A startling fact ...
According to an analysis by the US investigative journalism website ProPublica, more private US contractors than soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan during the first six months of this year.
It says: "This milestone in the privatization of modern U.S. warfare reflects both the drawdown in military forces in Iraq and the central role of contractors in providing logistics support to local armies and police forces."
(Hat-tip Foreign Policy)
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Do you find this statistic startling?
A few years ago, Blackwater Exec, Joseph Schmitz looked forward to the Iraq drawdown because he saw dollar signs.
According to new figures from the Pentagon, since Obama has become Commander in Chief, there has been a 25% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq and a 30% increase in Afghanistan.
These percentage increases relate explicitly to DoD security contractors (e.g. Blackwater). This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be higher – quite a bit higher.
Overall, contractors (armed and unarmed) now make up approximately 50% of the total force in Centcom’s Area of Responsibility. This means there are a whopping 243,000 contractors working in these 2 US wars.
(Reports released by Gary J. Motsek, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense: “Contractor Support of U.S. Operations in USCENTCOM AOR, IRAQ, and Afghanistan…” Gary J. Motsek: “We expect similar dependence on contractors in future contingency operations.”
The reports note that the deployment size of both military personnel and DoD civilians are “fixed by law” but points out that the number of contractors is “size unfixed,” meaning there is virtually no limit (other than money) to the number of contractors that can be deployed in a war zone.
Both reports can be downloaded here:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/hot_topics.html
The level to which human rights obligations apply to the PMC’s (Private Military Contractors) remains ambiguous and this is the fact that startles me!
The private military industry remains unregulated and operates in an open market. With almost no control of the state over these firms, they violate basic norms and are not held accountable. Firstly, it is disputed if such obligations apply to private entities and secondly, because the operations and acts of PMCs are abroad, the state cannot bring them to trial.
US Army records show that there were 15 Titan translators and sub-contractors working at Abu Ghraib prison in late 2003 where a number of human rights abuses occurred. In this incidence, all the military officials involved were court-martialled, whereas none of the private contractor was penalised. This was primarily because the US army did not consider them under their jurisdiction. Consequently, the state cannot be held responsible for the acts of private contractors as the PMCs operate only through contractual terms with their employer and not through the state mechanism. Considering the above cases, it is a matter of HUMAN RIGHTS to ensure that the private military industry is held accountable, especially because contracting is escalating.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Do you understand the reason for this blog topic mass production ?
---a dilution of your originality ?
Complain about this comment
It seems that even the almighty US military are not immune to privatisation and outsourcing. The Propublica article says that:
Private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan provide fuel, food and protective services to U.S. outposts . . . Many working under U.S. contracts are local civilians, often working as translators for troops, or are hired from third world countries to do basic labor, such as cleaning kitchens and toilets.
These jobs would have been done by American personnel right? It's not as if the US military is short of money!
The main issue of using private contractors IMO lies in the details of the contract as these firms will not perform work that isn't explicitly written down in the agreement. So if US military needs change they will still be lumbered with paying a private firm to fulfil a contract it no longer requires. Considering private firms require profit thus need to be paid more than it would have cost the US government to carry out the work, and they use cheaper foreign labour resulting in a loss of tax receipts, all this leads to a loss for the American taxpayer right?
Complain about this comment
They are mercenaries, no matter what other name you give them nor on what side they serve. Partisans, fighters or their helpers who are not clearly identifiable have no Geneva Convention protection --Guantanamo was all about that.
Furthermore, this is no normal business and especially not when any enemy decides to liquidate the source of their problem on American or British soil and innocents are victims.
Governments will call the act an atrocity ?
Complain about this comment
Gives new meaning to the term "a job to die for."
Complain about this comment
acorn, getting killed as a mercenary is an occupational hazard. It's better than dying at the bottom of a coal mine in Chile or in China. All those Americans who died in Iraq were volunteers. Not a single one of them was forced to enter an organization that sent them there.
Complain about this comment
My point is the CEO´s of those American and British companies are rightful targets for any enemy.
They are contractors after a war, but mercenaries during a war.
