« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
"It may be worse than Abu Ghraib."
That's a senior U.S. military official explaining to The Washington Post how strongly Iraqis are reacting to Blackwater's September 16th shooting of civilians in Baghdad. By contrast, here's a State Department official: "The bottom line of this is that we recognize that there's an issue here."
In the gap between those two assessments lies the acrimony between the Pentagon and the State Department over the shooting. The State Department hired Blackwater to protect its dignitaries in Iraq, and so it has to balance its relationship with the Iraqi government with its need to protect Blackwater from reprisal. But the military sees Blackwater's relaxed rules of engagement -- issued by the State Department -- as hurtful to its efforts to turn Iraqis against the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite militias. (More on this later today.)
"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers. Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later," said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the Sept. 16 shootings, the officer added, "None of us believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their black eyes.""Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control," said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. "They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by."
What's surprising is that many, if not most, of Blackwater's security teams are made up of former U.S. soldiers, sailors and Marines, including special-operations veterans. The discipline almost always shown in a U.S. uniform appears to break down under relaxed rules of engagement, especially in a place as dangerous as Iraq. A U.S. military intelligence officer asks: "Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?" (Yes, there's that M-word, which touched off a huge blogospheric controversy when Markos Moulitsas used it.)
Only one problem. The military wants tighter controls over Blackwater and other security contractors, many of whom work for DOD. But a Pentagon source tells the Post that the Defense Department isn't exactly champing at the bit to take the lead on regulating private military firms, calling it a potential "turf battle." And that turf battle will extend to Congress, in all likelihood: one Iraq veteran tells the paper that the most likely solution to the renegade-contractor problem will come from Capitol Hill. On the other hand, State sources are obstructing Congressional investigations into Blackwater, raising doubts about any expeditious changes to private-security companies' legal status in Iraq.
When the Abu Ghraib story broke in 2004, Iraq was much, much more peaceful than it is today, and the U.S. couldn't afford it then. How much less can the 160,000 troops now in Iraq afford to be unfairly tarred with an even bigger source of Iraqi outrage?
Comments (53)
offtopic wrote on September 26, 2007 10:05 AM:Check this out! Bush pardons himself retroactively:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBUkxvfL_eE
Lois Hamilton wrote on September 26, 2007 10:13 AM:My first boss taught me an invaluable lesson about how to get along with and understand another person's position when you disagree with them. Always try to step into their shoes and see things from their perspective. If we can step into the shoes of the Iraqi people and imagine how we would feel about them if they were occupying our country and sending trigger happy private mercenaries into our towns and cities, killing our neighbors or families at any perceived provocation, what would we do? I am appalled that we have allowed this to go on! They must be subject to the same military conduct code as our soldiers and be held accountable for their actions, or better yet, banished from Iraq! Our government is out of control!
linda wrote on September 26, 2007 10:18 AM:col. pat lang has posted an invaluable data sheet of blackwater mercenary characteristics:
1. Large amount of primping, i.e. mousse in your hair despite the
fact you live in a war zone.
2. Your forearms break out in tattoos, often tribal or USMC related
3. All your shirts are skintight "Under Armor" T-shirts
4. Have used, currently using or consider using steroids
5. Refer to yourself as a "Shooter" or "Operator for Blackwater"
6. Look down upon all other PSD teams that are NOT on the
Ambassadors Detail, to include other Blackwater employees.
7. Grow a beard to blend in with the locals, even though you are a
6ft tall blonde with a "Death before Dishonor tattoo.
8. Think the UN pool is a good place to pickup chicks
9. Are arrogant and condescending to people with more experience,
training and who make more money than you.
10. Forget that doing a mission that has been performed in the past
by Tier 1 assets does not make you a Tier 1 asset.
http://tinyurl.com/3ah4cj
Pastor Doodah wrote on September 26, 2007 10:21 AM:With this and the revelation that US snipers "bait" city streets with a dangerous mess and murder anyone who comes to clean it up, I cannot help but think that there will be some major blowback indeed.
