« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New Study: Private Security Firms Hurt U.S. Mission in Iraq
A forthcoming study by private-military contractor expert P.W. Singer obtained by TPMmuckraker finds that Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq are detrimental to U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.
Singer, author of the landmark book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, goes beyond the current Blackwater imbroglio to criticize the entire system for security contracting in Iraq. He finds that even though private military firms represent a hindrance to counterinsurgency objectives, the privatization boom beginning in the 1980s has left the U.S. military functionally dependent on the companies for numerous combat operations and logistics tasks. Private military companies have become "the ultimate enabler" for military commitments, Singer writes in "Can't Win With 'Em, Can't Go To War Without 'Em: Private Military Contractors and Counter-Insurgency," allowing a politically cost-free way for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq without a massive call-up of reserve forces.
What the contracting industry diminishes in political cost it compounds in actual cost to counterinsurgency. Iraqis view private companies like Blackwater as lawless, and they have no reason to distinguish between private contractors and U.S. troops -- thereby compounding the danger to U.S. forces from infuriated Iraqis.
A real world example illustrates how this process plays out. An Iraqi is driving in Baghdad, on his way to work. A convoy of black-tinted SUVs comes down the highway at him, driving in his lane, but in the wrong direction. They are honking their horns at the oncoming traffic and firing machine gun bursts into the road and in front of any vehicle that gets too close. He veers to the side of the road. As the SUVs drive by, Western-looking men in sunglasses point machine guns at him.Over the course of the day, that Iraqi civilian might tell X people about how "The Americans almost killed me today, and all I was doing was trying to get to work." Y is the number of other people that convoy ran off the road on its run that day. Z is the number of convoys in Iraq that day. Multiply X times Y times Z times 365 and you have a mathematical equation for how to lose a counterinsurgency in a year. (And that assumes he doesn't tell his mom or wife about the incident, upon which they are likely to tell the entire neighborhood about how the Americans almost killed their boy/husband, multiplying the equation further.)
Even more simply, private military contractors aren't in the chain of command, meaning U.S. officers are powerless to stop them from engaging in activities deleterious to a command plan. The most striking example: the lynched Blackwater contractors in Falluja in 2004 entered the city without consultation with the local Marine unit. After the televised lynching, the meticulous Marine plan to win hearts and minds within the city was scotched by a White House and higher command eager for retribution. (For an alternative argument to Singer's about harmonizing contractors with the chain of command, see this essay from counterterrorism expert Malcolm Nance -- which, full disclosure, he asked for my input on prior to publication.)
Singer's recommendation is to "roll... inherently governmental functions back into governmental hands." In other words, he wants to reverse the trend toward outsourcing functions that would harm a mission if executed poorly. These include interrogations, protection of key personnel, and delivery of crucial fuel or ammunition supplies. (Green Beans Coffee or Burger King could remain open in the Green Zone under Singer's formulation.) He claims that skeptics, like Amb. Ryan Crocker, who claim that there isn't an alternative to private security firms like Blackwater, sound like "pushers, enablers and addicts."
Singer's paper is slated for publication tomorrow by the Brookings Institution.
Comments (16)
ron wrote on September 26, 2007 2:12 PM:"Private security contractors"...known throughout the civilized world as "Mercenary Armies" will ALWAYS be detrimental to any mission. They are ABHORRED by anyone possessing a brain; they are accurately described in press coverage as "cowboys", a raucous, irresponsible group who LOVE WAR...most notably when THEY bear no responsibility for what occurs; and as long as THEY are in possession of the biggest weapons...COWARDS ONE AND ALL!!!
The very revulsion triggered by their presence is ample reason why this country has not made use of such barbarians in prior conflicts....but, SURPRISE, SURPRISE...the Bush administration...itself the object of similar scorn...has seen fit to reward some of its most antedulivian individuals by awarding such contracts.
It will be a long...LONG...time before the U.S. regains its previous high status in world opinion!!!
alex wrote on September 26, 2007 2:51 PM:The idea [the Republicans hold on to dearly] is that the private sector will allow for cost savings, because they will be forced to compete "on the open market" for the contract.
However, what actually occurs is that the service they seeking is so specialized that there are only one or two possible candidates who could complete the job. So the idea [again, that Republicans hold on to so dearly] is for the government to purchase services in near monopolistic conditions.
Can anyone please just poke a hole in this "privatization saves" theory once and for all?
SeeDee wrote on September 26, 2007 3:39 PM:Ron: The U.S. will NEVER be able to regain the respect it once engendered in less fortunate citizens of other countries...Bush/Cheney and their Jewish neocon friends have managed to destroy in a mere six years plus what it took 200 years to craft as far as a national image is concerned.
No amount of petro reserves, no smug satisfaction on the part of Likud-policy lovers, no eventual monetary compensation to 'victims' of our 'democratization' efforts will obviate the fact that it has NOT BEEN WORTH IT.
