Okay, I know that the recent killings were brutal and downright ugly. I find myself sickened by it. However, this morning on NPR, I hear that the people killed worked for Blackwater USA, and were ex Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. That doesn't sound like non-combatant civilians. Also, these men were driving around a known hotbed city without an armed escort, though they were allegedly armed to the teeth. Additionally, there has been no report on what the men were doing at that place to begin with. They're security experts in a city that hadn't yet been secured.... why?
I don't distrust the government over this, mostly because it would be political suicide to attempt anything sketchy at the moment. Regardless, this doesn't add up. What were civilians doing in an area that had been previously labelled one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq without armed and armoured escort? The government and the company have both rightfully stated that they don't want to disrespect the lives of the men killed at the moment, but I can't seem to wrap my head around the situation that led up to this horrible occurrance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A UFO landed in Fallujah.
Duh.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
At least that makes more sense. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, I heard they were there for something to do with a "food shipment" yet no food has been found and there were no reports of trucks in the area that could have been transporting food.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I heard an item on NPR this morning about that company. It sounds as though it is very professional and has a high level of training for its people. It was started by an ex-Navy Seal, I believe, and many ex-military are hired by the company. The training is similar to what Delta Force guys or Navy Seals might get, and therefore probably much more intense than what ordinary infantry get. So for purposes of moving around town, it sounds like they count as the guards and not the guarded, anyway.
The military has started outsourcing and privatizing stuff like security for contractor companies, so that they can focus on their core job, they said. I hope ordinary Iraqis are as horrified by the images of people stringing up and cheering over burnt mutilated corpses as we are. Maybe there will be some backlash in public opinion there.
At least in Falujah it certainly sounds as though we have lost the struggle for hearts and minds. That is not too surprising given the fact that the people there benefitted under Saddam Hussein and have lost their position of relative privilege now under a democracy.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Even though the people killed were ex military, they were still civilians. Even though they were armed according to the claims of the killers, they were still civilians. They were civilian security, and Fallujah has been a war zone this whole time. Is the answer really as simple as the government is now sending its civilians to their death in places its military has trouble going? I don't think so, and I hope not. It is dangerous enough for the contractors and other civilians in places that are mostly secured. Fallujah is, according to military statements about the area, no more secure than when they were at war.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is the answer really as simple as the government is now sending its civilians to their death in places its military has trouble going?"
Yes, it is. The United States contracts with numerous mercenary companies to secure interests around the globe, particularly in areas of ongoing conflict.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
If that is the case, Tom, how does that reflect on how we as a nation go to war? Or, to be more accurate, is this how we treat nations that have been defeated in war? There are reasons why we have military to fight the war, are these possible mercenaries required to uphold the same wartime conventions with combatants? I don't like the implications there. It sounds as bad as accusing the government of shipping off individuals to private or foreign groups to do their torture and other heinous treatment. They'd never be able to do that and get away with it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Me, I find the name of the company disturbing. What is "Blackwater"
Black Ops are top secret intelligence missions that nobody is supposed to know about.
Wet Ops, according to the spy fiction I've read, are operations that involve the assasination of someone, from an enemy agent to a president. It is any operation who's purpose is to make blood flow.
Put those two together and we get Blackwater. Of course, that is my fanciful writer's imagination working.
Darkwater is also the evil thing killing a planet on "Pirates of Darkwater" a very short lived cartoon series that had a lot of promise.
All I do know is that Blackwater is not the name I would give a company handling food shipments.
[ April 02, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
They're not in the business of shipping food, they're in the business of protecting people. In this specific instance they were hired to protect people that ship food.
As for the name, maybe their company headquarters is located in a town called Blackwater? Or was founded by somebody named John Blackwater? As intimidating as the name sounds, I'm going to start off assuming that these guys weren't paramilitary assassins on a top secret mission to assassinate somebody.
[ April 02, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Bartleby147 ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Check the link to their site. Not in any "Blackwater". Not mentioning any founding "Blackwater". Lots of guns, targets, weapons and patriotic chatter.
