Mercenaries Third Largest Force in Iraq

[demon]

Crackmonkey:
"So... what did you mean when you wished the insurgents the best in their endeavors?
Do you merely wish them all teh best when they attack US troops, or do you wish them well when they attack Iraqi police and civilians?"

I still haven`t made myself clear?
If one stands up to be counted with an occupying force, one has to expect to be a target. I thought what happened to those men working for Blackwater was revolting, but if you go with the intention of profiteering from the murderous conquest of a defenceless country, you can't expect to be universally welcomed.

Do I approve of murdering civilians? No. Do I think that the Iraqis have the right to defend themselves and expell an illegal occupying force? Yes. Do I think that everyone committing acts of violence in Iraq is doing it purely to expell the US? Of course not, but then there have always been internecine battles in any resistance. Furthermore, if you're talking about religious based violence, I don't approve of that, but since it was emminently predicable (and predicted), that this would happen before the invasion, I hardly think that you, as a supporter of the invasion, should complain.

Resistance movements have always committed atrocities and attacked civilians. Read a history of the French Resistance during the Vichy regime. It`s brutal but it`s true.

US and UK forces (or their hirelings), are legitimate targets. Collaborators are legitimate targets. Innocent people caught up and killed are an inevitability of conquest, invasion, and occupation.

If you have a major problem with that, perhaps you should direct your moral concerns at the country who started the war, rather than sniping at the people who opposed it in the first place and warned explicitly of the consequences about which you're now wringing your hands.

It's an illegal occupation, we have no business being there, and the Iraqis have every right to expell us by force. I would have taken the same view about resistance to German occupation in France, the Raj in India, China in Tibet, and Israel in the occupied territories.
Or do you deny your victims even the right of self-defence? If you do, you're in good company, so does the US Government.

Viva the Iraqi intafada!

 

[crackmonkey]

So not only do you wish the allies harm, you wish 'collaborators' to be eradicated as well?
You are the disease, not the cure.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by demon:
If one stands up to be counted with an occupying force, one has to expect to be a target.

What if the "occupying" force is considered to be a "liberating" force by a majority of the population, save those engaged in warfare against them?

Do I think that the Iraqis have the right to defend themselves and expell an illegal occupying force? Yes.

Do you believe terrorists have a right to attack the coalition forces even if Iraqi public opinion doesn't support this? What about the fact that more Iraqi civilians than coalition forces seem to be killed by these gallant defenders?

Lets take an example closer to home. We have it on the impeachable authority of a bunch of murderers (maybe you think they were liberators, but this difference in opinion needn't detain us here) that Jean McConville was an informer. Her family claim her only crime was to comfort a dying British soldier. Either way, I think we can agree that under your criteria the woman was a "collaborator". So I suppose it was her, and her 10 young kid's tough crap that she ended up buried in a beach for three decades?

I see how her family are currently looking for an apology from Sinn Fein/IRA and a declaration from them that she wasn't an informer. Maybe you should get in touch with them and tell them to get a grip?

 

[Graham]

Lets take an example closer to home. We have it on the impeachable authority of a bunch of murderers (maybe you think they were liberators, but this difference in opinion needn't detain us here) that Jean McConville was an informer. Her family claim her only crime was to comfort a dying British soldier. Either way, I think we can agree that under your criteria the woman was a "collaborator". So I suppose it was her, and her 10 young kid's tough crap that she ended up buried in a beach for three decades?

I see how her family are currently looking for an apology from Sinn Fein/IRA and a declaration from them that she wasn't an informer. Maybe you should get in touch with them and tell them to get a grip?

In fairness, there is some difference between a defenceless mother-of-ten (geez, ten kids? when she converted to catholicism, I guess she went the whole hog, eh?) and armed, ex-special forces mercernaries.

I agree with your point about the legitimacy of the authority of the killers though.

Graham

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
In fairness, there is some difference between a defenceless mother-of-ten (geez, ten kids? when she converted to catholicism, I guess she went the whole hog, eh?) and armed, ex-special forces mercernaries.

Consider demon's original points:

US and UK forces (or their hirelings), are legitimate targets. Collaborators are legitimate targets.

If one stands up to be counted with an occupying force, one has to expect to be a target.

Under these criteria Jean McConville was indeed a legitimate target.