Pete McHugh wrote on September 26, 2007 4:50 PM:It isn't obvious that many of the posters here have been principals in a personnel security detail environment. Having sat in PSDs, and been provided essential security by firms, including Blackwater, I have a somewhat positive perspective...they simply were responsible for, and saved my life!
For civilian employees of State, and for the Diplomats in Iraq, there is only one way to accomplish the mission, and that requires meeting senior members of the Iraqi government. We can not expect them to come to the IZ (so called Green Zone) each time meetings are required, security (and the RSO) require military like planning, intel assessments, escorts and mission execution. Would anyone suggest that the Marines (or special ops) do such duty? Can you imagine the political baggage diplomats would carry if a crew of military escorts were required at each meeting or negotiation? While there may not be much visual discrimination between military and combat contractors doing security, there is huge inferential difference.
If not the military, then who?
Since the ancient Greeks, paid warriors have assisted governments/armies accomplish missions. How would the American Revolution have been different had there not been "privateers," or Hessians, or other "contractors" on the battle fields or seas...more shipping was siezed or destroyed by privateers than by the U.S. Navy during that important skirmish with our ally, Britain.
Lewis and Clark used contractors.
We had them in large numbers in both World Wars, Korea and during Viet Nam...Why should Iraq, or the future be different?
I won't speak for all of the as many as 120 security firms in Baghdad, but I will defend Blackwater...they are as professional and disciplined a force multiplier as could be sought...with a high degree of loyalty to unit and Nation...Most of them are motivated to do what they do by the same ideals that motivate the rest of us to volunteer for Iraq and other public duty...and so what if they get paid?
Before we condemn, or restrict such contractors in Iraq, we better be sure we have full knowledge and understadning of what they do, what provokes the need to change, and what the situation will be if they are restricted or gone!
I am sure my life, and the lives of folks who worked for me, were saved by Blackwater vigilance and dedication... and I got the "T" shirt for playing.
michael valentne wrote on September 26, 2007 5:04 PM:Mercenaries are paid help. They will kill to complete their business.
JRBehrman wrote on September 26, 2007 5:29 PM:The no political cost part is especially attractive to cringing liberal Democrats. They are for/against the war before/during/after, ... whatever. Actually, they are indifferent to all aspects of their Blazing Saddles jobs, save pork and perks.
They are not chickenhawks, just chickens, rabbits, maggots.
"Jes' He'p Everbody!"
SeeDee wrote on September 26, 2007 5:38 PM:So you think Blackwater demonstrated a 'high degree of loyalty' to the U.S.A. by murdering the Iraqi civilians on last September 16th, eh, Mr. McHugh?
If you come to that conclusion, then your entire lengthy 'defense' of the irresponsible mercenaries in Iraq is rendered ridiculous.
To begin with, we have no business whatsoever in building, maintaining and defending' a 3-1/2 square-mile area in the heart of Baghdad...in brief, YOU had no legitimate purpose to be there.
What do you suppose the reaction of normal Americans would be if, say, the present Russian regime decided to appropriate 3-1/2 square-miles in the middle of DC for the purpose of stealing a few trillions of dollars worth of our natural resources?
Nell wrote on September 26, 2007 6:39 PM:@Pete McHugh: That work needs to be performed by the military, not mercenaries. Your life would have been just as safe.
The "inferential baggage" with Blackwater is _more_ damning with Iraqis than regular military -- exactly because of the impunity and special, loose-to-nonexistent 'rules of engagement' they have been operating under.
Take that T-shirt and shove it.
Cal Damage wrote on September 26, 2007 7:38 PM:@Pete McHugh
"Most of them are motivated to do what they do by the same ideals that motivate the rest of us to volunteer for Iraq and other public duty"
Skipping the fact that most of the occupation's cheerleaders would NEVER volunteer to go there, and think the phrase 'public duty' translates to 'personal power', tell me a simple thing: why are these contractors ashamed to wear the colors? Ashamed to be seen as Marines or Army, or a member of another branch? If they're not ashamed, are they afraid of the responsibility? Or is being exempt from all Iraqi law, and being given an official free pass by the UCMJ, AND getting paid lots more than those war cheerleaders are willing to pay our soldiers what they're obviously worth(because there's no administrative overhead to skim, maybe?), as demonstrated by the price they're willing to pay the equal number of contractors?....
No, you're emptying latrines, soldier, and you're following a man who thinks you belong down in that trench with that idjit-stick, when you try to sell that line, here or anywhere.
Roberta wrote on September 26, 2007 8:49 PM:I know that having a military is, sadly, absolutely necessary. I also know that this military deserves to be paid better, to have better benefits, including all of the physical and mental health care in existence, both during and after their service.
Imagine if the extortionate amounts of money going to contractors, with their "cost-plus" deals and virtual blackmail of the government so it can employ their services, actually went toward paying service people a competitive wage? This would attract many people to the military who want to serve their country in this way but also want to be able to earn a living that provides well for dignified future.
