Posted on 10/30/2007 4:39:27 PM PDT by freedomdefender
A British private security firm hired to protect oil installations of post-invasion Iraq is being sued for causing the death of an American soldier. The case against the Erinys security firm, which reportedly has close ties to the former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, is believed to be the first brought against a private security contractor operating in Iraq by a member of the US military.
It comes at a time of rising unease about the actions of private security firms in Iraq after 17 Iraqi civilians were shot dead in Baghdad by Blackwater guards travelling with a convoy of US diplomats.
The suit against Erinys, filed last week in Houston, was brought by the father of Specialist Christopher Monroe, who was struck by an Erinys convoy on October 25 2005. He was on guard duty in southern Iraq when he was struck and killed by a speeding Erinys vehicle, the suit alleges. "The family just didn't have the answers that they were seeking," said Tobias Cole, a lawyer for the family. "For example, why did their son die on a non-combat mission? There was no reason to have extreme driving, no reason to drive without headlights, no reason to drive at speed through a parked convoy."
Monroe, 19, was the third generation of his family to serve in the US military and was an eager recruit. He enlisted before finishing secondary school at the age of 17. The lawsuit alleges the four vehicles in the Erinys convoy were driving at an estimated speed of up to 80mph on a dark road using only their parking lights. The Erinys vehicles were not under fire, and they were not carrying high-profile passengers.
Monroe's right leg was sheared off by the force of the collision, and he was thrown 40ft into the air.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I’ve asked on other threads, but nobody has answered: How did we get by in WW II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm without private security firms (let alone a private security firms that “reportedly has close ties to the former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi)? Anybody know? And did I read correctly that this private security thing was started by Clinton in his war on Haiti?
look here to understand Erinys’ origins
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5731.htm
the answer to your other Q is that we had plenty of active duty personnel to do the job.....see, “privatization” in the absence of a draft is very profitable......GI’s haven’t pulled KP since the 70’s.....etc, etc.
Baghdad year zero:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
be sure to have a look at the 2 updates linked above the article........the CPA and Chalabi, contractors, etc had big designs.....some of the rest is history
Although the circumstances varied in each of the conflicts you name, the answer lies not so much in addressing "private security firms," in specific, but "private contractors" in general. VN_Survivor answered the question accurately in #3, but hopefully, I can furnish a few more details. First, what we're engaged in now, unlike Desert Storm, is a nation building exercise. There are substantive numbers of diplomatic personnel (i.e. Department of State) in country. If the DoD were to dedicate military personnel to the security details of State Dep't personnel, that would greatly increase the requirements on the number of military personnel needed in theater, and fewer service members would be available for the purely military aspects of the mission.
Another matter is the increasing sophistication of our weaponry and equipment. Whereas in Vietnam, for example, a crew of (uniformed) helicopter mechanics could generally service everything on the flight line, something as sophisticated as an AH-64 has individual guidance/navigation, weaponing, avionics, etc. systems that each require individual specialists. It is far more cost effective for the military to have service technicians from the manufacturer or other contract specialists than it is to train personnel in these very limited, almost arcane disciplines.
FWIW, I see it as a double-edged sword. It does allow for a leaner, meaner military with more trigger pullers, but it does complicate the matter of synchronization and coordination between many, many organizations and can cause potential problems with command and control. I'm not sure if there's a "perfect" solution or balance, only better and worse ones....
is this the same firm that was guarding Brig General Dorko the other day when he was wounded by the roadside bomb?
Yes
I’d expect that he was traveling with active duty folks.....but either way, roadside IED’s (as opposed to fighting off an ambush) require more attention than this type of guard does.....specifically road-clearing operations on foot, minesweeper type stuff along with todays hi-tech devices.
In my days in Vn, every 2 weeks or so the road was necessary for resupply convoys for the very rural northern part of Hwy 13....the road was swept on foot and outposted with a GI on both sides 100 meters or so in many areas as well, for 35 miles. This was a 3 Battalion operation that took no less than 3 days total for 2 days of convoy.....easily 2000 grunts (several nites in proper NDP’s along the road, starting afresh each morning), plus some armored personnel carrier troops and aviation. No small feat, I assure you. (from S of Lai Khe to Quan Loi in my case, but this was necessary in many places throughout Vn). Ground transport in Iraq today has GOT to be a nightmare for all!
oh boy
how did you get the ACAVs to do 80 mph then?
80? surely you jest.....60’s vintage M-113’s. Each Bde had a Bn of Mech (ours were 1/4 & 3/4 Cav and 2/2 Inf Mech), and the !!th ACR was always around.
Others have answered much of your question. Another reason is because of numbers. DoD has been under the gun for over 20 years to reduce the number of military and then the number of civilian employees.
Somebody still has to do the work. DoD substituted civilians and then contractors to meet the numbers imposed on them by politicians. Many, many former military jobs are now performed by contractors. They say it saves money to use contractors but I never have really understood that.
In addition, many military missions have been transferred to the Reserves and National Guard over the years. That explains why we must use them more to augment the active force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.