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
Those were just two examples the many possible innocuous (sp?) sources for the name Blackwater. Even if it was designed to sound intimidating, doesn't that fit the profile of a private security firm that's in the business of providing armed force?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
If they were protecting food shipments, where was the food shipment? Why is there no mention of it? I'm totally open to believing that the government hasn't been involved in some crooked behavior in this case, but it has to be as airtight as it would take to convince me of the opposite. I'm sitting on the fence here with a lot of inadequately answered questions.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Can you really think that if your job is to protect food shipments in a certain town, there would be no reason for you to drive through town other than immediately beside a food-shipment?
I don't know anything about food-shipment protecting, but for the past month I've been in a town (San Francisco) for the job of starting up a cogeneration system, and I drove into and around town multiple times from the jobsite for supplies, for cables and adaptors and things I needed, to get something to eat, etc. I'm guessing that if you're based in Fallujah with the job of protecting food-shipments, then there are lots of errands and side trips you might need to make which don't directly involve shipments of food.
[ April 03, 2004, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
What were they doing? Cruising the major streets of a warzone for fun? Fallujah is not San Francisco, so I don't see your analogy as really useful. Also, there have been no reports in the area of shipments of food to connect them with.If it is such a simple explanation as that, why can't they produce a shipment team for food?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Not for fun, but to live, yes. Everyone needs supplies and so on.
What is it you are trying to say? That since they were hired to protect people against the insurgency that makes it okay to kill them and string up their burned mutilated bodies?
Understand that I think of all this in the context of me about to go over there to try and help the country get back on its feet by getting infrastructure going. Explain to me what it is those guys did that I should not be doing when I go. I'm not supposed to ever leave my secured base? What if I blow a fuse in my voltmeter, and need to find another one that will serve? What if I drop my screwdriver into a place where it can't be retrieved? (To pick a couple of random examples of things that could possibly come up in the real world in the course of a job.)
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
No, that's not the connection that I'm trying to make, and it's rather shortsighted to assume that much. Getting supplies or some other arbitrary excuse may sound easier to swallow to you, because you say you're going over there. After all, it's scary. But a group of ex-military trained security experts don't go driving around a known war zone looking for a grocery. That would be the equivalent of a KKK man dressed up in a hood driving through Harlem looking for a convenience store.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Argent, are you military? What experience do you have that would lead you to be sure of this? A war zone, yes, but we are trying to rebuild the infrastructure and bring back normal economic activity. This is not equivalent to a battlefield. The people of Fallujah presumably live and work and go about their daily business. There are children who live there. They are not an army. There is ordinary life going on there, in addition to the terrorism or guerilla war if you'd rather call it that. What is it you are trying to say? That they had no business being there? That it's their own fault? Again I ask you what I should do when I am in Iraq and need a tool to replace one I've lost? Treat every Iraqi as an enemy?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Wet ops ain't fiction, though the name is. Of course by now the name has been used so often in fiction, it may have been adopted as slang.
Senator BobKerry of the Presidential 9/11 Commission carried out political assassinations in VietNam (got his SilverStar for a bungled operation).
Pinochet arose to power via the CIA assassination of the then head of the Chilean military who made it clear that he would oppose a coup against a legitimately elected government, in this case headed by SalvadorAllende. The CIA does claim that its team was only supposed to kidnap the general.
[ April 03, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
What am I saying? I'm saying that we had members of a dubious mercenary company driving around a volatile city with weapons in their truck/van, with no accurate information on what they were doing in the city to begin with. You keep mentioning some food shipment they may have been guarding, but there is no record given of them guarding some shipment until after people start asking questions about why the men were there, and no company making shipments to verify the claim. If you pop a fuse or lose a screwdriver, you should first ask the other contractors you're working with for the best place to go find supplies, and maybe request someone other than a group of people from a country that a good portion of the nation despises for just being there to go fetch supplies. That's why I made the comment about a Klansmen in Harlem. No, it's not a battleground, but it is a warzone, according to what the military has said about the city. It's the city with one of the two highest American death rates since the official end of the Iraqi war. If you were going to be stationed in Fallujah when you go over there, then I seriously suggest you fear for your life. Can you give a list of current American contracting companies that are stationed in Fallujah right now, aka? Can you tell us what American shipment contractors are travelling through Fallujah, aka? As far as reports prior to the killings, that's one of the few areas where civilians have been cautioned to avoid, if possible. Yet there are men from a civilian mercenary company there with guns, and they get tragically killed. I'm asking why, and getting answers that don't add up to the statements the military gave before those men were killed. I'm saying it doesn't make sense or go together logically. So, unless there is something dubious going on or the shipment company that these men were guarding was making some seriously illogical movements, then something is being held back by those giving the media answers, and I refuse to believe that the government is simply being dubious or that the shipment companies were placing civilians in direct danger like that.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...a group of people from a country that a good portion of the nation despises for just being there..."
