"Frustration over getting their act together on any resolution on removing U.S. troops from Iraq has led congressional Democrats eagerly to seize on the use of Blackwater company private security forces.
In fact, the commotion about Blackwater has been instigated by lawyers for the families of former Blackwater employees killed by insurgents and seeking a massive cash settlement.
The question of 'mercenary' forces is a phony issue and a sign of Democratic inability to address the war."
There is no question at all about the veracity of that last statement.
Regarding Blackwater and the topic of security and contractors in the Iraqi war zone, here is the comment jaycee made on another thread here:
"In general, this congressional hearing is just bogus.
The representative's questions are really political statements made for the benefit of the cameras. They care not whether they make any sense; they just make their statement/question and then start talking to staffers or each other or reading something and pay no attention to the answer.
The contractor business in the war theaters is necessary in order to free up combat troops to fight the war. All government agencies use contractors. If you go by the police department at night you won't find sworn, uniformed officers on which the City spent $100,000 in training and equipping emptying the trash and buffing the floors. You don’t hire a PHD accountant to answer the phone in the Accounting Office. As taxpayers we would consider it a gross mis-expenditure of public funds if we didn’t use our resources wisely. The City does not provide security guards at Carlyle’s Jewelers or the Mall. They are either private security guards or off-duty officers working for pay.
It is not the responsibility of the US Gov't to provide soldiers as security guards for each and every compound lived in by reconstruction, assistance, NGO, and other groups in Iraq. If so, we would have to pay tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to enlist, train, transport, and equip a soldier to stand watching a warehouse in the middle of the night. Drive through Ft. Bragg and look at the gates. They’re manned by contract police/guards, not by MP’s. MP’s are combat soldiers, and it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to pay them for standing on a gate in the middle of nowhere.
That trained soldier should be used in the war effort, not as a security guard for a private company at taxpayer expense.
We also use thousands of contractors to serve food in the chow halls, clean up the bases, drive trucks, load trucks, wash cars, do laundry, cut hair, etc. Should each of these jobs be done by a trained, equipped, and taxpayer funded combat soldier? Of course not. Only a small percentage of special ops troops have the training and experience to provide Protective Security Detail (PSD) services as currently provided by private security companies in the war zone.
If we eliminated security contractors it would take each and every current special ops soldier to fill that gap. And then most of them would be watching warehouses in the middle of the night.
Most security contractors in Iraq are former special ops or specially trained former soldiers. Even if we put soldiers in these slots it would take an inordinate amount of time to train them up to the standards of the private contractors currently performing those duties.
The rules and regulations imposed on security contractors by the contracting agency or company are often much stricter than those of our military. It’s easy to get fired as a security contractor; in the military you just get punished and continue on in your job.
One thing not often mentioned is that much of this work is for the Department of State, our diplomatic corps. Traditionally, and rightfully so, the DoS has operated entirely separate from the Department of Defense. DoS does not desire to have a military affiliation when they’re pursuing diplomatic avenues, particularly in a dangerous atmosphere. Soldiers standing next to diplomats in a social situation may be intimidating and would surely inject a military presence that might inhibit diplomatic relations. DoS does NOT want the military involved in their efforts.
Bottom line, security and other contractors provide a service that is cost efficient, and allows our government to use soldiers as soldiers, not as watchmen, laundry boys, or dish washers. They are experienced, trained, regulated, and strictly supervised."
Well and authoritatively said, jaycee.
No comments:
Post a Comment