The White Rabbit

Pop Life

2007-10-23T17:57:00.000-07:00

A whole lotta years ago, a Rabbit staffer was working for another, equally seedy publication, and happened to have the opportunity to visit the ole National Geographic Society magazine staffers right in their lair down at Explorers Hall on 17th Street. They had all kinds of interesting tales about how their teams had braved wild critters, crazed warlords, and Nature’s fury in order to report the stories in their mag, how they took something like fifty rolls of film for every pic that appeared, and so forth.

All really compelling stuff.

Which made it kinda depressing ever after to know that most people pretty much ignore the mag entirely, and the main reaction of a big part of the remaining audience is to flip through to the latest tribal story. “Heh, heh. Look, boobies! Heh, heh.”

The Rabbit is shore ‘nuff light years from Natty Geo, but we feel their pain.

For example, posts detailing and analyzing the Rules for Use of Force (RUF) by contractors—presumably a pretty relevant topic nowdays—get some attention, but don’t really generate much of anything in terms of knowledgeable discussion anywhere else. In fact, there’s resounding silence on the whole issue.

Post random videos, though, and you generate gargantuan (in comparison) traffic, even when they don’t really show much useful info at all.

It’s indicative of PSC coverage in general.

While the shift from near total silence to daily, headline coverage has been gratifying in magnitude and speed, it’s been almost without exception sensational, tabloid coverage. Totally ignoring somehow became total ignorance.

To stick with the RUF vein, there is a critical story, alluded to during the recent Oversight hearing on Blackwater, about how the U.S. deaths in suicide car bomb (oops, “VBIED”) attacks against the security team at right (yes, the multi-ton armored vehicle was blown off the road, over the grass, and into the wall) and others like it, led to the current RUF, which provide for armed contractors, or mercenaries, as you will, to “fire first” … after trying to work through a laundry list of warnings.

Given the deaths of tens of Iraqis, Americans, and others in Mespotamia each and every single day, it would seem like there was someplace in the ongoing catfight between the MSM & Rep. Waxman on the one side and State & Blackwater on the other for some discussion of the RUF, since they really are a primary cause—if not the root cause—of this whole mess. (The recent, occasionally mentioned Unity Resources shooting, and numerous others before and to come, would seem to undercut just a tad the argument that Nisoor Square was due solely to the Blackwater guys being each and every one a bloodthirsty raging psychopath.)

The near total apathy toward considering if and what systemic change is needed is enough to make those foolish enough to believe in the marketplace of ideas and the importance of public policy debate throw up their hands in disgust.

Guess we oughta go stare, glassy-eyed and slack-jawed, at 238 channels of injury-free gunfights, boobs, car chases, and explosions. (Unless it’s Lifetime. Then it’s cancer, incest, or date-rape. Or cancer, incest and date-rape.)

Or just go shopping.

On the other hand, we could always post the long-awaited video from the Iraqi National Police guard tower on Nisour Square and watch our ratings soar. The mighty trusty MoI has vehemently and repeatedly claimed this video “proves” the Blackwater mercenaries brutally murdered unarmed civilians without provocation. Watch it and tell us if you see it.

As for us … not so much. But what do we know. After all, we didn't even believe that Blackwater was behind the California wildfires.

And that was after Batman and Frodo had already told us so.

Wonder how long before there will be Congressional subpoenae and press releases regarding any and all possession of lighters, flint or matches by those Blackwater scoundrels.

Blackwatergate

2007-10-16T19:36:00.000-07:00

“Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.”

The Rabbit had to once again shelve our regularly scheduled subject as we’re compelled to dive into the sludge of the ongoing Nisour Square media frenzy one more time.

We’ve traced before the trajectory of stories about PSCs, and Blackwater in particular, with our discussion of the ole Super Tucano air wing. And we’ve warned that the Nisour story was heading down the same road to hysteria and rushed conviction—pushed along by the fervent desires and various agendas of an accidental coalition of MoI, media, and “anti-” forces (anti-U.S., anti-Administration, anti-war, anti-PSC, and so forth).

“Histories are more full of examples of the fidelity of dogs than of friends.”

But what has really been interesting is watching the rest of the pack turn their fangs on Blackwater. The competitors making not-so-veiled comments impugning the professionalism of Blackwater (while conveniently fishing for some business of their own); the various State staffers playing out internal power struggles via press comments; and the military folks looking to shiv both State and Blackwater as they push for complete domination of the Iraq effort.

There’s been more cattiness than a month backstage with the skanks of The Bachelor.

Now, we’re not so naïve as to think that if you look under the skirt of any of these outfits (public or private), including Blackwater, you will find anything vaguely resembling a shortage of dirty laundry. They’re run by humans, and we are all too fallible—even when embarking on the best of well-intentioned missions.

“The ruling passion, be what it will. The ruling passion conquers reason still.”

But the slagging of Blackwater has been intriguing because whenever people en mass turn on someone or something so quickly and so venomously, to our small minds there must be more going on than meets the eye. Much more.

For example, we previously threw out a few lines about the possibility that there just might be some MoI ulterior motives at work.

Of course, to even suggest such a thing—or to fail to obligingly damn every armed contractor, oops, mercenary this side of Grinnell and McGiffin—is to be branded a fool and a charlatan.

But, easy as it would be to simply lie down with the dogs, that would not change the fact that there is more going on than it seems.

“The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, and wretches hang that jurymen may dine.”

So let’s take a look at another piece of this puzzle. To be frank, it is a painful one. But while we’re happy to see every last Blackwater guy from the 16th put under the prison if they did intentionally kill unarmed civilians, we’re equally willing to see lying conniving bastards shipped off to Leavenworth if in fact they have been dishonorable. We have no stomach for those of low character, be they in or out of uniform.

“And all who told it added something new, and all who heard it, made enlargements too.”

So let us look at what those in uniform have made a point of saying in the press about this Nisour incident. After all, this was a State debacle. They could quite easily have laid low. But they did not:

“The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they’ve built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event,” the [military] official said. “This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we’re trying to have an impact for the long term.” Washington Post, September 26

“It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong,” said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations.“The civilians that were fired upon, they didn’t have any weapons to fire back at them.And none of the [Iraqi Police] or any of the local security forces fired back at them,” he added.Washington Post, October 5

“They tend to overreact to a lot of things. They maneuver around town very aggressively, they’ve got weapons pointed at people, they cut people off, of course their speeds—I mean a whole bunch of things they do fairly consistently. But when it comes to shooting and firing, they tend to shoot quicker than others,” the U.S. military official said. Washington Post, October 5

“It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting,” said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided. His soldiers’ report—based on their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police—concluded that there was “no enemy activity involved” and described the shootings as a “criminal event.” Washington Post, October 12

“I was upset this happened,” [Army Captain Don] Cherry said. “This was uncalled for.” … “I wanted our guys to be on the ground, to look people in the eye, to listen to their anguish, listen to their outrage, to let them know we’re going to help those people personally affected,” Tarsa said. “I was concerned about acts of vengeance and misinformation somehow indicating we were part of this event,” he said. Washington Post, October 12

“At ev’ry word a reputation dies.”

Now, one approach would be to say, “Gee, these guys share the outrage of all true Americans over the wild-eyed bloodlust of those crazed psychopaths in the mercenary business.”

But it is interesting that they have gone out of their way to make this out as “worse than Abu Ghraib,” “obviously excessive, obviously wrong,” “excessive shooting,” “criminal event,” “uncalled for,” and the crown jewel, “to listen to their anguish, listen to their outrage, to let them know we’re going to help those people personally affected.”

No slight on the CSI-like abilities of our field artillery pals from the 1st Cavalry Division during their impromptu visit to the Square, but does it strike anyone else as an intentional and solid indictment, nay, damning of Blackwater and the State Department security apparatus?

Why could that be?

Actually, there are several reasons—power, resources, or effectiveness. But none would seem to justify such a fierce response.

“The difference is too nice—Where ends the virtue or begins the vice.”

What could?

Let’s look at one more press story on the incident. This past weekend, our friends at CNN ran a piece titled “Survivors of Blackwater shooting in Iraq tell FBI their stories.” The “harrowing” stories, as CNN put it, were indeed tragic. Whether those individuals were shot by Blackwater guards, or by someone else, they are as heartbreaking as the dozens of other Iraqi and U.S. casualties that occur each and every day in Iraq.

What may have been the most tragic of the lot, however, may have been the killing of Ali Hafez, the nine-year-old son of businessman Mohammed Hafez. No father should have to bury his child.

Apparently the folks at DoD didn't think through this whole "let's leak" thing. You see, the problem with fostering a climate of leaks to advance an agenda is that once you open that tap, it’s hard to tell what will come spilling out. Say for example, a letter floating around the Pentagon saying something like this:

Would the venom and fiery rhetoric coming out of DoD make more sense if they were trying to bury their own conduct and pin the killing of this child on Blackwater?

We hope we're misunderstanding something in this whole mess.

"Amusement is the happiness of those who cannot drink." Ooops. "... cannot think."

“We are contractually prohibited from commenting on government efforts to punk us. And your blog sucks,” Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell would have said if she bothered to provide statements to obscure blogs.

“It’s all classified, Blackwater is evil, and your blog sucks,” Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell didn’t say.

“I was concerned about acts of vengeance and misinformation somehow indicating we were part of this event,” Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa said—in what will prove to be either a quite well founded concern, or one of the most ethically challenged and sleazy statements of this whole Mesopotamia morass. “Your blog sucks,” he would likely add.

"Well, how did we get here? ..."

2007-10-11T19:25:00.000-07:00

We’re not too proud or too dumb to know when it’s time to lay our sword—or our pen—at the feet of a master. And while the ole Rabbit does a marginally above average job of bringing you the lowdown on PSC issues, we got schooled this week.

Two colleagues—one military, one contractor—each e-mailed us a different story on PSC matters that was so far above the norm for discussion of these issues that we were: (a) impressed enough that we felt compelled to share them, and (b) reminded once again that our future career prospects hold an alarmingly large likelihood of involving a nametag and a paper hat.

We have only two complaints about these articles. First, they don’t subscribe to The Rabbit’s policy of documenting (i.e., linking to) factual sources. But, for what it’s worth, we’ll vouch for them absolutely nailing both of these. Second, compared to us, they have a rather depressing lack of photos of Godzilla, Sasquatch, and assorted lumberjacks. Apparently they know their analysis is solid, without resorting to Britney Spears or Raelians.

We find such hubris unsettling.

In any event, read on and enjoy:

(1) The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater

[S]ince before the fall of the Soviet Union, a systematic shift has been taking place in the way the U.S. force structure is designed. This shift, which is rooted both in military policy and in the geopolitical perception that future wars will be fought on a number of levels, made private security contractors such as KBR and Blackwater inevitable. The current situation is the result of three unique processes: the introduction of the professional volunteer military, the change in force structure after the Cold War, and finally the rethinking and redefinition of the term “noncombatant” following the decision to include women in the military, but bar them from direct combat roles.

Read the whole outstanding story from StratFor.com here.

(2) Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical—and Practical—Considerations

Beyond the military bureaucracy and the geopolitical processes acting upon it, another set of dynamics is behind the growing use of civilian contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. These factors include the type and scope of the U.S. diplomatic mission in the country; the nature of the insurgency and the specific targeting of diplomats; and the limited resources available to the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Because of these factors, unless the diplomatic mission to Iraq is dramatically changed or reduced, or the U.S. Congress takes action to radically enlarge the DSS, the services of civilian security contractors will be required in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Those contractors provide flexibility in tailoring the force that full-time security officers do not.

The entire story, again from some sharp minds at StratFor.com, is here.

If you are interested in these StratFor cats, Kent's Imperative has more on their background. While we'll concede that the material laid out in the articles above is blindingly obvious for those steeped in the industry, the crushing majority of folks chatting up PSCs have little understanding of the overall landscape and these two pieces are therefore quite valuable.

We’re thinking we might subscribe to this StratFor outfit. Presuming of course that there’s enough left in the petty cash drawer for the week’s supply of beer and beef jerky. Maybe you should subscribe too ... although come to think of it, if you’re sending money anywhere, let us give you wire transfer instructions for The Rabbit ...

Unity of ... What? (Updated!)

2007-10-08T10:56:00.000-07:00

Interstitial

Before we get to the regular post, there is breaking news out of the Land of the Two Rivers. The blaring headline is: PRIVATE SECURITY CONVOY KILLS TWO IRAQI WOMEN. The story goes on to say that 19 bullets hit the vehicle in which the two women were killed.

Oh yeah, there were also two suicide truck bombs in Baiji, killing at least 22 and wounding 30, gunmen in Nineveh province assassinated a provincial police official, and two Baghdad bombing killed 12 civilians.

But back to those wild-eyed mercenaries ...

We saw how quickly the actions of the security detail for the Polish motorcade disappeared from media coverage (or failed to even appear?) after last week's attack. Any bets on whether today's event is more than a momentary blip? (Did we mention that the as-yet unnamed PSC shooters today were--according to the story--not Blackwater people?) Don't hold your breath.

And people ask why we use this domain name.

Our Regular Post:

Today, we’re going to do a retraction. Or maybe it’s more revision than rescission. An adjustment. A bit of waffling. A flip-flop. Call it what you will.

The point is this: something came out this week that caused us to reconsider a few statements made in the past. We’re going to share it because maybe it is a point worth considering.

Vent Your Spleen

Long-term readers will recall that The Rabbit generally takes a dim view of comment threads. They’re typically the province of idiots, trolls and dullards.

Thus, Prior Statement # 1: Comment threads are worthless.

That of course, overstates the situation. Admittedly, threads do tend to be either microcosms of self-validation and mutual back-patting (e.g., our old faves daily kos and coulter.com) or, when varied views do appear, the comments consist of snide volleys and messy backbiting (e.g., most any Youtube thread). But that is not always the case.

This week, we saw one comment in particular that bucked this trend, and it inspired this post.

Thus, Waffle # 1: The overwhelming majority of comments and comment threads would have to massively improve just to rise to the level of worthlessness, BUT every so often there is a diamond in the rough that actually does contribute to the debate.

We’ll get to the specific comment in a moment, but first let’s review The Rabbit statement which the comment made us question

During our liveblog of last week’s testimony, we made Prior Statement # 2: “The ‘we’ve never lost a protectee’ thing, while hugely interesting to Congressmen on various junkets, is a good point, but doesn’t address the use of force issues so much. A better question is whether the RUF in place are too aggressive. Of course, the flip side is we go to a can’t-fire-until-fired-upon sort of regime that has caused so much discontent in the past.”

In context, this statement made sense—we were saying that the good Congressman was not addressing the issue at hand, which was use of force. But the statement can also be taken to mean that the mission on which one embarks has no impact on the ROE/RUF.

Anyone with military or security experience immediately spots the flaw in such an argument.

Waffle # 2: Of course the mission has a direct and meaningful impact on what ROE/RUF should apply. So after we’ve hurried the staff of Blackwater out to the stocks & pillory, it may be worth asking whether we as a nation truly want unity of method, or only unity of effort.

We know what you’re asking: What the heck does that mean?

Glad you asked.

The Meaningful Comment

The gist of the comment is that:

The below-listed diplomats wished they had Blackwater protecting them:

August 2003: Blast at Jordanian Embassy kills nineteen people; al-Qaida in Iraq claims responsibility

August 2003: Truck bomb explodes outside UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 22 people, including UN special envoy to Iraq

November 2003: Two Japanese diplomats shot and killed in ambush near Tikrit

January 2005: Suicide bomber detonates truck at Australian Embassy, injuring two Australian soldiers and killing two Iraqis

July 2005: Bahrain’s top envoy in Iraq wounded when attackers attempt to abduct him

July 2005: Algerian Charge d’affaires and another diplomat kidnapped and later killed by al-Qaida in Iraq

July 2005: Egyptian envoy in Baghdad kidnapped and killed in Baghdad, a-QiI claims it killed him because Egypt intended to install a full ambassador

May 2006: Diplomat from United Arab Emirates kidnapped

June 2006: Four Russian Embassy worker abducted after attack on their car—in the same neighborhood as the 9/16 Blackwater incident—they are later murdered, along with a fifth abducted Russian

December 2006: Turkish diplomat shot and wounded in garden of Turkish Embassy in Baghdad

We thought original commenter “jdhawk” was pretty impressive to find those (and other) attacks, until we found an AP story listing them. Nonetheless, Mr. or Ms. hawk does make the point—or at least we’ll give ‘em credit for making the point—that protecting the senior diplomats of a nation when in the middle of a warzone is hazardous business and the threat is quite real.

And one that is ongoing, as demonstrated by the ambush of the Polish Ambassador’s convoy in Baghdad just hours after the recent testimony, resulting in the death of his bodyguard and two Iraqi civilians, as well as eleven security guards and civilians being wounded. (This would be the guy that Blackwater medevac’d, although they weren’t protecting him. Funny how those civilians nonetheless were killed. It’s almost like Baghdad is a dangerous place.)

Unity of Effort

The question we are left to consider is whether a one-size-fits-all approach is really appropriate for all U.S. (and/or coalition) operations in Iraq. Certainly, we desire unity of effort, meaning that everyone supporting the U.S. works toward common goals.

But the argument-of-the-week has been that contractors have complete disregard for US goals while our noble soldiers are all about “hearts and minds.” That is, contractors do not have a common goal of supporting the U.S.

This is more than a little naïve, if not outright disingenuous and cynically misleading.

Our military personnel certainly have a proud tradition of service, and are unmatched at many missions. To argue, however, that the 19-year-old junior enlisted on a hazardous patrol puts nebulous goals like “supporting Iraqi democracy” or “influencing public opinion” over the safety of his or her brothers in arms and the completion of the specific mission at hand is, in a word, ridiculous. Ask a student of history whether armed forces throughout history have fought for noble ideals, or for the guy in the trench next to them.

Similarly, to argue that the civilian volunteer has utter disregard for civilized values is to brand most of them criminal sociopaths and the rest criminal psychopaths. While that is exactly the argument many of the least-rational and fact-constrained critics advance, it is over-reaching to say the least. These are ordinary Americans, many of them military veterans, and to contend that each of ‘em simply checked their values at door does not seem logical.

Those of us left here in the middle do want to see unity of effort—military, government civilian, and private contractors working toward U.S. policy goals. And if you can look beyond the political power struggles being played out here (anti-war, party politics, military-vs-state, etc.) we would assert that all of these various players are seeking to support US policy, although there is—as always—room for better coordination.

Unity of Method

Whether all of the actors pursue that common end, however, is a different question from whether they do so via common means. Or whether they should.

Specifically, given the ongoing and very real threat, do we as a nation desire that security for, say, a logistics shipment be the same as for the US Ambassador? If we have a truckload of mail blown up, does that have more or less of an impact on our national interests than to have a captured under-Ambassador’s head sawn off with a rusty knife in the internet snuff flick of some “freedom fighter” group?

As far as we can tell based on the testimony last week and the publicly available resources, DoD and State private security are operating under the same rules. And whether the various companies are following those rules is currently the subject of more scrutiny than Britney’s child-rearing ability. We shall see what those investigations reveal.

But in the interim, it may be worth considering whether the various forces should be under the same rules. In terms of ROE, it is not uncommon for different military units to have different ROE specified. Should the same be the case for private security?

The public perception seems to be that the current State RUF is more concerned with (as one PSC blogger put it to us privately) whether “the staffers spill their diet coke” than whether the security for the mission defeats the mission itself. If that is in fact the case remains to be seen. But it would seem, at least to our second-rate minds, that the issue of “what those rules should be” is critical to the long-term results of the U.S. mission.

State is purportedly looking at those sort of systemic changes for its part. (The media is still caught up in the frenzy of the Blackwater pile-on, but the press briefing announcing the changes makes it clear that they will apply to whatever company operates in the Baghdad region—using the very same DS-approved individuals Blackwater has today).

In the interim, the question we leave you with is whether the rules should be the same for all security forces in country.

If The Rabbit staff had the answer to that, by the way, we wouldn't be running a second-rate blog.

Conclusion

As an aside, The Rabbit advised before to wait to hear all sides of the story before rushing to judgment, but that just wouldn’t be fun—nor lead to big ratings. The allegations and incriminations just continue to grow in feeding frenzy fashion.

But no matter how big their names or credentials, those who breathlessly repeat every allegation of the heavily JAM-influenced MoI as pure fact (e.g., the Blackwater convoy “wasn’t even hit by a stone”) are going to appear rather biased, to put it mildly, if the U.S. report shows that the actions of the Blackwater folks involved attack or were even in part in keeping with the RUF.

Say, for example, if photos of bullet-pocked security vehicles (as are rumored to exist) are part of the report.

Of course, the ultimate dodge is always available, "We weren't rushing headlong to report a preconceived and biased version of the story, we were just, uh, trying to, um, show one, er, possibility. Yeah."

If, on the other hand, anyone actually wants to do something meaningful in terms of contractor accountability, informing your political representation of support for the Price bill (or its peers) is one option. Everyone (and we mean everyone--even the industry, heck even Blackwater) supports it except the White House, so political action on this front is meaningful.

Or just vent your spleen in our comments section. We'll even get you started: "The Rabbit is a crappy blog and you suck."

BREAKING NEWS--- LIVE BLOGGING

2007-10-01T22:16:00.000-07:00

WAHOO, NEBRASKA—In a daring midnight raid Monday, junior staffers from the Metro desk of weekly PSC publication The White Rabbit seized control of the second-rate online journal. Communications with the rebel faction have been extremely limited to date, as they apparently remained focused on further barricading the famed White Rabbit mansion and rapidly consuming the contents of all liquor cabinets therein.

The seizure is seen by international strategists as a devastating blow to the already troubled regime of reclusive publishing maven, Rabbit founder and reknowned binge drinker Angus McCreavy.

McCreavy, long considered a major threat to the self-esteem and personal empowerment of junior staffers, has stridently insisted that we, er, they “focus on long-term industry issues” and “close yer yammerin’ pieholes before I introduce ya to the business end of my cane.”

In a brief communiqué, the rebel leader so far identified only as Che proclaimed: “With this bold act, the Rabbit Underground has taken a major stride toward … hey, back off the controller, dude, I’m leading the next Halo mission …”

Staffer demands reportedly include one million dollars, a fully gassed Super Tucano aircraft, and one large pizza.

The most shocking news of the evening, however, had to be rumors that the rebel faction will live blog the entire dog-and-pony show, er, Oversight Committee hearing Tuesday.

Or at least as long as they can stand the hypocrisy and grandstanding.

Public reaction to the news ranged from total indifference to complete disinterest.

“I am getting utterly bored already,” stated passerby Herman J. Snurtz. “Isn’t Dancing With the Stars on tonight?”

Stay tuned for extended coverage and live updates on the ongoing crisis. This could get uglier than recent group photos of the Stones.

1004 - Apparently the hearing has started, and CSPAN-3 finally broke away from some dude hawking his book to actually cover the hearing

1007 - These CSPAN guys need to get onboard with media production. Get a soundtrack or something. Prince enters ... cue "Lord Vader's March" from the Star Wars soundtrack.

1015 - Hank is rambling about Haliburton. Switch to "Fake It" by Seether.

1017 - Here we go again with the military salary vs. total cost of contractor. The price of the contractor is turnkey. The military salary is a tiny slice. Ya think that the recruiting, training, feeding, equipping, comms support, satellites, air wings, tank battalions, etc. ad naseum are free? They do different missions guys.

1020 - Knew Abu Ghraib would have to be in there. The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that IF contractor actions are ruining the otherwise flawless U.S. effort in Iraq, has anyone thought to ask whether the POLICIES in place are a problem? We (the nation) give these companies their RUF.

1023 - Did Hank actually just talk about various plaintiffs and then claim that the point of this hearing was to be fair? We've never seen anyone argue against accountability.

Doesn't accountability mean government supervision and, when appropriate, criminal punishment? Since when does accountability mean windfall tort litigation? I guess since our servicemembers can't sue the government if it makes a battlefield decision that ends badly then our military is "unaccountable" too.

1028 - There haven't been any prosecutions? Then why the heck aren't Justice and FBI at the table today? Sure, making one company squirm makes great TV, but if these guys are at all serious where is that hearing??

1030 - The beauty of this hearing is that it's not really about Blackwater. In fact, it's not really about PSCs. It's about use of contractors generally to support the U.S. And if those who oppose the U.S. effort in Iraq cannot force a military withdraw through appropriate legislative action, they can impose their position by attacking the contractors. (Not that they don't deserve attacking for some actions!!) Amb. Crocker all but issued an engraved invitation for this when he discussed the reliance on Blackwater.

1035 - If we're really examining privatization of our military, why is the privatized DSS force at the table? That's a great discussion to have. But that ain't this hearing. Let's be real.

1038 - This live blogging thing sort of reminds us of Pop-Up Video on VH-1 back in the day. Except that we're less funny and less informative. And you don't have to watch Paula Abdul dance with a cartoon cat. Or listen to her.

1040 - I'd like to "hear what Mr. Prince has to say" as well. Listening to these clowns bloviate before anyone has even testified doesn't seem like much of a hearing. Gotta get that video clip down for the folks back home. Re-elections happen, you know.

1042 - Very interesting that the State panel is going up AFTER the private party. This is HIGHLY unusual. Interesting to speculate on exactly why they might want to do that.

1044 - Those special effects folks at Blackwater Light & Magic did a bang-up job. You can't even see the horns through the make-up, and the prosthetic hand Mr. Prince is raising to testify covers up the cloven hoove so well you can hardly tell it's there. Oh wait, imagine if he turns out to be just a normal guy-next-door who is trying to support our country. (Admittedly we don't have a billionaire in our neighborhood, but still). Any bets on whether we'll read about that?

1050 - Blackwater is apparently already trying to re-brand: looks like they launched an all new website this morning. We miss the scary guys with guns theme.

