Blackwater accused of child prostitution

[redlegphi 0]

I don't recall KBR truck drivers carrying weapons with them. I'm sure some did, but I don't recall seeing them carrying them and I haven't heard of a KBR driver taking part in any combat situations, so I don't think that argument really works.
As for offensive vs defensive, the terms are pretty much meaningless in this context. Yes, they were hired for a non-offensive role. However, if you're going to sit there and tell me that Blackwater contractors didn't go looking for fights or conduct "offensive" operations while on convoys, especially early in the war, I've got a bridge to sell you. As was already stated, the initial hires for Blackwater were SF/Seal/Ranger types. These are guys who are not going to be happy doing the same job that I can do with a couple of trucks full of artilleryman.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A private contractor not engaged in hostilities is not a mercenary ... nor is the guy employed at dining hall, the Dairy Queen, or BK at Bagram Air Field.

But none of those folks are the ones about whom we are writing, i.e., it's the red herring.

By that logic, the contractor gate guards here in Kosovo are mercenaries, because they would engage in hostilities if attacked.

Quote

Quote

It serves as a term of art for explaining to those with no experience the difference between offensive and defensive assets.

Or it serves as an artificial attempt to apply a constraint that is distracting in an insurgency. Or pedantically one might say it's imprecise and inaccurate, like confusing bullets with casings.

/Marg

No, it shows that there is a difference between someone hired as a security guard who may have to use a weapon if attacked, and someone hired to conduct a roadside ambush.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

However, if you're going to sit there and tell me that Blackwater contractors didn't go looking for fights or conduct "offensive" operations while on convoys, especially early in the war, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Fuck me running - is this THAT hard to understand?

I said they WEREN'T HIRED TO DO THAT.

Did their contract say they were to protect the convoy or to set counter-ambushes?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[redlegphi 0]

If what they were hired to do and what they are actually doing start to be two different things, I'd suggest that what they are actually doing is far more important. And when what they're doing is killing Iraqi civilians and then either covering it up or getting their people out of Iraq before anybody can figure out what happened, I'd say that maybe they shouldn't have been hired to do the job in the first place.

[mnealtx 0]

I don't disagree at all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Darius11 12]

My biggest problem is the gray area of none-accountability. I also don’t want our military or the military force we use to be a corporation.

Corporation are designed to make a profit, and I don’t wish to make war a product. I still think being a war profiteer is a bad thing.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

My biggest problem is the gray area of none-accountability. I also don’t want our military or the military force we use to be a corporation.

Corporation are designed to make a profit, and I don’t wish to make war a product. I still think being a war profiteer is a bad thing.

And you are right...private militaries under contract to the US should be held accountable for their actions under the same laws as our military.

Did you look into what happened in Sierra Leone?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

A private contractor not engaged in hostilities is not a mercenary ... nor is the guy employed at dining hall, the Dairy Queen, or BK at Bagram Air Field.

But none of those folks are the ones about whom we are writing, i.e., it's the red herring.

By that logic, the contractor gate guards here in Kosovo are mercenaries, because they would engage in hostilities if attacked.

No. The ‘logic,’ more precisely the criteria, I’m using is that of international law, signed by the US ... not ‘nerdgirl’ law, whatever that might be . If a private individual engages, “in fact, in direct hostilities” (+ the other criteria) as part of “armed conflict,” then he (or she) qualifies as a mercenary. The criteria are pretty clear.

Again, which I’ve written repeatedly: the vast majority of contractors do not qualify (even without considering the nationality technicality).

Blackwater in Fallujah in 2004 as COL Toolan describes and as Mr. Prince testified in October 2007 Congressional hearings, Crescent Security and other PMSC in Iraq & eleswhere as documented in Big Boy Wars and I’ve noted previously, and Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone [which [downwardspiral] mentioned … & I hope he’ll write more about] were neither acting as Dairy Queen clerks nor as gate guards. They engaged in direct hostilities as part of “armed conflicts” … & in the first case, their actions, per COL Toolan (& others) significantly complicated and forced changes in USMC planned operations. What would be the critique if a news organization or NGO members caused that? And they would have a more believable assertion, altho’ still not good excuse, for not knowing better than individuals employed as PMSC.