Glendon Jack wrote on September 26, 2007 10:27 AM:Bush will get away with pardoning himself because people online seem to have the attention span of a gnat. They can not stop him from ruling the world, because they are not willing to cal their congressman and tell him to stop that bill!
paul wrote on September 26, 2007 10:35 AM:What's making this come to a head now? Blackwater has been shooting up civilians with impunity for the past three years. Is it the fragility of the Maliki government? Do they think they might actually be able to force some US change in policy? Something else?
TheraP wrote on September 26, 2007 10:37 AM:Just because State hired Blackwater, they must "protect Blackwater from reprisal"?? WHY? This is the whole problem with this administration. Legitimate complaints and critiques are considered "reprisal." This is both ridiculous and outrageous!
This whole Blackwater problem speaks to the fiction of a "small, lean" military. All they did was pretend it's a small force and outsource/privatize everything that cronies could profit from. Bad enough that this administration has prevented oversight of government. They've also failed to oversee all their cronies benefiting from government largesse. All the while neglecting the needs of ordinary citizens for health care and infrastructure, etc.
If even the military resents contractors like Blackwater, this suggests to me that
GNAT wrote on September 26, 2007 10:38 AM:Click GANT above to see kbush get away with murder!
Eazy wrote on September 26, 2007 10:43 AM:After the Abu Gharib stories broke, the White House was quick to exclude the word torture from dialogue about what had happened. They will likely do the same now with the word mercenary.
nlacey wrote on September 26, 2007 10:43 AM:Our son was in Iraq with his National Guard unit in 2006. When he returned home he told us that the whole fiasco was a lost cause naturally; too tribal but he also told us that the one group, universally despised in Iraq was Blackwater. They are hated by Sunni, Shia, Kurd, American military, and other "coalition" troops in country. He swore the British had issued shoot to kill orders against Blackwater in Basra. They are mercenary thugs.
TheraP wrote on September 26, 2007 10:45 AM:sorry... my comment above got posted before I finished it.
What keeps nagging at me about contractors like Blackwater is this: What personality characteristics draw someone to work as a mercenary? What makes these folks so different that even their former military buddies now repudiate them? Are the people who like "contract" work like the gangsters who would be called in to do a "contract"? You have to wonder! It's entirely possible that people who like the swagger, the power and apparent prestige of acting outside military orders, are sadistic individuals. Are these the dregs of the military, the sociopaths who seek to put into practice all the military skills without the military discipline?
This is just another example of lawless behavior within the bush administration.
IMO wrote on September 26, 2007 10:56 AM:US officials are just now realizing that there's an "issue" here? They're just now noticing that there's a problem with our unaccountable mercenaries acting like out-of-control cowboys?
Private "security" corporations are built with public-taxpayer funds, but are strictly private, highly secretive and unaccountable. They're also highly partisan and make large contributions to Republicans only.
Read "Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein in this month's Harper's Magazine.
Mike Bakunin wrote on September 26, 2007 10:58 AM:Lois Hamilton (poster) has it right: How would Americans feel if a private force of mercenaries indiscriminately killed several dozen American civilians? The outrage would be deafening!
jeffgee wrote on September 26, 2007 11:00 AM:Wait'll they come home and become police officers. That'll be fun.
JEP wrote on September 26, 2007 11:01 AM:One of them might be the next Tim McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald.
"They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by."
Good grief, has there ever been a more-appropriate blanket description of this entire administration?
After Bush sent his fellow cowboys all over the world as out state department, now everyone on Earth thinks Americans speak with a Texas accent.
Bush may be a cowboy, but he is apparently not a horseboy.
JEP wrote on September 26, 2007 11:04 AM:"9. Are arrogant and condescending to people with more experience,
training and who make more money than you."
Automatic weapons and grenades have that effect on the goons who carry them...
Eric wrote on September 26, 2007 11:04 AM:Why not zero out Blackwater in the next appropriations bill? This will force the media to focus on Blackwater, and clarify the distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the policy.