1053 - Six thousand five hundred missions last year? Certainly one incident where U.S. forces have to shoot is more than we want, but does it strike anyone that ~170 over the several years they've been running around in the middle of a civil war is not that many? Not sure what the "appropriate" number is, but it would seem like they'd end up shooting more than 1% of the time.

1056 - Questioning begins. On deposition for the plaintiffs: H. Waxman. Hope Prince answers because it's pretty salacious, but not holding our breath

1105 - Of the 349 people who originally tuned into CSPAN-3 for this hearing, 93.684 percent have now switched over to Jerry Springer or The View

1107 - Whoa--They often take fire on their armored vehicles and don't bother to return it because it's not a threat? I.e., they do not even report it when they are fired upon, only when they fire? Wonder if that will be noted when the "Incident reports say Blackwater fires first 80% of the time" thing is flashed everywhere?

1110 - The "we've never lost a protectee" thing, while hugely interesting to Congressmen on various junkets, is a good point but doesn't address the use of force issues so much. A better question is whether the RUF in place are too aggressive. Of course, the flip side is we go to a can't-fire-until-fired-upon sort of regime that has caused so much discontent in the past. E.g., even if the guys on the COLE saw the explosives, they wouldn't have had the ROE to engage. (If their weapons had been loaded.)

1114 - The firings have come up. There seems to be a drive to point these out as some weakness or impropriety. Isn't this the sort of self-policing that "doesn't happen." Wouldn't we rather see more? Heavens knows the military would like to be able to simply can people who don't behave/perform.

1118 - Does Ms. Maloney get it that the FBI, IZ police and CID were involved? What exactly does she expect the company to do? Take 'em back out and shoot em? He hasn't been arrested---guess Blackwater should have arrested him. Does she understand that USG directed the dude be removed from country?

1122 - Hey, discussion of the RUF and use of force continuum--now this is meaningful discussion. Will they follow it up?

1023 - Uh, no.

1029 - Does anyone else suspect that the government/armed contractor relationship is currently about like that of a psycho-ex that you've had a few good times with, but was way too needy and eventually even the sex got boring? Now, you've moved on and they're still stewing about it, drunk-dialing and leaving rambling voicemails asking for another chance and promising it "can change."

1133 - Interesting that DoJ was able to turn off the 9/16 discussion today. Of course, now Blackwater can continue to be Nifong'ed in the back by the media. Not getting what we mean? We're the first to admit that the 9/16 incident may have been a Mai Lai-like rampage. Or, it may have been a team under attack who explicitly followed the rules set forth by our country. WE DON'T KNOW. But you sure ain't reading that many other places.

1139 - OK, that Kuchinich/Prince exchange about whether DeVos, etc. helped him win the GSA contract may be the blue ribbon prize winner for the day. Even now, a crack team of Kuchinich staffers are furiously researching every point of that statement. Hopefully we'll get to see Denny threaten jailtime. This hearing needs someone beating on a table with their shoe.

1143 - What this hearing needs is Mike Gravel. He's a hoot.

1150 - Wow, if this whole Rep. thing doesn't pan out for Davis, he's got a bright future in Verizon voiceovers.

1152 - Ouch, the Blackwater guys thwarted a cover-up attempt? Not what was in reports. Better switch tactics. Now the charge is that they try to compensate the families---isn't the LACK of that argued as a lack of accountability out of the other side of the mouth?

1154 - Since they're calling these 'rounds' of questions, our question is: Where is the card girl?

Still searching for a corresponding photo of Hasselhoff in a leather thong.

1202 - Why hasn't GAO, CRS, or some other government body taken a fact-based look at which actually costs more on a per mission basis? Both "sides" argue that X is cheaper--why don't we have a statistical analysis this far into the war? Where are RAND and all those guys when you need 'em?

1205 - We typed the above before Prince called on Congress to do the same. Notice how the Committee skipped right on over that little idea!!!

1208 - Ooops. Quoting Axline-Starr to attack Prince? Guess the staffers didn't bother to notice that BW says she's a disgruntled (i.e., fired) former Blackwater IC. Do these guys really believe that a given military unit isn't focused on execution of its specific tactical mission rather than vague national objectives? The departure from a citizenry with military experience does not bode well for our nation's future.

1212 - Holy Smokin' Car Bombs!! Did you get a load of that Suburban photo? Why isn't that on their new website?

1217 - Company profit is 10.4%. Is this profiteering? We're not going to bother arguing yes or no---the vast majority of folks already have their minds made up, whether it is .0001% or 90%

1222 - 98.732% of those who thought this hearing would be interesting have now moved on to far more compelling activities, such as debating the failed British strategy during the War of Jenkin's Ear. Far more interesting.

1224 - Did one of these guys just make a statement "to the American people" about hypocrisy? Bwaaa haaa haaaaa.

1228 - We need to find a bar. One that keeps a funnel on hand.

1230 - We're not particularly impressed by Rush Limbaugh, but what does Mr. Prince have to do with that?

1231 - We're starting knock-off of Newhart. Every time someone says "mercenary" or "killed civilian"---another shot.

1233 - HEY, Rep. Watson gets it!! These are policy questions that the government (a/k/a we as a nation) need to answer, not one company or the industry. PLEASE follow up on this, ma'am!!!

1248 - More letters from plaintiff's lawyers??? Or is this guy bringing up the old one?

1249 - That sounds like a new one. Wow.

1251 - Ouch. Rep. Westmoreland is being pretty brutal (toward the majority). Is there a question in there somewhere?

1252 - We'd like to submit a proposal. The phrases "one decision: window or aisle" and "coalition of the billing" shall never be used in this public debate again. We're not going to hold our breath.

1254 - Did we miss something? What does Hope College have to do with the hearing? ???

1259 - And a pound of tea costs $3.95 in yen when purchased on the moon

1304 - Tooth-to-tail is not a good subject for PSC detractors---better get them off this subject fast, Henry

1305 - Another suggestion of an Activity Cost Study by Prince ... let's see where this one goes.

1307 - Lead balloon

1311 - Other than general interest, why does it matter what Prince understands about relevant laws? He doesn't get to decide what the laws say.

1317 - Prince understands the Arms Control Export regime? At least better than this Congressman.

1320 - If the point of this hearing were truly to bring out useful information about the industry and applicable law, this export law vein is excellent. Of course, the point is anything but. Best move along from the conspiracy theories if you want your soundbite on the local news, Congressman.

1330 - Do we need to say again that DoJ/FBI/etc. are the ones who need to be asked these questions? If these guys were really even a little interested in accountability, or the Christmas Eve shooter, wouldn't they hold a hearing on that? Bash on PSCs all you want, but why in the world isn't there a cry for some sort of explanation about ENFORCEMENT??

1333 - Blackwater endorses Price Bill and other accountability improvements.

1334 - Did someone just pull the firealarm? Somebody doesn't like the way this hearing is going down!!

1339 - Mr. Welch is scoring points with his constituency. Apparently the guy never ran a business, though.

1341 - So, are they giving him the answer, or the b-slap?

1343 - Those side-angle camera shots let out the dirty little secret of these Committees: Most of the members don't bother to hang around before or after they get their mug on TV. Right now there are two of 'em in the room. The purpose of this hearing is: inquiry ... or theater?

1347 - Rep. Lynch's statements about the "gratitude effect" are a good point ... but it's hard to see how that is specific to a PSC team, vice a DSS agent team or a military PSD team. Will he propose some outside observer be instated, or just go for the dirt?

1350 - He does both! Not a bad idea. Hope it goes somewhere.

1357 - The call for a GAO investigation is helpful, but man, the rest of the good Gentlewoman's statement was basically a soliloquy in Wookie.

1358 - How is Ms. Shack even in the room? Is she on this Committee? Can we go ask some questions?

1400 - Chileans ... this isn't going how she planned. Keep throwing the gasoline on!

1419 - The Chairman just pushed the State guys on prosecution. Too bad Justice wasn't at the table with them.

1427 - This is actually the most useful part of the hearing, the State guys just asserted that the fully loaded cost of a DSS agent is $400K to $1M, and that the PSCs are the lower cost solution. Too bad they're not making the documentation of that public.

1428 - Sadly, looking at our traffic analysis, most of you are more interested in staring at the photo below than reading more narration from us. For you diehards--listen to what State says, it should be the truly useful part of this hearing.

Can you see the rust forming on that bumper?

1522 - Told you not to tune out--State officials just confirmed that the $330M sole-source (a/k/a "no bid") contract awarded in 2004 was shopped to FOUR other PSCs (who were deemed incapable of performing) before they went with Blackwater. There is so much obfuscation and partisanship on these issues it is hard to believe.

1530 - Just reported that three BW guys were gravely injured after Iraqi police directed their motorcade into an EFP ambush.

1533 - Adjourned.

Plays Well With Others

2007-10-01T01:50:00.000-07:00

We’d planned to start exploring the role of al Sadr and his crew on the near-term future of PSCs, but an article came out this week that was so on target with something that we’ve been promising to do that we’re going to go ahead and post the video that we began promising several posts ago.

What Quote Would You Like?

It’s rather interesting how hard those with various agendas are pushing the idea that there is a bitter feud between uniformed military professionals and private security contractors.

And, with over 2.7 million people in the U.S. military, it’s pretty easy for a reporter or author to find someone to give them pretty much whatever quote they want to fit their agenda.

For example (one of a myriad) if you want to attack PSCs: “‘They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers. Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,’ said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq.” Of course, our Army friend sort of fails to acknowledge that these PSC guys are in large part the product of his own organization and training (and that of his pals in the Navy and Air Force).

But then you can get the same type of comment from one branch about its peers if you want. Despite Goldwater-Nichols, U.S. military “purpleness” only runs so deep. Or from Rangers about Delta, or Marine Recon about SEALs. And so on.

If you want to portray everything as rosy, though, you can do that as well. The most recent example: MNFI flag officer Mark Fox heaping praise on private security contractor work during a press conference yesterday.

So Where Is Ground Truth?

Is there a bitter feud between PSCs and military? Well, first we’d submit that the question itself reflects a fundamental failure to appreciate the scope and nature of U.S. operations in Iraq. There are disputes and incidents between military and contractors, just like there have been disputes and incidents between different military units since time immemorial. Ever heard of white-on-white?

But there is also extensive cooperation, strong support and mutual respect. When contractors get in trouble, they have many times received support from their military brethren and—while no media will dare admit the fact—there have been numerous instances of PSCs, including the dastardly Blackwater, coming to the aid of uniformed military.

Today’s Video

Which brings us to the “new video” we found some weeks ago, showing PSC (yes, Blackwater—we have a theme to uphold) support for our troops in Afghanistan.

The backstory on what they are doing appeared in an article by Kevin Maurer in the Fayetteville Observer:

FORWARD OPERATING BASE SALERNO, Afghanistan — The pilot’s voice crackled over the radio.

“Three minutes.”

As the paratroopers in the back of the twin-engine prop plane got ready, the aircraft popped over the last ridge and dipped in the remote valley in Afghanistan.

The plan—along with the identical one tailing it—first raced near ground level to keep from being an easy target for Taliban guerrillas. At the last moment, the two aircraft pulled up to 150 feet.

In the lead plane, Sgt. 1st Class Ed Clouse and two other 82nd Airborne Division soldiers pushed two pallets—one loaded with ammunition and the other with water—out of the plane. Soldiers in the trail plane dropped more supplies.

The loads fell under parachutes to waiting soldiers, but the men in the planes didn’t get to watch the pickup. The pilots reported gunfire and threw the planes into evasive maneuvers, diving toward the valley and forcing the men in the back to hug the floor. Neither plane was hit.

Back at Forward Operating Base Salerno—the 82nd’s main camp—Clouse and others got word that all of the supplies landed safely.

“Today was pretty much a perfect drop,” Clouse said.

The supply drop Wednesday was one of about 900 the soldiers have made since February. The method they used is one they have been developing for most of the year.

A key piece is the use of parachutes made of recycled plastic to deliver supplies.

The plastic parachutes are a low-cost alternative to the expensive silk chutes used by soldiers and can be dropped accurately from low altitude.

“It allows us to take the terrain and the insurgents out of the equation,” said Lt. Col. Michael Peterman, commander of the 782nd Brigade Support Battalion.

The 782nd’s job is to supply thousands of paratroopers in 22 bases scattered over 19,000 square miles of some of the most rugged country in the world.

The plastic parachutes were designed for emergency relief missions, but Peterman, Clouse, and Capt. Tony Newman realized they are perfect for regularly resupplying units in the field.

The chutes resemble huge tarps. Each can handle up to 250 pounds. Sgt. Ben Hatcher, a rigger with the 782nd, said the parachutes, made by a company in Massachusetts, come packaged and ready to use.

The low-level drops are so accurate that the 782nd has landed supplies in the middle of an infantry company hiking in the mountains. The paratroopers were able to grab the water and food without stopping.

Since the parachutes cost only $49 each, the paratroopers are not required to retrieve them. Many times, soldiers give the chutes and pallets to the locals.

“(The parachute) is a perfect piece of equipment to provide shade for their family,” Newman said.

The lack of available Air Force cargo planes in Afghanistan posed a problem at first, but the 782nd has contracted with Blackwater Aviation—based in Moyock, N.C.—to pick up the slack. Blackwater is the private security firm that has been accused of overreacting and killing civilians in Iraq. The company has hundreds of millions of dollars in military contracts across the two war theaters.

In the Afghanistan mountains, Blackwater uses small, light CASA C-212 cargo planes. The pilots, many of them former military fliers, know how to dart through canyons and avoid becoming targets. They usually stay within 35 feet of the ground until the drop.

And here is the video itself:

For those of you who think flying along at 35 feet, or making these drops on point is a cakewalk, uh, not so much:

Conclusion

Like we said some time ago, and interesting piece of Blackwater-related video which, for whatever reason, has not been viewed much. Probably because it is not easily used for the creation of fear and loathing.

Next time, barring new developments we’ll look at ol’ al-Sadr and the role he’ll play in future PSC ops in Iraq. Because even if all 1000 security contractors working for Blackwater march on over to Triple Canopy, and we’re posting to Dyncorpblogger.com, these public policy issues will endure. Despite all the hate and discontent, these are industry issues, not company ones. As we’ve been saying.

---------------

What people are saying about The Rabbit:

“The site’s ... odd” – National Review.

Baksheesh and Bad Blood

2007-09-23T21:52:00.001-07:00

It’s been amusing joining the crowd in daily running our pieholes about last week’s Blackwater controversy.

The Rabbit’s normal approach, however, is more of a weekly examination of some industry issue rather than breathless reporting of the latest pscelebrity gossip.

So we’ll leave the rants, diatribes, and cool product news to others and go back to examining issues. Still through the vehicle of our 10-million gigawatt lightning rod, Blackwater, of course.

Was That 14 or 15?

Let’s start with a test. Some of you have seen it, but others have not.

We’ve got a video for you to watch. You should only watch it once. In the video you will see a group of basketball players, some dressed in white and some in black. They will pass two basketballs around. Your goal is to count how many times a player in a white shirt throws the ball. Watch it once and note your number.

If you saw thirteen passes, click here.

If you saw fourteen passes, click here.

If you saw fifteen passes, click here.

The Guy in the Fuzzy Bunny Suit

As the natural cynics expected, the test has nothing to do with the number of basketball passes.

The real question is whether you saw an animal passing by in the background—a wombat, a sloth, platypus, lemur, whatever.

The vast majority of people who watch this video never see the woman in the gorilla suit walk right into the middle of the game, stop, wave her hands, and then walk on. If you didn’t see it, go ahead and watch it again.

This is just one of a number of tests that show that humans are remarkably poor at grasping and retaining complex, stressful, or dynamic situations. The best explanation of the gorilla suit test is here, but this form of "cognitive blindness" is but one among many perceptual- and memory-related reasons that—contrary to common belief—eyewitness testimony is quite unreliable.

The Gorilla Did It

Now before yet another Rabbit statement gets taken out of context, let’s look at why this human foible is important.

The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior is busily collecting statements from various Iraqis who were at or near the scene of the incident (one would hope not statements from insurgents). The U.S Department of State is no doubt methodically debriefing all of the State personnel and Blackwater contractors who were involved.

And according to press reports, during the investigation phase, neither team is having squat-all to do with the other.

Now really, what in the sam hell results do you expect them to achieve?

The MoI already released its report, basically claiming the mercenaries were maniacally shooting everything moving and drinking goat’s blood out of baby skulls, while the U.S. will eventually get around to providing an extensive brief on how the contractors strictly followed the Rules For the Use of Force—and stopped mid-firefight to find a lost kitten and help two old ladies cross the street.

The point being Iraqi witness and Blackwater participant statements from the scene will be a jumbled morass of conflicting assertions. (Peter Singer is, as usual, slightly more diplomatic than us in making the same point.)

In the same vein, you’ve got the MoI issuing their list of seven Blackwater incidents—some deadly serious (like the Christmas Eve off-duty shooting and the Nisour Square incident) and some that have to be a joke (breaking a windshield? being at the scene of an insurgent vs. military firefight?). Meanwhile, the State Department is sort of saying ‘seven incidents in the middle of a warzone—they’ve only done 1800 missions just this year.’

In other words, we have a cornucopia of ammunition for extremists on both sides of the issue to use. The DailyKos crowd can vehemently screech about how Beelzebub in body armor gleefully mowed down dozens, and the Ann Coulter set can rail about how the dirty camelhumping savages got what they deserved and ought have another helping.

Don’t believe? Here is a mild example: "Baggarly is vehemently against the war, and Blackwater has become its face. No matter what the investigation finds, he said, it won’t change his opinion of the company. ‘Even if they fired second,’ he said, ‘I still consider them to be at fault. They’re at fault for being in Iraq in the first place.’"

For many people, the Iraqi and Blackwater witness statements may be a wash. Unless the national police headquarters video proves more helpful than the Sallyport video, or some reliable third party turns up during the joint committee’s work, we may never know ground truth about what happened.

So What’s Your Angle, Rabbit?

So, if we don’t rage about how one group (pick one) obviously wronged the other, what’s left to say?

After all, ‘what the license regime used to be’ type discussions are somewhat philosophical at this point, as Blackwater is already back at work and this is entirely a political issue now.

The political jockeying is clear to anyone who keeps an eye on Mess’opotamia: Minister al-Maliki is trying to keep the unwashed masses happy and keep cleric al-Sadr in check, the cleric wants everyone but him out or dead, President Bush wants them both to shut up and toe the line, etc.

But below the surface there is even more political intrigue and agenda—which is why we said before that this whole controversy really has little to do with the stinking license.

And that intrigue and agenda is our topic. Because it will have a great impact not only on the entire industry, but on the entire U.S. "thing" in Iraq. (War, occupation, mission, presence, effort—whatever implication-laden term you choose.)

Bad Blood

So who’s been the primary mover on the anti-PSC rhetoric coming out of Iraq? The Iraqi Ministry of Interior.

We’ve probably watched one too many bad made-for-TV detective movies, but we couldn’t help but wonder, "What’s their motive for this?"

With regard to Blackwater specifically, the most obvious answer is that Blackwater contractors / mercenaries have killed more than a couple of MoI personnel over the past few months. Let’s take a quick look (remembering that we don’t have all the facts on any of these incidents):

Certainly the most advertised and also, by appearances, the most clear cut: the Christmas Eve shooting, which The Rabbit used as a multi-part case study of contractor accountability issues. This involved an off-duty guy who got drunk at a bar run by government-civilians and then shot an MoI security guard. The shooter reportedly claims self-defense, but it would be good to see Justice/FBI get off the dime and do something with this case. We can’t find it so we would like to know: Has anyone asked them about it at a press conference or Congressional hearing?

Then in May of 2007, Blackwater forces on a motorcade ended up shooting an Iraqi driver (and reputed MoI employee) right outside the Ministry HQ. Reports from the scene range from ‘the driver did nothing wrong’ to the Blackwater guards "tried to wave off the vehicle, shouted, fired a warning shot into the radiator, then shot into the windshield when the driver refused to pull back … such steps are recommended under the rules for the use of force."

Add to that the fact that Iraqi Police (part of the MoI) and/or insurgents / freedom fighters posing as Iraqi Police have either exchanged fire with or fired upon PSCs—and Blackwater motorcades specifically—on numerous occasions, and you have a lot of ticked off folks inside the Ministry.

In short, when the opportunity to shiiv Blackwater came along, justified or not, the MoI was only too glad to get in as many blows as possible.

But this is the Middle East, and there is more to it than just bad blood.

Baksheesh

The fact is, the Ministry apparently is as corrupt and rotten through and through in fact as the U.S. government is in the hyperbole of pundits and partizans.

Here’s what was being reported (via NPR among other places) several weeks before the Nisour Square incident:

State Department investigators in Iraq have concluded that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anti-corruption laws. The investigators also say that corrupt civil servants with connections to the government are seen as untouchable, and that employees of Iraq’s watchdog Commission on Public Integrity have been murdered in the line of duty.

…

If you believe the report, and you listen to people who work at these ministries, you get the impression that corruption is completely sapping the country’s resources. I had a long talk this afternoon with someone who works at the Ministry of Interior—that’s the department that supervises all of Iraq’s police forces. And he told me that it’s corrupt from top to bottom—that officials at the top of the pile are making money from things like contracts to buy equipment.

NPR was far from alone in advancing this story, however. For example, The Nation ran "Corruption is ‘Norm’ Within Iraqi Government," which had this to say:

[The report] also maintins that the extensive corruption within the Iraqi government has strategic consequences by decreasing public support for the U.S.-backed government and by providing a source of funding for Iraqi insurgents and militias.

…

The Ministry of the Interior, which has been a strong hold of Shia militias, stands out in the report. The study’s authors say that "groups within MOI function similarly to a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) in the classic sense. MOI is a ‘legal enterprise’ which has been co-opted by organized criminals who act through the ‘legal enterprise’ to commit crimes such as kidnapping, extortion, bribery, etc." This is like saying the mob is running the police department. The report notes, "currently 426 investigations are hung up awaiting responses for documents belonging to MOI which routinely are ignored." It cites an episode during which a CPI officer discovered two eyewitnesses to the October 2006 murder of Amer al-Hashima, the brother of the vice president, but the CPI investigator would not identify the eyewitnesses to the Minister of the Interior out of fear he and they would be assassinated. (It seemed that the killers were linked to the Interior Ministry.) The report adds, "CPI investigators assigned to MOI investigations have unanimously expressed their fear of being assassinated should they aggressively pursue their duties at MOI. Thus when the head of MOI intelligence recently personally visited the Commissioner of CPI…to end investigations of [an] MOI contract, there was a clear sense of concern within the agency."

Gee, that doesn’t sound good.

But so what? What does utter corruption in the MoI have to do with the Blackwater incident, or the operation of other PSCs in Iraq?

Well,

Private security contractors in Iraq say most expatriate companies in the country operate without licenses because corrupt government officials who issue them demand bribes of up to $1 million.

"A couple of companies tried to get licenses, but no one has licenses because the bribes they were asking were too big, up to $1 million," said a member of the elite Blackwater USA security company, which has been ordered by Iraqi authorities to halt its operations.

So, now that the wellspring of $100 bill footballs has dried up, what’s a corrupt Iraqi official to do? Lean on someone for some graft? They won’t pay? Lean a little harder, like the May 2007 MoI protests about Blackwater. Still no baksheesh? Time to break some kneecaps.

And then, of course, there is the purported MoI involvement in illicit detention centers, torture chambers and death squads.

All these things have been regularly trotted out as evidence of just how abysmally U.S. policy in Iraq has failed. The Rabbit takes no position here on whether that is or is not the case. BUT, it is quite remarkable that this same thoroughly corrupt, rotten and evil MoI that is the scourge of all that is good in the world is suddenly quite reputable, fair and ethical when they begin to disparage PSCs and denounce "mercenary crimes." Then, it’s nothing but sunshine and puppy dogs.

Interesting, that, isn’t it?

Conclusion

Again, we hope that the joint report will bring us all some sort of hard evidence on exactly what happened. If the contractors / mercenaries failed to follow their Rules for Use of Force, then they certainly should be sent to a fair trial with due process safeguards.

There is, however, significant cause to be very careful in considering information coming out of the MoI about PSCs in Iraq. To put it mildly.

The MoI, however, is not the only major faction in Iraq having a big ax to grind with Blackwater. Next week we’ll begin discussing one of the most viewed and least understood events from the Iraq Experience.

---------------

What people are saying about The Rabbit:

"The White Rabbit? There is no such thing. Never happened. When do I get the coke and hookers?" – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, overheard backstage at Arledge Auditorium

In Nisour Square (Updated!) (Again)

2007-09-20T21:34:00.000-07:00

We’d planned to take a look at a couple non-obvious reasons why this Blackwater incident has exploded so violently onto the world stage.

However, we stumbled across some interesting images. Looking through them, it struck us that, at least in the U.S., most people are not seeing that much about the incident. Sure, there is a long ton of stock PSC footage, talking heads, and politicos speaking.

Oh, and authors and competitors. (Isn’t that like asking Home Depot for an evaluation of Lowes? What the heck to you expect them to say?!?)

But not much in terms of images about the incident itself.

So, we shelved our second-rate analysis, and we’ll just post some pictures and video you might not have seen.

First up, we’ll go to the scene of the incident itself. This is interesting, but since it’s not as good for selling commercials as is hospital or irate politician footage, you probably haven’t seen it:

Interesting, but not compelling (Apparently the blood on the driver's seat is too graphic for U.S. networks ... how will there ever be meaningful coverage?)

It would be nice if there was some actual footage of the Blackwater motorcade. Say, for example, if they were at a walled compound operated by a company called Sallyport, and Sallyport had some surveillance cameras running, and Sallyport decided to pass those videos around Baghdad.

That might be helpful.

Again, interesting, but it's not like they capture the shooting. So what else is there to see about the incident?

By now, most everyone has seen the aforementioned hospital footage, and whether those people were shot by insurgents, Blackwater, Iraqi police, or Iraqi military—some or all of whom are firing in the various accounts of the incident—we hope they all recover fully.