While there may be a sizable group of Iraqis who want to run their own country, and would appreciate it if the US's infrastructure repair and stabilization efforts could proceed faster so the US would leave, a tiny fraction out of that group isn't a "good portion". Betcha that most of the trouble isn't being caused by misguided Iraqi patriots, Bathists/Saddamists, or even by "Muslim"extremists. I'd suspect that opportunistic smugglers, blackmarketeers, extortionists, etc who were dependent upon the continuation of the former Embargo and the encouragement&blessings&protection of Saddam's regime are trying to keep the country destabilized to create a milieu more favorable to their previously extremely lucrative criminal enterprises.
BTW: It's hard to continue reading your message when it's all crammed together like that. Could you please do some paragraphing of your text.
[ April 03, 2004, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
No, there are organized groups there who are opposing the US. That they aren't the size of the US forces there isn't enough to say they're unorganized. They've done marching through streets of some cities, and had public group meetings denouncing the US occupation. No, they aren't the majority of the population, but they are a great deal of people. Most Iraqis just want the US occupation and rebuilding to be done. Very few are glad that the US forces are there right now, which is what these more extreme groups are using to their advantage. I don't want to see this fighting turn uglier than it already is, which is why I'm asking why we're possibly paying militant organizations to do work that is best handled by the military forces already there.
And I'm sorry about the paragraph. I didn't think it would be that long in one block.
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
quote:Private security firms are now the third largest international contributor of forces to the war effort in Iraq -- after the U.S. and British troops.
"I have heard estimates of up to 4,000 private sector security personnel working in Iraq," said Crispin Hawes of the Eurasia Group, a research and consulting firm.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
First off before you get all worked up into some conspiratorial nonsensical rage here about black ops mercenary companies running amuck in Iraq think of it like this. Fallujah has been one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq and thus it makes more sense to try and have the civilian contractors check it out. Plus its normal for security ( body guard type) to be in the back of a convoy and basically take the heat. Most likely whoever or whatever they were guarding got away. Plus no matter how good you are at security I still think a lot of these private types and well army types as well are suicidal because they drive around in SUVs or pickups etc. without any gun mounts etc.
Second off security if provided by these guys because A. Not enough soldiers there as it is anyhow in my opinion so you can't give the up to the private contractors. B. Well there would be more than a few irritated soldiers and officers. Plus it saves the military that much more planning etc.
Also as of right now, besides having really sharp eyes, there isn't much of a defense against remote detonated bombs. I know lots of guys that have been jacked up by them. Most ambushes/ attacks in Iraq are from those, we call them IED ( improvised explosive device). besides tracking down the builders, which we did quite regularly in Mosul, you can't do much but just cross your fingers while you drive around.
Plus to be honest attacks in Iraq are going down, Its simply getting more publicity. The whole effort over there is no longer popular, thus bad press will appear more as its read more. Plus its a big attempt by the media etc. to paint Iraq as a Vietnam, a Mogadishu ( which wasn't that bad in my opinion.. of course neither was Vietnam in my mind either). However I simply have to say this is the last time I'm posting on this conflit. From my stand point the average person rants too much because he hasn't taken the time to learn anything militarily. It didn't take me joining the army to understand how it operated, not to mention the rest of my nation.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Black Fox, I realize that you are or were over there in the military, but with all due respect, I think you are not aware of the details of the most recent killing. These weren't contractors, they were security and militant operations personell. Ex Navy SEAL and ex Army Rangers. They were alleged to have been helping to transport some so-far unnamed food shipments from a so-far unnamed company, even though the military didn't move in immediately to extract these shipments that would have been in just as much danger, even if these security guys were out shopping for a screwdriver like aka claims.
