Private Contractors Save U.S. Soldiers
Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 11, 2007, 3:36pm
U.S. soldiers trapped when bombed bridge collapses in Iraq. Private contractors dig them out:
With a thunderous rumble and cloud of dust and smoke, an apparent suicide vehicle bomb brought down a section of highway bridge south of Baghdad on Sunday, wounding several U.S. soldiers guarding the crossing and blocking traffic on Iraq's main north-south artery.
There was no immediate U.S. Army confirmation on the number and severity of the casualties. An Iraqi civilian also was injured, said Donald Campbell, of the private security Armor Group International, who helped in the rescue.
Campbell and others in a passing Armor Group convoy worked with a U.S. Army quick reaction force for some 45 minutes to pull trapped men from the rubble, scrambling over the fallen concrete....The Armor Group team climbed up with first-aid kits, stretchers and other aid.
Via Fark
GILMORE | June 11, 2007, 6:47pm | #
guys
take it easy. Try avoiding the knee jerk thing for a few minutes. YES, it's an opportunity to debate public vs private 'whatever', but the story you're discussing is basically a metaphor - the reality of the story is probably just the fact that they were the first capable force on the scene.
"Campbell and others in a passing Armor Group convoy worked with a U.S. Army quick reaction force for some 45 minutes to pull trapped men from the rubble, scrambling over the fallen concrete.""
they were passing by. the US had their own QRF on scene as well. the Armor guys helped.
what does it say about anything, really, other than "Iraq is [still] a total clusterfuck?"
not much.
What does bother me is the existence of a network of companies that only make money during war
These guys make money outside of war. Depends on what type of org you're talking about (infrastructure development? Logistics? security?)
these guys are principally security
http://www.armorgroup.com/services/
http://www.armorgroup.com/files/financialreport/7938/2006_Report_and_Accounts.pdf
And they're british, FYI. That might undermine above guys point about Mercenaries...sorta... but whatever. I'm reading their annual report...
"Increasing convoy protection activity=
Logistic convoy protection became the
Group’s biggest source of revenue in Iraq
during 2006. The Group has over 1,200
employees and 240 armoured vehicles in
Iraq and in 2006 carried out 100 missions a
month protecting logistic and reconstruction
convoys across the country."
In iraq, they protect both mostly non-military assets in transit to take burden off of US active combat forces, to let them go out and patrol more... which isnt a bad thing. If we were using them to storm buildings?... different story
they do other stuff too, apparently. They worked on katrina recovery. They say iraq related stuff is 46% of revenues for 2006. Although most of that is supporting UK forces. US Gov as client is apparently only 10% of total revenues. "Construction/logistics" work is closer to 25%. So, they're not precisely 'war dependent'. There are plenty of dangerous fucked up places in the world these guys can find work.
like... new orleans :)
GILMORE | June 12, 2007, 1:32pm | #
Dave,
dont be obtuse.
Explain to me why we're spending $100s of billions to "control" (we dont, and wont) what is currently $10bn a year, expected to grow to 50-60bn a year....at best, 20 years from now.
And the majority of the 'profit' from the oil goes to Iraq, to be funneled into more development for extraction.
Show me how the Blood for Oil concept is a "bargain".
Right now, if you do the numbers, it makes no sense. We've already thrown more money down the toilet with no hopes of 'recouping' the money through out (nonexistent, fictitious) "control" of their oil supply... Even if we DID, it would take 20-30 years of 'extorting' to get back what we've already spent. To get to BREAK EVEN. THEN, maybe 20yrs after that, we'd make 'profit' on the adventure.
i might add, if we in theory "controlled" Iraqs oil, and started dumping new supply on the market, there would be immediate competitive reaction by OPEC and all the other producing nations, and the price war would cause instability that would be more damaging, long term, than any new supply opening up.
The point is, there is NO conceivable scenario for saying the US invaded iraq to "profit from their oil". The numbers dont make sense.
Now, of course we invaded partly because we didnt like the idea of Saddam controlling all that oil, and using the revenues from it to fund his regional ambitions, but that has nothing to do with a profit motive. We just prefer to buy our gas from people that arent our clear enemies. But thats just common sense, not some conspiracy.
FWIW, I opposed and still object to US presence in Iraq, but not for the silly No Blood For Oil/Teh CORPORSHUNZ!! bullshit that people throw around.
knock knock | June 12, 2007, 1:54pm | #
"for the sake of keeping that oil flow going"
The war is about oil, as was the first Gulf War. We don't go into countries without resources this strongly. Oil is a prerequiste, let's say, as location would be, and Iraq has both. Now it makes sense that Bush ONE stopped when he did, doesn't it. Of course, this was to be the finish to that war.
The main reason this war is a BAD war is that we are not winning. We aren't losing, just not winning. We are losing 2 soldiers a day, and more wounded. Some day we may wish we could be back in the region, holding the country for even for that price. The enemy would now swap positions with us any day. The enemy is on home court, has greater will and individual cause. When Afghanistan goes south, and it will, the moaning and groaning will be about it being a bad war. Remember what a champion Bush was after 9/11 and after taking Afghanistan with such ease? We were supposed to lose 10K men and still lose the war. Some wanted to treat 9/11 as a police matter. That war satisfied some of the 9/11 itch.