BTW, the “no-one-else-was-shooting” thing ought to be pretty simple to resolve: Either that broken down vehicle was full of bullet holes when it got back to the Green Zone or it was not. Hopefully that will be in the joint report.

Something else not seen very often on network television is what an IED does. Sure, you read about ‘em all the time. But that doesn’t really convey too much. Let’s take a look at what an IED does to an armored vehicle. (Nevermind a crowded marketplace.)

Ouch.

Until the joint report comes out—if then—we really won’t know what happened. But, regardless of the firing sequence, everyone seems to agree on two points. First, there was an IED detonated shortly before the event. Second, the car that was shot up ignored the command of an Iraqi police officer, pulled onto the wrong side of the road, and drove at the motorcade. (Albeit with controversy over whether “speeding” or not.)

Sallyport also put out another piece of video.

With the IED live on screen.

Since everyone is second-guessing the U.S. guys anyway, ask yourself this: If you knew the results of IEDs, you’d just seen this explosion, and that car came at you despite the warning signs, sound bombs, etc. … What would you do?

Oh, and the Sallyport incident report says four of the civilians were killed in the blast, and five were injured.

None of this changes the tragedy of the incident, but it is interesting that we’re not reading about it too much, huh?

H/T: “Gunny” R. Keep your head down, bro.

Update:

Hey, he stole his analysis from The Rabbit!!!

Just kidding. We realize David Isenberg is a known expert on defense and security issues. But as we read through what we consider to be one of the least rank-speculative and most factual and helpful pieces yet on the issues surrounding the recent Blackwater incident, we couldn’t help note that this sounds an awful lot like the stuff we have been posting for the past few months. It is by no means the best or only view one can hold on these issues, but it is insightful. Makes us dumb bunnies seem not so alone deep in the outfield.

Again:

CNN is reporting that the Iraqi investigators have a videotape of the incident. As press-shy and extremely reticent as the MoI has been in saying anything whatsoever about the investigation so far (yeah, right), it is, let's say, curious that we've not already seen the tape. But we'll look forward to posting it.

Mike at the excellently named Monkey Tennis Center sent us this link, which made an interesting point about how we frequently hear (a) about how Blackwater men and women are untrained hacks, despite the fact that (b) Blackwater possesses the world's largest private military training base, etc.

Also, filed under ever-heard-of-research, Mr. "Investigative" Reporter, we have the latest media frenzy about firearms smuggled into Iraq for sale to terrorist groups. The full story, if you haven't seen it in one of the 2,000+ outlets that obligingly published it without question, is here. Real spy-novel stuff, and ironclad proof that Blackwater has absolutely no regard for law. Except, of course, for one little thing.

It was total-disregard-for-the-law-and-utterly-unaccountable Blackwater that called the ATF.

Two Blackwater workers fired in firearms inquiry

By Joanne Kimberlin

THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (August 23, 2005)

Two employees of Blackwater USA have been terminated "for misappropriating firearms" from the company's training compound near Moyock, N.C., according to a company spokeswoman .

Blackwater's Anne Duke would provide no details of the firings, except to say they were linked to an investigation being conducted by North Carolina's office of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"We are cooperating with the ATF," Duke said.

Earl Woodham, a spokesman at the ATF's Charlotte office, said Blackwater initiated the investigation.

"It's an internal issue that was brought to our attention by the management at Blackwater," Woodham said. "We did not raid the place, we served no search warrants, and we made no arrests. They asked us for help."

Woodham said he can't provide any more information about the on going case . He did say the terminated employees could face state and federal charges.

Not that this should get in the way of a hot story or a politician's press statement. We all "know" that PSCs have no regard for the law.

The truly ironic part is that export law is how ALL of the PSCs and most of the contractors in Iraq are going to get themselves in trouble if the government ever gets serious about supervision (a great future post), but if there's one thing none of these companies need to smuggle into Iraq it is firearms.

The Rabbit will be going back to our regular format of in-depth issue discussion shortly, because this is all bordering on the theater of the absurd.

Worth Reading

2007-09-19T16:58:00.000-07:00

For our regularly scheduled post on The Pinkerton Act (Part 2), click here.

The Rabbit is really not too big on re-posting articles or blogs. But given the staggering amount of hot air on the instant controversy, we thought the article below was worth calling attention to. We'll have another original Rabbit post shortly.

-----------------------------------------

Shut Down In Iraq

Movements of key CIA station personnel in Baghdad—along with most State department diplomats and teams building police stations and schools—have been frozen for the second day in a row, according to a State department source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Essentially, the CIA, State department and government contractors are stuck inside the International Zone, also known as “the Green Zone,” in Central Baghdad. Even travel inside that walled enclave is somewhat restricted.

Pajamas Media is the first to report that the CIA station is all but motionless—as meetings with informants and Iraqi government officials have been hastily cancelled.

What caused the shut down? Following a firefight between Iraqi insurgents and a Blackwater USA protection detail on Sunday (12:08 PM Baghdad time), Iraqi officials suspended the operating license of the North Carolina-based government contractor. While the Iraqi government is yet to hold a formal hearing on the matter, Blackwater and all it protects remain frozen.

“By jamming up Blackwater, they shut down the movements of the embassy and the [CIA] station,” a State department source told Pajamas Media. He is not cleared to talk to the press.

Blackwater provides Personnel Security Details—or PSDs—for most CIA, State department, and U.S. Agency of International Development officers. In addition, Blackwater’s special-forces veterans guard many of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams—or PRTs—that build schools, clinics, police and fire stations and other structures that house essential Iraqi government services. Work on these vital “hearts and minds” projects has all but stopped across Iraq.

Read the rest here.

For our prior comments on the license controversy, click here.

Blackwater License (Now With 30% More Update!)

2007-09-17T11:58:00.000-07:00

For our regularly scheduled post on The Pinkerton Act (Part 2), click here.

BREAKING NEWS ALERT

Whoa, boy! Just a little Blackwater traffic this morning. The Google Alerts just about crashed our e-mail inbox. In fact, the lookeloos appear to actually have crashed the Blackwater website.

We don’t really follow the crowd, so we’re not just going to re-post the story for the 5,000th time. But we do have a domain name to uphold, so instead, let’s try some observations we aren’t seeing too much:

It started with an IED blast and small arms ambush on the State motorcade in the middle of an urban neighborhood. And the PSC guys are the ones running amok?
“Eight civilians dead and thirteen civilians wounded,” no mention whatsoever of even one dead insurgent, er, ‘freedom fighter.’ Let’s get this straight: six truckloads of former special ops guys and they didn’t even wing one attacker? How gullible are we?
You know how long it takes a dead insurgent to become a dead civilian? About as long as it takes a bystander to pick-up an unattended AK-47 for a quick $200 USD later that day in an arms souk sale.
Has everyone forgotten the stories earlier this year about how MoI licensure has been a soup sandwich and many companies, including Blackwater, were operating (reportedly) without licenses? So now they really no-kidding have no license. How do things change?
There's the additional wrinkle of the Department of State as the customer. In terms of how this will ultimately affect Blackwater, you are halfway there in asking whether MoI licensure affects operation of a diplomatic post at all (Sharon Weinberger appears to be the only other person asking this. Good question. Still waiting on another puke-ray story, though.) Do you think that professionals, including armed guards, attached to the Iraqi, or any other, embassy in D.C. are subject to our licensing requirements? Not so much.

Embassy Security For Dummies

OK, this is put together on the fly, in about five minutes of internet research, but it is apparently necessary because the idea that there might be security personnel as part of a diplomatic mission and host nation security personnel as well is apparently quite a complex one. At least we make some effort to document our assertions of fact.

Yes, the U.S. Secret Service does provide some security, stationed outside embassies, for our foreign guests. Just like other nations provide external security for

U.S.

missions overseas.

But the diplomatic mission itself has its own inherent security force. (Some, e.g., Jamaica, probably not so much, mon. But a G8--you bet.) Whether those individuals are hired as employees or are provided to the embassy by a private security company, when the individuals are providing security services to the diplomatic mission, be it on embassy grounds or in embassy vehicles, our understanding is that the professional licensure requirements of the locality do not apply. Specifically, those places are islands of sovereign territory of the foreign power, and the applicability of licensure is at best quite unclear. If someone can document that it is otherwise, we'd genuinely be glad to know that. But we’ll put money that the answer is no.

And to put a point on it: Nobody's claiming that traveling through the Mansour district is like rolling Anacostia after dark. (Even if it sometimes seems close.) We're just saying that there is far more to this than: "Who has a license?" 'Course we're just dumb bunnies who don't bother to research facts before we speak.

In terms of the ultimate effect on this specific company (i.e., the "Blackwater is going out of business!!!" riff), a better question than the diplomatic issue question is: What has Blackwater been doing while attention was myopically focused on Iraq? Washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/31393-1.html. Wag the dog, indeed.
IF Blackwater followed the U.S. government-issued Rules for Use of Force (and that is really the $800 million dollar question of the day--one to which we won't know the answer until DoS/MoI complete their investigation), then this is actually a dispute between the MoI and DoS over RUF. Because plugging in DynCorp or Triple Canopy won't change anything. So it will be interesting to see whether the two bureaucracies get together and throw Blackwater under the bus. Pinkertons, anyone?
It's been fascinating to see how the hundreds of articles and blogs sort this out. We presume you can sort through the hyperbole and venom on your own. Thankfully the more thoughtful and insightful folks are starting to chime in. For example, here is one very interesting item (although they couldn't resist using the NOPD SWAT photo) that may be the best we've seen.
We had vain hopes that this might actually spark some thoughtful, fact-based public policy debates about PSCs. As of now, this story has failed to blast O.J. off any of the cable news networks. (To be fair, it hasn't been all O.J.--Fox had a long segment on Paris Hilton.)
There hasn't been an investigation, let alone a trial, yet the PSC is already convicted--good insight on this point from Peter Singer: "If [Maliki] is already describing this as a crime . . . we have a very interesting bridge to cross. Do we turn over American citizens to an Iraqi judicial system that is inept, corrupt and now politicized?"
The Pilot is running a story about how security details work--somewhat interesting mainly because it's not just a re-hash of the same AP line running everywhere.
AT LAST! Actual "hard" news on the subject--CNN has the Department of State initial incident report from that afternoon.
We found this piece from the Village Voice interesting. What, you didn't hear about the investigations being launched into all those other deaths the same day? Or the thousands of others. Hmm, imagine that.
Now that chief U.S. cheerleader Moqtada Al-Sadr has weighed in against the infidel Blackwater (Our fave: “Most of (Blackwater’s) members are criminals and those who have left American jails.”), it seems like the most likely, and least surprising, answer regarding what truly underlies this whole controversy is a potent mix of an internal Iraqi political powerplay and a tentative flexing of political muscle against the U.S. ‘supervision’ of the nation. And given the prominent nature of private actors to date in this saga, it is only fitting that one should play such a key role here as well.

Just some observations. No one really knows enough about the facts of that day to reach any meaningful conclusions—at least ones that aren’t firmly rooted in speculation. Not that it’ll stop the tidal wave. After all, this is one sexy (and salacious) story. As for us, we'll wait for the inevitable Congressional hearing circus. We thought they'd at least wait a day or two to call for the hearings. Guess this one's a big vote getter.

The Pinkerton Act (Part 2)

2007-09-17T03:17:00.000-07:00

Editor’s Note: Now that Comments are up and running, we’re getting to know some of our more interesting readers. We’ve included a few of them this week, so you can too!

Chapter 19 – The Lion and the Unicorn

Last week, we looked at Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency, their role in the Homestead Strike, and the resulting “Anti-Pinkerton Act.” This time, we look at how the Pinkerton Act disrupted Iraq contracting—and whether it may again.

Oh, and we also have news about a PSC helicopter being shot down.

First, though, let’s finish the review of Mr. Scott’s Pinkerton protests.

The Appropriations Shuffle—Again?

Just like changes (old and new) in posse comitatus, UCMJ authority, and PSC training and engagement authority, the Pinkerton Act originally came to us as a provision in an appropriations bill. Specifically a “sundry civil appropriation bill for 1892.”

That 1892 provision, however, was only a temporary one. So Congress made it permanent—by jamming it into the sundry civil appropriations bill for 1894.

For those who don’t get the significance of this practice, it is that—as the Senate expressly acknowledged with regard to the Pinkerton Act—the legislation is enacted with little if any discussion, objection or debate.

Nonetheless, the Act became law of the land. As we saw last time, the Act is set out in the federal code as follows: “An individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.”

We Means What We Says

What is interesting, though, is what the Act does not say. For example, it could have read ‘no hiring of armed guards,’ ‘no hiring of military-like forces,’ or even “no mercenaries.” Guess they weren’t thinking about our convenience in blogging about PSC issues. Bummer.

Instead, the Act set out “a broad proscription against employment of a class. Rather than specifically defining the class, it used one example by which others falling in the class could be identified.”

Man, would that approach lead to trouble.

Congress promptly forgot about the statute, and it was ignored by the courts for over eighty years. The Comptroller General and the Comptroller of the Treasury, however, got busy, issuing “numerous decisions” interpreting the Pinkerton Act.

Their take was that the Act precluded government use of detective agencies, regardless of the services performed.

In other words, the twin titans of comptrolling looked at the (then) present-day Pinkertons structure and services, not the 1892 Pinkertons. They repeatedly ruled that the Act prohibited hiring detective companies for any reason, but use of a protective services (i.e., rent-a-cop) company that did not provide detective services was A-OK.

Just Repeal That Sucka

By 1963, someone in D.C. had noticed the inanity of such an interpretation, and the Senate gave us a bill called S.1543, which would have repealed the Pinkerton Act entirely.

Since the bill never made it into law, it doesn’t add much to our discussion. But the accompanying Senate Report on the Pinkerton Act itself is illuminating.

Specifically, it asserts the Act has two effects. First, it discriminates against organizations that provide both types (detective and guard) of services, in favor of those providing only guard services. Second, the Act “is detrimental to the interest of the Government since it serves to eliminate from competitive bidding” companies that would otherwise bid on guard services work.

More importantly, the Report is the Senate itself telling us its understanding of the purpose of the Act. Namely reducing the use of “armed guards who were allegedly used as strikebreakers and labor spies, giving rise to acts of violence.”

That First Big Case

Every statute needs its first big legal test, and why not have it be kicked off by a colorful character?

Guy by the name of David P. Weinberger graduates University of Miami law school in 1974. Although the state bar would be recommending his suspension within a few years, he had it good for a while.

After Mr. Weinberger tried to get into the Civil Service, he noticed that, as part of its contract to do background checks on potential government employees, Equifax did some investigative work. So just a year or two out of law school, he takes on Equifax, claiming they were illegally providing detective services to the government. And so he should get 15 to 30 percent. Plus attorney fees.

The court looked at Equifax and asked whether it was a “similar organization” with regard to the 1892 Pinkertons. The interesting thing is that the court didn’t really focus on whether Equifax provided armed watchmen /guards like the old Pinks.

Instead, they cooked up the idea of a “quasi-military” test. The court said the question was whether a company “offered for hire mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards.”

Whoa. Now we see why Mr. Scott could reasonably say the Pinkerton Act means no government-employed PSCs. Of course, the Weinberger case doesn’t solve everything:

First, the clerk for that court apparently cherry-picked the term “quasi-military” out of the legislative history without reading the whole section. In context, the full statement (from the ranking member of the conference committee) was that a general “quasi-military” ban was too broad. Instead, a narrowly tailored rule was needed, and multiple exceptions were expressly envisioned. (See here, page 4).
Second, we’re not the sharpest tools in the shed, but when it comes to Mesopotamia, where’s the labor dispute/strikebreaking element?
Good or bad, this is pretty much judge-made law. (Ever notice how, for most people, whether that is fantastic or an abomination usually depends on the particular issue and the specific judge?) In the same vein is the idea that any court which doesn’t “work under” this court will find Weinberger interesting, but not dispositive.

A Litigation Avalanche

After Weinberger, the floodgates were opened for a wave of Pinkerton Act litiga … no, wait. Actually there was not another single stinkin’ Anti-Pinkerton suit until Mr. Scott came along.

There were a few cases that mentioned the Pinkerton Act, in passing, in completely unrelated contexts (e.g., Medicare kickbacks), but in terms of meaningful analysis of the Pinkerton Act, zip, zilch, nada.

Mr. Scott Doth Protest

Mr. Scott launched his Pinkerton protest career in early 2006, while still a government procurement analyst. The GAO quickly dispatched his protest because federal employees can’t bid on federal contracts. Fortunately for us all, however, the Army provides helpful tips on how to better bog down its contracts in disputes, and it gave Mr. Scott some pointers on how to maintain his next protest (see “Lesson Learned” on page 6).

Fresh out of his government contracting career, Brian Scott launched another round with the GAO. He “posed as a contractor” and filed bids on two Iraq contracts. “I have no intention of carrying out a contract,” he said. “To protest, I needed to be seeking a contract.”

This time, the GAO actually got to the merits of his protest. Fortunately for our protagonist, the GAO had adopted the ‘mercenary, quasi-military forces’ language for Pinkerton issues shortly after Weinberger. Unfortunately, the same policy letter “clearly identified services that are not prohibited by the Act, namely ‘guard or protective services … even if the individual guards are armed.’”

So the GAO determined that the Act precludes hiring companies that offer “quasi-military forces as strikebreakers” but does not prohibit hiring armed security guards. (A fact no doubt appreciated by the 10,000 contract guards working for the Federal Protective Service.)

Third Time … Still No Charm

In January, 2007, the U.S. Army issued a contract solicitation for operation of its Reconstruction Operations Centers in Iraq. British PSC giant Aegis Defense Services had held this contract, worth $293 million, since 2004, and they were the leading contender to capture the $475 million re-issue, although Erinys and Blackwater had also submitted bids.

This time, Mr. Scott didn’t even bother with a bid, he just submitted his usual Pinkerton protest. And the GAO responded with its usual rejection.

So Scott trotted off to the Court of Federal Claims and filed a lawsuit to get an injunction against award of the contract. And, since the court would require that any challenger be a bona fide contractor, suddenly Mr. I-have-no-intention-of-carrying-out-a-contract is certifying to the court that he’s “a contractor capable of carrying out a contract provision that calls for running an operations center.” Curious, that.

While it sorted the matter out, the Court issued a temporary stay on award of the contract, which led to the brief anti-Iraq euphoria we noted last time.

If we haven’t already put you to sleep, you can read through the whole opinion (linked above) and it should do the job.

The bottom line is that the court ruled that Mr. Scott was not a serious bidder (he didn’t have the resources to have a snowball’s chance in Iraq of performing this contract) and, even if he did get the resources, he failed to bid. This left him with no legally recognizable harm. Basically, courts normally won’t hear cases from people who, as our janitor Olaf puts it, “Don’t have a dog in the fight.” (Insert your own Michael Vick comment here).

Thus, the suit was dismissed on August 23, 2007, and so far there has been no appeal.

Where From Here?

Whether you view the issue of Pinkerton Act applicability to federal PSC contracting to be closed or not probably has a pretty close correlation with whether or not you stridently oppose the very existence of PSCs.

Those who support the use of armed contractors are likely to believe that the Pinkerton Act is all about armed guards as strikebreakers during labor disputes. Most of those who consider PSCs to be bloodthirsty mercenaries are probably going to argue that the Pinkerton Act says no mercenary quasi-military forces can legally be hired.

Much like the Army “Lessons Learned” on how to better file protests, the Court to some extent provides a roadmap for the next suit. The prospective plaintiff will need to have the resources to actually perform the contract in question, and they will have to actually submit a bid (and lose).

Although PSC haters aren’t likely to acknowledge it, a staggering amount of expertise and organizational muscle is required to be anything but a sham bidder on mega-million dollar security contracts. So, unless a PSC sues to claim that the Pinkerton Act prevents award of the contract it lost, we may never see a qualified-bidder plaintiff.

And whoever it is, Don Quixo, er, Brian Scott will definitely have handed off his lance to someone else, because he “refuse[s] to bid on contracts for mercenary services.”

Of course, even if our new plaintiff wins, it won’t mean the end of PSCs. The structure of the Pinkerton Act means that it only applies to prime contractors, not subcontractors.

Get to the Helicopter Part Already

For as much anticipation, uproar, and hyperbole as there has been over the long-awaited September report to Congress about Iraq, in its wake we were left wondering if anyone actually listened to the testimony, or if they just waited until it was over so they could start spouting their pre-written soundbites.

We listened to the testimony. Here was one among many interesting exchanges:

AMB. CROCKER: The reality is, for example, on the security function, much of our security—most of our security is provided by contractors. It is overseen by diplomatic security officers—Foreign Service officers, but there is simply no way at all that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts.

And I would have to say that the capability and courage of the individuals who provide security under contract is worthy of respect of all Americans. One of Blackwater’s helicopters went down yesterday—a hostile fire incident. Fortunately no one was killed in that accident, but over 30 of our contract security Americans have been killed keeping the rest of us safe. So it is something that we've got to do because we don't have enough people in the State Department to do this, but I think it's being done very well.

SEN. MCCASKILL: Well, I think privatization is the future. I just think we need to work harder at getting it right. And I don't question that they're very brave and courageous people. I think most of them are former United States military. They learned at the right place. So I appreciate that, but I do think we have got a long way to go in terms of the accountability piece on the privatization issue.

Iraq helicopter downings were the sexy story of the minute for the first quarter, but since this didn’t even cause a blip, apparently the herd is chasing something else now. Maybe Britney’s in rehab again.

The real reason we bring this up, though, is the latter part of Senator McCaskill’s statement. We may just refer to it again, because The Rabbit agrees with it absolutely.

Just not in the way she meant it.

But that will have to wait until after we’ve done a series on government contracting. (Yawn.)

---------------

Next time: New Blackwater video.

What people are saying about The Rabbit:

“The White Rabbit? Oh, I just wuv bunnies!! ELLIOT!! Get me a rabbit. NOW.” – Paris Hilton, if only we could have reached her, would have said. Damn that restraining order.

The Pinkerton Act (Part 1)

2007-09-13T07:34:00.000-07:00

Chapter 18 – Humpty Dumpty

Our editor-in-chief, one Thaddeus Z. “Angus” McCreavy, has recuperated enough to once again begin issuing edicts. The latest:

“Enough with this tomfoolery! These is serious fake journalism, and I didn’t pay for you pack of vo-tech dropouts to get all educated at that Learning Annex class just to ramble on about dingbat conspiracies and has-beens in banana-hammocks! You clowns find a real topic and find it now, dagnabbit!!”

Thus, we have had to temporarily shelve our plans for an in-depth expose on drunken perverts watching lesbian mud-wrestling, in favor of something more substantive. We’ll keep diligently researching that future post, and meanwhile you look at The Pinkerton Act.

The Litigant

Meet Brian X. Scott. Army veteran of nearly 13 years, albeit drummed out for corresponding with the Soviet government during the height of the cold war. Former government civil-service bureaucrat, having worked as a procurement analyst with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Apparently semi-retired on a government pension now, Mr. Scott ran as a write-in anti-war Congressional candidate in 2006, reportedly promising U.S. taxdollar payments (intentional ones, that is) to Iraqi insurgents a/k/a freedom fighters. Perhaps that last plank had something to do with his garnering a total of 12 votes.

Oh, and Mr. Scott likes to sue the government.

Specifically, he files complaints, protests, and lawsuits arguing that a hoary old statute commonly called The Pinkerton Act outlaws government use of private security contractors or, as he knows them, mercenaries.

There was quite a bit of hoopla earlier this summer about the idea of Mr. Scott and his lawsuits shutting down the whole Iraq effort, but we’ve not heard much new about it lately.

So let’s explore the story of this Pinkerton Act thing, and then we’ll see how Mr. Scott is faring in his campaign.

[For the record, while we don’t see eye-to-eye with Mr. Scott on everything, this is a really interesting argument and he deserves kudos for seeking to hold the government to the law—at least for the first few attempts.]

The Spymaster

About 1850, ace Chicago police detective Allan Pinkerton put together a group of civilian security guards and detectives under the name Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency.

The Pinkertons used cutting-edge criminal science techniques, including some of their own invention, such as tailing a suspect and undercover work, in order to solve a series of high-profile train robberies. Along the way, Pinkerton worked for a railroad president named George McLellan and for his attorney, Mr. Lincoln, as well.

When the Civil War came, Pinkerton’s men were hired to guard that same lawyer, who was now called Mr. President rather than Esquire. There was probably ugly press about corruption and the insider connections that Halibur, er, the Pinkertons had, but in retrospect, their hire just might have had something to do with their exceptional track record—and the fact that they’d already foiled one assassination plot on then President-elect Lincoln, gratis.

Pinkerton and his men went on to guard the President for much of the war, to form the spy/counterspy Union Intelligence Service—better known nowadays as the Secret Service—and to chase Jesse James, the Youngers, Butch Cassidy, Sundance and others. These were high times for the Pinkertons, and some of their real-life stories (e.g., the Farrington capture) are more compelling than many recent action flicks.

The Strike

The Pinkerton’s episode of interest to us, though, is the one that made headlines around the world: the Homestead Strike.

It was June 29, 1892. The nation’s largest steelmaker and its largest craft (vice labor) union had been in contract negotiations for some time over the Homestead, Pennsylvania steel works, and it was not going well.

Negotiations broke down, probably intentionally. Carnegie Steel put up a three-mile long, 12-foot high stockade fence around the works and locked the unionists out. The workers responded by seizing the mill, running out the sheriff’s department, and sealing off the town.

Carnegie manager Henry Frick determined to re-open the plant using non-union workers / strikebreakers / scabs (choose your flavor of hyperbole). When the workers and the company had gone through this drill three years prior, the strikers drove off the sheriff and 150 of his men, so Frick sent in via barge 300 armed Pinkerton guards tasked with securing the mill.

