Comments on: Iraq, America and hired guns Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: ComeWhatMay Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:39:51 +0000 Greg Ross makes a good point, but fails to account for a… I hesitate to use fact. I firmly believe that those people who are either ignorant or decieving themselves are the people responsible for running the US. They are the ones supporting the US bureaucracy. What makes you think you can convice them to act otherwise?

Contractors can be loyal, capable, and I believe still fall under military law.

There have been examples of evil men in the “governmental” military as well. Abu Ghraib what?

The principle problem with contractors is their ridiculous cost relative to governmental troops. Better to not deal with the hassle. Contractors are for intelligence work, not military patrols.

That said, I have *no* problem with bodyguards and similar, because US military forces are trained to fight a war, not be a police force… they are a field army, not a police army, hence the issues that Kevin_000 mentions.

By: kevin_000 Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:14:41 +0000 Those that think that these Mercenaries are elite disciplined troops might want to watch ‘Shadow Company’.

I for one support the illegal invasion of Iraq. The previous regime was well on the way to genocide using nerve agents against its own population.

However ‘we’ (please note that the US has been heavily supported by many other countries including my own) have failed to win the hearts and minds of most of the population.

At the formal end of the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland it was estimated that the cost to the UK was some $1.4 million per head of population. One journalist wondered if just a fraction of that was spent on creating good employment and infrastructure would people have bothered to fight?

BTW – Iraq oil reserves are very small compared to Saudi and Iran for example.

At the formal end of the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland it was estimated that the cost to the UK was some $1.4 million per head of population. One journalist wonderred if just a fraction of that was spent on creating good employment and infrastructure would people have bothered to fight?

By: jljamup Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:26:26 +0000 Without mercenaries who is going to protect the u.s. oil interest that is just starting to get underway,in a big way, obama is destroying the oil business in the gulf of mexico so we have to have oil to get to work or go back to riding horses which causes a mess on the highway and smell like washington politics .

By: merv1356 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:21:39 +0000 Where does everyone think these contractors come from. most are highly exprienced Special Operations forces who have retired which makes them more well trained then the kids in the military who would be doing the job.
Second miltary contractors fall under Iraq law so they have even less leeway that the militaries their replacing.
Also I can say first hand when your a military contrator while you gat paid more you don’t have Uncle Sam any more to pay all the other things (insurance, Medical,Transportaion….)
I know some off these guys, the last thing I would ever descibe them as is Mercenaries.
The us has a checkered past in the middle east going back to before WW1, Read up on it and I’m sure all you highly intelligent people can find some thing to knock the US for that is based in fact and not uninformed emotion.

By: wildbillnum1 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:11:26 +0000 My thanks to President Karzai for trying to rid Iraq of the lawless soldiers-of-fortune of the former Blackwater. I have long wanted them out of there and into prison for their murders (and I don’t use the term loosely like some) and for ripping off the treasury.
I hoped when the US and Iraq renegotiated their status-of-forces treaty, Iraq would push for putting the ‘contractors’ under SOME form of law, but as far as I heard, it wasn’t mentioned. This is SUPPOSED to be a “Gov’t. of LAWS, not men.”

By: gmroder Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:33:26 +0000 After the US leaves Iraq it won’t matter who is carrying the the weapons or who is paying for it, within 24 months they will back to Islamic Law and the same mess they had before. International opinion seems to disparage the US for doing what is necessary to protect our country and the lives of our citizens, in the US as well as abroad. If terrorists bombed Parliament,Paris or anywhere else i’ll bet they wouldn’t be so critical. Oh wait, that did happen once before and most of the world seemed to appreciate the efforts of the US Military as well as the efforts of our civilian workforce.

By: kevin_000 Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:42:17 +0000 Re The comments here on the UN and “The military is a broad sword. It is there to destroy targets, to take over and hold key terrain. It is a tool not initially meant to nation build.”

One of the issues faced by British and other NATO armies is that they are trained in Peace Keeping and the US forces are not. Friends of mine in the British forces hated taking over zones after the US forces had done a tour there. Invariably the local population were hostile from their perceived experiences brutality and unnecessary violence. British forces for example are trained in the local customs, they train in how to engage the local populace. how to work with them where they can. Hearts and minds anyone? This has also been cited as a problem for US troops on UN duties. I have read reports that they suffer much higher levels of stress because they are put into situations of peace keeping for which they are not trained.

Mercenaries are not the answer. As we have seen they can opperate well beyond the law and they are not as accountable as a professional force serving with checks and balances and answerable to the political representatives of that nation.

As for the UN. Yes, very often they are not allowed to shoot because heir mandate might not permit it. They are operating legally under strict international laws and their particular mandate. It is my hope that one day it will become an effective internationally approved arm protecting vulnerable groups and countries effectively. To get there requires time and international support. Or are we always jut going to wade in illegally?

By: Tiu Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:55:13 +0000 How come there’s no news on the mainstream media about the US backed nuclear power station being built in Vietnam with full uranium enrichment capabilities?
There’s not much about the UAE’s new nuclear power station either… is that going to enrich uranium too. All this power politics is going to go boom some time soon.
Maybe some of these contractors will come back glowing in the dark if we don’t get back to democratic sane policies for the benefit of the many and not just a few greedy megalomaniacs.

By: madamd Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:54:11 +0000 America is now the leading imperialist and rules an empire by both legal and illegal means. The continuation of paid armies both regular and mercenary is normal for the system that the populations of the world, Capitalism. The British were extremely good at it, the union jack was rightly called the butchers apron, so this dubious honour has now been taken over by America. When the politicians in the UK are told to jump to the Americans tune, the question is how high?, how far? and how long?!

By: diddums Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:30:20 +0000 The contractors are there, paid for by the tax payer, to protect all those oil contracts for Corps. Make the corps pay for their own protection.