No, I'm not military, Black Fox. I do have an understanding of how the Marines and AF military police operate, having family and friends either in it or retired from it. I'm not just making blind guesses, and I've already said that I don't want to believe that there is some secret operation going on. That would be ridiculous. What I'm asking are questions about what may or may not be stupid behavior, that could easily wind up misconstrued into such a ridiculous secret operations scenario by both the media and by those who don't understand how the military works. But don't give me this understaffed Army routine, because there are exactly the number of troops over there that your superior officers claim are needed, and there are thousands of active and reserve soldiers in training and in country who can be used before citizens. And don't you dare tell me I have no understanding because I haven't served, because I tried to enlist but I'm handicapped and cannot serve as anything but administrative work, and that's not what I wanted when I tried to enlist. Having not served does not make me any less able to question the situation and not take incongruent answers.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"These weren't contractors, they were security and military operations personnel. Ex Navy SEAL and ex Army Rangers."
Surely you are not expecting FirstWorld corporations -- especially those working on a cost-plus basis -- to hire shoplifter security from Walmart to protect highly skilled and/or highly valued employees, equipment, and matériel in an unstable and often dangerous region.
Do you have the slightest idea what it costs a business to provide medical, disability, and life insurance for an American working in Iraq? Even if corporate execs didn't care a whit about their employees -- which is unlikely given the desire to win and the 'team spirit' bonding in humans -- the insurance deductable alone is enough to strongly incentivise an American business to spend the money necessary to hire the best possible protection.
Naturally, those most trained to deal in counter-insurgency operations -- the ones who know what booby traps look like, who know where bombs might be placed, who know what makes a good ambush zone and can spot early signs of an ambush, etc -- are going to be chosen to provide security. And the best trained are from the military SpecialOps forces.
Now, let's suppose the four were just gaddabouting around Falujah. Yeah, a little dumb, but being dumb ain't a death penalty offense. So getting killed is a tragedy.
Or let's suppose there was no immediate supply convoy following. There ain't ever gonna be a supply convoy comin' down the road unless a passage is first scouted out for relative safety, and for danger zones on that relatively safe route. They died heroes trying to do the highly dangerous job -- which they knowingly accepted -- of scouting out the possible routes to do their job of helping the Iraqi people by ensuring that supplies could be delivered to them. Which is a tragedy.
Or let's suppose they were CIA or military intelligence working within the cover of BlackwaterSecurity to spot and/or provoke resistance*. Then they knew even more about how dangerous their assignment was. And they died heroes helping the Iraqi people to restore civil peace&stability to a town currently overrun by gangsters. Which is a tragedy.
There are enough reasons to dislike how the political leadership has messed up in dealing with the expectable problems in stabilizing Iraq. Creating boogeymen out of folks working and/or killed in Iraq cuz they wanted to help out ain't gonna speed up the return to peace.
*Highly unlikely that it was a US intelligence operation. If they were just trying to gather information, they wouldn't have been running around in an attention-drawing SUV in such a blatently American manner. If part of their mission was to provoke a response, US helicopter gunships would've arrived within minutes of the attack, and not the hours it took for soldiers to arrive.
[ April 04, 2004, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"don't give me this understaffed Army routine, because there are exactly the number of troops over there that your superior officers claim are needed"
On the contrary, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that twice as many troops would be necessary for initial peacekeeping operations, which was the military consensus. For providing an estimate in disagreement with the political leadership, the DubyaAdministration announced his retirement.
So officers are having to choose between toeing the politically-drawn line because that is the best way of ensuring that they can continue to provide their leadership to their troops, or publicly disagreeing with the politicians&appointees and having their command taken away from them.
Loyalty in the US military runs up and down the ranks. Getting booted out of Iraq while comrades-in-arms are still dealing with the mess ain't an option.
[ April 04, 2004, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Aspectre, I think both you and aka are misunderstanding me greatly. I'm not saying those men deserved to be killed, nor did they ask for it. I'm not justifying their deaths one bit, and I wish people would stop trying to argue that with me. I'm not arguing against it, and it's frustrating to have the rest of what I say ignored because of that misunderstanding. Those very things you couldn't answer about the incident, like where were they going and where was the shipment that they were guarding, are what I'm asking about, and no one here is qualified to give me a definitive answer, but all the "answers" I'm getting are just rehashes of what's already been parrotted on every news station. I'm not disputing the victims' tragic end, and I'm not doubting their courage for being over there. I'm wondering what kinds of circumstances would place four civilians in as dangerous a place as they were, with military help hours away.