 

[Graham]

Consider demon's original points:

Under these criteria Jean McConville was indeed a legitimate target.

Selective quoting - the quote from demon in full reads:

US and UK forces (or their hirelings), are legitimate targets. Collaborators are legitimate targets. Innocent people caught up and killed are an inevitability of conquest, invasion, and occupation.

My italics. Jean MConville was a (presumably) innocent person "caught up and killed".

Note again that I am not inferring any legitimacy on her killers by this comment. The point is that, in a messy situation like this, people get killed.

The question of "do the Iraqis have a right to defend themseslves" is trickier than it appears, IMO.

Is the right to self-defence contingent upon the support of the majority?

If, to create a hugely unlikely hypothetical, the Vatican was to send the Swiss guard to Ireland tomorrow to impose Catholic morality on the country, I would feel justified in fighting that, even though I would probably not get the support of the majority in doing so.

Would I be wrong in doing that? Would I be wrong in targeting people I considered collaborators with the regime?

Graham

 

[Kodiak]

If upon completing their course they decide to become a bodyguard for a singer or go to a hostile territory and secure facilities and convoys how is that any of American taxpayer's business or concern?

Further more it appears to be that these "funny looking people" are not strictly signing up on monetary grounds and do have some ethics. So what are the issues here that you want to discuss?

Sorry, Grammatron, but subgenius refuses to answer such questions...

Originally posted by me to subgenius:

"All the U.S. mercs are either former military or former local, state, or federal law enforcement. They are patriotic, professional, and proud. Why shouldn't they be paid?"

"You hint at the evils of privatizing, but other than your standard liberal fear of government not having a hand in everything, you have failed to provide any examples. Care to now?"

For some reason he refuses to answer.

 

[Kodiak]

I still haven`t made myself clear?
If one stands up to be counted with an occupying force, one has to expect to be a target. I thought what happened to those men working for Blackwater was revolting, but if you go with the intention of profiteering from the murderous conquest of a defenceless country, you can't expect to be universally welcomed.

Do I approve of murdering civilians? No. Do I think that the Iraqis have the right to defend themselves and expell an illegal occupying force? Yes. Do I think that everyone committing acts of violence in Iraq is doing it purely to expell the US? Of course not, but then there have always been internecine battles in any resistance. Furthermore, if you're talking about religious based violence, I don't approve of that, but since it was emminently predicable (and predicted), that this would happen before the invasion, I hardly think that you, as a supporter of the invasion, should complain.

Resistance movements have always committed atrocities and attacked civilians. Read a history of the French Resistance during the Vichy regime. It`s brutal but it`s true.

US and UK forces (or their hirelings), are legitimate targets. Collaborators are legitimate targets. Innocent people caught up and killed are an inevitability of conquest, invasion, and occupation.

If you have a major problem with that, perhaps you should direct your moral concerns at the country who started the war, rather than sniping at the people who opposed it in the first place and warned explicitly of the consequences about which you're now wringing your hands.

It's an illegal occupation, we have no business being there, and the Iraqis have every right to expell us by force. I would have taken the same view about resistance to German occupation in France, the Raj in India, China in Tibet, and Israel in the occupied territories.
Or do you deny your victims even the right of self-defence? If you do, you're in good company, so does the US Government.

Viva the Iraqi intafada!

"...profiteering from the murderous conquest of a defenceless country..."

Getting paid to fight is not profiteering. Killing enemy combatants is not murderous. Iraq was not defenseless. The lies - they just keep a'coming...


"Resistance movements have always committed atrocities and attacked civilians."

Which fallacy does this argument illustrate again??


"US and UK forces (or their hirelings), are legitimate targets. Collaborators are legitimate targets."

Define legitimate, demon. How can you twist the meaning so that the attacks of foreign jihadists, Pro-Saddam militants, and armed fundamentalists on both coalition troops and civilians are considered "lawful, genuine, and conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules or standards"?!?


All this leads me to one conclusion:


Demon is Undercover Elephant's sock puppet!!!

 

[Kodiak]

"Resistance movements have always committed atrocities and attacked civilians."

Which fallacy does this argument illustrate again??

Answer: Appeal to Common Practice

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
Selective quoting - the quote from demon in full reads:

Not that the full quote alters in any way demon's points, nor my reading of them. He choose the term "collaborator", not me.