The Battle

When the Pinkertons, in the company of deputy sheriff Joseph Gray, pulled up to the steelworks the morning of July 6th, they faced somewhere between five and ten thousand people on both riverbanks. As they came ashore, they were met with a hail of stones. Someone started shooting—ever notice how it is always the “other side” (see here vs. here)—and the battle was on.

For twelve hours, the opposing groups exchanged fire, with the Pinkertons initially holding the upper hand with their superior weapons (.45-70 Winchester repeaters) but stuck inside the now-grounded barges. The mob, however, was scrounging up more and more weapons—everything from muskets to a 20-pounder cannon.

Who doesn’t have a neighbor with a cannon laying around out back in the shed?

The strikers were also murderously creative. They launched a burning raft at the barge, a speeding railcar full of burning oil, a flaming oil slick, a natural gas explosion, and numerous dynamite blasts, but to their frustration failed to kill many Pinkertons.

Meanwhile, the county sheriff repeatedly wired the governor for help and was basically told: ‘Hey, good luck with that, Ace.’ (One cable read: “Local authorities must exhaust every means at their command for the preservation of peace.”).

In the end it was a bit of a stalemate, as the crowd couldn’t take the armed barge, but the Pinkertons were low on drinking water and more or less trapped inside their roasting-hot barge.

The Aftermath

One PBS special described the eventual surrender this way:

Four times the Pinkertons raised a white flag. Four times it was shot down by one of the three hundred sharpshooters positioned [nearby]. At 5 PM the workers finally accepted the Pinkertons’ surrender. Three workers and seven Pinkertons were dead.

The disarmed prisoners were marched up the hill, and soon the crowd was happily beating them, stoning them, clubbing them, some were shot, and one had an eye gouged out with an umbrella. The Nation (yes, The Nation) described the whole incident thusly: “The conduct of the Homestead workmen was utterly unjustifiable legally, and atrocious morally.”

On July 11th, the Governor finally ordered the state militia to Homestead—and 8,500 troops took over the steelworks. The dispute ground on for months. New workers/scabs were brought in, dynamite re-appeared, more gunbattles erupted between white unionists and black replacements, and an anarchist attempted to murder Frick.

[Even a century-plus later there is still difference of opinion over this incident, but the above appears to be the majority consensus. If you don’t like our Homestead for Dummies, a more thorough explanation is available here.]

The Statute

The conventional wisdom is that the media furor over the Homestead incident soon led to Congressional investigations [one 249-page report is here] into preventing employers’ reliance on Pinkertons in resolving labor disputes.

This is an interesting result, since Homestead seems in large part (1) a failure of local/state law enforcement, and (2) a case of the Pinkertons getting their ass handed to them.

But, the fact is that the investigations were already underway when Homestead catapulted the issue to the front page. (E.g., note the date of the resolution requiring the House Report linked above—May 12, 1892, weeks prior to Homestead.)

You see, Pinkertons had previously helped factory owners in 70-odd strikes and Congress was apparently tired of the increasingly violent confrontations between the labor movement and factory owners.

The pols didn’t want to give up the support of either big labor or industry, so who did that leave without a seat when the music stopped? Who gets thrown under the bus? Look out, Pinkertons!

[This is not to say Pinkerton men were good or bad, but rather that the political machinations are instructive. And timeless.]

In any event, if you read through the House Report linked above, as well as House Report No. 2447, 52nd Congress, Second Session (1893) and Senate Report No. 1280 from the same Session, you see that Congress was not generally opposed to the Pinkerton’s detective business, or even their work as a private watch force in general. Rather, their apparent desire was an absolute ban on the bringing of Pinkerton guards in from out of state to intervene in labor strikes.

We are not concerned with their employment as private watchmen for residences and banks, or in their employment for the detection of ordinary crimes. It is only so far as that force is used in bodies in strikes, and in the prevention of strikes that we are concerned.

In 1893, however, our friends in D.C. had not yet discovered the unlimited miracle power of the interstate commerce clause, and therefore concluded they lacked the authority to enact such a federalism-busting ban.

But, a bear’s gotta eat, a politician’s gotta get re-elected. So Congress, as always, had to have something concrete about which to speechify.

They passed a law that read: “An individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.”

That’s it. The whole thing. Seems somewhat strange to us in an age of signing statements and statutes that require handtrucks to haul off of Capitol Hill, but that’s all that the Pinkerton Act says.

The Epilogue

So why does this one-sentence, 114-year-old statute merit two whole posts in our examination of armed contractor issues?

Whether the allegory appears striking to you or not, there are a number of people who claim that modern private security companies are “similar organizations” and so cannot be hired by the federal government. Mr. Scott included.

In fact, we were surprised how many people—even those who are to some extent great supporters of private action—not only make that comparison generally, but expressly proclaim that our strawman, Blackwater is “The Pinkertons of the 21st Century.”

It’s a slithy little argument, but as we said, it was enough to hold up award of a $475 million dollar contract this summer.

Next time, we’ll get to the meat of this story—how Mr. Scott is faring and whether that trendo ‘Blackwater is Pinkertons’ thing stands up in court.

And, if we have time, we’ll take a look at a little-seen piece of Blackwater video we found gathering dust in a random corner of the ‘net.

For part 2, click here.

-----------------

The Postscript: Come’on, MountainRunner, how trifling and tawdry do you think we are? You expect us to shamelessly pander ourselves out just for another reader or two?

Just to check, though, since the soft-core art porn thing has already been done, would pleather and fake boobs be sufficient? Just speaking theoretically, of course.

What people are saying about The Rabbit:

“Boldly takes on issues that are hotter than a $2 flintlock, exposing more interesting terrain than Betsy Ross in a homemade bikini. I read Ye Whitte Rabbit daily. Well, I would if I weren’t dead.” – Benjamin Franklin

Mercenaries Buying Fleet of Star Destroyers

2007-09-13T07:29:00.001-07:00

Chapter 17 – Wool and Water

Time Off For Bad Behavior

Here at The Rabbit, we mostly don’t worry over the hot story of the minute. We tend to focus on longer-term issues in the public policy debate surrounding private security contractors, and we write about them in detail that is probably more painful than a German comedy film festival. In black-and-white. With subtitles.

Don’t get us wrong, Germany has given us great things—beer, BMWs, Claudia Schiffer, beer, rottweilers, beer, and well, beer. But it is also the land of Hitler, sauerfleisch (excuse me, just threw up in my mouth for a moment), and sold-out David Hasselhoff concerts, so let’s not get carried away.

After all, there is still the depressingly real possibility that a whole new generation will be subjected to the horror of Knight Rider: The Movie.

In any event, after last week’s gargantuan hotlink-o-rama about contractor compensation, we’re giving ourselves a break from heavyweight discussion.

Let’s take a look at the issue of the week, because watching the spin and mild hysteria over a potential Blackwater Super Tucano aircraft has really been rather amusing. It’s a microcosm of the whole PSC debate.

A Story Is Born

The story first appeared in Jane’s Defense Weekly, a venerable British defense publication to which you too can subscribe for a mere $1,190.00 plus shipping and handling.

Fortunately for the cheap, the Jane’s reporter in question is the same one who has previously helped out his wife’s blog with a little Blackwater traffic boost. So he lent a hand again, and, walla, we have the Super Tucano story in her blog at wired.com.

In relevant part it says Blackwater “plans to purchase an Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano,” that “the company is in the process of acquiring” it, and that “[t]ransfer of the aircraft to the US is still subject to US government approval.”

OK, so they want to buy one turboprop aircraft if the government will give them a license.

One more time. They would like to buy. They propose to get one. One propeller-driven aircraft. They have yet to obtain U.S. government licensure.

Got it. Interesting story, in a vague, defense-groupie sort of way. And, although her post initially included some “the-end-is-at-hand” remarks, Ms. Weinberger did go back and acknowledge that “there are plenty of examples of private purchase and/or import of fighters” and that “private training on attack aircraft isn’t precedent setting either.”

Don’t believe? Would civilian training on a Saab Draken in SoCal help convince you? Or, heck, just bust out the old charge card and buy your own L-39 jet fighter/trainer today!

End of story, right? Dream on.

Start the Spin Cycle

The first iterations started in military fansites. For example, on the Strategy Page, the report became “Blackwater U.S.A. is buying Super Tucano light combat aircraft ... These five ton, single engine, single seat aircraft are built for pilot training, but also perform quite well for counter-insurgency work.”

License? We don’t need no stinkin’ license.

Then, among others, the All D.C. blog turned the “five ton” into “Blackwater is purchasing five Super Tucano fighter planes from Brazil. The planes can be are [sic] used for fighting and bombing.”

Five ton, five aircraft …more or less the same, eh? And that little “trainer” detail—why let that get in the way of sensationalism and scaremongering?

Not to be outdone, Wonkette screamed “Blackwater is building its own air force of ‘ground attack planes’ and just bought a fleet of ‘Super Tucano light combat aircraft …’”

Now it’s an “air force” and a whole “fleet”??

Meanwhile, flightglobal.com was working to transform the Super T into a Blackwater “light attack jet.”

OK, we can see where this is headed. Let’s just get to the money shots, huh?

Just So … Apocalypse Right Now

Here’s a random example, although there were dozens in the same vein:

Our friends at Blackwater Security are creating their own air force. The company which provides “security solutions” by contract to the United States in Iraq (and is building bases in every coastal state in the US), already has a fleet of armed helicopters which it uses in Iraq. The first of the planes that Blackwater is buying, the Embraer Super Tucano light combat prop jets, will be shipped to the US so that Blackwater may begin training pilots shortly.

OK, it’s one paragraph—how far off can it be?

They have exactly zero of these aircraft, but let’s assume they do get licensed, and then they will have one, stateside. Apparently, in DramaWorld, that is an “air force.”
Building bases in every coastal state? The source for this? Apparently his own bunghole. Dude, lay off the LSD for a week or two, huh? He does goes on to quote Jeremy Scahill mentioning the potential Blackwater California facility and the fact that the company applied for professional licensure “in every coastal state.” That’s about the same as a “base” on every block, eh? And let’s get this straight. Out of one side of your mouth it’s the ‘completely unaccountable, utter contempt for the law’ tagline, but meanwhile, out of the other side, their compliance with licensure requirements is evidence only of wicked evil scheming?
A “fleet of armed helicopters?” We guess if you call two “Ass Monkeys” hanging out the back with a gun, even a machine gun, an “armed helicopter” you’ve got ‘em dead to rights there. And we thought an armed helo was, say, an Apache (Hellfire missiles, several dozen 2.75” rockets, and a 30mm chain gun). Silly us.
“Light combat prop jet?” Now he’s not even making sense. What the hel ... what the heck is a ‘prop jet’?

From there, it’s onward to martial law, “citizen unrest,” fake terror attacks, and so on. As with most of these articles, the comment thread is the best part. Climb on board the crazy train, cause the bi-Polar Express is pulling out!

Of course blogs like that in turn get picked up and quoted as gospel in others. For example, one offspring rants about “prop jets” in an “air force to put down civil unrest at home” including “armed-to-the-teeth black helicopters” (Oh no—the infamous Black Helicopters!) driven by guys with “out-of-this-world” benefits (oh really?). We here at The Rabbit encourage people to look at all the available info out there, so if you want a heady cocktail of fear, ignorance and paranoia, then by all means, drink up!

Want a side order of wacko with that? We have to at least mention “Scholars for 9/11 Truth.”

If you meet anyone whose logic and facts are so weak they need to advertise themselves as a “Scholar for” anything … it would be a good time to hang on to your wallet or put on your tinfoil hat. Or both.

So what does the founder of this august body—who we suspect proclaims “nobody can convince me” on a regular basis—have to say? The usual: new faux 9/11 event, attack on Iran, and return of the draft, seasoned with a secret plot to fake a civilian ammo shortage; all part of a “very clever, insidious plan” with the Blackwater “air force” at the ready to impose martial law.

It gets better though. This crowd has so much conspiracy on the brain that some of ‘em are convinced that—are you ready—the Kennebunkport warning about a conspiracy to fake a terrorist conspiracy is itself a conspiracy. Seriously. We couldn’t make this stuff up. An extended monologue dissecting this mess and asking whether ‘tis better to be a conspiracy theorist or paranoid lunatic is here.

If all that is not enough for you, then not only is the “Blackwater Air Force” discussed here, but the whole site is dedicated to showing that it was, who else, Blackwater that pulled off 9/11. Whooooweee!

What’s The Real Objection?

At its most fundamental level, is this about the Super Tucano? Or is it really a question of whether a private security company should own armed aircraft?

Should they even, for example, be able to fly around the U.S. in pimped-out BK117 helos, wearing night vision goggles and sporting M-60 machine guns?

Oh, and before you answer, we’re talking about the “good” private security company Wackenhut, prior to 9/11, prior to President Clinton (the first one) leaving office.

Because if your answer is different for an Iraq contractor (and yes, we know Wackenhut sends firefighters to Mesopotamia), then what kind of equal protection under law is that?

What’s The Real Plan?

It seems to us that before diving into vast conspiracies and hysteria, a couple minutes of research on what the heck Blackwater might use this aircraft for would be productive.

For example, you might find out that the USAF has long been sort of weak on COIN, which is an area that special operations (if not special forces) types believe is absolutely vital. Is it possible that an industry which has adapted so quickly to military needs would consider stepping into that gap? Ya think?

Of course, look around and you might find an Air Force contract requirement for provision of just such an aircraft.

In fact, looking at the stated purpose of the proposed purchase—to establish a “new training programme”—might it be possible that it is for exactly that purpose?

Let’s go to the source of the mess, the Jane’s article (quoted here), which says: “The US Air Force (USAF) 337th Aeronautical Systems Group is currently conducting market research to find potential candidates for a counter-insurgency aircraft for the Iraqi Air Force (IQAF). … Last year, the USAF launched a search for private companies that could provide basic flight training to IQAF candidate pilots.” Shazam!

Of course, it’s much more likely that it is all part of a vast, secret plot to overthrow the entire government and impose martial law with 2300 (or 23,000) “mercenaries” and two-dozen helicopters and a glorified cropduster.

Um, you do know the U.S. military has nearly 2.7 million people at arms and about 17,000 aircraft (6013 Air Force, 1255 Marine Corps, 4000+ Navy, and ~5900 Army).

Wag The Dog

A far more interesting question than any of the extended bloviating we’ve done so far—and one that apparently not a single scaremonger thought to ask is: Why does this story exist?

Where did the Jane’s guy get it? A government investigation? A Freedom-of-Information Act request on the license application? A deepthroat whistleblower? An undercover mole?

None of those.

It’s no secret—it says right in the original blog: Blackwater President Gary Jackson.

OK, let’s get this straight. News of the “secret mercenary air force” came from the President of the company? And based on this, we have mild internet hysteria. Hmm.

It is always interesting how those with little military experience tend to write off military folks (and former ones) as low-grade morons.

The company’s track record for success would seem to answer that question.

So given their purported reputation for obsessive secrecy, isn’t the best question to be asking: What big news about Blackwater did we all miss last week?

Now who’s the conspiracy theorist?

-------------------------

Postscript: A good piece on who is making the money in Iraq—and just how much—is here. Interesting that other than former Dyncorp-owner Veritas (which has all kinds of irons in the fire), it’s pretty much devoid of private security companies. Ooops, war-profiteering mercenaries.

“What sort of things do you remember best?” Alice ventured to ask.

“Oh, things that happened the week after next,” the Queen replied in a careless tone. “For instance now … there’s the King’s Messenger. He’s in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.”

“Suppose he never commits the crime?” said Alice.

“That would be all the better, wouldn’t it?” the Queen said … .

“Of course it would be all the better,” she said; “but it wouldn’t be all the better his being punished.”

“You’re wrong there, at any rate,” said the Queen. “Were you ever punished?”

“Only for faults,” said Alice.

“And you were all the better for it, I know!” the Queen said triumphantly.

“Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for,” said Alice; “that makes all the difference.”

“But if you hadn’t done them,” the Queen said, “that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!”

Blackwater Contractors Are Paid What?!? (Part 1)

2007-09-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

Chapter 15 – Looking-Glass Insects

Prologue

This is not a short or easy article. But gaining a solid understanding of the complex public policy issues at stake in the debate over private security contractors / mercenaries (your choice) is not as easy as watching a glib 90-second video full of sweeping pronouncements and cutesy taglines.

Slog through this article, and you’ll not only know more about compensation than most actual military or PSC pay clerks, but The Rabbit will reveal what rumor has it is the actual compensation figure for Blackwater contractors.

As you read this, please keep in mind that this is not a competition or a rant about who is "worth more," but rather an analysis of who costs more.

“I shall dream about a thousand pounds tonight, I know I shall!” thought Alice.

The Standard Soundbite

The standard and most frequent claim has long been that private security contractors, and “Blackwater mercenaries” in particular, make “$1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers, which destroys military morale.”

Where does such a claim originate?

Not surprisingly, Jeremy Scahill promoted it heavily on places like Democracy Now! (“These guys are making $1,000-plus a day in Iraq and have all sorts of tax breaks.”)

But it was picked up by traditional media such as the Los Angeles Times (“Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers.”) and the Washington Post (“[Blackwater] armed commandos earn an average of about $1,000 a day.”) as well.

And, as The Rabbit keeps noting, armed contractors are not really a left wing/right wing issue—FoxNews repeats the party line too (“Guards employed by Blackwater … are sometimes paid up to $1,000 per day.”)

In fact, the $1,000-per-day line is standard fare worldwide, for example in The Telegraph from Calcutta (“Lured by salaries of up to $1,000 per day …”). It of course figures quite prominently in the reality-lite world of the Internet as well, with literally hundreds upon hundreds of sites spreading the $1,000 gospel.

What can you say, other than sexy stories sell copy. After all, what could be better than implying “secret killer commandos paid $365,000 a year to do the same job as welfare Army privates!!”

If only they could somehow work in photos of Britney, Paris and Lindsey decked out in guns & camo, they’d have a real trifecta.

This may be a shock to you, dear reader, but the $1,000-per-day story is both wrong and intentionally misleading.

In other news, water is wet, nine continues to follow eight, and the sun rises in the East.

You would think that anyone who has ever held a job would “get it” that the compensation you receive in return for your work is about far more than whatever cash is left after taxes. If you had to ‘buy’ some of the fringe benefits you enjoy through work, you might have a whole new appreciation for their value.

To be blunt, as anyone working a job without benefits will testify, there is far more to the “pay” equation than the nominal dollar rate.

Compensation Ain’t Pay

Talk about money sells copy almost as well as discussion of commandos and socialite bimbos, so the Military Times series of papers has some sort of feature article on U.S. military pay seemingly every week.

One such recent piece by Rick Maze is particularly helpful. Although it regards military-civilian compensation generally, rather than a military-PSC comparison, it summarizes the “total compensation” issue quite well:

Neither service members nor the lawmakers and policymakers who decide pay levels understand the true value of cash compensation and noncash military benefits, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in its report, “Evaluating Military Compensation,” released June 29. When noncash benefits are considered, the CBO says, the military’s compensation package is highly competitive with the private sector.

The problem, the authors argue, is that service members fixate on basic pay and housing allowances, but fail to factor in the value of benefits like family health care, discounted shopping and subsidized child care.

Fine, you say, military personnel get some benefits. So what’s the big deal?

If Benefits are Cheap, Why is GM Failing?

OK, they are failing because they have sucky cars. Not the awe-inspiring crappiness of, say, an AMC Matador, yet sucky nonetheless. But that’s not the only reason.

The cost of providing health care—never mind any other benefits—adds over a thousand bucks to the price of every one of the 4.65 million vehicles that General Motors sold last year. Put another way, that one benefit all by itself is costing GM $5.6 billion (yes, with a “B”) every year.

In comparison, the current and former U.S. military population—at nearly 2.7 million in the active and reserve force—vastly outnumbers the number of employees, retirees, and dependents that GM covers. Throw in military dependents and retirees, and the military health care tab absolutely dwarfs that of GM.

But health care is only the beginning of the benefits story. Add in retirement, paid vacation, education, other insurance … pretty soon you’re talking real money.

It is spending that represents real compensation to the military member—and real expense to the taxpayer. Billions upon billions of dollars that have to come from somewhere.

So instead of comparing part of the compensation package (i.e., a myopic focus on military versus contractor cash-per-day), if you want any meaningful comparison of how these two professionals are rewarded for their service, you have to look at the entire compensation package.

After all, us taxpayers are sure enough footing the bill for the entire compensation package. Not just the part of it that makes someone’s argument.

MILITARY BENEFITS

We’ll try to summarize the benefits that your average soldier enjoys as part of their compensation. As you read through this, you might find it instructive to think about how your own benefit package stacks up.

Commissary Privileges

Would you like access to world’s largest supermarket, where you save 30% on all your groceries and household items and have it all tax free? Sorry, civilian. This brand new 129,000 square foot shopper’s paradise, and 260 others, is operated on a military installation as an exclusive benefit for active, reserve and retired military and their dependents.

Not much of a grocery shopper? Well …

Exchange Shopping

How would you like access to over 12,000 other facilities worldwide, providing average 20% savings on everything you purchase there—and again, all tax free. What kind of “facilities?” Movie theaters, day spas, phone centers, barber shops, GNC stores, optical shops, convenience stores, flower shops, bakeries, car care centers, brand-name fast food restaurants (Subway, Taco Bell, etc.), liquor stores, gas stations, garden shops, furniture stores, computer stores, pet-grooming salons, even new vehicle sales. Oh, and this is all in addition to their general retail (i.e., Sears-like) operations, for total below-market-price sales of nearly $9,000,000,000 in goods just via the Army & Air Force exchange system. All exclusive for military and dependents.

No need for any type of shopping at all, hmm? Let’s try free …

Education

G.I. Bill – Active Duty pays for four years (or $38,000) of college
Army College Fund can boost total payout to $72,900 for college
G.I. Bill – Selected Reserve covers Reservist/Guard payments
Veterans Education Assistance Program provides a $2-for-$1 savings match
Reserve Education Assistance Program reimburses for tuition and fees
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance Program 45 months of education benefits if servicemember killed, disabled or missing
The Spouse Education Assistance Program provides military spouses or widows need-based financial aid for up to four years of college
Over 1,000 scholarships designated for servicemembers/dependents, including some just for those who serve and others solely for their children
Eligible to be paid under VA Work-Study Program while in school
While still in military, can attend school on two-year paid Educational Leave of Absence
Cash payments or loan repayment under military-only National Call to Service Program
Military Deferments of federal college student loans
Student loan repayments of up to $65,000 in debt under the Loan Repayment Program
Student loan cancellation of up to 50% of debt under Perkins or National Direct Student Loans programs
The Troops to Teachers program provides stipends of up to $5,000 to assist military personnel in obtaining educator certification or licensing, or $10,000 grants for certain participants
Enlisted Commissioning Programs provide enlisted members their normal compensation package while they attend up to four years of college free of charge
Program for Afloat College Education offers free undergraduate classes
Up to $40,000 in graduate degree tuition paid under the Advanced Education Voucher program
Fully funded graduate degree programs under the Advanced Civil Schooling program
Free college credit for military experience under the CREDIT program
Armed Forces Tuition Assistance pays for up to $250 per semester credit hour of college courses taken during off-duty hours
Tuition Assistance Top-up Program for tuition and fees not covered by Tuition Assistance
Veterans Administration-provided tutoring under the Tutorial Assistance Program
The overwhelming majority of states provide service-related education benefits, from scholarships to free tuition at state schools.

So, no interest in education either? How about a benefit no one wants to use …

Burial and Memorial (if honorable discharge or still in service)

Plot and interment at no cost in National Cemetery
Burial Expense Reimbursement of $600 to $2000
Military funeral honors, including memorial flag
Headstone or marker at no charge
State military cemetery burial
By way of comparison, average civilian funeral costs are $6000 to $10000

But if using that one is inevitable, then you probably need this one too …

Legal and Tax Services

Yes, FREE lawyers (and we all thought there was no such creature) providing services including: Estate planning advice; Will and testamentary trust drafting; Power of attorney preparation; Review of contracts and leases; Personal finance advice; Domestic relations advice (divorce, separation, annulment, family support, adoption, custody, paternity and name changes); Consumer affairs; Landlord-tenant relations, including review of leases and correspondence; Advice on immigration and naturalization issues; Servicemembers Civil Relief Act advice and assistance; Tax advice on real and personal property; Preparation of Federal, State and local tax forms and free electronic filing through the Armed Forces Tax Council.