Eric wrote on September 26, 2007 11:05 AM:Why not zero out Blackwater in the next appropriations bill? This will force the media to focus on Blackwater, and clarify the distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the policy.
Montesquieu Grenouille III wrote on September 26, 2007 11:16 AM:Don't count on Congressional Democrats to do anything like zeroing out Blackwater.
If they even mentioned the possibility the right wing media would right away start blasting them for wanting to kill our diplomats in Baghdad by depriving them of the protection they need to go outside the Green Zone.
And of course our courageous Dems on the Hill would back off.
jvill wrote on September 26, 2007 11:17 AM:By contrast, here's a State Department official: "The bottom line of this is that we recognize that there's an issue here."
Hmmm, actually, no. The bottom line is no one has any faith anything substantial will be done by the "loyal Bushies" about any of this.
Fred M. wrote on September 26, 2007 11:22 AM:It is becoming clear why this administration is stonewalling on every issue imaginable. The immunity they are seeking for war crimes is just the tip of the iceberg. Expect others for breaking privacy laws; the waste, fraud and corruption in the issuing of government contracts; the policization of the DOJ and other departments; and God only knows what other criminal acts these guys have committed!
JEP wrote on September 26, 2007 11:30 AM:"Why not zero out Blackwater in the next appropriations bill?"
There's another $50 billion being debated soon, maybe that would be the time to make that move...
And replace them (surely there are 1000 qualified GI's in Iraq who would work for a lot less.)
Anyone else see a glaring contempt for the REAL military in the very existence of Cheney's shadow army?
When did our soldiers become insufficient?
When they took an oath to protect the constitution, not the neocons? Maybe a lot of this supposed "sectarian violence" and "foreign terrorist violence" is nothing more that the likes of Cofer Black ensuring their future profits.
And how many American soldiers have been killed in retribution for what Blackwater ops actually did?
It would be hard to know, but a look back might revealmore than one cause and effect incedent where US soldiers were attacked because Blackwater murdered someone.
To the Iraqis, there is no difference vbetween them. But we all know who gets paid better.
Bush has no respect for our real military, they're just fodder for the neocons, he and Cheney depend on their black legions for real power. At home and abroad.
Shades of the SS!
PS is "Blackwater" one of theose stupid black-ops codewords for "oil"?
JEP wrote on September 26, 2007 11:35 AM:For all the naysayers who lament the congressional Deocratic chickenhearts, just imagine if Henry had not gotten the gavel back in 2006!
We would be in a much bigger mess, and no one would be accountable. Although the truth is still being extracted with forceps, and without the help of the MSM, it is being extracted one day at a time.
Without the overwhelming victory of 2006, the oversight would not even be this far along, it would never have occurred.
radish wrote on September 26, 2007 11:45 AM:Junta-like behavior. Bush and his administration have crossed so many boundaries: lying their way into war, condoning torture and domestic spying, abrogation of habeas corpus, politicization of the justice department....
They can only protect themselves by appointing loyal cooperators to official positions.
Here's a joke.....when he becomes ex-president, Bush hires Blackwater as his private security detail.
bluestatedon wrote on September 26, 2007 11:49 AM:Ah, ya gotta love Rummy's defense policies: the gift that keeps on giving!
Blackwater does not attract the cream of our military crop; like any mercenary organization, it attracts the sociopaths who want to carry around big guns and kill things for money, all without having to salute anybody in a chain of command. Their allegiance is to their gun and their wallet. If their allegiance was to our country, they would not have left the uniformed service in the first place.
Oh, I forgot: their allegiance is also to the Republican Party, because that's the source of their gravy train.
Mary wrote on September 26, 2007 11:51 AM:Waxman's letter explains the difference in State Dep and Military - State employees can only use the words "problem" and "Iraq" together in "classified" communications.
Which side of the cold war was Rice on?
George E. Lowe wrote on September 26, 2007 11:52 AM:Hi, If THE BLACKWATER SCANDAL IS --and I believe it is- "worse than Abu Ghraib"-there is something that doesn't track: The Role of The State Department. As a former Naval Intelligence Officer & FSO, I served with very PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS IN DOD & STATE. Therefore I'm not surprised that, "A U.S. military intelligence officer asks.''Why are we creating new vulnerabilites by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces."
But what astonishes me--given my 30 years of Federal Service is HOW/WHY State is playing "bad cop/bad guy" in this so-called "turf-war" with DOD--the good "PROFESSIONAL MILITARY OFFICERS?"
A full scale JOINT investigation by Senate Military/Foreign Affairs Committies is very/very necessary-lest America makes the same mistake that Britian & Rome did: They relied on Mercenaries vice their own PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS.
Right after the Arab revolt in Iraq--1919-21, when Lord Trenchard's new RAF couldn't end the revolt via "TERROR AIR BOMBARDMENTS" of Iraqi villages/civilians, the British had to send 150,000 Colonian troops from India--The Brits simply didn't have enough GRUNTS.
When Bush-Cheney Rumsfeld found in late 2003 that The US didn't have enough Ground Troopers, to fight the Iraqi Insurgents, & no Indian troops were available, they turned to MERCENARIES & tried to privatize BUSH'S WAR.
The Bush Adm. had plenty of money so 100-150,000 private contractors & mercenaries were hired. The BLACKWATER SCANDAL IS THE RESULT. Recall BLACKWATER Mercenaries were also used by the very rich after KATRINA in N.O.
Recall too, what happened when the professional Roman Legions were no longer made up of Roman Professional Soldiers. Rome made the fatal mistake of relying on MERCENARY-BARBARIANS. Both the Roman & British Empires fell, because their citizens would no longer serve in their PROFESSIONAL MILITARY FORCES.
Well, as President Reagan used to say , "IT CAN HAPPEN HERE"-our DEMOCRATIC-CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC is now at grave risk from "IMPERIAL OVERREACH" & by a new PRAETORIAN GUARD!
When will the Professional Military in the Pentagon & State + INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONAL expose these Neo-Fascist Christian/Ideological OVERLORDS of ours? Very worried in Nova Scotia,George E.Lowe[Golem3)
AJP wrote on September 26, 2007 12:06 PM:This Blackwater incident reminds me of reading Machiavelli in high school:
"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies..."
Gordon Hilliard wrote on September 26, 2007 12:11 PM:
GNAT wrote on September 26, 2007 12:13 PM:What is this about BUSH pardoning himself and his admin? They want to pass it this week - what BILL?
Johnny BG wrote on September 26, 2007 12:18 PM:Heard it on CNN last night - Cafferty. Click GNAT above to see Cafferty talk abut the PARDON!
That's serious stuff! It's the Republicans trying to protect him from justice. We should stop this bill now.
I can't believe they are trying this in the United States of America. We are not some totalitarian state!
Styve wrote on September 26, 2007 12:20 PM:
GNAT wrote on September 26, 2007 12:23 PM:I don't see any other coverage on the internet regarding the PARDON, it may not be true.
OH, YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE. IT'S JUST THE KIND OF STUNT THEY WOULD PULL TO GET OUT OF HOT WATER.
CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND STOP IT NOW. IT'S IN THE SENATE FOR A VOTE THIS MORNING.
THEY WANT TO PASS IT BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK. MAKE THE DEMOCRATS STOP IT.
Russ wrote on September 26, 2007 12:24 PM:Hasn't there always been a tension between regular army and Special Forces types?
GNAT wrote on September 26, 2007 12:28 PM:
Redshift wrote on September 26, 2007 1:11 PM:IT IS THE "DETAINEE BILL" WITH A SNEAK IN PARAGRAPH TO PROTECT THE ADMINISTRATION RETROACTIVELY BACK TO 9/11.
"What's surprising is that many, if not most, of Blackwater's security teams are made up of former U.S. soldiers, sailors and Marines, including special-operations veterans. The discipline almost always shown in a U.S. uniform appears to break down under relaxed rules of engagement, especially in a place as dangerous as Iraq."
