« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Will Hillary Follow Through On Campaign Pledge To Ban 'Private Mercenaries'?
Back in February, Senator Hillary Clinton cosponsored legislation calling for the Secretary of State to ban the use of private contractors like Blackwater from guarding State Department employees -- a position that takes on new significance now that she is Secretary Of State designate.
It was about three weeks after Super Tuesday in the heat of the Democratic primary -- and five months after the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians at Nisour Square by now-indicted Blackwater employees working for the State Department -- when Clinton took an aggressive stand against the use of private forces. A strongly-worded statement issued by her office lashed out at "private mercenary firms":
From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.
And in late February, Clinton became the sole Senate cosponsor of a bill, S.2398, the Stop Outsourcing Security Act that had been introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
In a major speech on Iraq a couple of weeks later, Hillary reiterated her support for removing private contractors from "combat-oriented and security functions in Iraq."
"For five years their behavior and lack of supervision and accountability have often eroded our credibility, endangered U.S. and Iraqi lives and undermined our mission," she noted.
But given Hillary's current position as Secretary of State designate, the most significant part of her stance can be found in Section 4 of the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which explicitly directs the Secretary of State to take action:
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall ensure that all personnel at any United States diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq are provided security services only by Federal Government personnel.
Senator Clinton's office has not responded to TPMmuckraker's inquires about whether she still supports S.2398 and about her plans for the State Department's use of private forces in Iraq.
So what exactly is at stake here? Between 2003 and 2007, the State Department awarded contracts for security and non-security work in Iraq totaling a massive $4 billion, according to an August report (pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office. Six thousand seven hundred contractors are working in Iraq for the State Department - about 40 percent of whom work on security, and another 25 percent of whom are classified as "police and correction advisers," the report found. Of the total 6,700 contractors, only a third are U.S. citizens, and nearly half are citizens of neither U.S. citizens nor "local nationals."
A congressional investigation found that private State Department security contractors from Blackwater alone were involved in nearly 200 "escalation of force" incidents between 2005 and 2007, including multiple killings of Iraqi civilians.
As for Barack Obama's stance on the issue, he never went as far as Hillary during the primary, and The Nation quoted a senior adviser saying Obama did not support the Stop Outsourcing Security Act. The transition's official Web site only says that Obama will "establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military contract."
We've put in an inquiry with the transition office for more detailed information on the President-Elect's plans. But if Obama does support the continuing use of firms like Blackwater in Iraq -- and requires Hillary to follow the same policy -- she may soon find herself running a department that employs forces she once described as endangering both US lives and the mission In Iraq.
Josh
Zachary
She'll say it's Obama's call and weasle out of it. But the truth of the matter is, they don't have a choice, unless they are going to send more troops over the next 14 months. Not going to happen.
December 15, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weasel out of it? Did you forget Obama was elected president and Hillary will be working for him? The policy is not hers to set. If Obama wants mercenaries out HE will have to make that policy.
If she differs from him look for a chorus of how she's trying to undermine him.
December 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will Clinton follow through on campaign pledge to ban private mercenaries?
She made that pledge to cosponsor Sanders' bill in Feb. 08 after she had declined to cosponsor it in Nov. 07, and one day after opponent Obama announced he wouldn't rule out the use of mercenary forces if elected. When Obama caught flak for that, then and only then did Clinton make the announcement that mercenary forces needed to be reined in and held accountable.
http://goodgirlroxie.blogspot.com/2008/03/sen-clintons-dynamic-position-on-use-of.html
I wouldn't call that a campaign pledge.
Why would Sec. of State Clinton ban private mercenaries when President-elect Obama hasn't said he will ban them, and when the only reason she said she wanted to hold them accountable was to differentiate her position from Obama's in the heat of the primary campaign, as a last-minute vote-getting gimmick?
December 15, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was too much of us to ask her to actually READ the info before voting to send patriots to their deaths THIS time.. (the "I didn't do that" was only a technicality)... why on earth would we expect her to do the right thing this time? After all, she will NOW be Secretary of State, so it looks as though her last fiasco is being rewarded....