Insurance

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) automatic $400,000 subsidized coverage
Traumatic SGLI provides additional coverage of up to $100,000
Family SGLI free $10,000 coverage on all dependent children and subsidized coverage of up to $100,000 on spouses
Veterans’ Group Life Insurance up to $400,000 available on discharge
Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance up to total of $30,000 additional coverage
Veterans’ Mortgage Life Insurance additional $90,000 for homebuying disabled vets
A Total Disability Income Provision rider provides disability insurance to holders of the above life insurance policies, and any further premiums on the policy are waived

Survivor Benefits

Non-taxable Death Gratuity of $100,000 paid to the survivors of servicemembers who die (by any means) while on active duty
Retiree Death Gratuity of $12,420 to the survivors of those who die shortly after retiring
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation pays the surviving current or former spouse of a servicemember lost in the line of duty a monthly payment, and provides each child a monthly payment as well
Parents’ Dependency and Indemnity Compensation provides monthly payments to low-income parents of deceased servicemembers
VA Death Pension Benefits are need-based payments to the surviving spouse(s) and children of all honorably discharged veterans
Bereavement Counseling through the Veterans Administration
Montgomery G.I. Bill Death Benefit education benefit payout to heirs
Survivor Support Organizations such as the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society
Survivor Benefit Plan is a subsidized annuity that provides spouses, former spouses, and/or children monthly payments of up to 55% of veteran’s retired military pension
Free Government Quarters for one year following an active-duty servicemember’s death (by any means), or payment for civilian housing, for widowed spouse and/or children.
Veterans Administration-sponsored health insurance through Kaiser Permanente under the CHAMPVA program for survivors of disabled veterans, including prescription delivery by mail
Survivors and dependents are eligible for vocational and educational counseling services through Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Services offices
Widowed spouses and former spouses, and dependent children and parents all have continued privileges for military commissary and exchange shopping

Family Services

Adoption Assistance: Servicemembers may be reimbursed for adoption expenses and receive up to three weeks of paid, non-chargeable leave (a/k/a “vacation”) upon adopting
Family Services Offices provide support groups, exceptional family member programs, relocation counseling, newcomer orientations, sponsorships, family job search assistance, career counseling and coaching, parenting classes, financial education and counseling, consumer advocacy, and emergency assistance to spouses, children and other dependents of military personnel.
Military Child and Youth Programs offer full- and part-time accredited and subsidized daycare, after-school programs, daycamps, and teen programs
The Department of Defense Education Activity operates free K-12 schools for military dependent children, and these 200 non-public schools consistently rank among the very best in the nation
Spouses seeking government civilian jobs with DoD enjoy hiring preference under the Military Spouse Preference Program
The Spouses to Teachers program provides military spouses with financial aid and free information and assistance on obtaining and transferring certification
The Continued Health Care Benefits Program offers health care insurance coverage for up to three years after a military spouse divorces or children leave the household
Free counseling through the Military OneSource program, which provides call centers, website info, consultation services and counseling on a myriad of concerns including addiction and recovery services, parenting and child care issues, education, relocation, financial and legal concerns, health, fitness, military life, eldercare.
Heck, they even have their own movies of that unnaturally annoying freak-of-nature Elmo. Have you ever sat through a half hour of that furry little bastard being tickled in some hot and crowded airport? You want someone to fear?? Satan-spawn Elmo (why do you think he’s red) and his band of brain-rotting cohorts are the ones of whom to be afraid. Be very afraid.

Health

Long before they fall under VA care or DoD-subsidized health insurance, every service member is entitled to free routine and casualty medical and dental care and no-cost prescriptions under the baseline-funded $20,700,000,000 per-year DoD Military Health System
Taxpayer-subsidized health care insurance available for military family members under the TRICARE Program, including medical, dental, vision, prescription and mental health benefit options
After leaving military service, eligible for 18 months of subsidized Humana health care insurance coverage under the Continued Health Care Benefits Program
Eligible for the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program, which offers portable, guaranteed renewable, federally sponsored coverage for military, retirees, parents, in-laws and adult children of servicemembers
Combat veterans receive free medical care under the Medical Benefits Package of the Veteran’s Administration, which provides general preventive and primary health care, as well as Veteran Health Registries (free medical exams, lab & diagnostic work); Readjustment Counseling Services; Prosthetic and Sensory Aids; Home Improvements for Disability Access; Blind Services (dogs, training, grants, etc.); Mental Health Care (PTSD, substance abuse, etc.); Suicide Prevention; Work Therapy & Rehab; Long-Term Care; Outpatient Dental; Outpatient Pharmacy; Nursing Homes (VA, State, and commercial); and civilian Emergency Medical Care
Retired servicemembers and their families are eligible for TRICARE Program health care insurance, and medicare-wraparound coverage is available under the TRICARE For Life program
All veterans except those dishonorably discharged can obtain the VA Medical Benefits Package premium-free by paying the applicable co-pays

For part 2, click here.

Blackwater Contractors Are Paid What?!? (Part 2)

2007-09-13T07:08:00.001-07:00

Chapter 16 – Tweedledum and Tweedledee

(continued) For Part 1, click here.

Homebuying and Moving

Prior to a move, take some time off, go ahead and use your ten days of paid, non-chargeable House Hunting Leave
Once you’re actually traveling to that new home, why don’t we tack on Per Diem of $109 to $381 for each day you’re en route, on top of your regular compensation?
And, since government travel regulations limit the number of per diem days you can get, why don’t we let you collect Temporary Lodging Expenses for food and lodging for another ten days?
Of course, that won’t cover everything, so take a couple thousand bucks in Dislocation Allowance
You’ll want to take all of your stuff, so let’s pay for commercial movers to load and haul up to 18,000 pounds of your junk, er, Household Goods Shipment. Or, if you make a Do-It Yourself (DITY) move, then you can collect an incentive payout of 95% of what the commercial move would have cost.
And you’ll want your cars, trucks or SUVs (or, in militarese, your “privately owned vehicles”) at that new home, so we’d better pay for POV Shipment as well.
Oh, and if you want to put that POV in storage for a while, let the taxpayer pick up the tab for you
If you want to drive one of them yourself, why not collect a Military Allowance in Lieu of Transportation (MALT) instead of flying on the taxpayer dime.
Can’t get into your new quarters immediately? We’d better add on Temporary Lodging Allowance for a couple of months.
Going to be living the adventure through an overseas move for that next job? Why don’t we throw in a Move-In Housing Allowance?
Now that the home mortgage market is returning to at least a must-fog-a-mirror credit standard, wouldn’t it be nifty if the public treasury footed the bill for all military and almost every veteran to get a VA Guaranteed Home Loan without a downpayment or the burden of private mortgage insurance? It does. And it’s not just houses, you’re subsidized for condos, co-ops, home improvements, re-fi’s, mobile homes, and even energy improvements.
Worried about declining property values? Military folks aren’t. Under the Homeowners Assistance Program, if real estate values decline in an area where there has been a military facility closure, or just a realignment, then DoD will either pay servicemembers the difference between appraised value and 95% of fair market value before closure/realignment—or just buy the property.

Morale and Welfare

As a baseline, we’ll give every military member 30 days of Annual Leave a/k/a vacation each year, with full pay and allowances
Now let’s add in ten paid Federal Holidays each year
And if you want still more time, just take some Excess Leave if you have some kind of personal emergency—and we won’t charge that against your balance, either
Of course if you’re sick, you should not have to use up your vacation time for that, so let’s add on as much unchargeable paid Convalescent Leave as you need.
Take two months paid vacation (“Graduation Leave”) if you just completed a service academy
Want to take three or four vacation days without having to use up your leave? Just ask for a Special Pass if you’re Army or Air Force, or Special Liberty you’re Navy or Marines
And if you want to go to a convention or meeting, we’ll just give you non-chargeable leave and call it PTDY (or Permissive Temporary Duty). After all, shouldn’t you be given paid vacation to attend the Armed Forces Golf Conference in West Palm Beach, the Armed Forces Bowling Conference in Orlando or, of course, Tailhook? Hey, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas
After all, that golf seminar will be much needed if you are going to compete for the $10,000 cash prize in the military-only Military Long Drive Competition sponsored by the Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Command
Not a golfer? Don’t worry, using a mix of appropriated Operations & Maintenance funds and non-appropriated monies (such as base exchange profits) the MWR activities of the various services provide the following sorts of things for free or highly subsidized servicemember enjoyment: gyms; pools; recreation centers; parks; picnic areas; libraries; auto and wood hobby shops; music & theater programs; travel campgrounds; bowling, power- and sailboating; stables; discount event tickets (movies, amusement parks, concerts, etc.); child development centers; youth sports; summer camps; officer’s clubs; NCO and enlisted clubs; marinas; skeet and trap ranges; ice and roller rinks; skydiving; flying; and rental of recreation vehicles, camping, and recreation equipment
Actually, the MWR program is so massive that the above description does not begin to do it justice. For example, military “recreation centers” are not exactly a foosball table in a musty basement. Instead, try a 586-room resort on the grounds of Disney World, an 817-room “Polynesian Paradise” hotel right on the beach in Waikiki, or a 330-room Bavarian ski lodge in the German Alps complete with its own private slopes
Don’t want to be limited to rec centers? Stay on base at tens of thousands of military temporary lodging and guesthouse units in places such as Puerto Rico, Belgium, England, Spain, Greece or even Iceland. How about your own oceanfront “cabin” on a secluded beach in Hawaii?
Of course, you’ll need to get to that dream destination, so whether you are active, reserve or retired why not take advantage of free Space Available Travel on military aircraft moving between at least 275 military air terminals worldwide. Where would you like to fly for free—Hawaii, New Zealand, Italy, Japan? How about the Virgin Islands? Heck, go smoke a fat one and chase the ladies with Uncle Fidel—it’s free!

Retirement

Of all the benefits, the big kahuna, the brass ring, the golden goose, the numero uno is … the pension. Serve for twenty years and you can begin collecting 50% of your active-duty pay as a pension. Yes, starting at age 38 you can have an annually cost-adjusted pension payout for the rest of your life. Hang around for ten more years of service, and you can take home as much as 75% of your active pay.
Now, we’re sure all of you have a full pension with cost-of-living increases through your job, but do you get that and a whole ‘nother retirement plan thrown in as well? Military personnel are eligible for a government-sponsored 401k clone known as the Thrift Savings Plan, with the same contribution limits and tax breaks as their civilian counterparts in a 401k plan.

Frankly, we could go on and on. But, if we make our research intern look up much more of this, he’ll end up right back where we found him—on yet another Jagermeister binge, wandering the back alleys of Budapest clad only in week-old unwashed tighty-whiteys, talking to imaginary friends, and collecting loose change from public fountains. But we digress.

Suffice it to say this: The U.S. military member has a platinum-level benefits package that is simply amazing. It is a relic of a bygone era, unmatched anywhere. In fact, their benefits are so bountiful—they’d make a Congressman blush.

And some of those guys are plenty used to treating the public treasury like a cut-rate Russian hooker in downtown Prague.

MERCENARY BENEFITS

OK, we ran through military fringe benefits in painful detail. Now let’s look at what the armed contractor receives.

Insurance

If the contractor is ultimately working for the U.S. (i.e., the “prime contract” was issued by the U.S. government) then by Congressional mandate and by the terms of the prime contract itself, the private security company is required to provide the contractor with Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance coverage. DBA acts like worker’s compensation insurance, paying for hospital care and making disability payments if applicable, as well as providing a death benefit that usually works out to about $50,000 per year tax-free.
Life Insurance most of the major private security companies provide their contractors / mercenaries (your choice) with additional life insurance of $100,000 to $500,000 or more. It’s not clear whether Blackwater currently does this or not, but to err on the side of caution we’ll throw that in as well.

That’s it. That is the entirety of the benefits package that these “mercenaries” are paid.

MILITARY PAY

Show Me The Money!

OK, you say, so the benefits side of the equation is dramatically, even drastically one-sided. But at that $1,000-a-day rate, who cares, eh?

Uh, yeah, about that $1,000 per thing. Um, we’ll get to that in a minute. For now, let’s look at the military money.

On the military side, there is an extensive list of random allowances, incentives, and bonuses that tend to obscure the total cash payout. Further complicating the question are the more than sixty, yes 60, different “special pays” that servicemembers can receive in certain situations. Key provisions in this patchwork include:

Base Pay. This is the number, usually in the form of a buck private’s salary, which pundits love to cherry pick and stack up against the mythical $1,000 a day rate. It is of course not one number, but an entire chart of pay rates, reflecting the varying responsibility and expertise of individuals in uniform, from $1300 per month to $14,500 per month.
Basic Allowance for Housing. If you don’t live in government quarters for free, you receive this variable-rate payment based on your geographic location, pay grade and number of dependents. It ranges anywhere from a low of $455 per month for a single dude in scenic Owensboro, Kentucky to over $3500 per month for a senior bubba with dependents who spends his or her days in San Francisco pining for the time when the Presidio was the exclusive preserve of free Army housing. Like other military allowances, BAH is always tax-free.
Cost of Living Allowance. If you live in an expensive area, you receive an extra “COLA” averaging from $300-some to $4800-something annually.
Overseas Housing Allowance. For those stationed outside the U.S., this averages $11,800 a year.
Overseas COLA. Not only a tasty energy drink soon to be introduced by Rabbit Industries, but a billion dollars a year that the government doles out to military members outside the U.S. as a supplement to their housing allowance, averaging about $3600 per person.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence. This “food money” is paid out at $280 per month for enlisted or $192 per month for officers, although as a practical matter it only goes into the family budget if the servicemember is not deployed.
Family Separation Allowance. Spend more than 30 days away from your family, and this allowance of $250 per month kicks in.
Clothing Allowance. A payment to compensate enlisted personnel for clothing purchases, ranging from about $550 to $1070 per year.
Hostile Fire / Imminent Danger Pay (a/k/a “Combat Pay”). Although military in Iraq certainly receive this special pay, it has been paid out to those in numerous areas worldwide since long before 9/11. Spend one day in such a designated danger zone, e.g., Israel or Turkey, and receive the $225 payment for that month.
Hazardous Duty Pay. If you’re involved in work such as demolitions or flight deck operations, you receive this special pay of $150 to $250 per month.
Hardship Duty Pay. Anywhere from $50 to $750 per month in additional compensation paid to servicemembers assigned in locations with substandard living conditions.
Flight Pay (Aircrew). Serve as a member of an aircraft crew, collect an incentive pay of $150 to $250 a month.
Career Flier Incentive Pay. If you’re Navy or Air Force, then you may be eligible for monthly incentive pay of $150 to $400 a month.
Aviation Career Incentive Pay. A monthly special pay of $125 to $840 for those officers involved in military aviation.
Aviation Continuation Pay. Each additional year of service nets pilots another $12,000 to $25,000 in additional compensation.
Career Sea Pay. For those from any service assigned to sea duty, this special pay adds up to $730 per month in compensation.
Sea Pay Premium. A supplement to regular Sea Pay, pay up to another $350 per month to certain servicemembers.
Submarine Duty Pay. $75 to $835 extra per month for living in a nuclear-powered sewer pipe.
Diving Duty Pay. Not only do you get paid to have diving as your job, but collect an extra $240 to $340 in special pay each month.
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay. Not only will the military pay for a year or more of language training in beautiful Monterrey, California, and pay you to take that training, they’ll then pay you an additional $1,000 each month because you sprachen ze.
Special Duty Assignment Pay. For those who are involved in certain specialties from explosive ordnance work to submarine navigation, this special pay provides an extra $75 to $450 per month.
Combat-related Injury and Rehabilitation Pay. Special pay received while recovering from wounds, injury or illness suffered in a combat zone, up to $430 per month.
Special Warfare Officer Continuation Pay. The experienced snake-eaters and steely eyed killers who are nominally the counterpart of our mercenary friends collect an extra $15,000 for each year of service.
Enlistment Bonuses. The bonus program for soldiers begins the day they enlist, with cash payments of up to $40,000 just for signing up. Become an officer and collect an extra $10,000 via the Officer Candidate School Bonus.
Reenlistment Bonuses. Once you have the experience that makes you comparable to your private security contractor counterpart, reenlist and receive a bonus of up to $90,000 for regular Army personnel.
For certain key ratings and locations, you can receive an additional bonus of up to $50,000 or even $75,000 under Selective Reenlistment Bonus programs. Or go for the Targeted Selective Reenlistment Bonus, which only applies to certain locations, but offers up to $30,000 in additional money.
Sign up for the Bonus Extension and Retraining (BEAR) Bonus, and you not only get trained for a new, more desirable specialty, but you get the bonus for your new specialty as well.
Long-term military members are also eligible for a $30,000 Career Service Retention Bonus.
Military members in critical specialties such as special operations are further eligible for a Critical Skills Retention Bonus of as much as $150,000 for reenlisting.

Returning to Mr. Scahill’s comment—you do remember that he started this exercise in pain?—that mercenaries receive “all sorts of tax breaks,” it is worth noting the tax advantages accorded servicemembers.

The 30 percent or more of military income that is comprised of allowances is generally tax-free with regard to both income and social security taxes, regardless of deployment status.
Military income for non-residents is excluded from state and local taxes. Back in the member’s home state, there are a variety of military exemptions and breaks—and a shocking number of military personnel coincidentally claim residency in states that do not tax military income, such as Florida or Pennsylvania.
Further, if deployed to a combat zone, then all income earned is completely tax free, up to $82K and change for officers, and without any limit for enlisted—even if they are receiving those six-figure re-enlistment bonuses.

So, to paraphrase Schlepless in Seattle:

“Do you know how much a soldier in Iraq is paid?”

“No one knows. It changes practically every day.”

MERCENARY PAY

The Daily Rate

Of course, we know exactly how much the armed contractor is paid—$1,000 per day, right?

Yes.

If by yes you mean absolutely not.

The $1,000 rate is an urban legend used to inflame and dramatize the debate.

That’s not just an assertion by The Rabbit. The PR types for our PSC strawman Blackwater advertise that fact on the company website. More importantly, the company tells prospective contractors that their compensation is to be $550 per day.

And since no one would expect a reasonable person to believe the statements of these security companies as to what they pay, then how about the fact that it even creeps into some media stories? For example, here is a Washington Post story in which a real live Blackwater contractor verifies that the pay rate is $500 to $600 per day.

So let’s see. 365 ¼ days per year at $550 per day, carry the two, add five and we get … uh, not so fast.

You see, the military guy is paid whether he or she is in an Anbar ambush or a backroom Balad bar. In fact, they’re still being paid when they get sent back to Nebraska to hand out basketballs at the base gym for a three year tour.

The greedy mercenary, contariwise, only gets paid for the days he or she is actually on station providing services to the government.

How many days? Obviously, that depends on the individual. Some probably go for just a couple, or a few months, before they’ve had a bellyful and are ready to leave. Others may hang tough for effectively all year.

The Rumor Mill

It is here that we get to the “real” average Blackwater compensation number. It is also where The Rabbit gets to a dilemma.

We’ve made it our policy to strive to document every factual assertion with a cite, and if possible, a link to an outside source to back up that fact. Here, however, we have the info, but we simply don’t have a link, folks.

If we were a traditional media outlet, we’d simply handle that situation by breathlessly reporting “Washington officials say that …”

If we were most blogs, we’d just say it and expect you to swallow it whole.

Instead, since it is such an extremely relevant number, we’ll tell you the D.C. rumor, and then leave it to those far more connected to high-powered D.C. insiders than us to dig out documentation of the facts.

Rumor has it that as part of the burgeoning Congressional probe of all things Iraq, appropriations officials obtained the average compensation for a Blackwater contractor in 2006—and it was somewhere south of $60 grand.

By way of comparison, studies that have sought to include the value of some of those military benefits place the average total compensation of military members to at $90,000 to $138,000.

Of course The Rabbit does not expect you to accept the rumored Blackwater number for purposes of this analysis, but it shore ‘nuff is interesting fuel for thought about how much spin is going on in the private contractor debate.

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed how many people of all political stripes are claiming, “Our Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if only they knew about ______ [insert pet agenda here--from Patriot Act to anti-war activists]?” By all reports, the Fathers are spinning so fast (and for so many conflicting reasons) that if we could hitch just one or two of ‘em up to a generator … heck, we’d power the whole Eastern seaboard.

The Comparison

Anyway, after all this build-up about the relative compensation, we can’t hardly leave you with nothing in the way of a comparison, however much it may be a matter of apples to cumquats.

So, a sample comparison is laid out below (click on it to enlarge), based on the reported Blackwater figures and a 153-page RAND study entitled “The Cost of a Military Person-Year,” although it could just as easily have been created with similar result from other publications, such as the 63-page GAO Report 05-798 on the Military Compensation System.

In any event, the chart is chock full of numbers—and we’ve already talked about how lies, damn lies, and statistics work. Increase or decrease the experience level and rank of the military member, or force the armed contractor to work overseas more days, and you affect the comparison.

As usual, we will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. It is clear, though, that however you stack the numbers, the contractor is not vastly or even significantly better compensated than the military member—at a bare minimum they are comparable.

Further, the servicemember/veteran will still be dipping into the public treasury for that massive assortment of benefits long after the “outrageous” payments to the “mercenary” have ended.

Conclusion

One morning soon, you’ll see the latest “news” piece about PSCs, and once again read about mercenaries being paid thousands in taxpayer lucre as they use their cloven hooves to play hacky sack with the severed heads of newborn children. But you’ll know better. At least about the $1,000 part.

------------

For the record, it is patently unfair that Jessica is routinely squeezed out of the unholy power-bimbo troika. Admittedly, she is at least two to three rehab stints behind her more dysfunctional counterparts, but her trend of dressing sluttier with each passing year charts a very dark course for late 2009 and beyond.

What people are saying about The Rabbit:

“Due to the shape of the North American elk’s esophagus, even if it could speak, it could not pronounce the word lasagna …

Eh, what’s that? The White Rabbit?? Never heard of it.” – Cliff Claven

picsources

2007-09-13T07:07:00.001-07:00

Bw5: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2381121300076363529dyUIeY

Bw6: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2079110040076363529JnPfps

Bw13: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2288091680076363529iijhRh

Bw42: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/11/28/negroponte.jpgfqeoju.jpg

Bw43: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2917028600076363529tiJPRQ

Bw46: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Close_Protection/abc

Bw2: http://www.nh-tems.com/

Bw8: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2339115450076363529ZlBCin

Bw9: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2436488810076363529hDdoSZ

Bw10: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2112506530076363529gUhRjF

Bw11: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2961252390076363529UQwIFt

Bw12: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2670696190076363529bcxrUX

Bw16: http://news.webshots.com/photo/1187368143038018359tmksyM

Bw17: http://news.webshots.com/photo/1187368731038018359RqaBVK

Bw18: http://www.militaryspot.com/images/blackwater4.jpg

Bw19: http://www.militaryspot.com/images/blackwater3.jpg

Bw20: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/09/worstjobs_bestpay/source/4.htm

BW21: http://www.wendywestie.com/chb-blackwater2.htm

Bw22: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299782@N00/340716688/in/set-72057594082306740/

Bw23: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299782@N00/311925791/in/set-72057594082306740/

Bw24: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299782@N00/311932885/in/set-72057594082306740/

Bw25: http://www.flickr.com/photos/livewithzane/16373120/

Bw26: http://www.flickr.com/photos/livewithzane/16373118/

Bw27: http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1147297812055752416LpzwpQ

Bw31: http://everythingmustchange.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/privatizing-1984/

Bw33: http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/tkayhobbs/?action=view&current=BWBaghdad.jpg

Bw34: http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h54/PatricePastor909/?action=view&current=MeinVABlackWaterDec152006.jpg

Bw36: http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k262/JRichaud/PhotoMail%20Uploads/?action=view&current=7d57.jpg

Bw37: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v133/tblackbu/Blackwater%203%20day%20Carbine%20June%2029%202006/?action=view&current=RogersRange.jpg

Bw38: http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u255/ms_sparky/Iraq/?action=view&current=RepublicanPalace.jpg

Bw39: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97198998@N00/11356913/

Bw40: http://thepeskyfly.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html

Bw41: http://eyeball-series.org/negro-eyeball.htm

Bw47: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299782@N00/311925789/in/set-72057594082306740/

Bw3: http://news.webshots.com/photo/1186432731038018359DDaOxw

Bw4: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2052490700076363529SZXrYt

Bw7: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2356824140076363529JwrbWb

Bw8: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2995394180076363529mezTFk

Bw14: http://news.webshots.com/photo/1186432563038018359nCLfBr

Bw15: http://news.webshots.com/photo/1186432707038018359LOmnwS

Bw28: http://www.phantom-web.com/cgi/cw_catalog.cgi?mode=detail&log_no=1102

Bw29: http://atplatoon.w.interia.pl/pmcnaj.html

Bw30: http://20six.co.uk/blackrat/cat/14238/0

Bw32: http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/tkayhobbs/?action=view&current=AssholeandAngel.jpg

Bw35: http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k262/JRichaud/PhotoMail%20Uploads/?action=view&current=3bbc.jpg

Bw44: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Close_Protection/2003_05_14T185344Z_01_BAG22D_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ

Bw45: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Close_Protection/aaz

Bw80: http://iraqfact.com/zPic_blackwater.html

Additional shots of Moyock from Internet Archive copies of www.blackwaterlodge.com website.

The Have Better Equipment (Part 2)

2007-09-13T06:55:00.000-07:00

Chapter 14 – The Garden of Live Flowers

Last time, we began looking at the oft-repeated claim that armed contractors have “much better equipment, much better body armor” than do our people in uniform—in fact, the “soldiers are running around in Vietnam-era flak jackets” to hear some tell it. We looked at some other common equipment and then began Body Armor 101, which provided some basic background info.

Today, we’ll dig a little more on this “better” body armor idea, and then look at the largest mess o’ unauthorized Blackwater pics in one place anywhere on the net. Those who can’t be troubled with digging into facts and understanding the private security / mercenary debate can skip ahead to stare blankly at the “kewl vid” at the end of this post.

Military Body Armor

First, we’d like to submit that the question of body armor for troops is a highly charged political issue that both major parties have used to bludgeon each other.

Rabid partisans of all political stripes argue that “their side” fought valiantly for body armor for the troops. As for the “other side,” well, is it not perfectly clear that they just recently ascended directly from the Ninth Circle of Hell?

Let’s try to sort through what is fact about military body armor.

The U.S. military began replacing the Vietnam-era M69 flak vest with its first body armor system, the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) in 1982. It was not NIJ-rated, but apparently is equivalent to Level IIA protection (meaning, for anyone who cares, that it would stop a .38 or some 9mm rounds). The PASGT was the gear worn by most combat units in Desert Storm, although there were M69 vests still in the inventory as late as 1997.

Among the many lessons learned in the Somalia debacle was the fact that the limited-production “Ranger Vests” worn there, with hard armor plate inserts, significantly reduced casualties. As a result, the military added a new body armor system to its Christmas wish list.

As a placeholder fix, the Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest (ISAPO) came out in 1996. ISAPO provided a way to wear two ceramic plates over your PASGT, thereby getting Level III (AK-47) protection in the plate area.

The long-term fix was to be the Army-designed Interceptor Body Armor, which the military started buying in 1998. Depending on which plates are installed, Interceptor provides either Level III or Level IV protection.

Thus as the Iraq war kicked off, the U.S. military had a mix of Interceptor, ISAPO & PASGT, and PASGT. As noted above, though, PASGT alone is not intended to handle rifle rounds. Either because they were unconcerned with the facts or because these Kevlar vests look and feel similar to the M69 vests, the media tagline became “soldiers issued Vietnam-era vests.”

They weren’t. The recurring soundbite was not only inaccurate but highly misleading.

If you were facing the prospect of wearing PASGT with no plates while taking incoming rifle fire, it may have been a fine-point distinction you probably didn’t care too much about as a practical matter. But in informed public policy debate, it is at best disingenuous.

Here’s the critical hitch in the whole story, though: All military personnel in Iraq had Interceptor body armor by January 2004. There are apparently 200,000 sets in theater now and more than a million in the total inventory.

Let’s be clear: No soldier, Marine, airman or sailor in Iraq (or A’stan) today is going without hard-plate, rifle-resistant body armor.

So why are some people still hammering on the body armor issue, and why do we still have things like Bakesales for Body Armor?

The partisans argue, ironically, that it is partisanship (go figure). And frankly, it is hard to tell—nearly every source one consults on this tries to put a spin on it. But what does seem clear is that the dispute is not grounded in partisanship alone.

Enter the Dragonskin

As noted above, a significant concern with hard plates is that there is an area of vulnerability in the gaps between plates. So, if another design could provide the protection of a hard plate and the flexibility/freedom of movement of a soft vest, that would be a big step forward.

Thus, Dragonskin. Instead of a couple of large armor plates, Dragonskin body armor has “silver dollar-sized circular discs that overlap like dragon scales” glued over the entire soft armor vest.

The theory is that you get a similar level of protection, with increased coverage and added mobility/flexibility.

The reality is … unclear.

Dragonskin advocates claim:

it provides better coverage overall because the scales go around the full torso
it is a better solution because the lack of hard plates allows more freedom of movement
the government is biased against the better privately innovated Dragonskin as opposed to the Interceptor, which is the design product of a massive and longstanding military bureaucracy (strangely, these same folks rail about privatization embodying Hell on Earth)
the government favors Interceptor because it is made by a company that has Republican connections
several tests, including the highly publicized NBC investigation, show Dragonskin to be superior

Dragonskin opponents argue:

the scales can come unglued under extreme conditions, say, for example, desert heat (a definite downer when taking fire)
Dragonskin is heavier at 47 vs. 28 pounds (this is critical when soldiers are carrying as much as 100 pounds of gear)
Interceptor is also being made by other companies
Dragonskin was only ever certified through Level III, and that certification has been rescinded

You could research this controversy for weeks, and for those so inclined, some relevant links to start that investigation (and to support the summary above) are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The point for our purposes is that the controversy exists, it is a highly charged issue, and drawing private security contractors into that heated debate is yet another way to polarize and dramatize the public policy debate about PSCs.

To study The Better Body Armor Story, though, we don’t really care whether Dragonskin really is better or not—we can just go ahead and assume so for this analysis.

Because then if the private guys all (or even mostly) wear Dragonskin, there is at least some basis, however controversial, for the statement that they have “better” armor.

And then the staff here at The Rabbit can pull out our copy of “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” and get back to shooting people in the head, dealing drugs, nailing hookers, stealing cars, and terrorizing cops without having to trouble our pretty little minds about how much truth is involved in the PSC debate. Just like the public at large.

So What Do Armed Contractors Wear?

The beauty (or is it evil genius) of the many outrageous claims about private security contractors / mercenaries is that they are not susceptible of proof. Just make the naked assertion, no matter how wacky, that “mercenaries do X” and how is anyone possibly going to disprove it?

Think we’re exaggerating? “The job of this [Blackwater] company is to sell the organs of tortured nad [sic] killed innocent civilians body parts to US hospitals.” Or try this: Blackwater “death squads, can on their suspicions alone declare anyone, anywhere, to be ‘illegal enemy combatants’ or ‘agents of a foreign power’ or simply ‘terrorists,’ and kidnap them or ‘extrajudicially execute’ them, as they choose.” You want internet loons? You got ‘em.

The rank idiocy is one thing. But the real problem is when this sort of blatant disregard for the facts seeps over into “responsible” journalistic reporting.

We here at The Rabbit are ardent supporters of the right to free speech, and we encourage everyone to form their own opinion. Hyperbole and opinion are not fact, however. They are fundamentally, earth-shakingly different from fact, for those who don’t get it.

And those who are going to hold themselves out as expert talking heads or media professionals have at least some, we hope, ethical obligation to keep the two separate. Claiming expertise is a much like wearing spandex. In a better world it would be a privilege, not a right.

None of the people making this powerful “better” body armor/equipment assertion offer any support for it. They just state it and we are expected to dutifully swallow it whole.

But perhaps we can find a way, albeit not even a little scientific, to check the claim.

Maybe we can determine “what body armor mercenaries wear” (as if armed contractors are a monolithic whole) by examining photos of armed contractors in their gear.

The problem with many photos, however, is that it can be tough to tell whether the person in a given set of body armor is an actual armed contractor outside Ba’qubah—or some Halo-inspired Airsoft wannabe outside Bakersfield.

This is one place that our strawman Blackwater provides us a unique edge. Given that they protect the U.S. Ambassador (nee Envoy) to Iraq, as well as our Representatives and Senators who visit there, if we can find photos of those officials/politicians, then we may be able to have a vicarious glimpse into the gear in use by Blackwater.

First, though, some readers need one more piece of info about body armor: How do you tell different types apart?

North American Field Guide to Body Armor

OK, there are four distinguishing features we can use to spot the different breeds of body armor:

The Flap: If it has a flap all the way across the front for insertion of a hard plate, it is neither Dragonskin or Interceptor

The Flasher: If it opens up right down the middle of the torso like a trenchcoat, it is highly likely that it is Interceptor armor. No one but the Army would try to stop armor piercing bullets in the same area that opens to allow a cool breeze through

The Shoulders: If the rig just has straps across the shoulders and does not extend out onto the deltoid muscle, then it is neither Dragonskin nor Interceptor

The Armpits: If it has continuous-coverage, high-riding sides that almost reach the armpits, and is covered in MOLLE loops, it is likely Dragonskin.

So, given those four characteristics, let’s do what you have all been waiting all this time to do anyway—get to the stinkin’ pictures already!!

Our Methodology

In order to bring you the news on this hot issue, The Rabbit made the supreme sacrifice of surfing the net for a combined 8,234,768 hours this week looking for Blackwater photos. OK, maybe it was a little less than that.

But we did look at a frappin’ gianormous number of internet photos.

We searched for anything that showed any of the post-invasion U.S. Ambassadors to Iraq in the company of armed civilians. We searched for photos that showed armed civilians in the presence of Blackwater helos. We searched for pictures of midget porn involving small farm animals. (Actually, that last one was just one staff member … and we all scooted a little further away from him here in our little sweatshop of an office.)

All of the photos come from the blogs, websites, or photo albums of individuals, sources uninvolved in the Better Body Armor Story, including military personnel. The search resulted in sixteen photos that show the body armor of Blackwater personnel well enough to give you a fair shot at determining its type.

Also, as you look at these, you might look for the ponytailed, heavily tattooed, wild-eyed, blood-soaked mercenary image that we are so often fed. You know the one—guys who’ve used enough dianabol to bench press Monrovia and look like the illegitimate love child of a Mad Max reject and Dog the Bounty Hunter. Maybe you can find what we did not.

The consensus of our staff is that not a single one of these guys is wearing Dragonskin (or Interceptor, for that matter). But you make up your own mind. At a minimum, we hope everyone can agree that a significant number of these guys are not wearing “better” body armor.

Oh, and if there is any lingering uncertainty about what body armor they do use, there is a purported Blackwater contractor testimonial about how non-Dragonskin, non-Interceptor body armor saved his life on page eight of this catalog.

Contractors do not have “better” body armor.

But that won’t stop those with an agenda from saying whatever they feel like. Whatever will cause the most controversy and hysteria. Whatever they can make up.

We are Ahab and The Rabbit is our Pequod.

The Added Bonus

One side effect of all this week’s surfing of Iraq, Baghdad, and Blackwater photos is that we found a boatload of photos of Blackwater personnel. Some were from the Moyock training compound, and some were from Iraq, showing them being glorified bodyguards in the middle of a civil war.

A common perception is that armed contractors / mercenaries do two things all day: (1) drive around Iraq in gun trucks, shooting up random cars and wiping out entire villages, and (2) sit atop buildings and shoot everyone who walks by. Thank you, Youtube.

The pictures, though, showed another side of contractors that is not usually part of the debate. Since we had all the pics in hand, we went ahead and strung ‘em together into a slideshow/video for your viewing pleasure.

It’s not meant to be a promo video for private security contractors, nor an attack on mercenaries, just to provide a not-commonly-seen look at what they do. Some of you will get all worked up and be yelling "git some" and others we be all in a lather about bloodthirsty fascists. We try to give everyone some reason to hate us.

That, plus … we’ll get all kinds of traffic from people who just want to see the scary video of Blackwater mercenaries!!! (Call us Google Whores. We’ll answer.)

Conclusion

Hopefully this was of some help to those seeking facts in this debate. We don’t see how anyone can credibly claim “contractors have better equipment and better armor,” but you decide for yourself.

For those with a deep and abiding love of all things body armor, you might find the apparently real prospect of someday soon having liquid body armor and/or shoot-through, invisible, self-healing armor plate interesting.

Next time: Show Me The Money. Or, Contractors Are Paid What?!?

-------------------------------------

Postscript: In a shocking development, Portland is still standing.

What people are saying about The Rabbit:

“You may call it ‘nonsense’ if you like,” she said, “but I’ve heard nonsense, compared with which this would be as sensible as a dictionary!” – Rosa Reina

They Have Better Equipment (Part 1)

2007-09-13T06:44:00.000-07:00

Chapter 13 – Looking-Glass House

The public policy debate over private security seems to be taking place in the Looking-Glass House. The world is just as you’d expect … except everything is turned round the other way. Up is down, out is in, and if you do not like the situation, you make up whatever assertion is needed to advance your point—and facts be damned.

Today we examine a classic case of truthiness about security contractors / mercenaries (your choice). It is one of those urban legends that simply will not die. It gets recycled, reworked, rehashed and re-used endlessly … and grows more entrenched with each retelling. It is: The Better Body Armor Story.

The Better Body Armor Story

We’ll turn the reins over to old Jeremy Scahill, and let him lay out the urban myth on private security contractors’ equipment. Here is what Mr. Scahill had to tell SocialistWorker on the issue in June of 2007:

Those soldiers are running around with Vietnam-era flak jackets—some of their parents are back home, trying to raise money to get them real body armor. And then the Blackwater mercenaries whiz by. They’ve got better armor, better equipment—they’re the rock stars, the super-heroes of Iraq.

Wow, that sounds really bad. I mean, that sounds like the kind of thing that would sway opinions. The kind of thing that would be endlessly posted and embellished on the internet. Heck, even the kind of thing that would sell lots of books.

Particularly if you make it part of your spiel on radio (“better weapons and body armor”); via podcast (“much better equipment, much better body armor”); at book promos (“The contractors have better body armor and equipment”); and even in testimony before Congress (“They whiz by in better vehicles, better armor, better weapons”).

Mr. Scahill is just an example—he is by no means alone in spreading this tale. If you want to see the online echo of it, just look through a few blogs, on myspace pages, or comment threads (left-wing or right-) discussing armed contractors.

Of more concern, this naked allegation is often trotted out in traditional media as well. The most recent example? The throwaway—yet powerful and persuasive—statement just this past weekend (“they are better equipped than military units”).

Let’s see what facts we can dig up, and see if we don’t find that this undead legend from the beyond should be taken out back and re-buried. Maybe, just maybe, we’ll discover that the truth is: tnempiuqe “retteb” evah ton od srotcartnoC

All That ‘Other’ Stuff

First let’s briefly review the amorphous “better equipment” claim, and then we can focus on the real hot-button issue of body armor.

Our first thought is that the premise of a one-for-one comparison between a private security contractor and an infantryman is intentionally misleading. Our second thought is that asking which of similar equipment is “better” is so inherently situation-driven (and subjective) that it is somewhat inane.

However, the goal here is to provide facts in support of critical thinking on private security issues, so let’s look at the gear in question and you make up your own mind.

GPS: To some extent, the U.S. intentionally put its military and the rest of the universe on the same footing in 2000 when it ended the practice of inducing signal errors on the civilian side under the Selective Availability program. Thus at worst (best?) the contractors could be said to have comparable gear. If you want the detailed answer, however, the military gear is “better” because it is encrypted, has anti-spoof and anti-jam capabilities, and uses more accurate two-frequency positioning.

Of course, if you have a compelling mid-ambush need for video games or a fishing calendar, then those with civilian GPS do have “better” gear.

Guns: The mercenary urban legend would have all armed contractors equipped like the dude on the left. Apparently, this hokey stereotype allows those who talk about carbine-equipped contractors being “mercenaries” with “M4 machineguns” to feel justified in preaching on about contractors’ “better equipment.”

The fact is that CPA Order 3 requires government approval of all PSC weapons by the Iraqi MoI, contractors are restricted in what weapons they can carry, and those who are not licensed by the MoI face seizure of their arms. (And yes, seizure does happen.)

For those under contract to the U.S., the norm is an M-4/M-16 variant (or an AK-47-type) weapon. For example, a representative contract solicitation is available here, and the weapons restriction is on page 15. (Note that pages 14 & 15 also reflect the RUF/ROE requirements discussed last time.) The Central Command document requiring those same clauses in all contracts is available here.

Also, when we do finally get to the photos of various Blackwater folks (at last something interesting!) in the body armor section of this discussion next week, you might note that they’re all carrying the same M-4/M-16’s issued our troops and, recently, officers.

In the end, while the small arms for the two groups are not identical, neither are the missions or situations encountered. Perhaps more to the point, there is no single small arm in use by any one group that is generally “better” than the others.

If you want more evidence of that, go to any gun forum, post the question, and then run for cover.

If for no other reason than the Aegis video, we know that private security contractors do have some automatic weapons—or “machineguns” if you don’t like the ATF/law enforcement/military terminology—for tasks such as convoy protection.

Presumably no one will even attempt to seriously argue that the machineguns that PSCs do have are somehow better than the various automatic weapons that the uniformed military fields.

Clothing: Similarly, we trust that no one is going to argue with a straight face that military uniforms are somehow meaningfully superior or inferior to the khaki-pants-and-shirt combo favored by contractors. Now, if DARPA had already fielded any of their ultra-nifty Superhero get-ups (e.g., the Spidey suit or Aquaman gear), it might be a whole different story.

Of course, since today’s post has made the possibility of wearable enhancements more public, I’m sure we’ll read about how Blackwater mercenaries are whizzing around Baghdad in their spiffy new Section 8 costumes. (Actually, if you read up on that team of lame superhero rejects, it sounds shockingly like the staff of The Rabbit. Though our leader, editor-in-chief Angus McCreavy, is more like ‘Shakes’ than anything else. And that Dogwelder character … now that’s too weird even for us. Freak.)

Comms: Now we are really into speculation as to what is “better.” The private security teams presumably have whatever comm gear a civilian is allowed to export from the U.S. or acquire in the bazaars of Baghdad.

We do not know, but for sake of argument let’s assume that this equipment is the best available—albeit, in our Looking-Glass House, constructed of pure platinum and liberally encrusted with 10-carat conflict diamonds.

Turning to the military, it is known to have a myriad of comm systems, including VHF gear that is both frequency-hopping and encrypted, encrypted UHF gear that with anti-jamming capability, HF gear for encrypted over-the-horizon capability, microwave gear for data transmission, multi-band gear for everything from command posts to air traffic control, and even satellite ground stations. These are just a few examples.

We could go on and on, but most of this comms crap is intelligible only by the true techno-nerd. The point is this: these scary mercenaries have, what, satphones? The military can be the stinkin’ phone company.

Oh, and all that other commercial stuff that the private security companies can have? The military has it too.

In short, looking at the ‘other’ equipment that our military uses it is, to be kind, difficult to see how the gear used by private contractors is “better.” The body armor story is more complex, so let’s see if maybe that is the basis of the superiority claim.

Body Armor 101

Our mission here at The Rabbit is not only to (marginally) amuse, but more importantly to educate. Therefore, as a public service before we attack the issue of whose body armor dominates more, let’s conduct an abbreviated review of “modern” body armor, for the benefit of the many highly vocal folks, already engaged in the public debate, whose grasp of the situation somehow involves the guy on the left. (And as a reminder: we have never retouched anything appearing on our pages—every image here is 100% pure, undoctored internet mythos).

The beauty of a massive federal government is that there is an agency, department, or office dedicated to everything from space exploration to lemur empowerment. (We’re noting status, not arguing good or bad.) In the U.S., the folks at the “National Institute of Justice” (or NIJ) are the go-to dudes for body armor. They research it, they test it, they rate it … it draws them in like a tractor beam to a Death Star.

They also publish the Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor which, conveniently for us, has A History of Body Armor.

The Guide starts its history with early humans wearing animal skins. For once, however, The Rabbit will show some discretion and edit for brevity. (Note, though, that there is some zany trivia in there that will really help you players work it with the liz-adies. E.g., Archduke Francis Ferdinand was wearing body armor when he was popped.)

Anyway, the short version goes like this: Invention of nylon led to “flak jackets” during WWII, which helped stop large munitions fragments but not bullets. In the 1970’s Kevlar was invented to replace steel belts in radials but, whoa, turns out it helps stop bullets. So vests with multiple layers of this Space Age Wonder Fabric were made, and, walla, we have the first modern body armor.

The ‘web’ of Kevlar fibers disperses the impact energy from the bullet, causing it to deform (or ‘mushroom’) and, hopefully, not injure the wearer beyond blunt-force trama. There’s just one catch: You’re wrong to think a bullet is a bullet is a bullet.

Body Armor 202

Higher-energy rounds (e.g., bullets from many rifles, armor-piercing rounds, etc.) can and do penetrate vests of Kevlar (and similar materials). In order to help protect against these threats, hard armor plates are slid into pockets on carrier or a Kevlar vest. These steel, ceramic, or composite-fiber (rigid) plates, coupled with the (flexible) vest, provide additional protection, although the hard plate design inherently leaves gaps.

To help us distinguish these different body armors, our pals at the NIJ are kind enough to classify (and certify) body armor according to the degree of protection it provides, e.g., I, II-A, II, III-A, III, and IV. Level I offers the lowest level of protection, against say .22 or .38 rounds, whereas Level IV provides the highest level of protection.

Level III and Level IV are the standards of interest, as they are intended to provide some protection, in covered areas, against rifle rounds. While Level III nominally resists “regular” rifle rounds (e.g., an AK-47 bullet), Level IV will also protect against higher-energy and armor-piercing rounds (to appear among the cognoscenti, casually respond “ah, yes, it’s certified as to a .30 caliber AP round”).

Now, we here at The Rabbit are naïve, but not stupid. We know that, given the choice between reading all this technical stuff about body armor, or having hideously ugly festering sores covering your naughty parts, well, you would choose the ooze.

But this basic understanding of body armor protection Levels and the hard armor plate gap issue is important to our discussion.

For those few of you twisted enough to think, on the other hand, that The Rabbit did not provide enough detail in our Body Armor degree program, well you can just go straight to here. Or go trade notes with this guy while scheduling your next Dungeons & Dragons meeting.

Intermission

That’s all we have room for this week, folks. Join us next week for the rest of The Better Body Armor Story, lots of photos of Blackwater ‘operatives’ in action, and more snarky commentary from a bunch of guys who oughta be wearing a paper hat and a nametag to work instead of sitting around the basement admiring each other’s mullets and writing this stuff.

Peace, out.

----------------

Postscript: This week’s PSC Internet Loon is not just a single post, but the whole flurry of recent cut-and-paste Myspace trainwrecks that look like this. Basically, they advise readers to evacuate Portland because an emergency preparedness drill next week called Noble Resolve is a front for an actual, catastrophic 9/11 part deux “false-flag” attack by a cabal of federal, state and local officials … and Blackwater. Woohoo!!

And this Alex Ansary dude from the video RULES!! Maybe we can get him to do a whole show about PSCs some day. That would rock.

We kept waiting for him to come out of character and say it was all some sort of elaborate parody and we’d been punk’d. Waiting in vain.

Fortunately, old man McCreavy—the robotic lizard handler sent from the future by the Illuminati to control The Rabbit—is not here right now to watch over us and we have secretly posted even more info on the Noble Resolve conspiracy at: I-am-a-Raelian.blogspot.com. Read and learn, read and learn.

Of course, we are The White Rabbit, so maybe The Matrix has us too, Alex.

Warning: Watching the "news" on the Ansary video is the journalistic equivalent of having your head fed into a woodchipper. You will be flushing an hour of your life away, with no recourse, but plenty of remorse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association found that the average adult can only be exposed to 4 minutes, 23 seconds of that video without suffering irreparable brain damage.

Blackwater and the Rules of Engagement

2007-09-13T06:33:00.000-07:00

Chapter 12 – Alice’s Evidence

We have been examining armed contractor accountability though a multi-part series. This week, we wrap up the legislation review and then shift focus to a new topic, one that won’t be out of date in a month: Rules of Engagement.

Pending Legislation

Last time, we mentioned the hundreds of pending bills regarding contractor accountability and then identified 22 of particular relevance.

We’re going to trust that anyone deeply interested in the issue has researched each of those bills and weighed in with their elected representatives. For everyone else, including anyone who feared we’d actually run through all of them this week, you can relax … we’d rather snort Drano.

After all, most of these bills—like the majority of bills on any subject—will never make it out of committee. And those that do ultimately enjoy a passing vote from both houses will be awhile in coming and may be drastically altered in the process.

So instead, we’re going to talk about two items likely to go into effect in weeks rather than months.

Mo’ MEJA

The “MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007” (H.R. 2740) has just escaped from committee and is headed for the House floor.

That makes it sound more like Godzilla than a legislative bill.

But we’re fine with the statement for two reasons. First, alarmists will be intentionally touting that view elsewhere anyway.

Second, our founder and editor-in-chief, Thaddeus Z. “Angus” McCreavy, was mauled by a crazed badger late last week and, while he is convalescing, the writers here at The Rabbit have even less adult supervision than normal. As a result, no one is here to object to random Godzilla comments.

More importantly, we are free to publicly mock those that McCreavy tells us week after week are the target audience for The Rabbit: “These dunderheads who rant about mercenaries but wouldn’t know a mercenary from a woodchuck if the entire staff of Sandline showed up at their Bat Mitzvah. Bah.”

Anyway, MEJAEaEAo2007, as we affectionately call it, clarifies that MEJA jurisdiction is to cover all contractors (i.e., USAID, etc.), establishes a “Theater Security Contract Coordinating Officer to coordinate communications and operations between contractors and the military,” and requires an FBI “Theater Investigative Unit” in Baghdad to focus on contractor conduct.

It’s not clear whether someone didn’t get the memo on the FBI’s existing presence in Iraq, or whether the Unit would be an augment of the current FBI Iraq staff.

The Ol’ Appropriations Shuffle

Meanwhile, in a hoary, er, time-honored tradition, the current defense appropriations bill appears likely to have any number of extraneous riders, provisions, and earmarks shoehorned into it.

The 2008 version has just passed the full House and is heading down Constitution Ave., eating subcompact cars and spraying radioactive fire breath ... ok, ok, actually it just passed the full House and is headed for our friends in the Senate.

Among the numerous straphangers for 2008 are some interesting requirements regarding private security contractors / mercenaries (your choice).

Specifically, the House proposes requiring SecDef to issue minimum standards for private security, such as screening for criminal records, medical and mental fitness, etc.

Although the larger companies in the industry, including our strawman Blackwater, already do this, it appears that some of the newer or smaller PSC companies may not.

Given the obvious appeal of such a simple yet positive requirement, and the minimal impact on many in the industry, it seems likely this provision will receive wide support and take effect.

The major problem with the requirement is the same as with last year’s appropriations-based UCMJ change—it fails to recognize that there are non-DoD contractors, that there will in all likelihood be contractors in future contingencies in other places, and that there are already many armed contractors outside Iraq/Afghanistan.

The more interesting requirement from the House, however, reads as follows: “Finally, the Secretary is directed to establish a clear set of rules-of-engagement for all contracted security personnel operating in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operations.”

Although this requirement is only in the report from the House, not the actual bill, it is not a one-off comment or just extra verbiage. For example, on the Senate side Senator Obama’s contractor bill (S. 674) similarly requires the Joint Chiefs to issue rules of engagement regarding “contract personnel performing private security functions.”

If it is true that armed contractors are running around Mesopotamia without any Rules of Engagement, then my heavens, that does sound serious, now doesn’t it?

So this week we’d better examine Blackwater and the Rules of Engagement. (Sounds like a bad Harry Potter novel.)

No Rules!

The standard soundbite on Blackwater, and private security companies in general, is that “they have no rules of engagement” (frequently in all caps or followed by multiple exclamation points.)

This statement is curious, given the original concensus that rules of engagement do apply to armed contractors. For example, in 2003 The Guardian reported that “civilian employees are subject to the same rules of engagement as foreign troops.”

By mid-2004, however, the story was changing. The Independent put it this way: “They have no rules of engagement and many of them drink too much.” (Oddly enough, the exact words frequently used by McCreavy to describe the staff here at The Rabbit.)

By 2005, the ‘no rules’ assertion was another PSC ‘little known secret.’ For example, here is a gem from a random blogger claiming that he read something from a contact in a newsgroup who reported what an unnamed “Middle Eastern reporter” had told her about the issue: “The mercenaries are not bound by military rules of engagement so they tend to be much more brutal.”

Nowdays, the no-rules mantra is simply accepted as another widely known “fact”—pure gospel reported in news accounts and countless online sources. Those catering to the radical left use this “fact” in arguing that all contractors are bloodthirsty babykillers, while those on the extremist right cite it as a real benefit ‘cause all that Geneva and Constitution stuff gets in the way when we got us some killin’ to do.

