.jpg)
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, right, talks with his son, U.S. Army Capt. Beau Biden, at Camp Victory on the outskirts of Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo/ Khalid Mohammed, Pool)
If you thought the end of American intervention in foreign wars was nearing, think again. President Obama has been replacing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with private contractors—some 250,000 are currently deployed overseas—including Blackwater (operating under another alias.)
Contractors are not subject to the same guidelines as our soldiers, and thus, have not been held accountable for the misdeeds they have afflicted upon civilian populations in the past.
This story has largely flown under the radar of the mainstream media, but will surely induce outrage at some uncertain point in the future.
Watch Video:
(Editor's note: The spelling of Blackwater has been corrected.)
DoD Report: Contractor Support of U.S. Operations in USCENTCOM AOR, Iraq, and Afghanistan
Comments
This is NEWS to you??? Were have you been since 2002? Contractors have been a major part of the "Global War on Terror" since it began.
"Contractors are not subject to the same guidelines as our soldiers"
As the 34 CZARS are not subject to advice and consent.
See a pattern?
STILL waiting for CHANGE?
Rod: "This story has largely flown under the radar of the mainstream media, but will surely induce outrage at some uncertain point in the future."
The point of the article is to point out that this practice is currently increasing, not decreasing, and it's implications, and that it is being ignored by the mainstream media. You should read the article before you comment.
Rod: There's a reason it's being ignored by the MSM, which is why I drew attention to it here. You folks on the right are so blinded by your ideology, you can't even see when someone agrees with you. The president has indicated his intentions to end the conflict--not continue it through private contractors. I am well aware that they are nothing new, but their #'s are increasing--that's news.
I don't believe we should have any private contractors who are not subject to the standards of our military engaging in any operations overseas. Further, we have no business over there at all.
I'm a liberal, not a presidential lackey--I know that may be difficult for Bush apologists to understand. I actually disagree with the president from time to time, and I'm entitled to write about it if I so choose.
I still think Obama is a better president than McCain would have been. I'm not so foolish to believe that anyone who does not agree with me 100% of the time is unworthy of my support.
Balderdash. A NEXIS search will come up with hundreds of MSM stories about contractors and contractor abuse - including some I wrote myself.
And that 250k number is smoke and mirrors, including everyting from security contractors to oil field operators to cooks, cleaners and trash collectors.
Wow, Jenny... talk about jumping to conclusions. Based on no evidence at all, you decide I'm a right-winger and Bush apologist?
Talk about knee-jerk reactions!
For the record, I opposed the invasion of Iraq before it happened, based on both my experience as a soldier and a military journalist, as well as the management of it from Day One.
And if you bothered to do any research, you'd know that 1) the majority of contractors are NOT U.S. citizens and many, mayby a majority by now, are not even under U.S. contracts and 2) contractors in Iraq TODAY are subject to the laws of Iraq - which is a major reason Blackwater/Xe is no longer there.
Rod: Considering that NEXIS is a database that requires payment from subscribers, I do not consider it within the mainstream. It is only mainstream for journalists. When I indicate MSM, I'm referring to the media that the mass populace consumes.
Apparently your experience causes similar knee-jerk reactions, since you read the headline, but didn't bother with the 100 words or less that comprised the article, and which would have illustrated that I am well-aware that the use of private contractors is not a novel development.
Bother to do research on what? This isn't an in-depth piece on private contractors, it was only intended to let people know that the war is not being scaled back--we're just hiring people to fight it for us. I didn't need to do any research to point out these facts.
Why are you surprised it is "under the radar" of the lame stream media?
Have you seen anything from Obama's media that is critical?
When Bush was President we got deluges every day with an Iraq and Afghanistan US body count. EVERY DAY. Do we see that today? Of course not.
This past month was the deadliest month in Afghanistan SINCE WE STARTED there!
NOT a widespread story.
Since legitimate journalism died with the last election, many important stories will be absent.
Well, Jenny, anyone purporting to know about the MSM would know that NEXIS is a database OF the MSM - simply a way of finding out what has already been reported to said "mass populace."