Do you agree that the Hessian soldiers who aided the American colonial forces were mercenaries? Do they have a pejorative characterization? I don’t think so … maybe you do?

Why has “mercenary” come to have a pejorative connotation? Because one doesn’t like the term “mercenary” doesn’t make it less true *in those cases in which the criteria are met* … stepping back, it might make it the sort of argument that is frequently derided as “PC”? Being called a mercenary is offensive to some, therefore don’t do it – is that the argument?

If the connotation is perceived as negative perhaps directing effort toward those who are responsible for the negative association, if warranted, is due? Is it an issue of a need for personal responsibility? Especially as those are choices made by individuals not something genetic or beyond their control. I.e., the original subject line – Blackwater security contractors being investigated for child prostitution … a charge that has nothing to due explicitly with mercenary activity. If found guilty child prostitution is a violation of the law, being a mercenary isn’t. For example, see my earlier comments (& soon to be subsequent ones) on Codes of Ethics for Private Military and Security Companies.

Or is that some part of ‘us’ – the American populace – doesn’t want to acknowledge mercenaries/private armies are a result/consequence of privatization of what were previously government functions … or as a consequence of political choices that were made without proper planning or acknowledgement of requirements?

Still unaddressed is my question for the advocates of privatization: what is reasoning beyond lack of advocacy for privatizing the combatant military? For use of mercenaries? (For those who aren’t advocates of privatization of everything, it’s a non sequitor.)

LTC Thomas K. Adams, USA (ret), proposed “three types of mercenaries” in his 1999 paper, “The New Mercenaries and the Privatization of Conflict” without specific negative connotation as I read it. The first type resembles the Geneva Convention Article 47 and historical characterization of mercenary activities. The 2nd and 3rd types, are in line with what PMSCs are being tasked to do in Iraq & Afghanistan, i.e., “fairly large commercial companies that provide the kind of services expected of a general staff in one of the more developed national armies: high-quality tactical, operational, and strategic advice for the structure, training, equipping, and employment of armed forces” and “highly specialized services with a military application, but these groups are not in themselves notably military or paramilitary in organization or methods,” respectively.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

By pure happenstance, this morning a report on the topic of addressing violations of international law by Private Military and Security Contractors (PMSC) was in my email inbox: “PRIVATE MILITARY AND SECURITY COMPANIES: WORKING TOWARDS AN INTERNATIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT.”

“Why an International Code of Conduct?”

“[Private Military and Security Companies] PMSCs are legally established entities which provide on a contractual basis a wide range of services, up to and including support services to combat operations and post-conflict training and reconstruction. The industry is both highly transnational and rapidly growing in value and importance. With a dramatic increase in the number of providers and services offered in the last two decades, there has been intensified media and public scrutiny of the industry’s conduct, particularly when operating in conflict contexts, and concern about the lack of consistent standards. There is broad agreement on the need for a better regulatory framework, improved accountability, including investigation of alleged violations, and rigorous quality control.”

I’ve been using “military” as a gerund to modify the type of security contractors, this document, which included the contribution of folks who own, operate, and are employed by PMSCs, makes it a stand-alone noun, i.e., acknowledgement that they are Private Military Companies. I'd be willing to bet that they prefer "International Peace Operations" tho.'

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

[which [downwardspiral] mentioned … & I hope he’ll write more about]

did my pm not cover it?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

[which [downwardspiral] mentioned … & I hope he’ll write more about]

did my pm not cover it?

Well, I was hoping that you might add that case/example into the discussion here. I was also hoping that you'd write more on it.

And I'm still curious as to why you think that example of use of a private military (mercenaries) was successful (or was perceived as successful) particularly in the context of the economic arguments, such as by [redlegphi] and Ralph Peters, to the use of private companies for armed confict? (I recognize that there are a lot of possible routes to take that.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

By economically you mean the conflict of interest with regard to mercenaries not striving to end a conflict because it is their means of income? I suppose that would depend on the contract. I imagine mercs are contracted for a very specific objective and a failure to achieve the objective would or should affect their contract OR ability to gain new contracts.