The beauty of it all is that most of these enlightened folks don’t have a real solid grasp of exactly what the heck “Rules of Engagement” even means. But, man does it sound good.

Not possible that they are ill-informed? Once we’ve reviewed what the relevant terms mean, you tell us if our distinguished gentlepersons in DC really want contractors to have Rules of Engagement.

Defining Moments

More often than not, anti-war wannabe philosophers and hawkish armchair commandos seem to use ‘rules of engagement’ to refer to those principles that the world has generally agreed should guide the conduct of hostilities.

Geneva-type stuff. Don’t use poison gas. Don’t attack hospitals (so long as no troops are there). Don’t play Celine Dion. And so on.

As an aside, wasn’t Ms. Dion last seen selling used cars with Gary Coleman and Macauley Culkin? Or maybe it was appearing in another white-trash-a-thon C-list celebrity boxing match right after the Kevin Federline / Tara Reid card. We’re not sure.

Before the diehards write in, we’re just kidding, Celine. We love ya more than Jar Jar Binks. No, really.

Although rules of engagement certainly could be issued to prohibit these actions, these principles are not rules of engagement—they are part of the Law of War.

You can read about the Law of War on Wikipedia, through a little online research, on various military pages, in legal sources, search sites, academic blogs, historical works … all over the place.

Given that we’re interested in DoD control of force, though, we could also just read what Defense Department Directive 2311.01E, the DoD Law of War Program, says on the subject. It defines the Law of War for us as follows:

That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. … The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international law.

In other words, the Law of War is the body of international treaties that address the conduct of armed hostilities and aim to protect civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked. (History nerds can learn more here.)

So how are Rules of Engagement, or ROE, different from the Law of War? ROE are issued by senior military commanders to tell their troops how to engage hostile forces while complying with the Law of War. The Department of Defense defines ROE in one of its Joint Publications like this:

Directives issued by competent military authority that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered.

The ROE tell uniformed military when and how they conduct not just defensive but also offensive operations. That is, the ROE establish options for attack. In practice, ROE are ordered for a given military campaign by selecting from a “menu,” if you will, in a classified military directive called CJCSI 3121.01A, Standing Rules of Engagement for U.S. Forces.

Once the selected ROE make it out into the field, the guys facing the business end of someone else’s AK-47 know when and how they can and can’t do something to remedy that situation.

As Angus often says, “Well, slap me silly and call me Susan.” (Actually, the only thing we’ve heard since the attack is feverish mumbling about “But where you’re from, everyone else rapes goats in the winter, too. Right?” But that’s just the cheap Mexican pharmaceuticals talking. We hope.)

So Are Contractors Adrift?

If there’s one thing the Pentagon has no shortage of, it would be rules. And military forces outside of combat zones do need some kind of guidance on using force.

So, if only we had something other than ROE ... some other thing we could call that guidance … some way to set out rules for the use of force.

Thumbing through the Joint Publication noted above, we find that they have this neat little thing called ... Rules for the Use of Force. (It’s almost like they’ve done this armed conflict thing before.) In keeping with the military’s acronymania, the Rules are also known as “RUF.”

Rules for the Use of Force are: “Directives issued to guide United States forces on the use of force during various operations.” These are the rules that generally govern defensive actions.

For example, in domestic operations by uniformed forces, RUF are available for everything from unarmed force rules in the wake of a nuclear incident to armed force rules for counterdrug ops, and even real-world rules for one of the crown jewels of conspirists everywhere, Garden Plot.

Returning to the idea that, no matter how much we like to deride and second-guess the folks at the Pentagon, this ain’t their first time at the rodeo, the military ensured that the Coalition Provisional Authority issued not just any RUF, but “Rules for the Use of Force by Contractors in Iraq.”

These Iraq contractor RUF can be found in Annex A to the infamous CPA Order 17. Strange how so many can find Order 17 when they want to make various claims about immunity, but can’t seem to find the RUF from the same document.

And, to the extent anyone thinks the RUF in Order 17 are a one-off thing for Iraq, the DoD Instruction on contractors accompanying the force not only requires RUF always be issued, but requires explicit authorization for contractors to be armed, requires contractor training on applicable RUF, etc.

Of course, these particular edicts do not address RUF for non-DoD contractors outside of Iraq.

But neither does the defense appropriation.

Conclusion

If some eager Hill staffer somehow had the misfortune to wander into the low-rent backwater of the Internet that is The Rabbit, then in an ideal world they would read this post and say, “But of course we knew these things.”

On the other hand, you might see their mouth drop open like a $2 suitcase.

Again, we leave it to you to determine whether our Congress or our nation really means to give armed contractors Rules of Engagement. They already have Rules for the Use of Force.

-------------------------------

Next Time: Body Armor

Postscript: Now that we are temporarily McCreavy-less, we’re thinking about just going ahead and making PSC Internet Loons a weekly feature here at The Rabbit. In fact, this week we were going to slag this scrappy young purveyor of truthiness.

However, we have already run overly long this week—no editor, no editing, you know?

Speaking of which, the graphic arts department is attempting The Rabbit’s first-ever photoshopping to make a get well card for ol’ Angus. Unfortunately, the result was a huge catfight over whether it should be Godzilla and Rodan, or should be SpaceGodzilla and The Smog Monster, who appear in the steel cage match deathmatch pic against McCreavy and Ultraman.

Oh, and since McCreavy wasn’t around to give the rest of us rubes the appropriate highbrow reference to this “Alice’s Evidence” thing, we got together and decided to go with Alice’s Restaurant instead. Watch and enjoy.

Is it just us or does the red-velour-jacketed henchman from the garbage-dumping incident in the Restaurant video look strikingly like a lost extra who wandered in from Planet of the Apes?

Why Not More Armed Contractor Trials? (Part 3)

2007-09-12T21:00:00.000-07:00

Chapter 11 – Who Stole the Tarts?

We’re in a multi-part series discussing armed contractor accountability. First we looked at the Blackwater Christmas Eve shooting and immunity, the UCMJ, and civilian crimes, then we began asking why there haven’t been more trials. Last week we looked at the idealist view that investigations are proceeding. Publication of the recent Pilot article on the shooting also brought a bonus mid-week post noting the article and discussing the pragmatist view that seasoned veterans are less likely to use unnecessary force. This time, we’ll look at the pessimist view and, if we don’t run too long, potential solutions.

Mer-tractors and Contraries

Whatever your view of contractors / mercenaries (your choice) … ok, wait a minute. We are sick of typing that week after week. Can’t we at least come up with a non-controversial term we all agree on?? Mer-tractors? Contraries? Something?

Anyway, whatever you call these individuals supporting U.S. overseas presence, the Pessimist has another view of the accountability situation. The problem is not lack of regulation, but rather inability/unwillingness to enforce what is already on the books.

The argument really comes in two flavors: civil authorities do not more vigorously enforce criminal laws when it comes to armed contractors because they are already so hopelessly overburdened that this task falls off the table, or they do not enforce because of political direction to focus their limited resources elsewhere. One argument is more partisan and cynical than the other, but both basically describe a resources-to-requirements mismatch.

We’ll look at requirements first. Just how much crime is there to be battled?

Bad Boys

To understand the challenge facing law enforcement, first let’s look at U.S. crime generally. In 2005, there were 1.4 million violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, rape, etc.) reported nationwide, or about one for every 213 people in the U.S. However, there were only 603,503 arrests for violent crime, meaning that the arrest rate for these acts is about 43%—understanding of course that arrest is not synonymous with guilt or trial.

This sounds bad, but not to worry—it gets worse. First, these are the reported crimes, leaving out a massive number of unreported incidents. Further, law enforcement does not realistically have the option of enforcing only violent crime laws, so meaningful crime statistics have to include all offenses.

A better approximation of the number that is of interest comes from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is the federal government’s estimation of total violent crime plus certain property crimes. According to the Survey, there are approximately 23 million such crimes annually, about one for every 12.9 people. With just over 14 million arrests annually, perpetrators have about a 61% chance of being arrested—better (for society) than 43% but not great.

Of course, the Survey statistics do not include white-collar offenses and the thousands of, shall we say “less traditional,” crimes we’ve discussed before. Meaning that altogether there are significantly more than the aforementioned 23 million offenses annually, and likelihood of arrest is something well south of 61%.

The point being that even inside the United States, with a stable society, advanced equipment and methods, and officers working on their native turf, we see that perpetrators have a good chance of avoiding accountability, and those who commit a violent crime are more likely than not to ‘get away with it.’

Like A Beard On a 13 Year-Old

The problem, it seems, is that there’s simply too much area to cover with just a limited amount of fuzz. There are about 840,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers nationwide, or about one for every 350 people.

Remembering that our interest here is enforcement of federal criminal law, however, we have to exclude the hundreds of thousands of state and local officers. Looking at the 104,884 federal officers authorized to carry firearms and make arrests, we see there is about one officer for every 2826 people in the U.S.

Or, looking at it another way, given that there are between 4,000 and 10,000 federal criminal prohibitions (that is, four to ten thousand different crimes with which one could be charged), there are only between 10 and 26 officers available for a given crime in a nation of about 300 million.

That’s not quite as bad as it might seem because, hopefully, federal authorities have more people assigned to violent crimes than to atrocities like transporting water hyacinths, gluing together dollar bills, or impersonating a 4-H club member—all punishable by time in the federal pen.

We’d list more examples, but just can’t stomach looking up more of this nonsense. I’d rather do something less painful—like stick my hand in the garbage disposal.

We're talking runaway government that is simply dumb. Not just dumb like “Why was I an Art History major?” dumb, but dumb like walking-into-Michael-Vick’s-barn-wearing-a-raw-steak-suit dumb.

Anyway, the contractor accountability debate is most often based on two premises: that “there are no laws” or that “they are not enforced.” We have already looked at the fact that contrary to myth, the laws are in place. And now, looking at the formidable demands we place on federal law enforcement, it appears that enforcement here may be hampered by the sheer volume of what we ask these men and women to do.

Of course, just like with Mer-tractors and Contraries, the general public has an entirely accurate and realistic grasp of—and is consistently presented with a clear picture of—what law enforcement is capable of and does on a daily basis:

So, you know, it simply must be that those armed contractor crimes just aren’t being investigated because nobody wants to, not because of resource constraints. Right?

Federal Bureau of Iraq?

So how do the enforcement prospects compare for armed contractors? The FBI currently runs over fifty overseas offices, including of course Iraq and Afghanistan. They do not announce how many personnel they have in-country, beyond saying “we have dozens” in Iraq.

We’ll err on the side of caution and call it exactly 24 people. Depending on which armed contractor headcount you choose (6000; 10,800; 30,000; etc.) that equates to somewhere between 250 and 1250 armed contractors per agent, which compares pretty well to the 2826:1 ratio discussed above.

Of course, if you use the 180,000 contractor number—on the bulletproof idea that the FBI is going to investigate actions by Iraqi garbagemen and teachers—then the ratio is something like 7500:1.

Regardless, the Pessimist argues that there is a requirements-resource mismatch. First of all, the agents-to-people ratio is inherently and unavoidably an apples-to-cumquats comparison. As noted on the link above, the FBI Iraq field office has many other tasks. Further, the contractors are operating in a far more hostile and dangerous environment than Joe Sixpack back home.

Unless Joe lives in Detroit.

The point is that the laws and the infrastructure foundation are in place to hold accountable any contractor that We the People choose, more resources and effort just needs be put forth.

Winds of Change?

To summarize, for six posts now we have been examining the facts and picking apart various contractor accountability issues without providing much information on a way forward.

Fortunately (or not, see below), there is growing interest in D.C. right now in this issue. And, as more and more traditional media wake up to the issue, we will see a veritable avalanche of stories about the actions and mistakes of low-end and fledgling operators. They will be excerpted and reposted at length. You can watch it live this week with the Steve Fainaru article from the Washington Post.

The result will be a frenzy of cries for “new laws to address this crisis.” Because even though forktrucks are needed (no, I mean literally needed) to haul out all of the legislation passed each year from the hallowed halls of Congress, the answer to any concern is “I have written a bill …”

Nevermind that adequate enforcement of what already exists—whether under UCMJ or civil law—is the primary thing that is needed.

After all, if you sponsor a bill, you must be an aggressive, take-charge performer who is making things happen for the good citizenry back home in ________ [insert your state here].

The name of the game is: have a clerk slap together a bill, trade some favors to get co-sponsors, and then fire up the press-release machinery, baby.

Want an example? ‘Senator adds funds for asparagus production research.’ (Nobody get smug here, you can find those for nearly any issue, for both major parties, and from every Representative and Senator. Everyone wants their snout in the public trough.)

If you long-time readers have not broken the code on this, I will put Super Unleaded in a cheap rental car before I argue for more new laws. But that’s just me.

So What’s On Deck?

The Library of Congress, a primary source for information on current Legislative activity, reports several hundred bills in progress regarding contractors or accountability.

There are, however, twenty-two bills that deal most directly or most harshly with the issue, or are most likely to actually be sent down Pennsylvania Avenue. So, let’s examine each of the following bills in depth:

H.R. 369 – Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007
H.R. 400 – War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007
H.R. 528 – Iraq Contracting Fraud Review Act of 2007
H.R. 714 – War Funding Accountability Act
H.R. 846 – Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act
H.R. 897 – Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act
H.R. 1362 – Accountability in Contracting Act
H.R. 1585 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY07
H.R. 1763 – Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007
H.R. 1986 – Federal Contractor Accountability Act of 2007
H.R. 2198– Contractor Accountability Act
H.R. 2206– To provide emergency supplemental war spending
H.R. 2740 - MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007
H.R. 3033 - Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act of 2007
S. 32– Defense Acquisition Reform Act of 2007
S.119 – War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007
S.567 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007
S.606 – Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act
S.674 - Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007
S.680 – Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007
S.1004 – Restoring Integrity in Contracting Act of 2007
S.1825 – Commission on Wartime Contracting Establishment Act

Just kidding.

The staff here at the Rabbit has very few rules, but those we have are ironclad. Number one with a bullet is “Friday is No-Pants Day.” Close behind is “Never Make a Beer Call Your Name Twice” and right now I hear that sweet Siren song.

Next time, we’ll talk about the one or two bills most likely to pass. Or just find a whole new topic.

----------------

Postscript: As frequent readers know, The Rabbit is a huge advocate of a vigorous and informed public debate. Last week’s Pilot article (and resulting AP story) on the Christmas Eve shooting was positive in that it sparked some useful discussion of contractor accountability here and there.

You can learn a lot from reading the comment threads of such discussion. However, it is always interesting when the loons weigh in. Exhibit A: “It sounds as if someone in our government was trying to assassinate the Vice President of Iraq, and I would like to know MUCH more about this!”

Yes, lady, you nailed it: That is the best black ops plan that our entire national security apparatus could come up with—send one drunken bumbler, armed only with an unsilenced handgun, who after eliminating the bodyguard for the VP, suffers a severe A.D.D. attack and wanders over to Liberty Pool to have that alarmingly drunk “I Love you, man!!!” moment with acquaintances, confess the shooting, and then go home to pass out.

It’s good to hear from people like this from time-to-time. Posers and idiots who set aside the gin bottle, put down the sweater they’re knitting for their cat and, Pall Mall clenched firmly in their green teeth, bang out comments explaining how it is all a ________ [Republican / Democrat / Arab / UN / Teletubby / whatever] plot.

We can only pray that ol’ green teeth’s hopes are realized and we all learn about the secret meeting at the FEMA moon base where the shooter was given his classified orders by the NWO security delegation comprised of Elvis, a Sasquatch from each of the four lost tribes, and the re-animated head of Ted Williams.

Really, you can learn a lot by reading random comment threads.

Or, you can watch 3:00 am reruns of Alf on Telemundo. That would be just as helpful.

“Donde esta le gato, Alf?”

By the way, we did not photoshop the Alf picture. Someone out there in a very dark and scary corner of the internet has some serious fetish issues.

Why Not More Armed Contractor Trials? (Part 2)

2007-09-12T20:52:00.000-07:00

Chapter 10 – The Lobster Quadrille

We have been examining accountability, discussing in previous posts the Blackwater Christmas Eve shooting and immunity, the UCMJ, and civilian crimes. Now we are considering idealist, pragmatist, and pessimist views on why there have not been more armed contractor trials. The idealist view is that meaningful investigation and proper prosecution of serious incidents take time, and more trials are both inevitable and approaching. This time: new developments and the pragmatist view.

The Trial’s Beginning

In the months since the Christmas Eve shooting, you have no doubt read hundreds of pieces offering insightful, detailed discussion and analysis of contractor accountability, including the applicable laws, the policy consid … you haven’t? Um, dozens of pieces? Uh, one or two pieces?

Ah, we forget. That doesn’t sell papers. It has to be sexy. Scandalous. Sleazy. If the spin can’t be “filthy mercenaries drinking babies’ blood in the moonlight while dancing around a bonfire of taxpayer dollars,” then it might not sell.

Take a minute some day and search “Blackwater Christmas Eve.” (Google, Yahoo, whatever.)

You will find a great deal of tabloid-like sensationalism of the known facts about the shooting itself—and very little discussion of the accountability aspects of the case. Usually you get “are subject to no laws at all,” or perhaps “subject to little regulation.”

So, the trial of our young shooter friend is beginning, but what say we hold it on the front page—that should ensure the rights of all involved, no? (For the record: If you want opinion, then based on what is public knowledge, our opinion is that the Blackwater armorer should be tried for murder or manslaughter and, if found guilty, imprisoned. However, opinion, we believe, should not be the focus of “news reporting.”)

We mention this, of course, because the Pilot today breaks lots of new background info on the incident, but the analysis can be summed up by this excerpt: “Contractors operate in a legal gray area.” Perhaps a truer statement was never written, but we'd like to deny the idea that 'the public is too ignorant to understand these issues.' Apathetic, perhaps. Stupid, no.

So kudos to the Pilot for uncovering more background info about this incident, but a brickbat to the forehead for taking a great opening for substantive discussion and squandering it. An in-depth look at contractor accountability would have been a valuable public service, but I guess you’ve gotta sell copy and make bonuses.

That said, let’s turn to the pragmatist view and see why courtroom trials of armed contractors / mercenaries (your call) should be expected, but in meaningfully lower per capita numbers than one might at first glance believe.

The Pragmatist: Angels and Boy Scouts?

The testimony we were discussing last time points out 64 courts-martial of servicemembers for serious crimes in Iraq. Three months have passed and there have been some ugly stories involving military, so we’ll call it seventy to date

According to old T. Christian Miller, there are roughly 160,000 U.S. military in Iraq and about 180,000 contractors. (We probably ought to throw the 118,000 Iraqis out of that number since they are a local matter—I mean, com’on, the number includes garbagemen and teachers—but let’s leave ‘em in just for fun. And it keeps the headline “Sassy!!”)

So, ispo facto, QED, etc., etc., we use a ratio and see ... there should have been at least 78.75 contractors indicted by now, right? Not so fast.

As the testimony is quick to note, there are contractors and then there are armed contractors (you know, the mercenaries!)

The number of armed goons / security professionals is unclear. Mr. Miller says that the DoD dude charged with tracking civilian gun-toters says 6000. The Times gets to 10,800 based on companies present in-country—apparently forgetting that the staffs of those outfits include cooks, drivers, mechanics, etc., too.

The story also claims “the industry” says 30,000 armed contractors, although there does not seem to be any public record of the big three PSC trade associations making that statement. If you walk it backwards through a string of newspaper articles you find that 30,000 figure appearing from unnamed “Pentagon and company representatives” a few months ago, and it originally reading “as many as 30,000 Iraqis and ‘several thousand expats’ are working for private outfits in Iraq,” according to notoriously reliable and accurate Scott Custer, of Custer Battles fraud infamy.

But hey, that’s what myths are built of.

For purposes of discussion, let’s go with the 10,800 armed-contractor figure from the Times.

That would mean 4.73 armed contractors—let’s call it five—should be expected to have been prosecuted, right? Uh, not exactly.

That number assumes that the training, maturity, and experience of the armed contractors match that of the U.S. armed forces present in Iraq. Not correct.

Are You Experienced?

The vast majority (76%) of the 2.7 million strong active and reserve U.S. military force is under the age of 35. Or, looking at it another way, about 60.6% of the force is junior enlisted (E-1 to E-5) and another 3.6% is new officers, so roughly 64% of the force is comprised of less-experienced, junior personnel.

Private security forces, however, are comprised in vast majority of more-experienced, seasoned personnel. For example, looking at our strawman, Blackwater, they hire “military veterans in the 38-40 year age bracket who are experienced for deployment in the field.” (Outer Banks Sentinel, June 24, 2007).

Another indication of experience level may be found in who PSC’s seek to hire. E.g., Blackwater looks for U.S. citizens with at least eight years of special forces experience, honorable discharge and security clearance.

On top of the experience these veterans bring in the door, there is the company-provided training, as reported by our friends at the Pilot (before they realized how much attention they got by covering Blackwater).

We realize full well that analytical discussion of armed contractor experience detracts from the mythical media persona of The Mercenary as rugged, plaid-wearing, beef-jerky-eating badass danger junkies who make pirates, ninjas and, well, lumberjacks look like pansies, who are hairy and like to scratch themselves, and who don’t know what conditioner is for. Sorry to disappoint. Maybe someday we’ll do a whole post about gun-ape stereotypes, but for today let’s stick with the experience question.

Rookie Mistakes

In keeping with our ground rules, we’ll let The Nation detail what happens when you put less-experienced personnel into a challenging environment like Iraq:

20-year-old soldiers [go] from the humiliation of training—“getting yelled at every day if you have a dirty weapon”—to the streets of Iraq, where “it’s like life and death. And 40-year-old Iraqi men look at us with fear and we can—do you know what I mean?—we have this power that you can’t have.”

From the same story:

And, you know, you’ve got these scared kids on these guns, and they just start opening fire. And there could be innocent people everywhere. And I’ve seen this, I mean, on numerous occasions where innocent people died because we’re cruising down and a bomb goes off.

And another:

“This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun,” he said. “This car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that’s a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle.”

These quotes are all from a charming story about how U.S. military forces are murderers, rapists and sadists. The relevant point for the instant discussion, however, is that less-experienced personnel are more likely to be involved in incidents that result in excessive use of force and avoidable deaths or injuries (to avoid the perceived partisanship inherent in “collateral damage” vs. “brutal murdering pigs” or whatever).

OK, but how about empirical evidence that seasoned forces are less likely to commit crimes?

More Numbers

U.S. court-martial statistics are apparently no longer made public, but historical numbers show the overwhelming majority of court-martials involve junior personnel.

Looking to other sources, U.K. statistics clearly support the point, with the vast majority of criminal actions involving the most junior personnel (as noted above, likely both because there are more of them and because they are more likely to ‘get in trouble.’) In fact, all by themselves Privates account for about 2/3 of the UK total. Similarly, Privates and Corporals alone comprise over 84% of Canadian courts-martial.

This discussion will be harshly attacked no matter how conservatively we estimate, but let’s take only the UK Privates as a guide, and figure that more experienced personnel are 1/3 as likely to engage in misconduct. Our expected five contractors now becomes 1.67—call it two.

Conclusion

Sir Churchill probably had it right when he said, “Statistics are like a drunk with a lamppost: used more for support than illumination.” Of course there are other arguments in regarding the likelihood of contractor vs. soldier misconduct. For example: Soldiers are performing offensive missions while contractors are bodyguards or static security, so incidents are even less likely. Or, on the other hand: “These numbers are all so misleading—they only mean the senior people know how not to get caught!!!”

Nonetheless, the Pragmatist does have a credible argument that as a practical matter, seasoned honorable-discharge veterans are meaningfully less likely to engage in criminal misconduct than are military personnel as a whole.

Next time: The Pessimist … and potential solutions.

----------------

Postscript: The last post mentioned gay porn, in passing, as part of the Cornhole Conspiracy discussion, and apparently that caused some folks to get their panties in a bunch. Let’s make something clear—U.S. prisons are not ideal, but they are better accomodations than much of the world has, and we here at The Rabbit don’t much care whether some dude would rather swap spit with Claudia Schiffer or with a lumberjack.

Also: Incongruous story of the week—Blackwater is going green? So much for “blood for oil.”

Why Not More Armed Contractor Trials? (Part 1)

2007-09-12T20:41:00.000-07:00

Chapter 9 – The Mock Turtle’s Story

The Queen never left off quarrelling with the other players, and shouting “Off with his head!” or “Off with her head!” Those whom she sentenced were taken into custody … so that, by the end of half an hour or so… all the players, except the King, the Queen, and Alice, were in custody and under sentence of execution. …

“It’s all her fancy, that: they never executes nobody, you know.”

We’ve been looking at contractor/mercenary (your choice) accountability, discussing in previous parts the Blackwater Christmas Eve shooting and immunity, the UCMJ, and civilian crimes. This week, we ask why we don’t see more contractor prosecutions. The answer may be unknowable, but idealist, pragmatist, and pessimist considerations will be laid out in this chapter.

“Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”

As the Iraq mission or fiasco (your call) has ground on, a number of sites or posts have sprung up dissecting Iraq-related statistics in Mariana-like depth. For example, you want the number of coalition casualties and deaths broken down six ways to Sunday? Here’s your site. Iraqi civilian casualties (post-Saddam)? The economic cost of the war, er, the effort? Bombs per day? Mail and packages delivered? Cross-dressers detained?

The argument being either “We’re working hard to carry out a difficult tasking for our nation” or “War is ugly and painful” (well, duh).

Statistics play a role in the contractor accountability debate as well.

The most vocal critic of private security is as good an example as any. In March of 2007, Mr. Scahill was claiming: “It’s like the Wild West over there. And there are numerous reports of extraordinary violence being committed on the part of contractors. Yet there are no prosecutions.”

Of course, in the same interview, he says “In reality, only one contractor has been indicted for any crime or violation in Iraq. Either we have 100,000 saints running around as contractors in Iraq, or something is very rotten. I happen to think something is very rotten.”