Google News or several other free news databases would serve quite well as substitutes if your on a budget.
And your blanket assertion that "we're hiring people to fight it for us" runs contrary to the serious reporting from people actually inside Iraq.
The number of gun-slinging contractors has been going down, not up. And in Afghanistan, the increase is in out uniformed service members, not mercs.
But then again, you don't seem to feel the need to support your assertions with actual facts.
Rod says: "talk about jumping to conclusions. Based on no evidence at all, you decide I'm a right-winger and Bush apologist?"
Yea Jenny, why do you do that so often? It seems to be a pattern of the lieberals to presume much about others.
There was a story last week of a contractor in Afghanistan who was a local as served as cook and server to our troops. He was very well liked and respected by the Americans. He worked for about $15 a day to feed hi family of 4.
On his way to work one day he was assassinated.
Some of the soldiers got concerned about his family and went to check on them. ALL were shot and killed.
This is what the Taliban/Al Quaida are all about. The most intolerant religion on the planet.
Here's a simple test for you, Jenny:
"President Obama has been replacing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with private contractors—some 250,000 are currently deployed overseas—including Black Water (operating under another alias.)"
(FYI, it's Blackwater - one word - and it's not an alias, it's their new, legal corporate name, Xe - which has been well-reported.)
Now, since you claim Obama is "replacing soldiers ... with private contractors...", please be soo good as to cite the federal contract or contracts under which this is being done.
Rod: Again, you must pay to view NEXIS articles. There is no need to argue this point further. The story survives online and in the blogging community. If you think Americans are that keen to what's going on around them, perhaps you should venture outside of military journalism and into the intelligence of the mass population.
We are all aware of the troop surge in Afghanistan by Obama, but we were also told that troops were being reduced in Iraq. The source I provide says private contractors are being increased in both wars. If you disagree with the source, tell us why. Provide your source. You're a journalist, so direct us to accurate information if this news report is false. Where are your "facts?"
Que: The so-called "liberal media" didn't scrutinize Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war either. Only right-wing loons forget that when they're griping about unfair reporting from the MSM. They go with the status quo.
"If you thought the end of American intervention in foreign wars was nearing, think again. President Obama has been replacing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with private contractors—some 250,000 are currently deployed overseas—including Black Water (operating under another alias.)
Contractors are not subject to the same guidelines as our soldiers, and thus, have not been held accountable for the misdeeds they have afflicted upon civilian populations in the past.
This story has largely flown under the radar of the mainstream media, but will surely induce outrage at some uncertain point in the future."
Gee, Jenny... I don't see a SOURCE in there anywhere....
It's not my job to prove a negative - like the non-existence of U.S. contracts increasing the number of paramilitary contractors in Iraq.
YOU make the assertion - you need to provide the evidence.
Rod: This is not a peer-reviewed article. If you're looking for an in-depth analysis, go to NEXIS. This is a blog, reporting a specific piece of news: Obama is increasing the use of private contractors in our two wars. I, for one, believe that he probably is.
This report confirms it: www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/hot_topics.html
Before you say, "the #'s in Afghanistan are decreasing," keep reading on to the private security contractors.
The video is the source, Rod. Do you want me to click play for you too? It is part of the post, so you might want to engage in reviewing the entire post before claiming the source is not there.
As for your red herring re: NEXIS - I already pointed out that you can use free news databases instead.
Among other things, you'd learn that the law concerning private military contractors was changed awhile back.
As for the "intelligence of the mass population" - what do you THINK I'm doing?
I'm attempting to counter your disinformation.
I have now provided a video source, and a statistical source from the DoD, showing that private contractors have increased in both wars since Obama took office.
If the DoD is wrong about their own contracts, please, enlighten us all.
Rod: You're not doing a very good job, because the evidence I have provided (as opposed to the nothing you have provided) indicate that indeed, private contractors are assuming increased operations in both wars.
Ahhhh... I was wondering if you'd ever get around to actually finding the DoD report.
Now...READ it.
Armed contractors are a tiny fraction of the overall contractors - and, contrary to your claim, subject to rather specific rules (finally).