Such a travesty, when there are probably a few hundred thousand good honest patriotic folks in this country much better suited for the job... IMHO
December 15, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your humble opinion is quite correct. She should never have been offered the job, she should never have accepted it. She brings too much baggage, largely due to Bill. But then she is who she is and what she is largely due to Bill.
January 13, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Civilian security makes sense, especially for Department of State diplomats who should not be beholden to Department of Defense guards.
More to the point, much of the security is simple static security or gate guarding - you don't need an Army Ranger to do that. About half the security is actually local Iraqis, who speak the language, are more familiar with local customs etc. (more than 99% of civilian security in Afghanistan is Afghans). And much of what they're guarding is reconstruction projects. Do we plan to guard sewage repair sites with U.S. Marines? Please . . . There are really practical reasons for using civilian security.
Lets get past the politically-charged rhetoric of the campaign and focus on real issues.
Doug Brooks, IPOA
December 16, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doug Brooks ,
Ok if your in country and engaged in actual combat as Blackwater , Three Canopy & others have been -why not make all of these actors subject to the UCOMJ too -and for that matter the same "ROE 's"? And yes we might want to have small detachments of Marines help guard local infrastructure as one very important tactic of an overall successful counterinsurgency strategy .
Doug maybe you should ask the Marines out in al Anbar if Blackwater shooting up civilians helped or hurt the "Awakening " ? And a follow on question would be why should the mercenaries make five or ten times more then serving military members -when both are being paid by my tax dollars ? The mercs are just that mercs - aside from Executive Outcomes in Africa where have these "guns for hire" been used effectively -Certainly they were not helpful in Nisour Square .
December 16, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Private military do not and should not represent our goverment.
Mercenaries play by their own rules. They have their own pay scale. If they are doing the same jobs or lesser jobs that our men in uniform they need to get the same pay or lesser pay than the men who have to play by the rules.
Mercenaries never pay for their mistakes, proud enlisted men and women must stand before their accusers.
Mercenaries are a scam to skirt the rules of law.
Military must play by the same rules. BS on Blackwater types.
December 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Al in Austex:
DoD contractors are already under UCMJ - though IPOA, Amnesty and HRW opposed the inclusion of civilians under military law. In any case it is unlikely to survive a Constitutional challenge. better is the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
The Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) used by security contractors are far more restrictive than the military's Rules of Engagement - as they should be. They're also public, unlike the military ROEs. They are even in the Congressional Record, but happy to send them to anyone who can't find a copy online.
The vast majority of security contractors make far, far less than serving military members - most contractors are in fact local nationals earning around $700 per month or less.
I'm not sure the Marines would have been so keen on your plan of spreading them all over Anbar province in small detachments guarding sometimes tiny reconstruction projects. That kind of static security is far more suited to local security contractors who speak the language, know the politics etc. And hiring 120,000 Iraqi contractors may in fact be the most successful counterinsurgency effort done by the Coalition.
Should a retired NCO who has already served one or more hitches in the military automatically earn less than new recruits? I'm not so sure. Ultimately the wages are come from the market. About .5% of contractors make the high-end Diplomatic security wages generally being referred to - and they have to have military experience, special background checks, top secret clearances and specialized training. They also have remarkably dangerous jobs and dozens have died protecting U.S. diplomats - it is not a job for just anyone.
Clearly the role of contractors is far more limited and restricted than the military - as it should be. But ultimately the contractors are critical to allowing the military to focus on its core mission.
Theswan - interesting perspective, perhaps a wee bit more ideological than real. Contractors - or anyone violating laws in conflict and post-conflict operations - should be held accountable. Not always easy to ensure, but there are ways to do it (again, take a gander at MEJA).
Of course using the military for *everything* is always an option, and several in Congress have advocated a return to the draft.
-doug brooks
December 16, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink