Should U.s. Military Contractors In Iraq Be Considered Mercenaries?

[abercius24]

I recently watched a documentary called "Iraq for Sale" which detailed many disturbing practices some of the military contractors in Iraq have been engaged in. Most contractors were in fact hired to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. But amidst these contractors are corporate security personnel who have been accused of engaging in offensive missions. Normally private security personnel are given rules of engagement limited to defending the contractors' assets and general personnel -- basically a limitation to self-defense. Apparently these rules of engagement are being liberally interpreted by the corporate interest involved. For example, when a contractor gets intelligence of an imminent attack on one of their installations from a local village, the contractor sends these security personnel into the village in force to deal a pre-emptive strike. Many believe such actions deem these security personnel as being hired mercenaries. Worse yet, many have reported that private contractors have been used in interrogating prisoners of war -- particularly at Abu Ghraib.

Apparently the Anti-Pinkterton Act of 1893 is the basis for the United States' prohibition on the use of hired mercenaries. At the time this law was passed, the U.S. government was accused of hiring mercenary-like security guards (primarily the Pinktertons) to aid corporations in breaking strikes. Given our current liberal use of private security personnel by contractors in Iraq, I'm concerned that we may be going down a slippery slope that may invalidate, if not overturn, the U.S.'s current prohibition. I'm also concerned about the rammifications we may incur from the existing use of such "mercenaries":

--By allowing civilian corporations to engage in offensive military actions, are we not blurring the distinction between civilian and military targets? Assume I am an employee for a corporation that is engaged in such offensive military actions. Can it not be argued that I am a legitimate target given that my work will supply funds to the corporation that will in turn pay these "mercenaries" who are attacking enemy positions? Yes, I know that distinction is already blurred by our terrorist enemies in the War on Terror, but what about our other enemies? Could North Korea be legitimate critized for bombing the headquarters of a U.S. corporation if they had evidence that corporation had security personnel involved in an attack on one of their military installations?

--If we allow private corporations to engage in such offensive actions overseas, what would stop them from claiming the right to attack a domestic target, such as the headquarters of a radical labor union in Texas? Isn't that why we historically initiated the prohibition of such Pinkterton-like security contracts in the first place? Think of the intimidation factor such a corporation could have over its domestic employees if their security personnel were authorized to use deadly force in "justifiable" circumstances.

--Do you want your tax payer money being spent on hiring men and women whose sole purpose may be to kill for profit? Should not acts of war be limited to soldiers who fight to defend their country in the name of patriotism?

I know I seem to have already established a position on this issue, but there are still a lot of details and points of view I'd like to hear. Please offer your supportive or counter arguments. Thanks!

[geauxsaints26]

They are mercenaries. They are a paid army that is not a part of the U.S. military in any way. No matter how hard they try to twist it they are not part of our military. In Iraq they have pretty much immunity to go and do whatever they want. The Mercs are not bound by any standards, procedures, laws, or codes. Our REAL soldiers are bound by the standards of ROE and the Military Code of Justice, mercs don't have to answer to any of these.

What gets me is that it's our tax dollars paying these people. Why would we pay people who have no rules more than the REAL soldiers fighting to defend us? I honestly think the mercs give our REAL soldiers a bad name in Iraq and elsewhere when they shoot innocent people and run people off of roads into ditches daily. What should we expect when they are held without consequence and have no rules to abide by?

It just makes me sick when I look at what we are paying them and what our men fighting there are getting in comparison.

[abercius24]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1565136' date='Jun 9 2008, 05:20 PM']They are mercenaries. They are a paid army that is not a part of the U.S. military in any way. No matter how hard they try to twist it they are not part of our military. In Iraq they have pretty much immunity to go and do whatever they want. The Mercs are not bound by any standards, procedures, laws, or codes. Our REAL soldiers are bound by the standards of ROE and the Military Code of Justice, mercs don't have to answer to any of these.

What gets me is that it's our tax dollars paying these people. Why would we pay people who have no rules more than the REAL soldiers fighting to defend us? I honestly think the mercs give our REAL soldiers a bad name in Iraq and elsewhere when they shoot innocent people and run people off of roads into ditches daily. What should we expect when they are held without consequence and have no rules to abide by?

It just makes me sick when I look at what we are paying them and what our men fighting there are getting in comparison.[/quote]

I totally agree that our men and women in the armed forces should be treated with much greater respect than this. They live by a real code of honor, which truly represents some of the greatness that comes out of this nation.

[Justin86]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1565136' date='Jun 10 2008, 07:20 AM']In Iraq they have pretty much immunity to go and do whatever they want.[/quote]
They most certainly do not. In 2007 Congress changed the wording of Sec. 552 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include private military contractors(522 is the section that defines who can be prosecuted under the UCMJ). As a matter of fact, the wording is currently so broad it could even be applied embedded journalists, and foreign private contractors if the military chose to do so.

While I'm awfully unsure whether or not PMCs are a good product of our times, one thing for sure is that they are fully accountable to the same rules and regulations that I would have to follow if I were in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Deb]

So, did the 2007 congressional action undo Order 17 which exempted all mercenaries in Iraq from having to obey the law? Sure has been a lot about Blackwater in the news, including their use of bullets that not even the army woud use due to them leaving untreatable wounds. The Iraqi Prime Minister did not want their contract renewed but, we blew him off, per usual.

Based on the information out there on the mercenaries, they are no way being held accountable as the U.S. servicemen are.

Interesting tidbit. Before Rome fell, it was inclined to start hiring mercenaries to do its dirty work.

[mommas_boy]

I don't have a problem with Blackwater and other organizations as they were intended to be: private security contractors for the business sector. I do, however, have a strong objection to how they are actually functioning.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Deb' post='1566487' date='Jun 10 2008, 09:17 AM']Based on the information out there on the mercenaries, they are no way being held accountable as the U.S. servicemen are.[/quote]

I tend to agree with this statement. I heard very little about the contracted interrogators at Abu Ghraib being prosecuted, but I heard a whole lot about the military personnel and their subsequent punishments. By the way, Former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski (the former commanding officer at Abu Ghraib) speaks out in that documentary about the scandelous role the contracted interrogators played at Abu Ghraib.

[quote name='Deb' post='1566487' date='Jun 10 2008, 09:17 AM']Interesting tidbit. Before Rome fell, it was inclined to start hiring mercenaries to do its dirty work.[/quote]

Very interesting!

[Maggyie]

One of these so-called "mercenaries" was buried from our Cathedral four years ago in a funeral Mass celebrated by the rector.

[quote]RITTMAN, Ohio - An Army veteran killed by insurgents while working as a private contractor in Iraq was buried Saturday with military honors at a national cemetery.

...Zovko, 32, was one of four American security workers killed March 31 when they were hit by rocket-propelled grenades in a rebel ambush in Fallujah. Jubilant mobs dragged the burned bodies through the streets and hung two from a bridge, but Zovko's family did not know if he was one of them.

In Clarksville, Tenn., about 200 people attended a memorial service for another worker killed in the ambush, Michael Teague, 38. Teague, a 12-year Army veteran, also received military honors, and members of his motorcycle club escorted the hearse.

"He knew the price of being a warrior," said Teague's wife, Rhonda. "He was devoted to duty, honor and country. He loved his son, loved his family."

Teague and Zovko worked for Blackwater USA, a private security consultant. Loved ones of both said Saturday that they were devoted to making the world a better place.

...The Rev. Edward Estok called Zovko a freedom fighter.

"We are called to live in freedom," Estok said. "We salute his sacrifice."[/quote]

[url="http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/041104/nat_20040411081.shtml"]Link[/url]

Like many private security contractors, both Teague and Zovko were veterans. Zovko served in uniform for 8 years. Teague was decorated with the bronze star. Sounds like "REAL" soldiers to me. They did not magically turn from virtuous military men living by a "real code of honor" into eeeevil unscrupulous mercenaries when they signed up with Blackwater.

Don't get me wrong, it's obvious that the situation with military contractors is all messed up. But people have a tendency to look at this issue, and others, with a vision that is too black and white, without any real understanding.

Also, according to Webster, a mercenary is a professional soldier who fights for a country not his own. That is what the mercenaries Rome hired did. They were not Romans, and they fought for Rome. Contractors from Blackwater etc. are employees of a private company who work abroad. They are not the servants of any state.

[CatherineM]

I think it is like anything else where a bit too much discretion is being giving outside a proper chain of command. I imagine that most of the individuals are ex-military, most honorably discharged. Some probably aren't because it is a dangerous job that involves having trouble filling positions. It's always those few bad apples that give the honest ones black eyes.

[ardillacid]

Is mercenary supposed to be derogatory?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1569124' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:50 AM']Is mercenary supposed to be derogatory?[/quote]

As an adjective it means "venal" or "motivated only by money." As such it is a perjorative. It does have a a non-derogatory meaning as a noun, however.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1569223' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:23 AM']It does have a a non-derogatory meaning as a noun, however.[/quote]
hmmm....I'm not sure that's how the author intended it.

[abercius24]

Thank you for the defense, Maggie. I do not mean it in a derogatory manner toward any individual security officers.

I more have concerns that these security officers are being used in a manner contrary to their intended purpose, the disrespect their use poses toward the members of our armed forces, and the social repercussions their use will have in the long run. In fact, the documentary I mentioned earlier had many such concerns about these security officers being unnecessarily put in harm's way. My concerns are about the government allowing such orders to be passed down to these individuals. Those corporate and government leaders in charge are ultimately the one's I would blame for the alleged misuse of these officers as "mercenaries". For those security officers who are legitimately doing their duty, I hold you in great respect and I apologize if my words were poorly chosen.

Edited June 12, 2008 by abercius24

[Deb]

If they are trained soldiers, carrying guns and providing muscle, receiving a jumbo wage and not part of the U.S. military, they are mercenaries to me.
Hired guns. I do not believe they belong in any part of a military action. Just my opinion. They do not answer to the military and who really is taking the time to monitor them?

[Maggyie]

[quote]If they are trained soldiers, carrying guns and providing muscle, receiving a jumbo wage and not part of the U.S. military, they are mercenaries to me.[/quote]

But do you see how your use of the word is inaccurate? The word "mercenary" has a very specific meaning in the English language which contractors don't fit. "Hired gun" is a much more accurate term for what you mean to convey, rather than "mercenary."