Blackwater
I started a book today called "Licensed to Kill" by Robert Pelton. It opens with the following contractors creed....
I am a U.S. contractor. I look out for myself, the operators to my left and
right, and no one else. I will always take advantage of the fact that I
can finally tell military officers to pound sand, and will do so at every
opportunity.
I am my country's scapegoat, the "plausible deniability"
warrior, and I love it.
Less than $700 dollars a day is unacceptable.
I am trained to eat things that would make a billy goat puke, but will
refuse anything less than 60 dollars per diem because I am greedy.
I care not for ribbon's and awards for valor. I do this job for the
opportunity to kill the enemies of my country, and to finally get that
boat I've always wanted.
I will be in better shape than 99% of the active duty personnel, although
this is not hard.
I will equip myself with the latest high speed gear, and will trick out
my M4 until it weighs more than 24 lbs, not because it works better, but
because it looks cool in the photographs.
I will carry more weapons, ammunition, and implements of death on my
person, than an infantry fire team, and when engaged I will lay waste to
everything around me.
In any combat zone, I will always locate the swimming pool, beer, and
women, because I can.
I will deploy on my terms, and if it ever gets too stupid,
I will simply find another company that pays me more.
I swear!
Anyone ever worked around Blackwater guys? Any on here? Whats the general opinion of them?
I am a U.S. contractor. I look out for myself, the operators to my left and
right, and no one else. I will always take advantage of the fact that I
can finally tell military officers to pound sand, and will do so at every
opportunity.
I am my country's scapegoat, the "plausible deniability"
warrior, and I love it.
Less than $700 dollars a day is unacceptable.
I am trained to eat things that would make a billy goat puke, but will
refuse anything less than 60 dollars per diem because I am greedy.
I care not for ribbon's and awards for valor. I do this job for the
opportunity to kill the enemies of my country, and to finally get that
boat I've always wanted.
I will be in better shape than 99% of the active duty personnel, although
this is not hard.
I will equip myself with the latest high speed gear, and will trick out
my M4 until it weighs more than 24 lbs, not because it works better, but
because it looks cool in the photographs.
I will carry more weapons, ammunition, and implements of death on my
person, than an infantry fire team, and when engaged I will lay waste to
everything around me.
In any combat zone, I will always locate the swimming pool, beer, and
women, because I can.
I will deploy on my terms, and if it ever gets too stupid,
I will simply find another company that pays me more.
I swear!
Anyone ever worked around Blackwater guys? Any on here? Whats the general opinion of them?
0
-
Today's congressional hearings about Blackwater Security remind me of some questions I have.
First, I don't know exactly what happened on 9/16 that prompted all this brouhaha, and I think it's highly unlikely that anybody on this board does either, so let's leave the details of that out of it. Second, uhhhh...let's TRY to keep this civil.
Here's what I'm wondering:
1) should we as a country be contracting security services out to private corporations, or should we be using our own military to provide those services?
2) should we be contracting out basic military base services to private corporations (eg cafeteria services)?
3) are private security firms profiting by "poaching" individuals who are highly qualified for their jobs simply because the US armed forces trained them in the first place?
4) if #3 is true, is that bad?
Let's leave it there for now. More questions, no doubt, will arise.
I'll go first:
1: I think private contractors are a bad idea for security services. In my gut, the whole idea of a mercenary militia is wrong. A sovereign nation should provide its own military and its own security. I also think that by using private security forces the administration can artificially deflate the scope of the war effort (fewer 'troops' on the ground) and also the impact that the war effort is having on our populace (fewer casualties to be reported by the Pentagon).
2: If (and only if) a cost-benefit analysis shows that a private corporation can provide basic base services at an acceptable level of quality for less money than our own government can do so, then I don't have a problem with this.
3: I've read bits of media that suggest this is what's going on. I have no idea if it's true.
4: If a man enters the armed services, is trained and completes his contract, then he isn't really beholden to his trainer any more. The original question--as I've heard it stated in the media--prompts a pretty visceral reaction (at least out of me): the US Gov't trains these guys and then XXX security firm profits off of that training! Well, yes, but if those guys completed their contractual service to the government then they're free to sell their skill set to the highest bidder. They're not indentured servants.0 -
Today a couple of blackwater guys tried to recruit me to go to Irag.
