-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Blackwater performs flawlessly
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
If it was a Democrat backed organization they would be deemed as Terrists because it's Republican backed it's perfectly OK.
palehorse
Lifer
Contractors do perform bravely and heroically every day in Iraq. That should not be up for debate.
What IS up for debate is their necessity to begin with, and the process for accountability. Can the US SOF afford to assign 2000 of our best active duty operators to personnel security duty for the state Department? I personally don't think so.
IMO, all we need to do is place them under UCMJ and be done with the debate altogether. Then, they'd be held accountable, they'd continue doing good work, and everyone would be happy - except, perhaps, the insurgents and terrorists who are scared sh*tless of them.
sound good?
What IS up for debate is their necessity to begin with, and the process for accountability. Can the US SOF afford to assign 2000 of our best active duty operators to personnel security duty for the state Department? I personally don't think so.
IMO, all we need to do is place them under UCMJ and be done with the debate altogether. Then, they'd be held accountable, they'd continue doing good work, and everyone would be happy - except, perhaps, the insurgents and terrorists who are scared sh*tless of them.
sound good?
compnovice
Diamond Member
Firing from the job is not a just punishment for killing innocent civilians...They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law...
EDIT: I take it back, none of the above were charged with killing people.. However, firing at civilians and threatening them entails more that a pink sheet..
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing Tuesday into Blackwater USA's activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the memo to committee members from the committee's staff.
From that memo:
The State Department really believes that conditions in Iraq are so ghastly that people would commit suicide-by-mercenary in order to provide for their families. Is that the freedom and democracy that we have given to the grateful people of Iraq.
So the people at Foggy Bottom really have a worldview that those furriners are willing to throw their children in front of somebody else's gunfire to collect money? Where do we get these idiots? Do they get into the Department of State only as political appointees, or only because they went to the right university in the Washington DC area?
Waxman's staff says that the State Department is paying Blackwater the equivalent of $445,891 per contractor per year. A real apples-to-apples comparison may be difficult, but Waxman's staff argues that that's six to nine times as much as the government would pay if it had an Army sergeant performing the same work.
$445,891 per Blackwater mercenary? Wasn't it something like $330 million a year in public money forked over to Blackwater? How much does it cost the chimerical insurgency in Iraq to combat the US? How much does a run-of-the-mill IED cost, or an RPG, or an AK-47 with a grenade launcher?
Seems like in pure nickels and dimes, the insurgency in Iraq is getting a huge value for their investment, whereas the US is getting no return at all, is actually coming out far, far worse in this, despite the heavily-skewed casualty rates that put the human cost in Iraq far higher than the American cost in lives - Iraq is trading lives for dollars spent, whereas America is spending dollars instead of lives expended (e.g., outsourcing to avoid a draft) - that would seem to show how motivated the insurgency is to get us out of there. It's kind of hard to feel that we have the moral high ground when we're the ones relying on mercenaries.
The President vowing to create a situation where the next President can't end the occupation, conflict with Iran a definite possibility...there should be no funding bill for these wars sent to the President that does not include reinstituting the draft. Things can't continue as there for much longer without it. But Bush isn't intending to leave just the mess we have now for his successor, he'll leave the draft to them as well. By that time Bush and Cheny and co. will have bled the country dry.
The Democrats should attach reinstituing the draft to every war funding bill. Then we'll see the lazy public snap to attention mighty fast.
This is the memo to committee members from the committee's staff.
From that memo:
The State Department really believes that conditions in Iraq are so ghastly that people would commit suicide-by-mercenary in order to provide for their families. Is that the freedom and democracy that we have given to the grateful people of Iraq.
So the people at Foggy Bottom really have a worldview that those furriners are willing to throw their children in front of somebody else's gunfire to collect money? Where do we get these idiots? Do they get into the Department of State only as political appointees, or only because they went to the right university in the Washington DC area?
Waxman's staff says that the State Department is paying Blackwater the equivalent of $445,891 per contractor per year. A real apples-to-apples comparison may be difficult, but Waxman's staff argues that that's six to nine times as much as the government would pay if it had an Army sergeant performing the same work.
$445,891 per Blackwater mercenary? Wasn't it something like $330 million a year in public money forked over to Blackwater? How much does it cost the chimerical insurgency in Iraq to combat the US? How much does a run-of-the-mill IED cost, or an RPG, or an AK-47 with a grenade launcher?
Seems like in pure nickels and dimes, the insurgency in Iraq is getting a huge value for their investment, whereas the US is getting no return at all, is actually coming out far, far worse in this, despite the heavily-skewed casualty rates that put the human cost in Iraq far higher than the American cost in lives - Iraq is trading lives for dollars spent, whereas America is spending dollars instead of lives expended (e.g., outsourcing to avoid a draft) - that would seem to show how motivated the insurgency is to get us out of there. It's kind of hard to feel that we have the moral high ground when we're the ones relying on mercenaries.