Honestly, I don't think it's that surprising. Training and discipline go hand in hand, and training isn't the part that ensures restraint. It's quite reminiscent of Abu Ghraib -- if you train people to respond to threats, overcome their natural inhibitions against killing and maiming, put them in a situation where there are frequent threats and then *remove* the strictures that tell them what they're allowed and not allowed to to, they'll do very bad things. Not because they're "bad apples" (most of them aren't), but because that's what people devolve into in such circumstances *unless they are explicitly prevented by strict rules and enforcement*.
JustOneGuy wrote on September 26, 2007 1:19 PM:I just watched the Cafferty video. Why does he say, "if the Democrats take control of the House in November," and mention Senator Bill Frist? It looks to me like this is an old video.
Are you saying that this provision did not pass back then (sometime before Nov 2006) but may pass this week? If so, why call the Democrats the majority party?
William Stricklin wrote on September 26, 2007 1:24 PM:Why in the name of God have we not begun an inquiry of impeachment against these criminals???
Nell wrote on September 26, 2007 1:27 PM:@Paul: "What's making this come to a head now?"
The fact that the scale of the killing was so large, that it was in front of so many witnesses, including video from the nearby National Police headquarters, and that it comes after a long chain of worsening incidents over the last year. After each one, the Iraqi government would protest to the State Department, which promised to investigate, and each time nothing was done.
For a list of nine incidents leading up to the Nisour Square massacre, see here:
slb wrote on September 26, 2007 1:31 PM:http://alovelypromise.blogspot.com/2007/09/mercs-gone-wild.html
>> Heard it on CNN last night - Cafferty. Click GNAT above to see Cafferty talk abut the PARDON! <<
Umm -- that video has been up on YouTube for at least a week, and from what I read in the comments, the clip is from 2006. That bill was passed in the last Congress.
Mary wrote on September 26, 2007 1:54 PM:The Cafferty video is from last year - before the vote on the Military Commisssions Act (MCA). Of course, the Democrats (including "progressives" like Sherrod Brown") made sure that the MCA passed. Apparently, when the Republicans were in the majority, there was none of this filibustering, holding bills, etc.
Just frantic leaps by Democrats to enable the Bush administration's crimes. Of course, now that we have Democrats in the majority, they are ready to push through telecom immunity legislation - majority, minority - it doesn't really matter. By failing - entirely and unequivocally - to be an opposition party, whether it is assaults on the Constitution or wars of agression at issue, the Democrats bear a tremendous amount of responsiblity for us being where we are. Still, they were given the chance in 2006 and they've been dismal failures ever since.
Oh wait - that's right - they did get minimum wage raised. Granted, we were getting close to have the states already raising it in their states and taking action which they could without Congressional intervention. Unfortunately- the states can't stop wars and apply checks on a criminal Executive branch. Only Congress could and the Democrats won't. Cafferty and so many others gave them cover, but they wouldn't do the right thing.
Jumping back to topic - for "What's making this come to a head now" a large part is that Maliki needs an issue, and also that Sadr has pushed this particular issue.
Dig in history a bit and you'll find that the US SOFA granted by Iran's Shah was a much flouted talking point by the ayatollahs that helped usher him out. So as we ratchet up the pressure on Iran - - - suddenly a historically and regionally hot button item gets exploited for all it is worth.
JAJ wrote on September 26, 2007 1:55 PM:Fundamental difference! Regular American military forces fight for honor and their country. Blackwater works for money.
sb wrote on September 26, 2007 2:13 PM:Re: "When the Abu Ghraib story broke in 2004, Iraq was much, much more peaceful than it is today, and the U.S. couldn't afford it then."
My understanding is that the Abu Ghraib story was (and still is) much worse, which is why CBS agreed to the military's request to hold the story until after the Fallujah and Sadrist revolts were over, more or less.
urbino wrote on September 26, 2007 2:24 PM:Gee, and all this time we thought the State Dept. were the reasonable ones.