It's no different than contracting someone to work on your house or car? Would you pay them an hourly wage? Not likely. You'd pay them a flat rate and it would be up to the contractor to increase or decrease their own hourly wage. And if you really need it done fast, as the employer, you can offer a bonus for an efficient job well done. Or the contractor can add on a premium.

Edited to add: Disclaimer... I have never hired a mercenary company.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

My biggest problem is the gray area of none-accountability. I also don’t want our military or the military force we use to be a corporation.

Corporation are designed to make a profit, and I don’t wish to make war a product. I still think being a war profiteer is a bad thing.

Would you be in support of expanding the military so that private organizations aren't needed? Keep in mind that eliminating all contractors would require quite a few (to put it mildly) military members.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[BDashe 0]

I've read the entire thread, I'll try and tie my post back to the OP.

i find these private security companies fascinating, esp. with the recent rise of their usage by the US. It is one hell of a fine line these guys are walking.

With that in mind, of all the articles i've read on blackwater specifically, there are nearly none that bring any factual substance against the organization. Lot's of accusations, but really not a whole lot of proof.

Now, i don't think they are entirely innocent, a lot of fucked up shit occurs during wartime. Personally, i view it as collateral damage, maybe i have more moral flexibility than others. I think from our end, we are the least 'guilty' we have ever been during war; from a US armed forces stand point, and private security standpoint. when you think back to less than 100 years ago in major battles how we have progressed in this uglier yet still necessary side of humanity, our 'intelligent' weapons, medical advances, ROE, and discipline have vastly improved- yet you can never please the nancy sheehans, ever.

my guess is some of our regular troops are guilty of similar crimes as blackwater. the private security forces seem to draw more attention because there IS less accountability, and it is a secret world of scary people that we just dont know much about, nor are allowed to know.

Because of those factors, the pacifists and anti-war people are trying everything to hang blackwater and use them as the scapegoat, or poster child, for their own personal anti-bad stuff efforts. They do what they can to make mountains out of mole hills, as they get paid to.

I think Jeremy Scahill is a sensationalist pussy, the youtube link is an interview on the show of a person who is probably one of scahill's heroes, Bill Maher. If you look at the people this guy associates himself with, it's not hard to realize he brings ratings cuz he has done the newest research on the sexiest topic of the moment. Obviously they'll pimp him for everything he is worth to them, and scahill will publicize his rumor filled, overly bias book for money.

after watching numerous interviews on youtube where he pushes his books, you can almost see him have an orgasm every time he gets to say one of his tag lines- like erik prince being a christian crusader, he relishes the the mistakes his 'enemy's' make and loves the fact that because we live in this country, they really can't do much to stop him from shouting whatever he wants from the roof tops.

I think prince is a crusader as much as Obama is a communist Nazi. Realistically, though i dont agree with very much of left wing movement, i know obama isnt a communist in the eastern european sense of the word.

Prince was a navy SEAL and created an organization that allows him to sell those skill sets- something that really hasnt been done before. It used to be you could only transition to law enforcement, which is a far cry from being a SEAL. He found a market for those unique trade skills and is doing a hell of a job selling it. There will be growing pains, but they'll get it figured out, and the haters will still continue to hate.

this was longer than i expected to write...

-Brett

edit: by only transition into law enforcement, i meant with some kind of parallel to a combat type position in the civilian world. obviously soldiers are fully capable/successful in all walks of life.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A private contractor not engaged in hostilities is not a mercenary ... nor is the guy employed at dining hall, the Dairy Queen, or BK at Bagram Air Field.

But none of those folks are the ones about whom we are writing, i.e., it's the red herring.

By that logic, the contractor gate guards here in Kosovo are mercenaries, because they would engage in hostilities if attacked.

No. The ‘logic,’ more precisely the criteria, I’m using is that of international law, signed by the US ... not ‘nerdgirl’ law, whatever that might be . If a private individual engages, “in fact, in direct hostilities” (+ the other criteria) as part of “armed conflict,” then he (or she) qualifies as a mercenary. The criteria are pretty clear.

Then, by your criteria, the gate guards qualify just as much as blackwater, since they WOULD 'engage in direct hostilities' if attacked.

For that matter, *I* would qualify, since I'd be grabbing gear off of the first casualty I saw.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

My biggest problem is the gray area of none-accountability. I also don’t want our military or the military force we use to be a corporation.

Corporation are designed to make a profit, and I don’t wish to make war a product. I still think being a war profiteer is a bad thing.

Would you be in support of expanding the military so that private organizations aren't needed? Keep in mind that eliminating all contractors would require quite a few (to put it mildly) military members.

Yes it would cost less, and we would keep the best of the best in the military. Instead of spending millions to train them and then having them go to blackwater because of much better financial compensation.

I also like the idea that our men and woman join the military with service in mind, I think there is a conflict of interest when it becomes just a check that depends on a continuing conflict.

Also with the money saved, you could give our guys/gals a raise.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

First great post.

Your view could be 100 percent accurate. It is very hard to know who to trust and what is the motivation behind things people do or say.

We tend to think the people we agree with are the ones telling the truth, if we didn’t we would change our view until we did.



I think Jeremy Scahill really believes in what he is doing. I don’t think he decided to write a book with the intention of showing Blackwater in the worst light possible. I think he is a journalist and didn’t like what he found.

Now I understand people have different strength reactions to different things.
For some having a president that talks about god and Jesus helping find the way is comforting for others horrifying.


I find Blackwater disturbing for a few reasons I have already mentioned in this thread. I rather see that money spent on our own solders who are open to scrutiny to the military courts.

I do not like the idea of privet military.

Quote

Now, i don't think they are entirely innocent, a lot of fucked up shit occurs during wartime. Personally, i view it as collateral damage, maybe i have more moral flexibility than others.

I think you might, and I don’t mean that as an insult. I do not and find my self angry and disappointed in the world, and people often.

Quote

my guess is some of our regular troops are guilty of similar crimes as blackwater. the private security forces seem to draw more attention because there IS less accountability

Thats my main issuie right there. Accountability

Quote

I think prince is a crusader

That not all BS he is a bord emember of
Christian Freedom International. He also cofounder
The Family Research Council.


The guys thinks Jesus is the way and he has a lot of people with guns on his payrol, not to mention most of them are in a Muslim part of the world.

I can go on and on, but I do think he can easily be viewed as a crusader, and i think every american should have a huge problem witrh that.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[BDashe 0]

Quote

Also with the money saved, you could give our guys/gals a raise.

you do realize that means the 'cost' of war goes up? All the libs out there would p*ss and moan that we have too much military spending.

The contractors are a cheaper option despite getting paid more in salary because

A. they're contractors- they get paid for a job and it is done, no 4+ year committments with all the costs that go along with it. Think about it- you have a Navy SEAL, ranger, SF guy that does one or two tours, but he trained for 3 years, and may not do another one for two years or more, but you're paying him for training, food, housing, benefits... the entire time

B. They have very little red tape to slow the process down. Example: Blackwater airlifts cost a very small fraction of what our government's do simply because they do it in a much more efficient manner with very few hands involved.

C. They get little to no benefits because they are contractors. $600 a day is a bargain.

I'm sure there are a lot of soldiers that don't want to sign up for another 5 year term, but may want to either make a quick buck, or do another tour. Why not get paid a chunk of change to do that tour without the long term committment?

the money is good, but there are PLENTY more deciding factors for a lot of these guys than just money, I'm sure it is just the icing on the cake.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Then, by your criteria, the gate guards qualify just as much as blackwater, since they WOULD 'engage in direct hostilities' if attacked.

For that matter, *I* would qualify, since I'd be grabbing gear off of the first casualty I saw.

Again, it’s not my criteria. It’s international law, which the US has signed. That’s what you’re arguing against.

You may or may not. In that scenario in will largely depend on whether or not the government to which the individual is contracted is engaged in “armed conflict.”

Some of the actions by Blackwater – see all those references I’ve cited over and over again, from the active duty USMC Colonel in Iraq to the CEO of Blackwater testifying to Congress – are not limited to your notional scenario and do fit the criteria (w/the citizenship exception.)

