Blackwater USA: A Law Unto Itself
How richly ironic that, like the U.S. in Iraq, Blackwater USA is a law unto itself – answerable to no one no matter how questionable its actions may be.
As reported here yesterday, Iraq has withdrawn the license of the controversial security firm, which provides many of the mercenaries who work alongside U.S. troops and diplomats, after company bodyguards allegedly shot dead eight civilians and wounded 13 others in west Baghdad on Sunday.
Blackwater’s distinctive small black helicopters hover in the skies above Baghdad and its armed vehicles shadow convoys of senior officials through the city’s streets but, like the firm’s nominal bosses, under U.S. law it is immunized against prosecution in Iraqi courts.
The only exception would be if the U.S. acceded to such a prosecution, which is beyond unlikely.
Further, under the rules that govern private security contractors in Iraq, the Iraqi government does not have the legal authority to yank its license, while Blackwater may also be immune from prosecution in the U.S. under domestic law. It also is beyond the reach of international law because previous presidential administrations — and not just the Bush administration — have rejected the jurisdiction of international courts.
The incident, which followed a mortar attack near where State Department personnel were meeting, has become a diplomatic row of the first water and further inflamed anti-U.S. feelings.
There are more than 180,000 private contractors, including mercenaries, in Iraq. Astoundingly, this is more than the number of U.S. troops and a consequence of the Bush administration’s radical vision to outsource virtually all government work, up to and including waging war.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to express her regret “over the death of innocent civilians,” said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman.
Al Maliki’s office said Rice had pledged to “take immediate steps to show the United States’ willingness to prevent such actions.”
It said today that it would review the status of all security contractors, but don’t expect any decisive action. The Iraqi government doesn’t do decisive, and while it is playing to a war-weary population it also is beholden to the U.S. and the security blanket that its military and security contractors provide. Which sums up nicely why what military progress there has been since the surge is pretty much meaningless without a government with the will do deal with the country’s profound sectarian political ills.
The embassy said it was cooperating with the Iraqi Government but declined to confirm that Blackwater’s license had been revoked. The North Carolina-based company is responsible for U.S. embassy security.
Blackwater defended its actions, saying its personnel had come under attack from armed militants.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
14 Responses to “Blackwater USA: A Law Unto Itself”
It was bound to happen at sometime when a privatized security company was lowered the boom on, but I am surprised it was Blackwater. If it were to be any other company, I would doubt the US Government would back it too much; but since Blackwater is tied to effectively to the Bush plan for Iraq, I doubt they will leave.
The military seems to have very small leverage over these PSD firms, and we saw with the fiasco of the US Government trying to investigate, charge, and prosecute a very questionable firm by the name of CusterBattles went. So it is a shell game of where the legal oversight is for these firms – it ain’t from: the military, contracts with either the US Government or one of its creatures (CPA), and the local nation. Who is accountable for them?
There are fine people working for these firms, but one also must remember that these firms are there to make money first and foremost. They can raise and wave the flag all they want, but it is all about the money. At times these PSD teams may protect their VIP very well, but at the expense of local opinion that feel PSD firms are too aggressive in their duties and cause harm to others. So again, who is accountable for their behavior in Iraq?
The ratio grows even more when you consider that a minority of US troops in Iraq are actually combat troops. Most are, like the contractors, support. So what you have is perhaps 60-70k fighters and perhaps 4 times that in terms of support.
Of course, one should also note that the contractors are not there solely to support the military. In fact, the lack of capability among our other functions of government has necessitated a lot of the move to contracting in this war. If one wants to solve the contracting problem, one needs to define, mandate and resource those missions among State, Treasury, etc. In the course of nation-building, for example, State has few assets to protect its own sources, much less those of the weak and corrupt government we’re trying to support. So State must turn to contractors like Blackwater. It’s the same with many other non-military functions of our government. In fact, I would suggest a significant percentage, if not a majority, of such contractors support others besides the US military.
A great article on these issues (and more) was written by Gen. Chiarelli was just published in Military Review.
In short, the contracting problem goes way beyond the military and extends to the US government as a whole. If you don’t want contractors performing these functions, then the US taxpayer must make the resources available for government to do it.
For those contractors that support wholly military operations, certainly Bush as expanded their use during his term, but one might suggest that the process began under Clinton and a GOP congress as part of the post-cold war draw-down. At the same time as overall forces were being reduced, the mission set increased with a large, permanent presence in the Gulf, missions to the Balkans (twice), Somalia, etc. Even the darling of the left, Gen. Shinseki, was one of the biggest proponents of such “transformation” and modularization of the Army and contracting away many ancillary functions.