Imagine how many people would opt for that career in the military, knowing that their financial future would at least be as good as in the private sector AND they could make a commitment they want to make.
The real incentive to getting dedicated, long-term people in the military is to treat them with the respect and gratitude they deserve. If you work in IT, you don't generally put your life on the line. If you work IT for the military, you so the same work AND you might be killed. That deserves compensation, benefits, and a good retirement.
And Mr. McHugh? Those mercenaries the Americans relied on in the Revolutionary War weren't getting paid more than regular soldiers. The same can't be said for these contractors, who are getting money that should go to those who believe in the concept of serving their country, not just themselves.
SeeDee wrote on September 26, 2007 9:21 PM:Roberta, your point RE pay differential between U.S. military and the 'paid-to-kill' mercenary 'contractors' is noted, and I agree to your expressed concern.
However, I am convinced that, while our military personnel should be paid better than any other military personnel in the world, and that they should be accorded the best health and re-hab treatments available after serving,..I am equally convinced that the leadership of our nation is sadly lacking when they involve this country in a war where pay and benefits are the first and foremost concern..rather than the conviction on the part of at least ninety percent of the population that participation in such war is the RIGHT (correct) and patriotic thing to do.
To put this nation's military actions on the basis only of whether soldiers, sailors, airmen/women are paid 'enough' is the road to the death of true patriotism. George W. Bush and his cabal of crooks have done their parts in steering America down that sorry road.
And the use of Blackwater, et al., is only further proof of their attempts to kill American idealism and patriotism when it comes to defending this country.
I won't elaborate further, but it seems to me the American GI's who volunteered in 1941 (and those draftees then) were paid a whopping $21.00 per month...the equivalent in today's dollars of less than $400.00 per month...and there was virtually NO reliance in the military on 'contractors'.
As for the Revolutionary War. with the exception of very small amounts of 'wampum' paid to some Indians as 'scouts' or 'spies', the only true Mercenaries' were the Hessians employed by our enemies.
Anon701 wrote on September 27, 2007 12:27 AM:One primary martial rule, whether it be on the street, in the ring, or on the battle field, is to use your 'strongest' point against the opponents 'weakest' point. Not adhereing to this principal, leaves one less likely to endure and conquer. It is not "cowardly" to bring out the 'big' guns against the small...it is 'wise'.
The US military 'should' be allowed to compensate their soldiers at an equal rate that the private sector pays; anything less, is insidious.
Jane wrote on September 27, 2007 10:43 AM:Officials such as Gates, should be more concerned with awarding our soldiers what they deserve. Perhaps then, his complaining about 'smart' soldiers shedding their military uniforms for private security employment, won't be necessary.
From Wednesday's Balkinization
“He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.”
The was the complaint, leveled against George, the ruler of a great nation, who sent hired guns to suppress the people of an emerging nation on the other side of the ocean.
The complaint, of course, was against King George the Third, and was written by Thomas Jefferson. It is in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, in all sorts of ironic ways, Jefferson’s complaint might easily be uttered by Iraqis and Americans who sympathize with their plight.
Roberta wrote on September 27, 2007 12:45 PM:SeeDee,
When I first wrote my comment, I started out with my dream that we wouldn't a need a military to go and fight wars. And then I acknowledged that this is not the reality right now, and that, for the time being, we're stuck in Iraq.
I excised that paragraph, because I didn't think it was to the point of the article and the discussion.
I have never for one day thought that any part of this war was necessary or right. I truly had grave doubts about Afghanistan, as well (even with some of its justifications), because I just don't see that today's world accomplishes anything by military force. I am now and have always been a peacenik.
I know that men (since it was men fighting) in WWII were paid pittances for their sacrifices. My father headed off to Canada in 1940 to join the RCAF, since the US wasn't yet involved, and he cared nothing about what he'd be paid.
But, just as the reasons wars are declared today are different from why wars used to be declared (rightly or wrongly), so are the reasons for joining the military different. If, as I assumed in my post, one accepts the premise that it is necessary to build and hold a military, and that having a well-trained body that actually cares about its country-- rather than the excitement, the reward, or whatever draws in contracting mercenaries--is important, then we'd better make sure that there are practical reasons for people to enlist and stay in, as well as the patriotic reasons.
So, essentially, I agree with what you wrote. I just wanted to make sure that you and other readers understand my true point of departure.
kenga wrote on December 26, 2007 11:59 AM:security (and the RSO) require military like planning, intel assessments, escorts and mission execution. Would anyone suggest that the Marines (or special ops) do such duty?
George Arndt wrote on December 26, 2007 7:18 PM:Yes. I think they would be quite competent in activities such as military-like planning, intel assesments, escort and mission execution. And significantly more cost effective to boot.
The loyalty of anyone who is motivated solely motivated by money is aways suspect. Blackwater may claim to be "pro-American" but they are really "pro-money", regardless of who gets hurt.