And perhaps, rather constructing notional red herrings it would be more effective to address the well-documented incidents and problems, to address the alleged incidents (i.e., accusation of child prostitution), and to acknowledge the expanding role of private armies for operations that previously were conducted by uniformed military … & what that means for counterinsurgency, stability, and reconstruction operations … for force projection and US strategic interests … for strategy … for economics of warfare (war has a business side) … for privatization (shall we privatize the entire US military?) … or for international and domestic law … rather than pursue stubborn insistence that some private military security contractors aren’t acting as mercenaries, eh? The latter is easy. All those issues in the former are hard. Constructing red herrings might also might serve to distract from addressing the accusations of child prositution and all those other hard issues.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Also with the money saved, you could give our guys/gals a raise.

The contractors are a cheaper option despite getting paid more in salary because

While one can construct notional arguments on either side, the reality (one might call them facts) is that which is cheaper is not known.

Mr. Prince acknowledged under oath during the Q&A period of his Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security.


For me -- & owned very much as my opinion -- the biggest "So What? Who Cares?" is:
If one sees value and importance of the US military for force projection globally – & I do – whether for national security, in support of allies, stability operations (per DoDD 3000.05), reconstruction, or humanitarian, is the reliance on private military security contractors, whether they are acting as mercenaries or not, eroding that capability? Does Xe (nee Blackwater), et al., represent America and do we want them to represent America?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then, by your criteria, the gate guards qualify just as much as blackwater, since they WOULD 'engage in direct hostilities' if attacked.

For that matter, *I* would qualify, since I'd be grabbing gear off of the first casualty I saw.

Again, it’s not my criteria. It’s international law, which the US has signed. That’s what you’re arguing against.

No - I'm arguing againsnt YOUR INTERPRETATION of international law.

Quote

Some of the actions by Blackwater – see all those references I’ve cited over and over again, from the active duty USMC Colonel in Iraq to the CEO of Blackwater testifying to Congress – are not limited to your notional scenario and do fit the criteria (w/the citizenship exception.)

Then show me where BW's contract authorized them to do those actions, Marg. If they were hired to fight alongside the troops in offensive actions, I'll withdraw my argument.

If, however, they were hired to be DEFENSIVE assets and only fire when fired upon, then they are NOT "taking part in the hostilities" by contract.

Quote

And perhaps, rather constructing notional red herrings it would be more effective to address the well-documented incidents and problems, to address the alleged incidents (i.e., accusation of child prostitution), and to acknowledge the expanding role of private armies for operations that previously were conducted by uniformed military … & what that means for counterinsurgency, stability, and reconstruction operations … for force projection and US strategic interests … for strategy … for economics of warfare (war has a business side) … for privatization (shall we privatize the entire US military?) … or for international and domestic law … rather than pursue stubborn insistence that some private military security contractors aren’t acting as mercenaries, eh? The latter is easy. All those issues in the former are hard. It also might serve to distract from addressing the accusations of child prositution and all those other hard issues.

/Marg

And perhaps, instead of accusing someone with 20 years of experience WITH government contracts of throwing out a red herring, you might want to consider that they just MIGHT know what the fuck they're talking about, check your assumptions at the goddamn door and actually THINK about what they're saying.

I'm done.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If they were hired to fight alongside the troops in offensive actions, I'll withdraw my argument.

Hiring to fight alongside the troops in offensive actions are not the criteria. Defensive versus offensive is not the criteria. One can engage in hostilities defensively or offensively during an armed conflict.

“In fact, engage in direct hostilities” during an “armed conflict” are the substantive criteria. Not my criteria.

Quote

... you might want to consider that they just MIGHT know what the fuck they're talking about, check your assumptions at the goddamn door and actually THINK about what they're saying.

I'm done.

I apologize if I've offended you. I've tried to stick to the argument and the issue.

Now you're changing it to play the player instead of playing the ball and insulting me (see quoted passage above). I have thought a lot about it -- see all the references and citations I've posted.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If they were hired to fight alongside the troops in offensive actions, I'll withdraw my argument.

Hiring to fight alongside the troops in offensive actions are not the criteria. Defensive versus offensive is not the criteria. One can engage in hostilities defensively or offensively during an armed conflict.