As for Congress doing something to rein in the mercenaries, I see no reason for hope. Congress does nothing the gung-ho tough guys don't want done. Waxman may investigate -- or try to investigate -- but that's all it will be.
lysias wrote on September 26, 2007 2:36 PM:I wonder how much of that $800 million in State Dept. contracts with Blackwater ends up as kickbacks to people in the State Dept. I wonder how much of it ends up as kickbacks to the Republican Party.
SPENCER wrote on September 26, 2007 2:58 PM:And the folly continues. This is from Secrecy News, the FAS blog. Can you classify a doc that's already out there? Hilarity insues.
"After a congressional committee requested a copy of an unclassified
NoOneYouKnow wrote on September 26, 2007 3:30 PM:internal State Department report on corruption in the Iraqi government,
the Department classified the report and declined to provide it. But
the document is in the public domain and widely accessible.
"The State Department initially informed Committee staff that the
reports were designated 'sensitive but unclassified',' wrote Rep. Henry
Waxman, chair of the House Oversight Committee, in a letter to Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice.
"After receiving the Committee's inquiry, however, the State Department
retroactively classified the documents and refused to provide them
voluntarily to the Committee."
"The Committee subpoenaed the documents last week, but they still have
not been provided to the Committee in either classified or unclassified
form," Mr. Waxman complained.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/waxman092507.pdf
The primary document at issue is an assessment of Iraqi corruption that
was prepared by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The document was first
reported in The Nation magazine last month, and it was published last
week on the Federation of American Scientists web site (Secrecy News,
09/19/07).
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/anticorruption.pdf
"Obviously, the State Department's position on this matter is
ludicrous," wrote Rep. Waxman.
"If there is widespread corruption within the Maliki government, this
is information that both Congress and the public are entitled to know."
But according to State Department officials, "any information about
corruption within the Maliki government must be treated as classified
because public discussions could undermine U.S. relations with the
Maliki government.""
This incident might create a worse furor and public relations problem for the U.S. that Abu Ghraib (and all the other U.S. prisons where torture, rape and murder were committed), but keep in mind that a lot of the worst evidence from the Abu Ghraib incident is still being kept under wraps. If that stuff gets out, Abu Ghraib will be back to being America's #1 terrorist recruiting tool.
cd wrote on September 26, 2007 3:34 PM:
SeeDee wrote on September 26, 2007 4:07 PM:I guess there's Al Qaeda In Iraq on the 'indigenous' side and there's Blackwater on the 'occupation' side. The joy of symmetry!!
JEP asks: "How many American soldiers have been killed as retribution for actions actually done by Blackwater ops?" (paraphrased quote)
Well, for starters, every Marine and/or soldier killed in the Fallujah reprisal can be touted up to Blackwater's 'four employees who were 'assassinated'.
One thing that has never been fully explained is just WHY the four were in the particular situation in Fallujah which led top their deaths.
At any rate, the U.S. reaction was reminiscent in so many ways to the Nazi razing of Lidice, the Czech town, back in WW II days. Except then only Nazi Germany would have engaged in such un-warranted savagery...now, it seems to be accepted modus operandi for the U.S. of A.
dixiegrl wrote on September 26, 2007 4:29 PM:*******And how many American soldiers have been killed in retribution for what Blackwater ops actually did?****
great question...would be great if that were publicly asked and asked and asked and repeated, day after day...
anonymouse wrote on September 27, 2007 1:10 AM:Anyone believe for one moment that, if Blackwater was doing this against us, they would not be called terrorists?
Of course not...
We, folks are a terrorist sponsoring state...
We have all the guns, though, so we won't get into trouble over it...
Jane wrote on September 27, 2007 9:13 AM:Condi is probably applauding Blackwater: she has never shown any concern about whether other people die because of her actions.
Also: if you were a state department official being protected by a steroid-crazed "shooter" would you make any complaints to your superiors?
ovulation calendar wrote on December 20, 2007 1:58 PM:tfml2qt1aujc1 ovulation calendar ovulation calendar