The President vowing to create a situation where the next President can't end the occupation, conflict with Iran a definite possibility...there should be no funding bill for these wars sent to the President that does not include reinstituting the draft. Things can't continue as there for much longer without it. But Bush isn't intending to leave just the mess we have now for his successor, he'll leave the draft to them as well. By that time Bush and Cheny and co. will have bled the country dry.
The Democrats should attach reinstituing the draft to every war funding bill. Then we'll see the lazy public snap to attention mighty fast.
Palehorse, bias test: do many of the insurgents perform bravely and heroically?
As for your suggestion, that seems a pretty basic thing to do. I'm not sure it's enough, but it's easy to agree to do at least that.
I suspect the whole story has yet to be learned on why they're steering so much money to these private firms that are so much more expensive than the US military.
Possible reasons include free-market ideology blinding them to the cost, payola where the firms kick back money in contributions, and an agenda to build these 'private militias'.
That's good, because that's not what's being debated here. Leave the "support the troops" red herrings at home next time, OK?
I like the free market, but national security isn't something you can outsource and get the same results. Sure, paying contractors to do the job frees up soldiers and government folks to do something else, but how many special forces guys aren't we recruiting and hiring because we're paying some contractor to do that job?
Contractors seem like a good monetary investment because they don't come with all the non-salary costs that government employees have, but they are also (frequently) missing a lot of the same non-salary value that a professional soldier or other government professional brings to the table. You've managed to hit on this in a pretty dismissive way, but the lack of UCMJ jurisdiction is one element of what's wrong with the contracting system for the military and the government as a whole. There is little accountability and little long term commitment, being in it for the money does not make a great soldier, IMHO. I respect anyone who puts their life on the line to fight, but I respect the people who aren't doing it so they can buy a big house a lot more. Defending the country isn't like being an investment banker, you have to want something more than a fat paycheck to have the most impact. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of jobs that contractors can do just as well or better than the government, but IMHO, WAY too much is being put into that category that shouldn't be.
Sure I can, it goes like this...their "primary mission" isn't just protecting state department officials, it's also not mowing down civilians and making the big picture mission in Iraq all that much more difficult. The ends don't justify the means, but in this case you're not even getting to the ends, you're just narrowly redefining the ends and declaring victory. Everyone fighting in Iraq is part of the larger picture, and while they all have their jobs to do, screwing up the strategic picture for a momentary tactical need isn't "perfection" if you ask me.
Sinsear
Diamond Member
Of course opinions can be criticized. If they couldn't we wouldn't even have this board. But your equation of Blackwater to evil is also reprehensible IMO. Some of those guys are out of control no doubt; but some of them are there doing a job, doing it well, and don't deserve the label of evil.
I had to serve along side some of these guys. It's a sin with how much they get paid in comparison with what soldiers make; and they seem to answer to no one. But, I can't blame some of them for capitalizing on the opportunity to be financially secure for the rest of their lives. And if they don't do it in Iraq they will be doing it elsewhere; in a country where there is less exposure to cameras or media. Security groups are here to stay whether we like it or not. What we need is to figure out a solution to oversight and standards they need to comply with.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
so are the american armed forces incapable of protecting our diplomats?
You misread my post. For all the issues I have with privatized military, my evil comment was regarding the quoted 'gloating about the mercenaries killing civilians', not all of them.
You had no issue with someone gloating about the killing of civilians in your response.
We agree your plan is a step in the right direction; I don't agree we need to agree to these private security forces. We can ban government use of them with a law/budget bill.
tomywishbone
Golden Member
A valid question. The answer seems, sadly, to be no.
Stoneburner
Diamond Member
American soldiers need to be paid as much as blackwater's mercs
If you're a true patriot you'll agree with the above statement.
If you're a true patriot you'll agree with the above statement.
Sinsear
Diamond Member
It doesn't matter if you do. Americans are not the only ones employing contract security over there. They'll work in the employ of another government or setup "offshore" and work through a loophole or something. We are not gonna eliminate them now, it's too lucrative of a business.
I never said whether I cared one way or another. The "moral outrage" crowd has already beaten Blackwater to death.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Yep, mount a turret on an SUV and keep the guns going. I'm sure you can protect anyone. Oh yeah, and shoot innocent civilians as to not give them the idea that you are coherent or have any morals. The proven "pre-emptive first strike" works wonders, thanks to bush's proven ideology. Those "terrorists" or possible "assassination attempts" are easy to spot when using ethnic profiling.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
HAHHAH
:thumbsup:
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Never stops you....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
