« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Seriously this time: Ambassador Patrick Kennedy has unveiled his recommendations on the State Department's relationship with security contractors DynCorp, Triple Canopy and Blackwater. They represent a step back from Defense Secretary Bob Gates' reported suggestion that the military take control of State's security contractors and instead emphasize greater oversight of the existing system.
The Washington Post reports that Kennedy concluded that there's no alternative to contracting security for U.S. diplomats. The military doesn't consider that mission "feasible or desirable," preferring to actually fight the war. That leaves bolstering oversight as the department's option -- something that's been sorely lacking, as Special Inspector General for Iraq Stuart Bowen found. Bowen released a report yesterday finding that only seventeen State Department officials oversee the hundreds of security contractors working on a billion-plus dollar contract to train the Iraqi police -- and, earlier this year, that oversight office consisted of a whopping two people.
As spoofed yesterday, Kennedy's recommendations do include cultural-awareness training. But more substantively -- and significantly for the contracting industry -- Kennedy recommended that State begin a dialogue with the Justice Department and Congress to clarify the legal rules under which contractors operate overseas. That contradicts both Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, who has repeatedly that he has a clear "understanding" of his company's legal responsibilities, and George W. Bush, who has threatened to veto a House measure passed earlier this month that allows alleged contractor misdeeds overseas to be tried in U.S. courts. "We don't see the clarity here," Kennedy told reporters.
In addition, Kennedy urged the State Department to create a "go team" of U.S. embassy security officials in Iraq to immediately secure and investigate the scene after the discharge of contractor weapons. (Those officials would presumably not be guarded by contractors.) Prince told Wolf Blitzer ten days ago that it would take a "battalion" to secure Nisour Square in order to conduct a proper investigation. Once the investigation is completed, the panel would report to an "incident review board" of diplomats, military officers and law-enforcement specialists to determine whether the use of contractor force was justified. That increased coordination will lead to the military and embassy officials also creating common operating procedures for contractors, in order to guard against contractor buck-wildness undercutting U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.
The Iraqis are something of an afterthought in Kennedy's review. He urges increased embassy "responsiveness" to Iraqis killed by contractors, including appropriate "condolences or compensation." You can just see those hearts and minds coming back.
Comments (18)
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 9:29 AM:I'm fine with more oversight of the existing system -- what we CANNOT do is subject these independent constractors to Iraqi jurisdiction -- they are doing too important of job for that kind of burden.
Steve5117 wrote on October 24, 2007 9:40 AM:There was once a radio jock named Joe Pine who told a caller to his program, "Lady, put a postage stamp on your nose and mail your self to a forrest fire."
I offer that same suggestion to our troll.
jpoke42 wrote on October 24, 2007 9:41 AM:These security contractors are just a shabby run around from having to expand the military. I can't believe that the US is hiring mercenaries to do the job that the military should be doing. The administration is touting the fact that it reached its recruiting goals - HA! The goals were low because we hire mercenaries! Sure, lets go into more debt to pay Blackwater and their ilk to kill more innocent civilians with no recourse.
Security for corporations doing business in Iraq is one thing, but outsourcing the security for the State Dept!?!?!?!
BTW - they should be under Iraqi law if they are protecting private corp interests, but not if they are working for the US govt.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 24, 2007 9:44 AM:Every despot and dictator has had hired thugs as a private army. Ours, in an Orwellian moment, hired his through the State Office to give this the "War is Peace".
Bush is using paramilitary contractors (mercinaries) to stage his private war, provide drug enforcement, and has invaded to suppress at least one major city. Strategically located 'training facilities' designed with mobilization in mind. Now there is talk of 'privatizing' border security and emergency response.
The forces hired from a multitude of not so nice places with mot so nice histories. We are giving security clearence to foriegn nationals with backgrounds that suggest hostility towards us. These hired thugs owe no allegence to our nation . . . Their flag is a corporate one and their honor is paid for with blood money.
AND our governments response is:
Cultural sensitivity training.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 24, 2007 9:50 AM:Jake D.,
I can understand having a contarian view to articles posted to any site. I can understand wanting to have your opinion heard by people of an opposing point of view. Unfortunately, the tone of the vast majority of your posts appears openly hostile and intentionally designed to draw a similar response in return.
While I welcome the expression of views differing from my own, your less than civil attitude leads me to suggest that you consider another venue to express your views.
Jake D. wrote on October 24, 2007 10:30 AM:Thank you for the suggestion, Adlof.
John H. wrote on October 24, 2007 10:58 AM:When I was in the Marine Corps in 1959, Marines served as the guards for the Diplomatic Corps. Some stood around as ornaments, some were ready for combat, some were ready to destroy sensitive papers, and some were armed plainclothes guards. What the **** happened?
ky wrote on October 24, 2007 11:27 AM:John H. - Bush happened!