My italics. Jean MConville was a (presumably) innocent person "caught up and killed".

"Caught up and killed"? Come off it, Graeme, the women was deliberately targetted, abducted and murdered. "Caught up and killed" sounds like something Sinn Fein HQ would come out with, in the same way as they describe the murder of gardai as "tragic events".

Note again that I am not inferring any legitimacy on her killers by this comment. The point is that, in a messy situation like this, people get killed.

The circumstances surrounding Jean McConville's death are rather clear cut. She wasn't accidently cut down in crossfire. I don't honestly believe that you're legitimizing murder, but by inferring that this case was an inadvertant but inevitable result of a "messy situation" then I think you're engaging in moral relivatism, albeit inadvertantly.

Is the right to self-defence contingent upon the support of the majority?

In the Irish context it was, since the IRA recieved no mandate from the Irish people for their campaign, which in any became anything but a campaing of "self-defence". In Iraq what evidence is there that the Iraqi people are under attack?

If, to create a hugely unlikely hypothetical, the Vatican was to send the Swiss guard to Ireland tomorrow to impose Catholic morality on the country, I would feel justified in fighting that, even though I would probably not get the support of the majority in doing so.

Presuming that the majority were broadly supportive of a Catholic morality being imposed by the Swiss guard?

Would I be wrong in doing that? Would I be wrong in targeting people I considered collaborators with the regime?

Yes, what gives you the right to do so?

 

[Virgil]

Is this a consitutional issue. private citizens having thier own army.


Virgil

 

[subgenius]

Sorry, Grammatron, but subgenius refuses to answer such questions...

Originally posted by me to subgenius:

"All the U.S. mercs are either former military or former local, state, or federal law enforcement. They are patriotic, professional, and proud. Why shouldn't they be paid?"

"You hint at the evils of privatizing, but other than your standard liberal fear of government not having a hand in everything, you have failed to provide any examples. Care to now?"

For some reason he refuses to answer.

One last time. I have posted all this already. I don't feel like re-typing it all or re posting the links. If you wish to consider that refusing to answer and that you are right, feel free.

 

[Graham]

Not that the full quote alters in any way demon's, nor my reading of them. He choose the term "collaborator", not me.

"Caught up and killed"? Come off it, Graeme, the women was deliberately targetted, abducted and murdered. "Caught up and killed" sounds like something Sinn Fein HQ would come out with, in the same way as they describe the murder of gardai as "tragic events".

The circumstances surrounding Jean McConville's death are rather clear cut. She wasn't accidently cut down in crossfire. I don't honestly believe that you're legitimizing murder, but by inferring that this case was an inadvertant but inevitable result of a "messy situation" then you are engaging in moral relivatism, albeit inadvertantly.

In the Irish context it was, since the IRA recieved no mandate from the Irish people for their campaign, which in any became anything but a campaing of "self-defence".

Presuming that the majority were broadly supportive of a Catholic morality being imposed by the Swiss guard?

Yes, what gives you the right to do so?

I'm struggling to answer here and verging on only doing so to play devils advocate. I feel that there is an important point we're missing but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Let me try and straighten out my thoughts. I would be grateful if we could abandon the McConville lline of discussion for a moment, as I think we both agree it was a despicable act of murder.

1) Groups using force to promote their agenda without broad support of the society in which they are operating are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.

2) Groups using force to promote their agenda but with broad support of the society in which they are operating are, what?

Is broad support the legitimising factor?

Or is the agenda the legitimising factor, in which case:

1) Groups using force to promote their agenda are justified in doing so as long as their agenda is "just"

If the Swiss guard are trampling on my personal freedoms willy-nilly (and they could, I've seen them, they're BIG guys ) is it a just aim for me to resist, using force if necessary?

I suppose that depends firstly on whether you believe I have a right to freedom. It also depends on whether I have a right to protect that freedom by impinging on the freedom of others (i.e. killing them)

Assuming that it is a just aim and we conclude that just aims and not broad public support are what legitimises an armed struggle, am I justified in attacking collaborators and hired servants of the enemy (assuming I am correct in identifying them as such)?

