I think there is a world of difference. We should support our troops and their missions; I see no reason why someone working for a private firm should have any more right to wave guns at citizens - of this or any other country - than you or I.
I don’t like the use of contractors (even though my dad was one for Chiang). Soldiers are there to kill people and break things.
I believe there may be a case to be made about these guys not fulfilling something that I think is vitally important. That would be the presence of an undeniable combatant. Are they wearing recognizable war zone uniforms?
I have a big beef with people who don’t identify themselves on the battlefield for what they are, namely a bonified combatant that is not a terrorist.
I don’t think these guys are terrorists, but I can’t bitch and moan about not being able to tell combatant from citizen on the terrorist side, if our own team sometimes doesn’t dress as a bonified battle combatants.
Other than that, I do see some issues. I’m not all that bothered by this. I am willing to accept that perhaps I should be. As of this moment I am not, but I could be moved by the right argument.
As long as these men conduct themselves by the same rules as one of the members of our armed forces, as much as that can be accomplished, I don’t have a problem with it.
It’s another way of outsourcing. We may save money by doing it. These guys must be paid rather well, so I’m not sure that’s true. I would be very miffed if I thought our troops were paid X and these guys got X plus.
That may be the case too.