IF Bush's dream had come true and Iraq were today pushing out double the pre-war oil, had paid for the war, gas prices were still a buck and a half, plus other surrounding states were reforming out of fear and hope, and if the Iraqs were living better and the US had a secure, permanent military base there, then this conversation would not be happening.
War is about organized theft in most cases -- theft or seizure of money, power (stragetic advantage) and influence. Was Helen of Troy really that pretty? Was the sinking of the Maine really a reason to go to war over two oceans? Was the pre-revolutionary treatment by the British really that harsh (Was John Hancock, the richest man in America's home being used for quarters? Could he not afford his tea? Freedom, and the feeling of it, is more than a word. Libertarians are supposed to be great sufferers of any unreasonable lack of it. What would be a greater reason for you to fight than to be left alone?
IF bin Laden types were in control of the middle east, would they cut off the oil and wreck the world economy on purpose? Do they think in terms of greed and gain as capitalists do? Do they really want to destroy the Great Satan? Or do they want to be like us? Just because we have what we want to be happy, does that mean we can declare wars over, boundaries set, and peace on earth?
GILMORE | June 12, 2007, 3:23pm | #
knock Knock =
"The main reason this war is a BAD war is that we are not winning."
Uh. Thats one reason. A reason.
Probably more fundamental reason its a bad war is that it is =
a) not just failing to advance our strategic interests in the region...
(e.g. cowing Iran, helping topple regimes by establishing laboratory for ME democracy, advancing US military credibility, protecting vital interests like oil stability, 'flypapering' terrorist cells like al q so we can eliminate them where we establish scene of battle, preventing providing them 'safe haven' etc etc)
... but, that b) the war is in fact working directly against US interests.
Meaning, Iran has been emboldened, democracy-building discredited, the US military depleted and disillusioned, Iraq has become the main source of recruitment for global terror cells, it's also becoming the laboratory/training ground for jihadists to test strategies to apply elsewhere... etc etc.
Perhaps this is what you meant by "not winning".
The point of difference here is that you might believe these initial objectives were achievable in Iraq - I personally think that the sectarian conflict and reprisals would have happened no matter what, and that there were few alternative directions it could go. I was against going in in the first place because i thought it would bog us down and distract us from AL Q. It has. I felt Saddam could have been kept under wraps for 5 more years and present no threat. Osama, I didnt feel that way about. See, there's this hole in my city...
anyway, this might be acedemic.
next point =
Would Al Q wreck the global economy on purpose?
Probably, if given the opportunity. They preferred the middle ages. They see no particular 'benefit' to much of modernity. They and their constituents have little to lose, frankly. Saudi arabia fears these guys almost more than we do, in some respects, because of this very reason.
Dave W. | June 12, 2007, 4:32pm | #
Even if what I do does benefit big oil. I don't do it for big oil I do it for my country.
Right, and that is exactly why I am taking the time to post here about this. My hope is that at some point you will see what your involvement really means, and repent, and get out of there. because you are not under a military contract any more, you have the right to get out if you become disillusioned. I am hoping that you will become disillusioned and get out. It is nothing personal, and I am not going to say that you are stupid or crazy for having been talked into the justness of the Iraq War. It is pretty understandable that you got convinced by some greedy people that you could help others by helping yourself. But, ultimately, the geopolitics of the thing make this an unjust war, and the morally correct thing to do as a contractor is either to let them reassign you to a just war, or, failing that, resign. It is pretty evil that the oil companies manipulated the genuine patriotic feelings of so many Americans, and most especially soldiers and veterans, but they did. Do the right thing.
I am 100% sure that the Iraqis that I trained don't do what they do for big oil either.
No, they do it for a small piece of the proceeds. For them it is a matter of survival. Fortunately for you, there are plenty of jobs in the US for a talented guy like you. The money will be less and the taxes higher, but you will know the true joy of a clean conscience again, and that is the best thing of all.
If your stupid little corn syrup fantasies benefited big oil would that make you a mercenary?
Actually, you may recall that I gave up my main corn syrup fantasy -- the one where I thought corn syrup was causing diabetes out of proportion to its (over) consumption. Of course it was hard for me to come back here to the
HnR and admit that I had been wrong about that, but I did. I had to, because, after I did my research, it was the only moral thing I could do.
As far as that stuff I wrote to you in the long email about the two main soda companies acting as an oligopoly, largely to substitute a bad sweetner for a good one, in defiance of what a true, free market would want -- I stand by that. But that is a reality, and it was done openly and over time. When people talk about my crazee (now disclaimed) corn syrup fantasies, they mean the diabetes thing.
To answer your question, I would only become a mercenary if I started dealing in death and killing. I am not about to start kill or dying for corn syrup -- even if it had turned out to be the secret key to the diabetes epidemic.
Returning to more pertinent matters, Americans with guns in Iraq, who are not under the military contract, with its low pay and stop gap provisions, are mercenaries from a moral standpoint, even if not on the basis of international treaty. Those treaties were written at a time when your country would just draft you if it wanted you to shoot people in foreign lands, so they wrote the relevant definition to exclude mercenaries who were native to the nation they were fighting for. treaties, like any contracts, may have loopholes. I know, I am a lawyer. However, morality does not. Look around you, check yourself, and put the "sandbox" behind you. the Reno County Sheriff's Dep't is always looking. I see them on the teevee all the time.