“In fact, engage in direct hostilities” during an “armed conflict” are the substantive criteria. Not my criteria.

And it is the interpretation of "engage in direct hostilities" that we're quibbling over.

I submit that BW was NOT, in fact, hired to 'engage in direct hostilities' - the fact that they DID put them in violation of their contract, as has been said several times in this thread and others about BW.

Quote

... you might want to consider that they just MIGHT know what the fuck they're talking about, check your assumptions at the goddamn door and actually THINK about what they're saying.

I'm done.

I apologize if I've offended you. I've tried to stick to the argument and the issue.

Now you're changing it to play the player instead of playing the ball and insulting me (see quoted passage above). I have thought a lot about it -- see all the references and citations I've posted.

/Marg

[BDashe 0]

I'll try to keep this short- this is in resposne to your response to my first response, ha ha ha!

So, I do agree that scahill believes in what he is doing, but i think it is just because he doesn't like blackwater because he hates war and profit from war. I think he is just trying to find as many rumors as he can and try to pass them off as fact to further his agenda/make money himself which ironically indirectly allows him to profit from war as well.

I still find it difficult to believe that Prince is a crusader. I think he is a devout christian that has expert knowledge of guerilla warfare. I do not see a connect between the two. I think that can be said about the majority of our men and women on the front lines- they have strong religious beliefs and are soldiers, but they arent crusaders.

I do not know much of CFI or FRC, but I don't see anything that links those to being a crusader. from what i found, SFI provides aid to persecuted churches around the world, and FRC looks like a christian lobbying group- pro life and such.

Personally I am an atheist, but I'm not against people having the right to believe in what they want. I think the whole Bush cr*p of talking to god and jesus was terrifying, i hate that about the right in general. I may never understand how someone can have those beliefs, but we do have freedom of religion in this country. I think the lefties and anti-war people are sensationalizing Prince's beliefs to further their own agendas.

Scahill is the tip of the spear for them, using whatever he possibly can to scare people into hating Xe and Prince. Prince, to me, is a Christian, a warrior, and a capitalist. Now I can see how one may try to connect all three in reverse order- a capitalist with the means to impose his beliefs around the world- but from what I have read he isn't that stupid and it wouldn't last if he, in fact, was that insane.

Xe is a scary organization because of the power they possess with so few people. When they make a mistake it is heard around the world, Prince is a smart guy, he knows mistakes are costly to his business. His business couldn't survive as a crusading organization. So, with what I have read, seen, and researched on Xe/blackwater and Prince- my conclusion is he is a businessman, the king of the dirty work that sometimes, has to be done. Lot's of people refuse to accept that last part and will do whatever they can to stop it.

Oh, I'm not offended by you agreeing that i have a moral flexibility, i said it ha ha ha! i think after some of my travels around the world i think i have a more realistic view of humanity, where one may try and be idealistic and sugar coat or find the good, i believe i see reality. some people need that hope, be it through religion/faith or some other form of coping mechanism when they see or experience bad things, I don't.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It's no different than contracting someone to work on your house or car?

For me, it is different. (See my comments throughout basically synopsized to force projection, etc. as a function that includes more than just cost/profit as the sole determining independent variable.)

While the EO/Sierra Leone case was an example, as I understand, of a private company employing a foreign national private company to engage in armed conflict, it wasn't an international conflict.

Again, my understanding is that the state failed to provide the security and law enforcement that was needed for a domestic business entity to function. (May have been a transnational company (?), which makes it even more complicated).

It's clearly a piece, but it's also substantively different, imo.

Is that (private armies) the solution for dealing with failing or failed states? (The "So What? Who Cares?" for me w/r/t failing/failed states isn't specifically humanitarian but in instability they create that affects US strategic interests, whether through offering safe haven to pirates or radical Islamist terrorists.)

Quote

Disclaimer... I have never hired a mercenary company.

Me neither.

Altho' when I was supposed to go to Iraq in 2004, the private military security contractors (not Blackwater) who were contracted did inadvertantly, I think, contribute to substantial/substantive changes that were made in the planning. It was something that I speculated about at the time ... and that I am reminded of by this conversation.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying