Private Armies, Public Debate
Talk about a juicy contracting lead.
"In the wake of a deadly shootout in downtown Baghdad, the Iraqi government on Monday said it had revoked the license of Blackwater USA, a prominent American private security company, setting up a confrontation with the U.S. government over who has the authority to regulate the civilian hired guns operating in Iraq."
That's the top of a story this morning by Post reporters Joshua Partlow and Steve Fainaru.
The story is the latest in a line of coverage about one of the stranger aspects of the war in Iraq: The proliferation of private security forces that act in effect as private armies.
By one estimate last year (cited by the GAO) there were about 181 private security companies working in Iraq with more than 48,000 employees. They provide security at military bases, the Green Zone and power plants. They transport money, conduct surveillance, gather intelligence and guard key personnel, including the ambassador -- at great cost to American taxpayers.
"Eight of the 15 reconstruction contracts examined by
GAO in July 2005 had security costs in excess of 15% of the total contract billings. Security
costs exceeded 25% under three of these contracts," according to a report earlier this year by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The GAO found that private security forces did not coordinate well with U.S. forces. The GAO also raised questions about the qualifications of the security forces.
Check out the story today. "Blackwater, based in North Carolina, has an estimated 1,000 employees in Iraq. The company has a high profile because it guards U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker along with other diplomats. The companies black SUVs and agile 'Little Bird' helicopters escort these diplomatic convoys throughout Baghdad."
It gives a glimpse into what can happen when private armies operate in a war zone. Blackwater may be out -- or at least politically sideways now. But when the U.S. military draws down it seems safe to assume that private security forces may play an even larger role in that war-battered country.
In other news:
Check out this facinating story in WashingtonTechnology about Alaskan Native Corporations. It may seem arcane, but it's part of a larger issue of what the government means by "small business."
.
By Robert O'Harrow |
September 18, 2007; 10:19 AM ET
iraq
Previous: Working At Home II |
Next: Sun Sets At GSA
Posted by: Michael Lent | September 18, 2007 10:51 AM
If the US Military doesn't think its job includes protecting the Ambassador and the other civilians that are risking their lives and are doing the non-kinetic parts of reconstruction and stabilization missions that should improve things and allow the military to go home, then you have to hire Blackwater. Amb Crocker should get the best security money can buy - he should be at least as well protected as Petraeus given the importance of the role of the US embassy.
Posted by: Angry | September 18, 2007 1:23 PM
According to the Article 5 of the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries of 1993, "States Parties shall not recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries and shall prohibit such activities." In other words, Washington is committing a war crime.
Posted by: Michael Haas | September 21, 2007 12:08 PM
I do not believe we should hire anyone except our military for protection in any nation but our own. We should cooperate with hired help for the protection of American citizens but if we have to pay individual nations for protection the UN is failng to do it's job and we should stop wasting billions of dollars to support this and I am a World WarTwo Air Force Widow and mother of two Vietnam Vets, so enough already...I look back over our sacrifices since WW 11 and most were in vain so let's heed the warning of George Washington if the US tries to protect evey nation it will cease to be a free nation...
We need to protect our shores and our people but we cannot protect all people and all nations and all we do is create enemies who hate us for generations to come.
The Arab nations are an example of unearned hate and in my opinion, President Bush made the same mistake to invade Iraq that Senator L.B.J. made to invade Vietnam...history shows we cannot win by invading any nation to protect them , and the cost in human cash and human lives will destroy us if congress continues to let misguided presidents destroy us this way...Willowdean Vance, USAF Widow , WW 11, Phoenix, Arizona
Posted by: Willowdean Vance | September 23, 2007 12:36 PM
I recommend reading Jeremy Scahill's book entitled "Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army"...another glimpse into the insanity of the war in Iraq!
Posted by: M. Karl Kleiner | September 24, 2007 1:55 PM
http://kreoline.247ihost.com >insurance adjuster Hissy fit
Posted by: BOOMER | November 19, 2007 5:32 PM
http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >renters insurance Daniel come to judgement
Posted by: JASMINE | November 20, 2007 8:00 AM
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! edwvcrkcfjf
Posted by: clcabgyslq | November 23, 2007 5:54 AM
Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit
Posted by: Emma | November 27, 2007 1:41 PM
Shoot through
Posted by: BENJAMIN | November 28, 2007 6:34 PM
Donkey's years
Posted by: PRINCESS | November 28, 2007 11:27 PM
Donkey's years
Posted by: PRINCESS | November 28, 2007 11:27 PM
A no-brainer
Posted by: MICHAEL | November 29, 2007 1:54 AM
Katy bar the door
Posted by: PRINCE | November 30, 2007 4:20 PM
Hello allне могу понÑÑ‚ÑŒ
http://a-cash.info/adultonline/adult-dvd-rentalonline ">.adult dvd rental
Posted by: Loanser | November 30, 2007 7:30 PM
Belt up
Posted by: AUDREY | November 30, 2007 11:22 PM
Down the pan
Posted by: JASMINE | December 1, 2007 4:05 AM
Plain sailing
Posted by: JULIAN | December 1, 2007 6:39 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's real easy to amplify existing confusion when using stats in this area. 120 thou is the usual number for total US contractors. Of those, 30 thou is the usual figure for security contractors, like Blackwater.
The bulk of the contractors, many believe are Iraqis and third-country nationals, but that leaves tens of thousands of Americans.
Question: how do we know that the documented costs of security for a contract are excessive? We don't, yet. It's a warzone. There's no baseline or precedent. Do we think the government (civ or mil) could do it more cheaply? If so, we also know the feds can't be freed up or the slots don't even exist; that's why contractors are often used for peak workloads.
And speaking of contractors, can we agree that contractors working for our government in Iraq can have security equal to the quality and cost (if need be) of that provided for government civilians and for force protection.
That said, the person-year costs for the security and other kinds of American contract personnel that one hears seem high--but evidently permissable, since the government accepted them. (In some cases, such as one KBR contract, the government never agreed to the security cost element, and that is a problem--for both sides--to resolve.)
In the emerging Blackwater saga, one of the more interesting facts to establish is whether or not the contractors are actually protected (by US-Iraqi agreement) from Iraqi prosecution for crimes committed within Iraq. From Maliki on down, the Iraqis sound like no such agreement exists.