|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Hired Guns With Hair Triggers|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151337,00.html
Sometimes, a lot of times, you have to fire first, defensively. There is no rule that states you have to wait to get shot at if someone shows hostile intent. |
||
|
|
Member |
Very well written, Mr. Lubin. There is something fundamentally corrupt about a nation who would rely so heavilt on mercenaries to pursue a war of aggression. Something has gone very wrong within the inner circles of the U.S. Government.
|
|||
|
Member |
Today was just posturing for the cameras.
They did not even wait for any of the 'real' or 'independent' investigations. One thing for sure. If they ever expect to turn the streets over to the Iraqi they better get the ROE squared away and enforced for one and all. |
|||
|
|
Member |
The only one of these assertions that is even mildly relevant to BW's mission performance is the last one. If they didn't meet contractual obligations to armor their vehicles, then they need to get nailed for it. The rest of the assertions are 100% irrelevant. In no particular order: You always fire the first shot if you've got to be involved in a gunfight. 1.4 times a week, they're actually in a situation where their protectee is at risk of life or limb? In a country that is blowing its own citizens up every day? 1.4 times a week is a non-event. A collection of white guys in relatively new vehicles moving in a convoy through a country filled with brown people is pretty obvious. If they can figure out who's Shi'ite and who's Sunni, it's a no-brainer figuring out that a well protected convoy of westerners is a target. Fired and drove away. Yep, that's exactly how it's done. Actually, it's 'hit the gas, follow your Immediate Action Plan, locate the shitheads, fire them up as you're driving away'. Anybody who suggests they should stay around is very simply an idiot. The job they've been hired to do is very simple. It's to make sure their protectee gets to its destination. Whether that protectee is a diplomat, a reporter or a convoy of fruit trucks, the job is the same. Make sure it gets to where it's going. Stopping at the scene, waiting to be shot at, stopping to shoot are all... Okay, they're not even ill advised. They're simply stupid. They're not there to provide emergency medical aid to civilians. If the locals are at the point where they run away when they see the PMC convoys coming, this is a good thing. This is preventative. They're not doing the 'hearts and minds' parts of the mission, they're keeping the people who do that alive. They're also a civilian company working for the State Department so none of the Congressional investigators stand to lose committee seats if they conduct themselves like buffoons. The PMCs are an easy target for people who don't have a clue what the PMC's job actually is. It's the political equivalent of firing first. Except in this case, the people doing the shooting aren't able to take any casualties at all. It's political, election based quackery at its finest. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
So out of thousands of engagements this happens and demands are made that they leave? There’s a war going on and sometimes mistakes happen. They’re certainty not murderers like the insurgents.
|
|||
|
Member |
Actually, if you kill 11 civilians who did not fire on you, then yes, they are murderers like the insurgents. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yeah, what he just said. 09Recon is dead on the target correct.
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
That is a matter of opinion. They are definitely mercenaries in my opinion and should be treated as such. Patti |
|||
|
|
Member |
Quick question for you. Which Cabinet level Department is employing Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Dyncorp in Iraq? What makes Blackwater's employees 'mercenaries' but the contract instructors working for the Department of State Security service aren't? Why exactly is a Blackwater employee a mercenary yet the guy across the street who's working for Aegis or Strickland aren't? Oh, wait, Aegis and Strickland are contracted to the US Department of Agriculture, not Department of State. Do you even know who these guys work for? |
|||
|
|
Member |
09Recon:
They work mostly for the State Department and most of the rest for the Department of Defense. There is no difference between working for DoD or State. If you are hired to act as bodyguards for our generals or diplomats, for our convoys, or installations in a war zone, you are performing a military function. When you are given immunity from prosecution from acts committed, you have 'diplomatic' immunity. Both State and DoD contractors are mercenaries, who are performing functions which have generally been performed by US uniformed military personnel in war zones. A contractor 'down the street' is a DoD civilian, working in the USA or in a NATO or ither allied nation not in a war zone. Rarely have DoD civilians been employed in war zones. Almost always these have been employed in clerical or administrative positions, usually inside US military/diplomatic compounds. It doesn't take a degree in nuclear physics to determine the difference! |
|||
|
Member |
I can sum this up in one sentance.
Blackwater hasn't lost a client to date.  |
|||
|
Member |
As repeatedly pointed out in many other similar threads: Blackwater is comprised mainly of ex-military members who must have a clean background and be able to obtain a SECRET clearance (for starters) as mandated by the US Government. Not to mention that most of the ex-mil types are from the spec-ops community. Some are from the civilian police community as well. I personally know one ex-coworker who is still an active IMA/Reservist and works full time for Blackwater as a K9 handler.
While they may technically be mercs, all of us work for paychecks too. I don't know any mil member who wouldn't happily accept a six figure salary if offered. Most all of the Blackwater's 'hired guns' have taken an oath to defend this nation at one time or another. But I'm sure its more convenient for some of you to pretend like they are all ex-convicts who they just threw weapons to. I am certain Blackwater has some bad apples. In case you didn't notice, so does the military and the government at every level imaginable from top to bottom. |
|||
|
New Member |
What I want to know is what is the point of taxpayers funding the Diplomatic Security Service if Blackwater performs their diplomatic protection mission in Iraq?
Is DS just not up to the task? Blackwater has a place in Iraq, however I think they need to be brought into the fold a little better. From what I understand, while Blackwater's initial hiring practices were pretty stringent, they have grown lax over the years. |
|||
|
|
Member |
DSS doesnt have enough people to go around. State has said that in press releases. They have put in their budget each year for more DSS agents ... they dont get the funding each year.
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
After listening to the testimony, I've come to the conclusion that Blackwater fills an important gap in Iraq. I do not approve of civilian contractors performing a military role. But, government agencies do not seem to have enough in house personnel to protect diplomatic assets. THIS is what needs to be changed. Get the ex-operators off the government teat and on the government team. If the state department or the DOD created or expanded protective services, contracts with Blackwater would dry up and the military wouldn't be suffering the loss of so many skilled operators.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I can sum this up with a sentence, too: Blackwater killing unarmed civilians sh*ts away gains that US troops make in the counterinsurgency fight, which net results in more US troops getting killed by either new insurgents that were created by BW killing unarmed civilians, or insurgents that would've gotten turned in by a local until BW shot an unarmed civilian. To make it plain, BW (or other PSCs) killing unarmed civilians results in US troops getting killed. Personally, I think US troops need to be on the street defending the locals from contractors. I could give a **** about some d**khead from the State Department. I care about my soldiers, and BW's reckless conduct directly puts my soldiers at risk. |
|||
|
|
Member |
"I could give a **** about some d**khead from the State Department."
Your a genious ... they are there to do a job just like you are. State's trying to get the dam Government up and running ... something that the military is FAILING to do.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Or, just bar armed contractors in theater completely. It's easy; have a 1,000 or so soldiers assigned to the MNFI HQ as the "PSD Battalion" or whatever. Make it up from volunteers military-wide. The number of visitors to theater from the state dept or congress or whatever is limited by the size of this detail. If the PSD Battalion is tapped out, nobody can visit the theater until a PSD team from this Bn is available. It would give the theater commander control over the entities in his AOR, which he should have, anyways. Contractors performing a "military function" isn't the problem; the problem is there is no accountability for contractors (the regulating agency for contractors being able to ship weapons to Iraq, run around the AO armed, and their ROE is the State Depat...who happens to also be the client). So, you now have an armed force which can run around doing whatever it wants. The US military has to deal with the mess, and the US military has enough problems over there already. The flood of highly trained soldiers from the military to PSCs is a secondary effect; I think you are right on about these guys needing to be retained. The combination of limiting or even barring PSCs from combat theaters with GOOD bonuses to stay in, even beyond 20 yrs, would fix it. PSCs do have a place, just not in theater. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Maybe a pay cut for BW is in order! They seem to be doing a good job but mistakes are not allowed to happen in the real world!
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
If the State Dept is there to get the government up and running, they need to be in Baghdad getting the government up and running...not running around the AO with a bunch of trigger happy contractors.
Any as for you, genius, the military can't get the government together because the AO is s**t, and the AO is s**t because every time they turn an area around some PSC lights up a crown of unarmed civilians and f**ks away any and all goodwill that took time, money and US blood to create. Don't you get it? The fight in theater is a counterinsurgency fight, and winning communities over to your side is ESSENTIAL. The PSCs who just drive through town and shoot up a crowd of bystanders destroy that. It sets the counterinsurgency back, which sets the ability for the government to get stood up back. It's real simple. Keep the PSCs inside the wire. Obviously, as organizations they can't be trusted with maintaining good order and discipline in dangerous areas, So the solution is to keep them, and their state department clients, out of dangerous areas. If they need to go from Baghdad to Fallujah, for example, they should have to request, and if granted, use military air to move. No ground movement at all.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Hired Guns With Hair Triggers