After what they told me, I'm seriouly thinking on putting in my
app. Anybody have any experience with them? They are still down here
guarding the FEMA offices and other federal places. Been down here
since the day after the hurricane. If I go overseas they said the
pay is 600.00 a day. Tax free if I stay a year.0 -
My thoughts are mixed on this particular subject, so I won't go into detail...BUT, our gov't would save billions of dollars if we contracted out 90% of what the gov't does...and wastes. Private business has to operate for a profit...gov't does just the opposite. 0 -
I agree with you guys totally, and I'm pleased to finally see some people taking a reasoned approach to fighting this war. There's been entirely too much idealism slung about, and we've got to get over that and down to the bottom line.
Most concerning to me is all this talk of protective equipment and medical care. People are going on and on and on about how troops need better body armor, mine resistant vehicles, etc. Sure, that all sounds nice, but has anybody looked at the cost?!
The worst problem about equipping soldiers with effective body armor and armored vehicles is that when hit, they tend to survive. A soldier with no body armor and riding in a standard HUMVEE is 90% likely to die if a 155mm artillery shell is detonated withing 15 feet of him. The army can make a quick $75,000 payment to his family, $200,000 if he got the extra insurance, and slap his body in a press-board coffin ($49) and have a "bugler" who really just presses a button on an electronic trumpet (saves a great deal over using a real musician.) If everything goes right, one dead GI doesn't even crack $80,000.
Cover the same fellow with good body armor and put him in an up-armored HUMVEE, though, and there's a frightening chance that he'll survive. If he loses a leg, the initial surgery in Iraq is going to cost at least $15,000, the transport to Germany another $10,000, the formal surgery in Germany another $25,000, a $10,000 flight back to the states, and--and here's where it is really bad--another $50,000 of medical care over the next six months, and perhaps A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS of disability payments over the rest of the soldier's life. It's outrageous!
Simply put, that is no way to run a profit-driven organization. There's not going to be any executive bonuses, dividend checks, stock options, or personal vehicles with such spending on the rank and file.
So really, we need to contract this all out. Give the soldiers a heavy leather jacket. Tell them the armor is just too expensive. Slow down those medivac flights so more of them can bleed out. And if all of this is done, USA Inc. should be back in the black in no time at all.
Here's to profits!0 -
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
I agree with you guys totally, and I'm pleased to finally see some people taking a reasoned approach to fighting this war. There's been entirely too much idealism slung about, and we've got to get over that and down to the bottom line.
Most concerning to me is all this talk of protective equipment and medical care. People are going on and on and on about how troops need better body armor, mine resistant vehicles, etc. Sure, that all sounds nice, but has anybody looked at the cost?!
The worst problem about equipping soldiers with effective body armor and armored vehicles is that when hit, they tend to survive. A soldier with no body armor and riding in a standard HUMVEE is 90% likely to die if a 155mm artillery shell is detonated withing 15 feet of him. The army can make a quick $75,000 payment to his family, $200,000 if he got the extra insurance, and slap his body in a press-board coffin ($49) and have a "bugler" who really just presses a button on an electronic trumpet (saves a great deal over using a real musician.) If everything goes right, one dead GI doesn't even crack $80,000.
Cover the same fellow with good body armor and put him in an up-armored HUMVEE, though, and there's a frightening chance that he'll survive. If he loses a leg, the initial surgery in Iraq is going to cost at least $15,000, the transport to Germany another $10,000, the formal surgery in Germany another $25,000, a $10,000 flight back to the states, and--and here's where it is really bad--another $50,000 of medical care over the next six months, and perhaps A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS of disability payments over the rest of the soldier's life. It's outrageous!
Simply put, that is no way to run a profit-driven organization. There's not going to be any executive bonuses, dividend checks, stock options, or personal vehicles with such spending on the rank and file.
So really, we need to contract this all out. Give the soldiers a heavy leather jacket. Tell them the armor is just too expensive. Slow down those medivac flights so more of them can bleed out. And if all of this is done, USA Inc. should be back in the black in no time at all.