Personally, there is a happy medium here. “Contracting” has always been a part of warfare and it will always be so.
Memo to the Iraqi government. You have to issue a license before you can withdraw it.
As to the firms being immunized from prosecution in Iraqi courts by US law, how does that work again?
It could be we’ve found an issue the Iraqi Parliament can all agree upon.
1. Immunity from Iraqi law is not a bad thing. I wouldn’t trust them to provide a fair trial for anyone.
US law needs revision, but in principle, that’s the most sensible basis for prosecution.
2. Entropy- “If you don’t want contractors performing these functions, then the US taxpayer must make the resources available for government
to do it”
I don’t understand. The taxpayer pays for contracting, under any circumstances. The difference is only in how the money is channeled.
3. In some ways, at some times, contracting can be more efficient, I think. It’s more a question of applying strict standards and oversight.
It looks, sometimes, as if contractors are used precisely because they will not worry about the letter of military or State Dept regulations, and that’s the problem. They seem to get implicit, if not explicit, leeway for questionable actions
he taxpayer pays for contracting now.
It isn’t a question (necessarily) of a greater tax burden if contractors were’t used, the money would simply channeled differently.
Ignore the last garbled straggle paragraph, please.
The difference is the contractors are filling roles that government is not. If one wants government to fill those roles, then the resources an legislation must be accomplished to make that happen. This will likely cost more in the long-run because the government will maintain these capabilities regardless if it currently needs them or not. With contractors, one can hire the capability only for as long as it is needed.
But even so, there is a limit to what contractors can do since they are not official agents of the US government. The legal black-hole they are in is but one example.
This is a guy who knows what he’s talking about.
Thanks for the link, Enrtopy.
Re, all conctractors (especially ones for developmet), one problem in enforcing accountabiliry is the sub-contracting phase. From what I saw of Congressional hearings, that’s where the accountability breaks down. It’s such a maze, that’s it’s eeen hard to track down the owners and the nation of origin of some of these firms.
Congress has been remiss in addressing the problems with pertinent laws. The other impression I gelaned from the hearings was that the issues are so complex that many of our lawmakers are not fully grasping them.
Re BW, the proposal that they should be integrated into the military in some way has merit, IMO. Certainly, there should be better co-ordination than there is now.
They should be integrated, but perhaps not into the military. Blackwater, for instance, supports the DoS much more than the DoD (which doesn’t much like them, frankly). IMO, State needs to develop its own security arm to do what Blackwater and others currently do – in essence a “secret service” for State to provide overseas protection for State personnel and foreign leaders, etc. This would ensure the monopoly of force remains with governmental, as opposed to commercial, organizations.
Entropy,
I think you’re right.
One thing to note “Contractors” also includes everything from dishwashers to truck drivers. Many if not most of the armed contractors do not work for the US but rather companies doing business in Iraq and the Iraqi govt itself. I’ve had an ongoing argument with someone about the inaccuracy of calling these companies mercenaries. Their contracts are to protect people and/or property, not to combat the insurgency. Rather like policy and armed security, they may look the same but have different jobs.
Bones
The term mercenary may sometimes be fully accurate and apply. The term gets a bad wrap though. Some of these contractors operate on black op teams. They do more than provide security, they reconnoiter, serveil, gather intelligence, conduct operations, and initiate contact. Fifteen years ago when we employed a black op team, it often was for deniability sake. Now it is done because it is cost effective, expediant, and reliable.
Entropy
You are very dialed in and very articulate. I think PMC’s would fail if they were forced to be integrated into military. All of these operators have prior service. It is required (at least by BW). There is a reason they no longer serve and it usually is not just money. They typically despise being ordered around by the rear echelon types, they are frustrated with bureaucracy and petty BS. All things the military does best. Working for PMC’s finally offer opportunities for operators to do what they do best, but on their terms. They can opt out when they wish and even go home. They are not bound by military hierarchy, but are bound by the code of military conduct. The accountability should be exactly that which is required of those in active service which is what I believe order 17 attempts, in theory, to do.
sdb I think most of the “mercenary” talk is bs. I know some guys who worked for BW and they would love to talk like they were mercenaries but when you here about the jobs, they were security. Talk about “black” ops. If it’s black then how would anyone know? But since it’s black there is no proof which frees the person making the claim from showing evidence…………