Noooooo... in IRAQ, the increase is due solely to improved reporting.
"• There was a 23% increase (from 8,701 to 10,743) of armed DoD PSCs in Iraq compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. This increase can be attributed to our improved ability to account for subcontractors who are providing security services."
Add the 4,111 armed PSCs in Afghanistan and you're still a far cry from the 250,000 you try to claim above.
Before I crawl off to my Neanderthal cave for the eving, permit me to suggest you not let your ideology blind you to the fact that there are significant differences in why we are in Afghanistan (you do remember a little incident on Sept. 11, 2001, right?) and why we are in Iraq.
Don't be like the wingnutz of the right who are claiming Afghanistan is "Obama's War" - while conveniently ignoring the fact that it would/should have been over years ago if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had finished the job instead of invading Iraq.
Rod: And what of the part that said duplicative processes had resulted in inflated numbers in the first place--which accounts for the decline of general contractors?
What exactly is your argument here? That Obama is in fact, ending our involvement in foreign wars? I think the facts prove quite the opposite, and this story is just one of many examples.
How is the 250,000 figure incorrect? A private contractor is a private contractor, and they are not subject to the same laws as our military, as you pointed out before. I don't care if there is 1, 50, or a million over there, there should be ZERO!
As someone who is opposed to the war, I am at a loss for what you are actually arguing for or against. Obama is not reducing our presence there if he's just sending private contractors over instead--and the report proves he is--regardless of the actual number that may be.
Rod: If I were blinded by ideology, I would ignore the fact that Obama is continuing the Bush policy.
Apparently, we have not yet learned our lesson about the costs--and ineffectiveness--of nation building.
Al Qaeda is a joke compared to the threats in Iran and NK, but let's waste our resources on a rogue, highly dispersed, and loosely affiliated regime of self-proclaimed Islamists.
Those same guys we're fighting in Afghanistan--the taliban--are the same guys we trained to fight against the Russians, and they're using our own weapons against us. We created them, now we're going to get rid of them and replace them with another tyrannical regime. Bravo, America.
Jenny, I'd accuse you have rewriting history, but that would presume you studied history.
The Taliban are NOT the guys we trained to fight the Soviets (they were still Soviets back then); the Taliban, supported by Pakistan's ISI, came to power to fill the vacuum left when we abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left and the various warlords fell to fighting amongst themselves.
And they're not using our weapons, they use Soviet-era weapons.
The history of the mujahideen, the Taliban and al Qaeda is way more complicated than your glib dismissal.
Obama is hardly continuing the Bush policy of lip service in Afghanistan; whether or not some kind of reasonably acceptable outcome is still possible there is questionable, but at least this administration is actually trying.
And are you a closet neo-con, wanting to take on Iran and/or North Korea? Because any military expert will tell you Iraq was a picnic compared to what either of those would be like.
As for contractors. if you can't comprehend the difference between a cook and a gunslinger - or between a foreign hired gun and a local national (someone who lives in that country) who is given a job - I can't help you.
Rod, read Jenny's words on Medicare and SS.
Jenny says:"Medicare isn't broken--reference the comment by a physician above. Apparently, your intelligence, is broken."
Jenny says:"I checked out your link. Was this supposed to be new information? The programs are not solvent as they stand--simple adjustments in taxes, raising minimum age requirements, etc., would provide solvency once again."
So don't expect her to understand you!
Jenny,
Good for you for challenging the "official" line on this-goodness knows the stenographers in the MSM will not(or will bury it a la the "Sons of Iraq). To ask the question is enough.
Rod, it strikes me that if you were half as cynical, and spent a quarter of the energy you do attacking those asking questions, asking questions of those actually setting policy and perpetuating wars, you might actually be useful. Jenny's questions do not kill innocent people (women and children by "accident" and those who dare to defend their homes on purpose), but the directives of the politicians you seem so eager to defend do-regularly, and with only the most amorphous of justification.
The truth in foreign affairs is, the new boss simply spells his name a bit differently than the old one.
Man did anybody see Obama throw out the first pitch at the MLB All-Star Game? Man let's hope the Commander-in-Chief does a better job at handling the wars in Iraq& Afghanistan, than he does at throwing a baseball, the guy throws like a girl.
Rod: Why do there need to be more cooks, if there are less people to serve, as you suggest?
Happy: I stand by my comments. A system that is broken would need to be rebuilt. Neither Medicare, nor SS need a radical change, but rather tweaks to account for demographic changes. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. If you bothered to do any unbiased review of the literature, you would find that Medicare does delivery services more efficiently and at a lower cost than private insurers. A convenient fact you choose to ignore.
Placing a bunch of murderous mercenaries in the battle fields makes the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq completely illegal.
America is in completion of the German Third Reich. This makes every American an illegal enemy combatant and a few thugs in the UN security council will not protect you.
You Americans are guilty, guilty of murder and war crime. Heil to Obama you Zio-Nazi Leader.
Please look in to "Bilderberg conference". Or perhaps the "CFR". Perhaps the "Federal Reserve".
The big picture is right in front of you.
I figured it was only a matter of time before the bilderbegs were mentioned. Im starting to feel as if i stumbled into the LD political blog
People seem to think that we can hire MERCENARIES and we are magically "absolved" of anything they do. Under LAW, if you hire someone to act as your "agent" you are equally responsible. Just think if I could hire murderers to kill people I don't like, and I could walk free if they are caught? NOT going to happen.
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss!
Ok
There has NEVER been ANY link established between 9-11 and either Iraq or Afghanistan. Not a single piece of evidence has ever been presented for public scrutiny. So why are we still fighting 8 years later? take a good hard look at how we have been deployed in Afghanistan. Look at the pipe lines and where they go. Look closely at map of the middle east. There is one clear winner in all this mess and a lot of losers. The only country that has lost nothing and gained a tremendous advantage is Israel. One by one their neighbors are being reduced to ruble. And I might add at the cost of trillions of dollars to the US and zero cost to Israel. And since when is defending your home against foreign invaders an ack of terrorism?
Mercenaries are and always have been, the scum of humanity...I hope every one of them dies a painful death.
Mercenaries is a it of an overdramatizasion. most of these guys are truck drivers, welders, cooks, plumbers etc.
Lynn is correct in that most of the contractors are providing services such as catering, transport, and logistical support and they are not jack-booted capitalist storm troopers which some of the “Area 51 crowd” would have you believe. The government issues contract to vendors who in most cases can provide services cheaper than the government can provide.
Jen, I figured you might happy if “profiteering contractors” were being placed in harm’s way as opposed to military kids who are trying to pay for college. You people on the left keep acting like we are murderous thugs and yet we fought these wars in such a pc fashion that we had media imbedded everywhere-even warning towns like Fallujah in advance that we were going to invade with a 3 day notice (placing our troop in jeopardy). You should be happy that regimes that have oppressed women horribly are being removed-regardless of what hidden agenda you may have cooked up.
Mark: Thou doth not protest much against Obama's foreign policy, dare I say you actually agree with him?
I think both of these wars are wrong, and no one should be fighting them--not even the blood-sucking capitalists.
I'm surprised that you repeat the lies that these contractors are doing services cheaper. As Naomi Klein points out in the book you claim to have read, in Iraq, private contractors were given contracts that allowed them to rob our federal coffers, just so they could sub-sub-sub contract the work back to Iraqi's, which ended up in unfinished and shotty work. All in the name of what? Profit.
Ah, now... if you are going to argue that contracts in general have been poorly managed and cost the taxpayers way too much money (including significant fraud, waste and abuse), you'll find little disagreement.
But your fundamental premise is still incorrect: Soldiers are not being "replaced" by contractors, either in support roles or among the small number of armed PSCs. (For example, the military would not have been providing State Department bodyguards if Blackwater wasn't there.)
And as the number of uniformed troops shrinks in Iraq, the number of contractors also is shrinking.
As for Afghanistan, you can believe we shouldn't be there - but you can't claim candidate Obama wasn't up-front about his intention to clean up the mess Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld left there.