I'm a little stuck at this point. On the one hand, if I consdier myself a legitimate soldier, I consider civilians off-limits killing-wise. On the other hand a civilian informant could be doing far more damage to my movement than any individual soldier. Likewise, civil or auxilliary servants of the enemy may be of more use or value to him than soldiers and are therefore more high value targets.

What is the difference between me attacking civilian contractors guarding military convoys (not referrring to the Fallujah situation here, btw - that was a food aid convoy AFAIK) and bombing manufacturing facilities with guided missiles? In both cases, the aim is to disrupt the flow of supplies and the civilian casualties are incidental or colatteral.

How does it change the situation if I view the civilian contractors as assets in themselves and attack them directly?

That's my flow of thought on the subject, consider it a work in progress and make of it what you will.

To return to the IRA and theMcConville case briefly, the IRA struggle was not, IMO a legitimate one for various reasons (including lack of community support and an unjust aim, the latter being debatable of course).

Even regardless of that, the McConville woman was clearly a non-combatant and in a very poor position to provide information of any quality.

To me there was no legitimate justification for her killing whatsoever.

Moving on to the Fallujah situation, however, the situation is not so clear, IMO. There is debate about the contractors' status, debate about the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance, debate about the legitimacy of the US presence in the country and debate about debate.

It's a far murkier situation altogether, though perhaps if we have 31 years to analyse and discuss it, it will become clearer.

Graham

 

[crackmonkey]

I understand you not wanting to go over the same ground repeatedly, Subgenius. Perhaps you could just cut-and-paste or link to your previous responses for those of us who didn't see them...

 

[subgenius]

They're not far above. Especially the NYT article. Oh what the heck OK:

Some of the issues:

"The industry rose to prominence under President George H.W. Bush — Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, received a $9 million contract to study supplementing military efforts after the Persian Gulf war. The Clinton administration sent more work to contractors, but it is under the current president, a strong believer in government privatization, that things started booming. Gary Jackson, the president of Blackwater, envisions a day when any country faced with peacekeeping duties will simply call him and place an order. "I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world," he told me.

This raises some obvious questions. Shouldn't war be a government function? Why rely on the private sector for our national defense, even if it is largely a supporting role?
...
For one, substituting contactors for soldiers offers the government a way to avoid unpopular military forays. According to Myles Frechette, who was President Bill Clinton's ambassador to Colombia, private companies performed jobs in Latin America that would have been politically unpalatable for the armed forces. After all, if the government were shipping home soldiers' corpses from the coca fields, the public outcry would be tremendous. However, more than 20 private contractors have been killed in Colombia alone since 1998, and their deaths have barely registered.

This points to the biggest problem with the outsourcing of war: there is far less accountability to the American public and to international law than if real troops were performing the tasks. In the 1990's, several employees of one company, DynCorp, were implicated in a sex-trafficking scandal in Bosnia involving girls as young as 12. Had these men been soldiers, they would have faced court-martial proceedings. As private workers, they were simply put on the next plane back to America.

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.

What happened in Falluja was a tragedy, no matter what uniform the slain men wore. Private contractors are viewed by Iraqis as part of the occupation, yet they lack the military and political backing of our combat troops. So far, the Pentagon has failed to prove it can take responsibility for either the actions or the safety of its private-sector soldiers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/opinion/02YEOM.html

 

[subgenius]

"Moving on to the Fallujah situation, however, the situation is not so clear, IMO. There is debate about the contractors' status, debate about the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance, debate about the legitimacy of the US presence in the country and debate about debate.

It's a far murkier situation altogether, though perhaps if we have 31 years to analyse and discuss it, it will become clearer.

Graham"

Adding to the murkiness: there currently is no law in Iraq.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
I'm struggling to answer here and verging on only doing so to play devils advocate. I feel that there is an important point we're missing but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Let me try and straighten out my thoughts. I would be grateful if we could abandon the McConville lline of discussion for a moment, as I think we both agree it was a despicable act of murder.

Fine.

1) Groups using force to promote their agenda without broad support of the society in which they are operating are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.

2) Groups using force to promote their agenda but with broad support of the society in which they are operating are, what?

Is broad support the legitimising factor?

It depends on the situation, but broadly I'd have to say no. It depends on how the groups using force go about it. The likes of Hamas for instance insist on targetting civilians and conducting their campaign in such a way that maximises their own civilian casualties. In my eyes at least their cause loses any legitimacy it might have had because of this, regardless of the level of popular support they enjoy among their own community.

Or is the agenda the legitimising factor, in which case:

1) Groups using force to promote their agenda are justified in doing so as long as their agenda is "just"

The problem here is defining what a "just" cause is. I think we can agree that restoring a Baathist regime in Iraq isn't.

Assuming that it is a just aim and we conclude that just aims and not broad public support are what legitimises an armed struggle, am I justified in attacking collaborators and hired servants of the enemy (assuming I am correct in identifying them as such)?

The operative word is "assuming". In the case of NI or Iraq I wouldn't be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the insurgents in either case.

Moving on to the Fallujah situation, however, the situation is not so clear, IMO. There is debate about the contractors' status, debate about the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance, debate about the legitimacy of the US presence in the country and debate about debate.

Debate certainly. Yet the tone of demon's post was such to leave no doubt as to the legitimacy of the insurgents, the "justness" of their cause, and how the collaborators and mercenaries deserved their faith.

It's a far murkier situation altogether, though perhaps if we have 31 years to analyse and discuss it, it will become clearer.

Let's hope we don't have to.

 

[a_unique_person]

Like I said:



"This is a rare example where liberals have chosen to position themselves to profit politically from any failure of either the War on Terror or the Invasion of Iraq and the replacing of Saddam with a freely elected representative democracy.

I think that Dubya has chosen his position, and, as was claimed repeatedly before the war, his position was a pretty stupid and immoral one. The fact that it has been shown to be just that does not have me dancing in the streets, as Rick has claimed.

All I did was start a topic on the number of mercenaries in Iraq, and I think the Blackwater homepage shows them to be exactly that.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/images/bigbugeyes.gif

What happened to some of those mercenaries is an entirely different issue. What it does show is how cheap their lives are. They were in ordinary SUVs, with no backup, in one of the most dangerous places in Iraq.

Their deaths will not be counted as part of the official deaths in Iraq, nor the deaths of the other mercenaries who have died already, both US and non-US.

Many Muslim clerics from Iraq have condemned the brutality of the event.

They view each dead coalition soldier as just another possible nail in Bush's electoral coffin. Each successful terrorist attack is another possible blow to the Bush campaign. Each disagreement among the Iraqi governing council is a potential drop in Bush's latest percentages. Some are even actually hoping that Bin Laden isn't captured until after the election.

The only thing sadder than this fact is that most see nothing wrong with this..."

You know that each death is another nail in Dubyas coffin, but it has nothing to do with any of US, it is all his own work.

The only sad thing about all this is that there was plenty of warning that this is exactly what was going to happen, and he chose to ignore those warnings. The 'mission accomplished' banner sums up his ignorance entirely.

 

[Nikk]

US and UK forces (or their hirelings), are legitimate targets. Collaborators are legitimate targets. Innocent people caught up and killed are an inevitability of conquest, invasion, and occupation.

If you have a major problem with that, perhaps you should direct your moral concerns at the country who started the war, rather than sniping at the people who opposed it in the first place and warned explicitly of the consequences about which you're now wringing your hands.

It's an illegal occupation, we have no business being there, and the Iraqis have every right to expell us by force. I would have taken the same view about resistance to German occupation in France, the Raj in India, China in Tibet, and Israel in the occupied territories.
Or do you deny your victims even the right of self-defence? If you do, you're in good company, so does the US Government.

Viva the Iraqi intafada!

Demon, I assume that you would like to see Iraq developing into a state characterised by some form of representative democracy and the rule of law.

How, in your opinion, do the current attacks on the coalition forces contribute to the creation of a mutually agreed constitution, the formation of stable political parties, a relatively trustworthy police force, an honest judiciary and the embedding of the basic freedoms we enjoy in the liberal democracies?

Whilst I would agree with you that the invasion was a gross error of judgement it has destroyed an appalling dictator and the coalition forces are well able to prevent another tyrant from taking over as long as they remain in the country. Don't you think that their presence should be seen as an opportunity for Iraq rather than as a threat to its existence?

 

[subgenius]

Nikk: "Don't you think that their presence should be seen as an opportunity for Iraq rather than as a threat to its existence?"

If I can presume to jump in here, that's only for the Iraqi's to decide. And they are. Respect includes the allowing of people to make their own mistakes.