TheraP wrote on October 24, 2007 11:29 AM:Why so many diplomats in a war zone! It costs 250% more per diplomat in Iraq. A million dollars per diplomat - per year. Isn't that about half a billion?
How much health care can you buy for that?
LFC wrote on October 24, 2007 11:37 AM:TheraP asked... Why so many diplomats in a war zone!
Because the "sovereign" nation of Iraq is being completely run by the Bush administration. And looking at his domestic record, he's doing about as good a job as I expected. Imagine an entire country living for 5 years waiting for help from the clowns who brought you the Katrina response!
TheraP wrote on October 24, 2007 11:45 AM:Oh, LFC, I bow to your greater wisdom. And I await the coming hictatorship!
anonymouse wrote on October 24, 2007 12:31 PM:I'm curious...
TheraP wrote on October 24, 2007 1:46 PM:Does anyone know just how many actual diplomats we have in Iraq... and what do they do?
anonymouse:
I thought there were supposed to be about 500 diplomats in Iraq. But I'm not finding a number at the moment.
However, up to this past May, a total of 1400 diplomats have served in Iraq. And guess what? They're getting PTSD - post-traumatic stress!
USA Today article (click my name). Here ar some quotes:
U.S. diplomats are returning from Iraq with the same debilitating, stress-related symptoms that have afflicted many U.S. troops, prompting the State Department to order a mental health survey of 1,400 employees who have completed assignments there.
ONE DIPLOMAT'S STORY: "All the work I did is worthless"
Harry O'Hara, a 26-year State Department employee, said he suffers insomnia and has lost 15 pounds since coming back nine months ago. He recalls that while in Baghdad in 2005 and 2006, he had difficulty trying to sleep in a trailer near a landing pad for helicopters ferrying wounded troops into the Green Zone for treatment.
"What was never made clear to us was what it would be like to serve in a war zone," O'Hara said. "I thought I was strong. I was totally unprepared."
PULL THE DIPLOMATS OUT!
Node of Evil wrote on October 24, 2007 3:01 PM:So it is true, then, that if Blackwater were forced to pull all of its mercenaries out of Iraq, then the U.S. military could not fulfill its mission there. At least not without a draft. Quite frankly, at this point in time a draft is the only thing that could restore integrity and accountability to the whole process of this war. I seriously doubt things would have gotten this far out of hand if everyone in Iraq was active duty. Not that it would change the outcome of the war nor excuse our persuing it in the first place, but at least there would have been clear accountability, rules of engagement, etc.
I wonder how many military campaigns have failed in the past because of overreliance on mercenaries? I can think of several modern examples (RENAMO and UNITA in Mozambique and Angola, respectively) where mercenaries were heavily employed and played a part in those movements' ultimate failure. I'm of the opinion that hiring mercenaries is a sure-fire way to doom your operation, if not over the short-term than certainly over the long-term. That alone should be reason enough to do away with them. If the Bush Administration is so committed to success in Iraq, how can it allow its efforts there to be held hostage by mercenaries? That's the position we're in now; the "successful" outcome of U.S. policy in Iraq is entirely dependent on the presence of large numbers of mercenaries. It is woefully naive to assume that the interests of those companies will always align with those of the United States, or even president Bush.
Steve5117 wrote on October 24, 2007 4:07 PM:TheraP:
Do you wonder, like I do, as to what experience in life does a 26 year-old could have that would be qualification for foreign service. Looking also at the youngsters Bush had at DoJ shows another problem with inexperienced people running the show.
Too many young republicans have been denied the chance to interact with people their own age from different backgrounds. Growing up in a gated community keeps people isolated. Home schooling and private schools both contribute to that isolation as does attending an exclusive college.
The genius of a public school system is that children learn that there are differences between people but that those differences don't really matter. I also think service to the country should be required of all young people before they enter the real world. It doesn't have to be military service, other peaceful options would be available.
Click my name and check out the online book on authoritarians, I think you'll like it. Take the test in Chapter I and let me know your RWA score. I scored 43.
TheraP wrote on October 24, 2007 4:36 PM:Why Steve5117, those were my exact sentiments. How perspicacious you are! I said to myself, if this guy is 26 now, and was in Iraq 2 years ago, then how in the heck did he get to be a member of the diplomatic corps so quickly?
Regent U?
I agree about public service for all. I will take a look at the book you mention and take the test. And report back on my score. Looks like you failed the authoritarian test. I hope I do too.
TheraP wrote on October 24, 2007 5:09 PM:Steve5117:
I got a 42. When are they coming for me? Will I be waterboarded?
Ok. Seriously, despots are actually very dependent people - in the sense that they rely on people doing nothing but going along with them. They rely on people being dependent on them. And yes, dependency breeds a great deal of anger. I think the angry "go along to get along" people are mad as anything that others are free to act as they choose and not as they're told.
I may read the book. Thank you, Steve!
Steve5117 wrote on October 24, 2007 5:35 PM:TheraP:
Great minds think alike!
Maybe some other readers will send in their scores?