Here's to profits!
1: You're off-topic; there's nothing posted above about the appropriate care of wounded vets, nor anything about the appropriate equipping of our military.
2: If you see me and ECC agreeing, well, that's an unusual event.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
My thoughts are mixed on this particular subject, so I won't go into detail...BUT, our gov't would save billions of dollars if we contracted out 90% of what the gov't does...and wastes. Private business has to operate for a profit...gov't does just the opposite.
Are you saying we should contract out the military?0 -
I'm a strong believer in a Mercenary force, supporting a conscripted Army.
Maybe draft the criminal mexicans.
Doug0 -
because youre not willing to be drafted, nor willing to pay military personnel what theyre really worth, thats why. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by ECC
My thoughts are mixed on this particular subject, so I won't go into detail...BUT, our gov't would save billions of dollars if we contracted out 90% of what the gov't does...and wastes. Private business has to operate for a profit...gov't does just the opposite.
Are you saying we should contract out the military?
Not the military...but I don't see Blackwater's role as being military. There can be tremendous advantages to using private contractors for certain roles. I used to work for a couple of companies that did paramilitary work. They have a useful role if used effectively...BUT that is NOT what I was talking about with my post.0 -
1) No. It undermines the legitimacy of our mission when we use what are essentially adventurers and mercenaries to conduct any military task.
2) Only in pacified areas. But once again, the practice of shipping in foreign labor that locals could perform may generate resentment among the local populace by reinforcing the mentality that they have been colonized rather than liberated.
3) Yes, they are "poaching." And yes, it is bad. It cuts into our strength by removing them from active military service and undermines the morale of those who are left. I don't care how devoted one is to duty, it has got to at least chap your hide to know that someone else is doing the same job with fewer of those pesky rules of engagement for a heck of a lot more money.
Soldiers are not indentured servants, but war and war making should not be a service made available to the highest bidder! You want to hire a vet for his leadership, his experience in team work, etc. go ahead. I applaud that mode of thinking. You want to take an active duty military man out of the military just so you can sell his services back to the same Army you left shorthanded, then screw you.
Blackwater is a poisonous organization that is detrimental to the character, morals, and laws of this nation and her people. The sooner this cancer (and were their a more vile label I could attach to them, I would) is burned out of our legal, military, and governmental apparatus, so much the better. Tomorrow would not be soon enough to see these vipers done away with.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
My thoughts are mixed on this particular subject, so I won't go into detail...BUT, our gov't would save billions of dollars if we contracted out 90% of what the gov't does...and wastes. Private business has to operate for a profit...gov't does just the opposite.
Businesses that operate under COST PLUS contracts don't have to worry about keeping costs down - they just pass the cost on to the government you and me.0 -
there isnt a single person in the united states military that works for free.
there isnt a single person employeed by private contracting firms that work for free.
the united states government asks military personel to provide a necessary service
the united states government asks private contractor employees to provide a necessary service
one group is called "patriots"
one group is called "mercinaries"
should bank of america not rely on private security guards and instead only rely on police officers ?
does a private company operating in dangerous parts of the world be allowed to use their own security ?
is it cost effective for the US government to pay for enlisted personell to sit around for YEARS upon YEARS in peace time to perform a service for a limited time during periods of war ?
when the US military wants a truck driver they have to pay for all training, housing, food, medical and other expenses for 6 years.
when the US military NEEDS a truck driver its cheaper to just hire one from KBR and save the money from the other 5 years.0 -
Barking Dog,
You try to make a few good points, but I'd like to point out that Bank of America security guards - or any security guard - operate under a great many more restrictions than police officers do. PMC's in Iraq - and in New Orleans, apparently - operate with practically no restrictions.
I would also like to point out that it's one thing to hire truck drivers, another thing entirely to hire men who can, and often do, unravel months, if not years, of "hearts and minds" in a single firefight.
As for the questions at hand:
quote:1) should we as a country be contracting security services out to private corporations, or should we be using our own military to provide those services?We should use our own military - they are better supervised, have more discipline, and operate under a code of justice. Mercenaries currently do not.
quote:2) should we be contracting out basic military base services to private corporations (eg cafeteria services)?It depends. Once again, more oversight is needed. These cost-plus contracts are unadulterated B.S. Can we say "corruption?"
quote:3) are private security firms profiting by "poaching" individuals who are highly qualified for their jobs simply because the US armed forces trained them in the first place?Yes.
quote:4) if #3 is true, is that bad?Yes.
In the late 90's, the United States pressured South Africa to pass an "Anti-Mercenary" act to outlaw Executive Outcomes and other mercenary outfits operating out of their territory. Executive Outcomes had gotten quite a reputation, but unlike Blackwater's, it was almost entirely positive. The United States argued that it was counterproductive to peace to privatize war.
Now it would seem it's not so much counterproductive as our half-@$$#d mercenary Johnny Soldier-of-Fortune wannabes can't handle real competition - so get the Afrikaaners out of the way so some spoiled rich-boy radical Christian zealot can take the whole game on for himself? Oh, and undermine our efforts to win hearts and minds in Iraq while he lines his pockets with corrupt billing procedures?
It's much simpler than connect the dots folks - war is the business of these jackasses and they want to keep business going. If not by design, then by accident, they are a big part of the problem in Iraq because while the absolute number of incidents involving them may be small, the damage they cause is all out of proportion to their numbers.
Do the math: every time one of these blow hard spec ops wannabes blows a car full of Iraqi civlians to pieces, fifty of their cousins just signed up to murder American soldiers.0 -
I'm here and see them in action everyday..
Look at whom the boss of Blackwater is and who his friends are..
Should clear this all up...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
I'm a strong believer in a Mercenary force, supporting a conscripted Army.
Maybe draft the criminal mexicans.
Doug
They already have a lot of mexicans in our armed forces. And criminals
The argument that contractors save us money has not proven to be true at all. Contractors spend like drunken sailors on "cost plus" contract work. This means they get paid back expenses, plus a percentage above that as their profit. The more they spend, the more they make.
Have you guys seen the video "Iraq for sale"? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=Iraq+for+sale&total=365&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Watch it. Among other things, it talks about Haliburton charging us $100 dollars for every bag of laundry they wash, and KBR sending empty supply trucks along in convoys through dangerous areas (like basically all of Iraq) so they can charge for it.0 -
One advantage I see is that they are probably "more likely" to engage the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to engage them. Often our military requires that our soldiers be fired on first before they can return fire (rules of engagement) putting the enemy at the advantage. The enemy would probably be less likely to engage our soldiers if they were the aggressors but in that scenario sometimes civilians get hurt and it looks bad politically. 0 -
#1. That is a job that the military says they can't handle. they have said they don't have the man power to pick up the extra duties. It has been said before that the supply line for one soldier cost far more than on private contract worker.
#2. seems like it works both ways
#3. who are they Poaching?? Yes they are hiring well trained individuals.
in the case of my brother he was trained by the army and
was part of a special forces unit that went to iraq twice and afgan once. he was wounded in afgan. he was sent back to the states where he was then taken off active duty due to his injures. and transfered to a national guard support unit. where he served the remainder of his enlistment. before reinlisting he asked to be transfered back into his old unit. the said there was no need for him at that time but they would keep him on the short list when it was time they would transfer him back. He didn't want to spend the rest of his life packing shutes and cleaning weapons waiting to be reactivated, so he joined blackwater.
#4. Bad, only for the army they have lost men that want to be in the thick of it. if they can't be there becuase the army isn't there and if they have fulfilled there enlistment. they have two choices reinlisted and wait for retirement or Go to work for a security contractor. which by the way alot of special forces retireis do. wheather it be the sheriffs department, or part time LEO, or some other sort of private security.0 -
EMM--Yet one more area where you and I agree. Many uneducated Iraqis do not differentiate between Blackwater and the U.S. military. Hell, the first time I saw them (and they did NOT operate in my AO as far as I knew) I had no idea if they were part of the "versity team" or if they were Blackwater. Someone mentioned that it's good to see people like Blackwater taking a "reasoned approach to fighting this war". Guess what, that "reasoned approach" has set back the counterinsurgency effort fought for by the men and women who wear the uniform in many many cases. You don't win this kind of counterinsurgency fight by kicking ass everywhere you go. There's a time and a place for kicking ass and there's a time and place for diplomacy.
I've heard the actions of these contractors justified by the notion that they're out there with less support than the conventional U.S. military and that they can't ask questions first. Kick ass and ask questions later. Last time I checked that's why they're paid as much as they are. I've heard of Blackwater guys maknig $600 every day that they work. Isn't that why they get paid as much as they do for the skills that they bring to the table?
I remember getting grilled over legitimate warning shots the first time my squad had to fire them. I had a 1LT, Captain and a Major come out to MY LOCATION INDIVIDUALLY to rake me over the coals and nobody was killed! That was a bit excessive. There are two extremes and I don't think the ROE of the U.S. Military nor the lack of ROE for Blackwater has served our mission very well. There seems to be little middle ground. Unfortunately, it's not an end-sum game. A lack of ROE in certain circumstances does not add balance to overly-restrictive ROE in other cases.
I worked directly with non-Arab Iraqis who were very Western in their ideas, beliefs, habits, speech and dress. They wanted to be more like America and they wanted to go to America. At the same time, they told me about their opinion of Blackwater and some of the things they themselves had witnessed.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can get the job done without Blackwater's help. However, I think Blackwater's leash is too long and the U.S. military's leash is too short. Some of these Blackwater guys did not serve "honorably" in the U.S. military. Some did not receive Honorable Discharges. These aren't all former good guys.0 -
I am only going to comment on #4.
As it stands, a PFC in the Army will make about $35000 (if he spends some time in the desert) for a year plus medical (which sucks), dental (worse than medical), housing (that was probably built during WWII), and food (bad if you are eating on base, not enough money if you are receiving a stipend for food).
Then, their contracts with the government expire and they get offered $150,000 a year to do the same thing that they were doing in the Army (or Marines). What would you do?
My figures are WAG. If someone has true numbers feel free to correct me.
All I know is that as an E-6 with 10 years in my base salary was $27,500. I got $225/month (pre-tax) for Pro-pay and lived in Base Housing (that was built in 1944).
I got out and was paid $75000 my first year out doing exactly what I was doing on the boat. The difference was that I worked less hours, got to see my wife every day, got to sleep in a queen bed every night instead of the coffin rack, and didn't have to eat boat food.
Not that I didn't enjoy being in the service, I was just ready to take the next step in my life, the Navy had nothing else to offer.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
One advantage I see is that they are probably "more likely" to engage the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to engage them. Often our military requires that our soldiers be fired on first before they can return fire (rules of engagement) putting the enemy at the advantage. The enemy would probably be less likely to engage our soldiers if they were the aggressors but in that scenario sometimes civilians get hurt and it looks bad politically.
Assuming of course that Blackwater can differentiate between the "enemy" and some bystander who has nothing to do with the fighting. But these idiots and a**holes don't care - they just spray and pray then chuckle all the way to the bank while real soldiers get blown to bits by the jihadis these cowboy tactics created.0 -
Again, I'm here and see them in action on a daily basis...
Ask ??? first, why, they have to answer to NO ONE except internal company officals...
Shoot FIRST and worry about it later... If I screwed up and shot someone w/o just cause ( rightious shoot ).. I'll just get shipped to 'Ghanistan instead.. who cares...
Again, who is the friend ( Company Prez ) who knows someone (ONE #1 in D.C. )who allowed them here.
Cash Cow -- you don't get it ... it's all about the benjamins.. and lots of 'em too...0 -
As far as the question to "poaching" goes, nobody complains when a USAF pilot leaves the service to fly for United Airlines, nobody complains when a C-17 crew chief leaves to go work for UPS, ect. Isn't that what the military uses as a recruiting tool? Join the military and get experience. 0 -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_co/congress_blackwater
A POSSIBLE BANDAID ON THE PROBLEM...... REAR ARTICLE AT THIS LINK....
WASHINGTON - Congress is moving to update a law that has kept Blackwater USA and other private security contractors in Iraq immune to criminal prosecution. The White House contends the change could cause new problems.
The House was expected to pass legislation on Thursday by Rep. David Price, D-N.C., that would extend the criminal jurisdiction of U.S. courts to any federal contractor working alongside military operations. Senate Democratic leaders said they planned to follow suit as soon as possible and send the measure to President Bush.
+++++++++++ At the same time, U.S. contractors are immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts. +++++++++++=
THIS UPCOMING BILL MAY CHANGE THAT ALL...
KEEP YOUR T.V. SETS TUNED INTO THE ROCKY & BULLWINKLE SHOW.. SECRET SQUIRRELS AND ALL....0 -
The State Department report of the September 16th incident was written by a Blackwater employee.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/02/blackwater.spot.report/
You now can murder civilians with the Federal seal of approval.0 -
Don't worry, fifty years from now, Blackwater employees will be paraded around at Gunshows for autographs, much like the last "Flying Tigers" are today. 0 -
The fact that Blackwater actually invites media attention and puts forth a man-of-action image invariably draws the cowboy types who don't know the meaning of low key. High profile almost seems to be company policy.
Many of their employees are former special operations types, but it's not a requirement. The majority of their employees are actually just prior regular military or LE SWAT people. A large number of these probably heard about Blackwater through one of their many media dog and pony shows and decided to go make the big bucks.
Many don't realize there are other very large security outfits doing US Gov't contract security work in Iraq/Afghanistan. The difference is that these are entirely staffed by SpecOps veterans of both US and foreign militaries. These companies manage to get the job done but still stay so low key that most people don't even know their names. It's a matter of how well they screen their personnel.0 -
Blackwater is shady. The money could be better spend on actual military operations, equipment and training/ recruiting.
BUT, they do have a powerful lobby, and contribute greatly to politicians.
to the posters who compare them to commercial pilots coming from the USAF, that is ridiculous. Blackwater does not operate in the civilian realm. the FAA is extreme when it comes to regulation- DUH!
to the posters who think that a Private Contractor is motivated to waste less due to profit, you know NOTHING about a gov't contract. Once the contract is signed, there is HIGH motivation to waste- they already have a golden ticket, the more they waste the more they get paid.
Oh and Blackwater contractors are NOT all Americans, in fact, less than 12% are from the USA.0 -
WOW, and last week you said i was absolutely right.
what do my statements have ANYTHING to do with being "an illegal alien"?
I'm as white-boy as they come. Born in Central Texas. and I'm 43 years old... and guess what, I manage government contract EVERY DAMN DAY OF MY LIFE. so bite it, and check the facts.0 -
quote:Many don't realize there are other very large security outfits doing US Gov't contract security work in Iraq/Afghanistan. The difference is that these are entirely staffed by SpecOps veterans of both US and foreign militaries. These companies manage to get the job done but still stay so low key that most people don't even know their names. It's a matter of how well they screen their personnel.
This is very true.0 -
I can't say bite it? Hmmm, maybe i'm just hip with the youngsters more than you are. hardly an age identifier.
As to the country of origin breakdown within Blackwater (which operates overseas too buddy), check the facts. Sure in the home office here in NC, its Americans, But overseas- it relies heavily on foreign workers. In fact, it employs 600 former Chilean military, scores from S Africa, Brazil, Portugal, Italy, and thousands from the UK. Again, check your facts.
If you have any clue about contracts, which obviously you don't,... You would have been ever-so-slightly tuned into the VAST amounts of waste that occurs by vendors taking advantage of the government. In Iraq, it is RAMPANT- look at the news lately?
Ok, how about GD (general dynamics- Fort Worth) in 1987 selling the government a hammer for $63,000? How about pricing fraud? How about Gov't contractors shipping 10lb freight to Afghanistan for $175,000?
I work in Gov't procurement to write in clauses to prevent this stuff, but since companies are always weaseling in ways to screw us, here i am. Too bad a company just doesn't want to "do whats right"
Get real, and wake up.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
31 comments