Wednesday, The Nation came out with an interesting article about Barack Obama’s position on the use of private security on Iraq. Essentially, Obama’s position is that we’re pretty much stuck using them at the moment, but they must be answerable to US law.
“If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it’s in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it’s in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures,” said the senior adviser. “I can’t rule out, I won’t rule out, private security contractors.” He added, “I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law.”
I think Obama’s position is correct here. US forces are tapped out, and thus our military must rely on this support… at least for a while.
In Iraq right now, the number of private contractors is basically equal to the number of US troops. While Obama advisers say they plan to “have a serious look” at the role of contractors in Iraq, one adviser seemed to indicate that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. “These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They’re rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they’re doing logistics, they’re driving trucks, and the important question is, If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military.”
Unfortunately, due to the massive downsizing following the Cold War, we don’t have military personnel with which to replace them.
Yes, it’s incredibly problematic that we have contractors operating without accountability, and while Obama has a bill in the works to create a legal structure to handle contractor crimes, it may not pass by the time a new president takes office.
Of course, both Clinton and Obama have said they’ll begin a withdraw from Iraq if they become president — but it’s painfully obvious that we have to view these contractors as part of the larger organization, and integrate both their supporting and security roles into the removal.
Because simply banning them will create a vacuum we cannot fill.
So what, then, is this?
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.
This legislation — the Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act — “mandates that US personnel undertake all diplomatic security in Iraq within six months of enactment”. It was also described in the Nation’s article, and the author has now updated to wonder why Clinton has signed on in the midst of a heated campaign.
I think it’s pretty obvious… but if this passes, then by default we’re going to be out of Iraq very very quickly — so quickly, perhaps, that our departure will be damagingly chaotic. These private firms are part and parcel of the current configuration in Iraq, and nothing we’re doing there is sustainable without them.
I think Hillary has finally managed to put some serious daylight between herself and Obama.
Contract “warriors” have been used in virtually every war, and some other national initiatives (Lewis and Clark) since the founding of this nation. More shipping was “taken” by combat contractors than the U.S. Navy in the Revolutionary War.
The need to use such talent is NOT an issue of over worked military, or high op tempo…It is simply that wasting so highly trained and sugically fine a resource as U.S. Armed Forces to provide security details for diplomats or bureaucrats makes NO sense, and is not an efficient application of force!
It is also incorrect to suggest that Combat Contractors, or at least Blackwater, are not accountable under law…they are specifically exempted from Iraqi law by CPA Order 17, but absolutely accountable to the Diplomatic Security Service, and the American public under U.S. civil and criminal law for their actions while under contract.
If Blackwater is barred from serving in Iraq, one has to wonder which of the lesser capable security firms in Iraq will provide personal security details for either Sen Obama or Clinton when next they make a political visit to the “war zone”?
Having been the “bureaucrat” protected in Baghdad by Blackwater, I can tell you first hand, they are not only my choice for accomplishing the mission, but for staying alive!!!
Mr. McHugh — Thank you for commenting. I hope you will return and continue a discussion.
I have the impression that you’re focused rather tightly on Blackwater, but my understanding is that there are several companies providing services via contract. Do you believe only Blackwater is under discussion?
Also — however one wants to describe the strength of our military, we no longer have strength in certain MOS’s. While you are absolutely right that we’ve contracted various aspects of military operations throughout our history, the degree to which we rely upon them today is unprecedented.
Finally, in terms of accountability — you state that “Combat Contractors” are answerable under civil and US law. Two questions:
1. Your statement called out Blackwater specifically. Is there a different accountability procedure for others?
2. Can you describe for me the process through which a contractor would be held accountable, precisely?