The protection (reported lack of it) of employees suggests the companies themselves consider the employees mercenaries with no rights.
It appears this grey zone is being used against the volunteers and families of those who are wounded or killed.
But as we know, the regular troops and families have similar ´dishonesty´to combat.
Complain about this comment
As the US military role diminishes the bad guys just shoot at who is available. The old body count strategy, on both sides. People die in wars.
Complain about this comment
#6 Marcus
´Its better than dying at the bottom of a coal mine-- ´
I don´t understand the logic your conclusion --or doesn´t it have any and its just a personal fear of coal mines ?
Complain about this comment
This is certainly a revealing fact. I know that there are a lot of "private US contractors" in Afghanistan, but this is the first time that I have seen statistics on the death rate for this group.
Would it be cheaper for the US Government to have a "contractor" die than a soldier (I'm thinking in terms of widow's pension)?
Complain about this comment
#10 newlach
The name of the game is to cheat EVERYBODY.
http://defensebaseactcomp.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/danger-never-attend-an-insurance-company-second-opinion-unarmed/
While waving the flag for the suckers !
Complain about this comment
If you look at the history of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq headed by L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer III, you will see that one of the main thrusts of this Pentagon based occupation administration was to privatize Iraqi industry. The deBaathification of Iraqi society became a key part of the drive behind the CPA. The Baath party of Saddam Hussein was a socialist party and it nationalized many industries in the former government of post-colonial Iraq after the end of British colonial rule. This required the purge of all Iraqis associated with the Baathist government including even competent professionals with no interest in politics. Unfortunately, many of the top officials were Sunni sect ethnic members who were subsequently unemployed when the former lower caste Shia Iraqis formed the new government. It was this condition imposed on the Iraqi nation that led to years of turmoil and sectarian conflict that was corrected only after General David Petraeous became the commander in Iraq in 2007. Gen Petraeous accomplishment was more about politics than just military security. The privatization effort was almost as comprehensive as deBaathification as explained by Naomi Klein in her book, Shock Doctrine. In addition to the privatization of the Iraqi government, a parallel effor to privatize the workings of the US military was taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the results of that revolutionary change in Pentagon doctrine are manifested in the statistics that are cited in this interesting article by Robin Lustig.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You are disturbingly silent
-- when push comes to shove.
Discretion is the better part of Valor ?
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Is this the reason Why ?
18. At 03:18am on 25 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Some months ago, the news media reported that American military leaders have all but publically begged President Obama not to order an attack on Iran. This is the most disgraceful and disgusting display I've ever seen. They should be ashamed to wear the uniform of the United States military. These reluctant warriors should not be in the business of fighting wars to defend America as they obviously find the prospect so distasteful that they would rather humiliate themselves and our country than explain why they are not prepared to fight and win if that is what is required of them. Fire them all and get people who are ready to carry out orders to fight if that is deemed necessary to defend Amercia's freedom and interests.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
or is this the reason ?
550. At 12:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
The truth is that with the cold war over and the Arab Israeli conflict no longer a possible flashpoint for WWIII between the US and USSR, that conflict is unimportant to the world. It does not involve a large number of people relatively speaking, it is not a threat to the larger world, other real threats like Iran, Iraq pre 2003, and the Taleban would still exist if there were no Israel, and it wouldn't matter a tinkers damn if that conflict were somehow solved. Darfur is far worse where 300,000 are already dead and another 2 million are in dire jeopardy of dying but you don't hear one hundredth of the vitriol about the Sudanese government as you do about Israel. Obama is a fool having wasted far too much time and effort on a problem that can't be solved and doesn't matter. As it is he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to understand that the American people are 100% in support of Israel and against terrorists. What would America do if rockets were being fired at American homes every day from Canada or Mexico? You bet there's be war. Obama should be spending most of his energy solving the problems of the US economy, his other efforts on the threats of Iran and North Korea. Solving the problem of Israel and Palestine would not make the problem of Iran go away, to them America is still the great Satan.
http://www.peacemideast.org/
Speak for yourself --- instead of being ´A stranger to the truth´ while ignoring the problems of your ´great warriors´ and war mongering to support your ´Savior´
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS