Need an Army? Just Pick Up the Phone

NY Times ^ | April 2, 2004 | BARRY YEOMAN

[Travis McGee]

Scott Helvenston, Navy SEAL, R.I.P.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
46	West Virginia	15.00	1	15.00			30.00	2

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[jolie560]

Some guys, I am sure, get over-confident, because of their past military service.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

The underlying thesis is that these men deserved what they got because they were former military and because they serve in a military like capacity. The writer can go to hell.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The scum from the NY Slimes would rather we all be under the UN cover. And they will love it when true darkness settles over the US of A. Old commies will always be old commies.

GOD bless the lads who do the dirty work of the free world. Be they former or present military, they are all that stands between us and the barbarism of worldwide Islamist nutcases.

[neverdem]

You have my sincere sympathy for the loss of your comrade. May he go to a better place.

[dandelion]

This is a hit piece, aimed at smearing thousands of contractors and security personnel in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. The contractors who died this week were not "mercenaries" - they were highly skilled security personnel who were necessary to the job of rebuilding Iraq.

How typical that the NYTimes would allow this smarmy little snot from "Mother Jones" to describe dead American workers this way:

"Think about it: a private military firm might decide to pack its own bags for any number of reasons, leaving American soldiers and equipment vulnerable to enemy attack. If the military really can't fight wars without contractors, it must at least come up with ironclad policies on what to do if the private soldiers break local laws or leave American forces in the lurch".

Let's get the FACTS straight: NONE OF THESE MEN were "leaving American soldiers and equipment vulnerable to enemy attack". The only men who left Americans vulnerable to attack were the ghoulish reporters, waiting in the shadows, ready to record the attack from it's very inception - reporters participating in the murder of the four men who would later die that day...

[Spruce]

BARRY YEOMAN: f***-off. How do pussys like this get columns in a newspaper?

[Romulus]

Private contractors are viewed by Iraqis as part of the occupation, yet they lack the military and political backing of our combat troops.

And when they die, no one has to explain to Congress or the American people whether their lives were worth it. They got their money.

So are these men acting citizens or mercenaries? Are they fighting for their country or for themselves? Is it good policy to privatise deaths in overseas adventures, just because we can afford to? Is it healthy for our own political culture, which supposedly reflects the people's participation as citizens engaged in a political project involving their tradition, culture, belief, and ethnic identity, to hand the messier assignments to purely private agents -- free lances in the original meaning of the word -- because anything's OK so long as you have enough money to persuade somebody to do something really dangerous? Finally, is it moral to expose our country as a whole to the consequences of this policy?

These men's deaths are purely private affairs for which no politician will ever have to take responsibility, but the geopolitical costs of our increasing demand for mercenaries will be staggering. Their six-figure salaries are but a down payment on the bill that's going to be handed to all of us.

[japaneseghost]

If you had a wife and kids, and this company were offering $100G+ per year, in these economic times, how could you refuse?

I don't think I could refuse.

I've sat in an umemployment office with a guy telling me how he wished he could have been sent to Iraq, but contractors (IT guys) had recently been killed there so he couldn't be hired.

This guy had lost his house due to his unemployment.

More likely than not, these victims are just ordinary guys trying to earn a living for their families.

[gogipper]

Domestic companies also hire security personnel. Are they mercenaries? Shouldn't they let government police perform these functions?

Would you agree to maintain a military the size of the US Military just after the second world war when half the globe was destroyed?

Yes, we will pay the bill either way. Lets make sure that we achieve our goal in Iraq, that being a country that gives its citizens freedom.

[goodnesswins]

So.....why doesn't THIS writer get his butt over there instead??? Nooo....he just armchair quarterbacks it all. Makes me sick.

[Romulus]

Yes, domestic security personnel are mercenaries. No, private concerns have the right to protect themselves and should not be forced to rely on police only.

The difference of course is that private concerns are not public concerns. If Wal-Mart keeps hired muscle on the payroll, it's none of my business unless I shop there. When my government does it, it becomes my business, and as a citizen I inherit the consequences when private troops in ways that reflect on my country.

The fundamental question, as I said, is: do things like this become smart or moral just because we can afford them?

[neverdem]

Think about it: a private military firm might decide to pack its own bags for any number of reasons, leaving American soldiers and equipment vulnerable to enemy attack. If the military really can't fight wars without contractors, it must at least come up with ironclad policies on what to do if the private soldiers break local laws or leave American forces in the lurch.

That paragraph did go over the top for two reasons the way I look at it. These security personnel are mostly retired American military. Why would they bug out on their country's interest or our military on active duty? How would these "private armies" hope to continue in business with a reputation for desertion.

I posted it for the information in the rest of the article, not the author's impressions or fears. It was folks like these who aided and supplied the Croations in the former Yugoslavia in their final successful offensive against the Serbs. Most folks at the time thought that it was just Clinton's decision to use our air power that persuaded Milosevic to agree to a cease fire that led to the "Accords" in Dayton, Ohio.

It was a combined arms operation. Most likely it was guys like these calling in the air strikes as the Croations supplied the bulk of the soldiers who were trained by retired American Special Forces.

That led Clinton to think he could bluff Slobo in Kosovo with just a bombing campaign from 15000 ft. It took almost fifty days of this relatively ineffective bombing to convince Clinton that he had to use ground troops. After convincing the Russkies he would launch a ground campaign, Slobo got the word and started withdrawing his army from Kosovo. I'm sure bin Laden was impressed.

[KingNo155]

IF they were working for Hollywoods Star's the New York times would be praising them right now instead of speaking Ill of the dead!

[gogipper]

I don't think that we can reasonably expect nor would we want the US military to do every single thing necessary to put Iraq on its feet. Commerce of all kinds will need to be reintroduced at the same time that security is being improved. There are also non-governmental entities making contributions. This is nothing new, when world war II started there were civilian contractors that participated in battles on Wake Island.

Given the results of this event, one may ask if this security team was properly being used and whether military should have been in this role, but I don't think you can make a blanket statement that any and all civilians in Iraq are dumb or immoral.

[Romulus]

I don't think you can make a blanket statement that any and all civilians in Iraq are dumb or immoral.

Good, because I never said that. I said it's dumb and immoral for our country to dangle huge salaries in front of people to get them to do things we don't want to ask our armed forces to do.

[Justa]

"do things like this become smart or moral just because we can afford them?"

So, you consider providing private security for food aid shipments to be dumb and immoral?

Apparently, in your mind a "smart" and "moral" person allows innocent people to starve and remain in filth and poverty. You'll have a better reception on a U.N. message board.

Since when are security teams mercenaries? Do you likewise consider the Secret Service to be the 'private army' of politicians?

[Justa]

"I said it's dumb and immoral for our country to dangle huge salaries in front of people to get them to do things we don't want to ask our armed forces to do."

Well, if you can't tell the difference then you also miss the distinction between military and civil operations.

Why should the government use the military for civil operations when they're needed to support military operations?

Maybe you think soldiers should build the tanks and helicopters too?