asking these questions.
Media? Senator? Congress critter? Anyone?
Does anyone in Washington care at all that State has a completely unsustainable mission in Iraq? Sure is looking like the answer is no.
quid pro quo wrote on October 17, 2007 3:18 PM:IF blackwater is used solely to protect State Dept officials, WHAT WERE THEY DOING, ARMED, IN NEW ORLEANS AFTER THE HURRICANE? They were even heard grumbling that their pay ib NOLA was less than in Iraq. What is the government trying, NOW?
Tassled Loafered Leech wrote on October 17, 2007 3:53 PM:Actually, Gates (or Rice)should modify the contract with Blackwater such that any discharge of firearms that results in a (presumably innocent) civilian death would be punishable by a sizeable fine deducted from the contracted fee payout. Put the incentives back where they live- profit.
Jim in Colorado wrote on October 23, 2007 9:54 AM:How many private contracters are in Iraq? There is Blackwater providing security and torture services; there is Halliburton providing food and living quarters services. The total is well over 100,000. If those jobs were still done by the military, i.e., had not been "privitized", then Gen. Petraues would be leading a force in excess of 260,000. That is the real military presence in Iraq. Pres. Bush does not want the American public to appreciate just how big the footprint is over there.
Jim in Colorado wrote on October 23, 2007 9:55 AM:How many private contracters are in Iraq? There is Blackwater providing security and torture services; there is Halliburton providing food and living quarters services. The total is well over 100,000. If those jobs were still done by the military, i.e., had not been "privitized", then Gen. Petraues would be leading a force in excess of 260,000. That is the real military presence in Iraq. Pres. Bush does not want the American public to appreciate just how big the footprint is over there.
Privatize Everything wrote on October 23, 2007 10:07 AM:It won't be long before even the regular army is a private for profit concern, hiring foreign nationals to fight America's endless wars that we won't care about because there will be no American lives lost. Nevermind it will cost more and the soldiers fighting in our name will have no Veterans Administration to look after them after they are maimed.