I also know about the number of troops over there being complained about by some officials. However, with a few hundred thousand troops worldwide, the number of soldiers in Iraq is not the fault of an understaffed Army, but of a mismanaged leadership of that same Army. When Black Fox made those comments, I took those comments as an accusation that this problem is the fault of nonmilitary American civilians. Even if one has an opinion on required military service, the claim of an understaffed Army is incorrect. The issue isn't the number of current troops, it's the reasoning behind the assignment of them.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
No there really aren't enough soldiers in the US Army Argent. Though my Division just returned, in Early 2005 there should be at least 2 out of the three brigades being deployed that year. Every Infantry division in the army ( which of course includes all their support assets which is pretty much every other unit) is in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. or is going to go in a year. They really can't put more soldiers in Iraq at the moment. Not to mention we need some soldiers back in the states in case something else breaks out.
Also there are people ( as in Iraqis at the scene) who said there were 4 vehicles, as in the 2 they were guarding may have gotten away. Of course though there are Iraqis who said there was a beautifal red haired lady who got killed ( part of the 4 contractors). Also when I say contractor, I mean security contractor. Yes they could be ex-ranger, ex-seal, ex-delta, ex-swat, or who else knows what. The fact is they are still contractors. Plus the Marines are in control of the area outside Fallujah and their current policy is to give as little information about attacks as possible. The idea would be for the attackers to know as little as possible about the amount of success on a larger scale that their assault might have caused.
Oh and whats this mismanaged forces bit????? We can't do much about what happened in Korea ( it was 50 years ago and yes we're still going to support the South Koreans) There is Afghanistan, which of course we aren't going to leave for awhile. Then after Bosnia and that area we really don't have any "large" troop deployments anywhere else. Lots of smaller ones, but nothing on those scales.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
No the reason the army is understaffed is because we are in about 12 dozen different spots , not chosen by the army leadership btw, and still no support for even a single extra division.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I have a rule to only work in engineering firms which are run by engineers... Engineers with really good business knowledge as opposed to business people who know about engineering. I've worked in both and it's bad when the boss doesn't understand the job he or she is telling you to do.
It must be frustrating for the army management to work under someone who doesn't have military training or experience... unless it's a very smart someone who can be taught and catches on quickly.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad the military is under civilian control. A military dictatorship is not my idea of a good government that I'd like to live under. I do think our current system of government in the U.S., although there is an awful lot you can say against it, is the least bad system that we humans have managed so far. I'd rather live here now than at any other time in history, under any other system in the world.
However, I can understand how frustrating it must be to work under someone who doesn't really know your job, or realize what they are telling you to do or to attempt. That's an unhappy situation.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Oh and whats this mismanaged forces bit????? We can't do much about what happened in Korea ( it was 50 years ago and yes we're still going to support the South Koreans) There is Afghanistan, which of course we aren't going to leave for awhile. Then after Bosnia and that area we really don't have any "large" troop deployments anywhere else. Lots of smaller ones, but nothing on those scales.
What about American Army currently deployed throughout the US? Army Reserves, of which there are currently many over there already, and many positioned throughout the US as well. Move the troops in country over there, because that's what they're for. The National Guard is our border defense, the Army, Air Force, and Navy are for external use. That's the mismanagement, and yes I know the arguments about how the deployments throughout the country are necessary to a degree as well, I simply don't agree with those arguments. We're not using our border defenses properly, and using up our military resources by having external forces babysit inside the country.
And as for the selective silence of the military outside of Fallujah, notice that you mention outside of, because they would have trouble stationing inside due to the inherent dangers (which is why I question civilian presence when military keeps their distance), it would be better to give the full information in this case, because all the attackers would have to do is tune into American media for validation that their most recent excursions were a resounding success, considering how incredibly sensationalized each of these events, especially the latest, have become. And my point about the contractors line was not that they were not under contract by the government, but that a security firm that is supposedly guarding an as-yet-unnamed food shipment would not likely be shopping for a screwdriver or a fuse, as aka was trying to argue. Since you were there for a time, would you care to confirm that such needs are not met by going out to the local shopping mall, but by requesting it of the liasons for supplies by their military contracts?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)