Jenny, it is a noble cause to liberate women in Afghanistan (something Mavis Leno out here has been advocating for a decade and a half) whether is was the primary reason we went in there or not. Do you want your sisters living as slaves? I believe any regime that represses people like this should be targeted one way or another as this is no different than what the Confederate South did to the Africans. You have to remember that dictators or autocrats do not respect appeasers and will not listen to the U.N. By the way the people that attacked us were from there also. If democracy takes root history will view this as the right move whether Bush gets credit for initiating the war or Obama for finishing it.
actually, there are sources that say that womems right have taken a step back, since american troups have been in the region
Lynn, There are sources that say se attacked ourselves on 911-sometimes we have to look through the fog- Sure there is going to be some retalitation against some women who seek their freedom for some time-This area of the world is trying to break out of the dark ages- This is not a struggle between cultures in my opinion, but a struggle between the 21st and 13th centuries.
Did we have women's liberation in mind when we invaded? probably not just as slavery was not the focal point of the civil war but its ending was a good result-
If Hitler had never invaded Poland and stopped where he did would we be ok with him oppressing political opponents and killing certain minotity groups (just as Hussein did)? is it just not our business? I would like to hear from Jenny when she thinks an invasion of another nation is appropriate-Do they have to invade us first? If Neville Chamberlain had stayed on I would venture the opinion that we would have a very different world today.
Watch the movie "Iraq for Sale" about mercenaries and war profiteers
Mark: Each situation has to be taken on its own merit, and I think most of us can agree in hindsight that entering WWII and taking out Hitler before he exterminated an entire race was warranted.
Nobody likes a dictator, but you can't go starting conflicts unilaterally with little support from the rest of the industrialized world, and you can't go funding assassination operations to achieve these goals under the radar.
As you mention, if women gained rights it would only be a by-product of the conflict. If we were to rank dictators on human rights abuses, Iraq and Afghanistan would not top the list. America has failed in its own efforts to ensure equal rights for all, so we're at least not living up to our own standard.
"...you can't go starting conflicts unilaterally with little support from the rest of the industrialized world..."
And the USA had that support for going after al Qaeda and their government protector, the Taliban, in the aftermath of 9/11. Going into Afghanistan met all the requirments of a "just war."
The fact it was mishandled and allowed to fester so we could invade Iraq doesn't change that.
Rod: Bush went in to Afghanistan; did we capture or kill any senior Al Qaeda operatives? Weren't at least some of the supposed Al Qaeda operatives (like the three guys that got a one way ticket to Bermuda) innocent and turned over to America by "freedom fighters" for a finder's fee?
Indeed, Bush effed up the country and then left it in shambles, where the Taliban filled the vaccuum - which is pretty common in our interventions: leave a disaster or install a dictator.
Would you say the taliban is a bigger threat than North Korea?
Jen, you are never going to eliminate discrimination or have perfect social justice no matter what, but America has done more than any other country in affording opportunity to minorities.
Jenny if you recall the mood in America did not want to confront Hitler directly and there were the "moral relevance liberal" crowd back then who did not want to get involved and had Japan not attacked us it is very possible Hitler fights a pro-longed war with negotiated territorial gains with his form of government still in power today.
I simply can’t figure out what might trigger “liberal outrage” short of a country kidnapping Sean Penn-
Jen, I know hindsight is 20/20- I just want to know what your parameters are for taking military action to eliminate or diminish an oppressive regime. As we know the U.N. with its sanctions has a bad track record in confronting dictators as many nations still do business with them or are dependent.
If the South had won the War and there was still slavery would another nation be morally right to attack the Confederacy even if it was not threatening its neighbors?
I'm just trying to figure out what Jenny's trigger point is for conducting hostilities if there is one- the merit point was a little vague. There is nothing illegal with having the attitude that nothing is our business, but if you do not have this attitude I wanted to see what common ground we might share.
There are always "other reasons" for going to war-In WWII was it Hitler's racing to the Soviet oil fields? In most conflicts there are multiple agendas-the populace may have bought into one, the leaders another.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!