A few weeks later he writes: “Despite the tens of thousands of contractors passing through Iraq and several well-documented incidents involving alleged contractor abuses, only two individuals have been ever indicted for crimes there.”

And by May 2007 the testimony was: “In four years, there have been no prosecutions for crimes against Iraqis committed by contractors and not a single known prosecution of an armed contractor. That either means that we have tens of thousands of boy scouts working as armed contractors or something is fundamentally wrong with the system.”

This may be living proof of the old saw, “Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” Let’s assume these factual assertions are indeed fact, and consider what they tell us.

The Idealist: “All We Need Is Just A Little Patience”

The assertions above are intended to support the argument that there is “zero accountability.” But, they also reflect a move from zero contractor prosecutions, to one, then two, and then, as the original soundbite lost steam, a careful parsing to distinguish between “good” contractors and “evil” private security and thereby maintain the “no accountability” riff.

So is it possible that the wheels of justice here in America are rolling forward, they just grind along rather slowly?

By the end of 2006, DoJ was just getting around to releasing its annual Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics—for 2004. According to the Compendium, the Speedy Trial Act requires that indictment occur within 30 days of arrest, and the government must be ready for trial within 70 days. Because defendants can waive those rights, the average time from indictment to trial completion in reality is 9.5 months.

But that time is just the tip of the iceberg, because the time period of interest for us begins with the crime itself. It is the total time from crime to trial.

Given the Speedy Trial Act incentive to delay arrest until the case is effectively ready for trial (a/k/a until the last possible moment), the total time is presumably something well in excess of 9.5 months.

Unfortunately, although the FBI tracks crime in mind-numbing statistical detail, there appears to be no government tracking of crime-to-indictment timeframes, or average duration of federal criminal investigations. (Um, yeah. I’m gonna need you to just visit all 94 federal criminal district court dockets and compile a chart of crime-to-indictment times for us since 2004. Alright.)

It is possible, however, to get some feel for the timeline of a violent crime case by looking at anecdotal examples. Let’s look at cases ‘ripped from the headlines’ this week.

A typical happens-every-day kind of crime is the somewhat widely noted Pizza Delivery Bomb-Collar case. The attempted robbery took place on August 28, 2003, yet indictments related to this masterpiece of criminal super-genius did not occur until last week—nearly four years later.

The investigation of wall-of-sound wunderkind Phil Spector began soon after Lana Clarkson was shot in his foyer in February 2005, but the matter did not go to trial until April 2007.

The suitcase-stuffing husband-hacker … killing in April 2004, sentenced July 2007.

Recidivist child-molesting murderer John Evander Couey—Why do these freaks always go by their full name? And why, until now, do so many of them have the middle name Wayne? “IT CHANGES ITS MIDDLE NAME TO EVANDER.”—killed Jessica Lunsford in February 2005, but was convicted just this spring.

Polygamist sect leader Warren Steed Jeffs … conduct 2003, indictment last week.

We leave it to the reader to dig up your own examples regarding maimings by a neighbor’s angry pet wolverine, berserk homeowner attacks on overly persistent Jehovah’s Witnesses, or whatever other crime blows up your dress.

Those who are joining The Rabbit in our campaign for critical thinking realize that any limited string of isolated incidents like this does not establish reasonable investigatory delay as a proven element of the contractor-indictment story.

Nonetheless, it does show that meaningful delays before prosecution are not uncommon, to say the least.

Further, in keeping with our statistics motif, there are statistics from foreign systems which are somewhat instructive, although they have different due process and procedural protections of rights.

For example, while I personally would not go out and seek to be tried in the Bulgarian justice system, crime to trial there runs 683 days. One UK law enforcement entity reports 29.7 months from “accepting a case” for investigation until completion of trial proceedings.

Again, nowhere near enough data to push the hypothesis to theory status or full-on principle. However, there clearly is support for the argument that contractor cases have begun wending their way through the legal system, and more should be expected. Although this point is at best a small part of the picture regarding contractor accountability, it is one that should reasonably be factored in to the debate over contractor accountability.

The Idealist believes in the rule of law, that due process and procedural safeguards are important, and that it may be slow but ultimately justice will prevail.

Unfortunately, those seeking to make political hay on this issue apparently expect a thorough investigation, indictment, trial, sentencing and imprisonment in about as much time as it takes you to read this sentence. This ain’t CSI: Tikrit, brother.

Next time: Even more statistics with The Pragmatist.

---------------------

Warning: Pure Opinion Follows. The unholy triad of the idealist/pragmatist/pessimist considerations has its antithesis in the fascinating blogosphere claims (which I read 238.4 times this week while researching this post) that the lack of mercenary punishment is due to some massive Rothschildesque Illuminati cabal secretly arranging collusion between the entire U.S. law enforcement and justice systems and the PSC arm of the politico-military-industrial complex. Hey conspirists, news flash: Dateline: U.N. One World Government Directorate: The Christmas Eve shooter is like the dude in the red shirt on a Star Trek landing party. He is like the third jumpsuited henchman on the left in the secret underground lair. If he’s guilty, then no one gives a crap if this cat ends up starring in his own personal live-action gay-porn version of Cellblock: Cornhole Armageddon II. I mean, I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all, well liked by his momma, his high school wrestling coach, and his podiatrist, but it seems to us that if anyone thinks that the PMIC, the PSC industry, or Blackwater is going through machinations to ensure ‘he goes free for murder’ they need to put down the crack pipe. Any rational actor—admittedly a concept that escapes wild-eyed nutjobs stinking of bongwater—whether driven by patriotism or by avarice, would want him to go to jail, if he is guilty, if for no other reason than to spin the accountability PR. Plus, then they (and all the rest of us) wouldn’t have to listen to you endlessly run your piehole about him. And, after this post, about the fact that The Rabbit is a secret front for The Syndicate. Ooops, you discovered us. Foiled again. Curses.

Criminal Trials of Blackwater Contractors

2007-09-12T20:32:00.000-07:00

Chapter 8 – The Queen’s Croquet-Ground

Rewind

We have been looking at security contractor / mercenary (your choice) accountability via the case of an Air Force shooting at Manas Air Base and the Blackwater Christmas Eve shooting in Baghdad. Part 1 of this series discussed CPA Order 17 “absolute immunity,” while part 2 considered the UCMJ. This week, we stick with our two test cases and tackle “regular” criminal prosecutions under U.S. law.

For those with ADHD so intense that you can’t make it through this post, the bottom line is: Changes to MEJA aren’t needed to send either of these shooters to Oz. While the rest of us analyze, you can ... hey look at that shiny thing over there!

Conventional Wisdom

There are frequently two levels of analysis on the issue of criminal liability for contractors.

The first consists of standard-issue soundbites that contractors operate in “a legal no-man’s land, under no authoritative jurisdiction from any US or international law,” or as Mr. Scahill puts it “they operate in a climate of total impunity. There is no effective law that governs these mercenary forces in Iraq.” Even Congressmen pile on the hyperbole bus, charging “there’s zero accountability.”

There is as much truth there as in every story beginning, “I never thought this would happen to me. I am a senior at a small college in the Midwest …”

Anyway, the second level of analysis goes somewhat beyond sweeping diatribe, showing an understanding of the shortcomings in the UCMJ and the Military Extraterratorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA. But even at this ‘second level,’ the accountability issue is often cast as UCMJ vs. MEJA, with the implication being MEJA is the only way to prosecute overseas crimes.

That’s another urban fable.

Power From The People

If things are working as designed, U.S. federal courts have only that power granted to them by the Constitution and the Congress. This means federal criminal courts can try only those cases they have been granted the authority (i.e., jurisdiction) to hear. The grant can come in two flavors—either the crime to be prosecuted must have been created based on a constitutional grant of authority, or the crime must have been committed on federal territory (DC, national parks, federal courthouses, etc.).

In the first instance, jurisdiction exists because it’s inherent (e.g., tax evasion). In the second, territorial jurisdiction exists because of where the crime took place.

This regime is largely transparent because most crimes of interest take place inside the United States and, if not local matters, are swept up by the Commerce Clause, which can seem to give the modern federal government the power to do almost anything. That does not make the restrictions any less real.

When crimes take place outside the territorial U.S., and the domestic Commerce Clause connection is gone, the restrictions become critical. Then, the statute must provide jurisdiction, or there must be some territorial jurisdiction.

MEJA? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ MEJA

Contrary to the common refrain, there are a number of stout criminal statutes that provide for federal court jurisdiction worldwide. The only real question is: What conduct do you want to punish? Here is a random sampling:

War Crime Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441) – provides for criminal trial if either the victim or the perpetrator is a U.S. citizen, with punishments up to and including the death penalty. Crimes under this Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment (including degrading treatment), murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and hostage-taking, as well as conspiring to do any of these things. Federal courts have jurisdiction under this Act without reference to MEJA.

Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) – implements the UN Convention Against Torture by providing for federal criminal trial if perpetrator is a U.S. citizen or is ever found in the U.S. Punishments include death penalty. Statute covers conspiring and, again, there is federal court jurisdiction without reliance on MEJA.

Genocide Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1091) – grounds for massive fines and punishment up to death for a U.S. citizen who engages in or incites genocide anywhere in the world.

PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. § 2423) – provides up to 30-year sentences for U.S. citizens engaging in illicit sexual contact overseas with anyone whatsoever under 16, and with anyone under 18 on a ‘commercial’ basis. MEJA not involved, statute itself provides jurisdiction.

Walker Act (18 U.S.C. § 960) – prohibits U.S.-based financing, initiation or conduct of any military action against any nation with which the United States is at peace and provides for fine and imprisonment.

So much for Mr. Scahill’s oft-repeated claim: “As one U.S. Congressmember observed, in strictly military terms, Blackwater could overthrow many of the world’s governments.” (Never mind that the Keystone Cops—or a half-dozen good-sized Girl Scouts for that matter—could overthrow many of the world’s governments.)

Another section in that same chapter (18 U.S.C. § 956) outlaws conspiracies to commit murder, kidnapping, or intentional injury or damage abroad—punishable by up to life.

Is the worry that contractors will harm U.S. military personnel, government employees, or other contractors?

Then, regardless of “where in the world the crime occurs, or the nationality of the offender or the means used, it is a federal crime to kill, beat, or kidnap … members of the U.S. diplomatic corps, any other federal officer or employee including members of the armed forces (or anyone assisting them) because of or during the performance of their duties.” (Congressional Research Service, listing 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 351, 1114, 1201, 1751)

These laws should cover the majority of potential contractor job-related crimes, and given these, much of the hysteria over lack of laws appears to be more agenda-driven than well founded. (which is not to say that effective enforcement is taking place—we’ll get to that later.)

ET: The Extraterritorial

The “worldwide jurisdiction” statutes listed above are largely the exception to the rule. Generally speaking, a court only has jurisdiction over crimes that took place in the geographic area in which it sits.

Assuming, however, that imprisonment under the above statutes for things like murder, torture, and child rape is not sufficient to deal with these contractor types, let’s look at alternative sources of jurisdiction so that the entire body of federal criminal law (somewhere between 4000 and 10,000 individual crimes—no one is really sure) can come in to play.

After all, whatever would we do if there was no power of overseas enforcement for federal crimes such as: disrupting a rodeo (Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. § 43); improperly using the image of Smokey Bear (18 U.S.C. § 711); or the old standby, prematurely removing a mattress tag (Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1196). Oy, man’s inhumanity to man.

So, if you are a federal government and your territorial jurisdiction (power over federal property) is not sufficient, what to do? Simple, pass a statute giving yourself some extraterritorial jurisdiction!

The thing is, extraterritorial jurisdiction existed long before the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Section 7 of the federal criminal code identifies a whole laundry list of places as being within the “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” You want to try someone for crimes at an embassy? On a U.S.-licensed airplane? On a cruise ship; the Great Lakes; an overseas fort; a rock containing deposits of guano?? Section 7 is your huckleberry.

Note that federal jurisdiction exists under Section 7 for crimes on overseas military and diplomatic facilities, without reference to MEJA. Not exactly in keeping with the myth.

In fact, one of the more high-profile post-9/11 contractor convictions was based on Section 7, not MEJA. The much-maligned PATRIOT Act broadened Section 7 to allow prosecution of civilian contractors for crimes not just on U.S. diplomatic and military posts, but those committed anyplace “appurtenant or ancillary” to them. Under this authority, a CIA contractor was convicted of assault and sentenced to more than eight years in prison in connection with beating a detainee who later died.

So What Does MEJA Add?

As court-martial jurisdiction over civilians was eroded by court decisions, a supplement to Section 7 to ensure federal court jurisdiction became of interest. After 40 years of indecision, that update finally became reality in 2000, and its name was MEJA.

MEJA made it an independent federal crime to engage in felonious conduct if the accused was “employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States.” In other words, it created worldwide jurisdiction for any felony by a DoD contractor. So, for example, there is jurisdiction on-base under Section 7, and in off-base housing under MEJA.

The problem, as previously discussed in connection with the flaws inherent in using the UCMJ for contractor punishment, is that not all contractors are DoD. This came to a head in connection with the Abu Ghraib debacle, when the accused were working for the Department of the Interior.

Accordingly, MEJA was modified in 2005 to cover contractors for “any other Federal agency, or any provisional authority, to the extent such employment relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas.”

A nice change, to be sure, but once again in the category of who couldn’t drive a truck through that, what about overseas contractors who are not supporting a DoD mission?

That would be one of several reasons there is a whole flotilla of MEJA amendments drifting around Capitol Hill.

Even without another amendment, however, MEJA brings the entire myriad of federal criminal statutes to bear on the majority of contractors worldwide. In the interest of thorough analysis of contractor accountability, one in particular bears mention:

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 to 1594) – creates felony criminal offenses to outlaw forced labor, human trafficking, sex trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor (such as by ID confiscation).

The statutes of interest to our Manas airman and the Blackwater armorer, though, would be garden-variety domestic crimes that have been federalized, such as Murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111) or Manslaughter (18 U.S.C. § 1112),

Who Goes To Jail Here?

Certainly one of the top five Jesse Jackson quotes of all time would have to be the claim that “imprisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon-master.” So if we want to know which shooter should be fitted for leather chaps, the answer is … both. (Again, setting aside all that persnickety due process stuff).

Although we the public are not privy to all the details, both of these incidents appear to fall under MEJA jurisdiction. Even if they do not, however, they should each by covered by, at a minimum, the War Crimes Act. Thus my advice last time about a firm handshake.

The fly in this ointment? Not only has MEJA been used extremely sparingly, but the War Crimes Act has apparently never been used.

And therein lies the most serious problem with contractor accountability.

The cry of rabid and strident mercenary-bashing firebrands is that for any potential contractor misdeed—from mass murder to jaywalking—there is but one solution … Off With Their Heads! But, as industry mouthpiece Doug Brooks amusingly notes, when the government is unwilling or fails to take action, what should we expect the PSC to do about it, take the individual out back and hang ‘em??

---------------------

Next time, we’ll look why the government is failing to act, and potential solutions.

Blackwater under UCMJ

2007-09-12T20:21:00.000-07:00

Chapter 7 - A Mad Tea-Party

Prologue

Last time, we looked at an Air Force shooting at Manas Air Base and at the Blackwater Christmas Eve shooting in Baghdad. We found that the “absolute immunity” storyline is myth—contractors in Iraq do receive immunity, but it is a limited immunity where they are subject to local prosecution for any act not required by U.S. government contract. We also found that the treatment of contractors under CPA Order 17 is similar to the treatment of contractors under SoFA agreements worldwide.

Learning that the “total immunity” tagline doesn’t jibe with the facts is a real buzzkill for radicals from both ends of the political spectrum, but don’t worry guys, to paraphrase that insightful lyrical genius 50 Cent, “I still love you like a fat kid loves cake.”

Speaking of people who should be in prison, this week we’ll stick with the same two case studies and consider how these accused can be punished under U.S. military law, which is of course different from whether they should or will be. (The fact that the Blackwater armorer was not comfortably installed in a dank penitentiary cell for 20-to-life before Boxing Day is anathema to pundits and politicians whose vitriol masquerades as change-the-world sanctimony. But no matter how guilty either one of these shooters may be, there is this little thing we like to call “due process of law.”)

For purposes of analyzing the accountability question, though, we’ll throw due process out the window and (1) will not take into account the self-defense arguments of both accused individuals and (2) will assume that a criminal act was committed in each case.

This is liable to be so dry that trees will be following dogs around, so hang on …

Military Justice, “Old School”

More than a year before the Declaration of Independence, and more than a decade before the Constitution or Bill of Rights existed, the Second Continental Congress approved 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Army.

Those who decry mercenaries and rail against this “new threat” of armed contractors might note Article XXXII, which provides that “All suttlers and retai[n]ers to a camp, and all persons whatsoever, serving with the continental army in the field, though not [e]nlisted soldiers, are to be subject to the articles, rules, and regulations of the continental army.”

Next time you run into Samuel Adams or George Clinton (no, not the “lager” pouring out of the same tanks as Iron City or the P.Funk All-Star originator of the inimitable “Atomic Dog”), you’ll have to ask those Founding Fathers if previously discussed “mercenaries” like Layfayette and von Steuben were subject to the Articles because they all had commissions, or if some of them were subject by virtue of “serving with the continental army in the field.” Either way, armed contractors falling under the military justice system were clearly contemplated by the Fathers and—as shown by the 20’s-series Articles providing for punishments up to and including the death penalty—they weren’t kidding around.

The Articles of War were revamped in 1806, going from 69 to 101 Articles, but the contractor / mercenary provisions were effectively unchanged (albeit renumbered). After that 1806 rework, the Articles were pretty much left alone. From Lewis and Clark’s expedition, Sherman’s March, and Little Bighorn, through the Great War and into WWII concentration camps, civilian contractors both accompanied the force and were subject to military courts-martial under the Articles.

WWII, however, proved to be an acid test for military justice. I mean, you court martial 1.7 million people in just a few years and you sorta notice the bugs in the system, you know? So in 1950, the Articles of War were replaced by the UCMJ, and the long tradition of military justice for deployed contractors was reflected in their inclusion on the laundry list of people subject to the UCMJ. Specifically, the Code applied to: “In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.”

232 years of military justice history in five paragraphs, with all the analytical depth of a puddle. Breathtaking!

No wonder that smokin’ jailbait hottie down at the local kwik-e-mart gives me that knowing look every time I buy another dozen worthless lottery tickets as if to say, “I might flirt with you, if you weren’t just a loser with a moderately amusing but mainly obscure website.” That, or she is thinking “You look just like a younger George Clooney … if he were a hobbit.” Tramp.

The Supremes: “Nothing But Heartaches”

Given this history, the question would be what happened to military law such that by 2005, SecDef Rumsfeld was claiming of contractors: “they’re not subject to the uniform code of military justice?”

The answer would be the courts.

During the War of Northern Aggression, President Lincoln found that whole habeas corpus thing rather inconvenient. So he “suspended” it. (Don’t fret, Congress had his back.) BTW, for those who think nasty partisan politics and vicious attacks were born in either the Clinton or Bush II regimes, here is what was said of American icon Lincoln in his own time: “[He] is the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism … a worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than existed since the day of Nero.” Hoooah!

Meanwhile, one Mr. Lambdin P. Milliken (I couldn’t make this stuff up) was a charming Copperhead war protester who plotted to seize arsenals and release POWs throughout the Northwest. His arrest, court martial, and death sentence, however, proved a slight setback to that scheme.

Millikin ended up before the Supreme Court, which went through the applicable law like a tornado in a trailer park, focusing on pesky things like lack of a grand jury and right to jury trial. The Supremes didn’t object to suspension of habeas, but they did start a trend of restricting military trial of civilians on Bill of Rights grounds. While this case didn’t change the rules for contractors, it laid the foundation for change.

During the 20^th century, the high court continued to restrict civilian courts martial by striking down military-law convictions of other civilians such as dependents and non-deployed individuals based on Bill of Rights concerns. Deployed contractors, however, were still covered. Then during Vietnam, a lower appeals court expanded the Supreme Court position, declaring that deployed contractors were only subject to court martial during a declared war, another one of which is about as likely in our lifetime as Adam Sandler winning the women’s gold in rhythmic gymnastics at the 2008 Olympics.

Is He Is, or Is He Ain’t?

So, these court decisions mean that the Blackwater armorer avoids a military trial, right? Well, not exactly.

Two months before the Christmas Eve shooting, the 2007 Defense Authorization Act amended the applicable UCMJ article by changing "In time of war ..." to read "In time of declared war or contingency operation ….” (Interestingly, this Act is the same omnibus trainwreck that reworked the Posse Comitatus Act.) At first glance, this new UCMJ language would seem to resolve the court-precedent hurdle.

It certainly means, for example, that contractors at the gianormous Balad military base, from logisticians and translators to intel analysts and armed guards, once again clearly fall under the UCMJ. There are, however, three problems, and one of them goes directly to the Blackwater armorer.

The DoD Slow Roll

Ask your run-of-the-mill private contractor, soldier, sailor, or even JAG officer (when the latter are not out piloting stolen strike aircraft or parachuting behind lines for covert specops missions) what P.L. 109-364 did to the UCMJ and their response, if not deer-in-the-headlights, will likely be unprintable or as enlightening as an explanation from a Wookie. You see, the military doesn’t deal in laws, it deals in implementing regulations and directives.

When the military wants to court martial someone, it turns to the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM). And whether you call it by its Public Law number, its accompanying U.S. Code section, or its UCMJ section, any “new piece of law” is pretty much of only academic interest to the military until it is implemented into the MCM by Executive Order of the President. And in the annual MCM update for 2007, the new Defense Authorization Act language is nowhere to be found. Of it, the Army says only “it is unclear how this change will be implemented and precisely what the ramifications will be.”

Until that happens, you can plan on JAGs avoiding contractor trials like the herpes.

Civil Rights

The potential concerns with regard to military trial of civilians are many and widely reported. Most obvious are the Fifth, Sixth and Eigth amendment issues (discussed above) previously raised by the courts, but there are also messy questions about which deployed civilians will be covered—Government employees? Embedded reporters? Foreign nationals? Many of the Bill of Rights questions can be found in the reporting on military commissions / tribunals trying terror suspects. There are also questions of whether we as a nation are ready to subject civilians to court martial for, by way of example, failing to get a haircut, being overweight, or reckless driving.

The calls for Old Testament justice to rain down on mercenaries are not limited to a party or ideology (e.g., Republican Senator Graham was the source of the UCMJ change), but to swerve into opinion for a moment, it is amusing that some of those calling most vehemently for security contractors (including citizens) to be crushed under the courts-martial system without civil protections are among those cheering most gleefully for terror suspects’ (including foreigners) removal from military proceedings and grant of full civil-court Bill of Rights protections. Disturbing on so many levels, we would scarcely know where to begin.

The Loopholes

Here is the more fundamental problem: the Graham amendment is guilty of a military cardinal sin: fighting the last war. It covers incidents that came before it, but it does not look ahead to where deployed contracting, and private security in particular, is headed. In fact, where it is already.

The amended UCMJ applies to “In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.” Thus, the Balad gate guard would be covered, but looking beyond Iraq to, for example, a gate guard back at Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, he or she is with the force, but are they part of a contingency op? Further, it is not clear that contractors performing tasks loosely or not related to DoD, such as guarding USAID sites or protecting non-DoD government civilians, would be “serving with or accompanying” and therefore covered by UCMJ. And given the nature of that company's work in Iraq, the Blackwater armorer is probably in this category.

As things stand, we have the unique situation of having the contract cook and the janitor at Balad under the UCMJ, but the contractor piloting weaponized Predator drones from stateside and the armed security contractors conducting DEA operations in South America not under the Code.

So Who Gets Court Martialed?

There is not much question that the airman is subject to the UCMJ for his killing while on duty at Manas. As far as the Blackwater contractor, presuming the change is implemented into the MCM, he will have law professors lining up to argue the complex civil rights issues and the question of whether he was “serving with or accompanying.” So the short answer is … guess we’ll see.

Before you loose all hope of justice, however (again, assuming there was a crime), remember that courts-martial are not the only, or even the best, answer. We still have to look at civilian courts. But that will have to wait until next week. For now, I have to attend to higher matters. My customized red Swingline has gone missing, and I know that schmutz Earl from over in Receiving had something to do with it. He mocks me.

p.s. – The news of the week—splashed across websites everywhere railing about neocon fascists—was the T. Christian Miller story about how if you count local laborers then contractors now outnumber military in Iraq. Have you seen any of the commentary on this issue mention that contractors outnumbered military by a 1.5:1 ratio in Bosnia? Folks, this is an important public policy debate deserving of critical thought, not a cagematch us-v.-them partisan hatefest.

--------------------------------------

Next Week: A firm handshake can deter prison rapists.

Blackwater Christmas Eve Shooting and Immunity

2007-09-12T20:13:00.000-07:00

Chapter 6 - Pig and Pepper

Gunned Down in the Street

December, 2006. For most in this ancient land, the day starts like any other. People eating breakfast, saying prayers, greeting friends, going to work, if you are lucky enough to have it. Since the fall of the former government, widespread corruption coupled with occasional murder of government officials has not helped an economy that was rocky, at best, to begin with.

Those who can get jobs with reasonable pay are glad to have them, even if it means working at a base occupied by the Americans. One of those fortunate few is a local national we’ll call “Alex.” The U.S. presence has been a fractious issue among the Muslim populace for several years now, and there is no shortage of people who are more than ready for the Yanks to leave. To Alex’s way of thinking, though, while they are somewhat intimidating and brusque, they are otherwise unremarkable. He is happy merely to have the work.

As is the nature of the current-day United States overseas presence, the expatriate population in-country is an ad-hoc brew of diplomatic representatives, adventurous businessmen, uniformed military, and private contractors. Among them is one member of the security force we’ll call “Zach.” He is not that different from many of the gringos here—some military experience prior to this mission, probably looking mainly to make it through this deployment and get back home.

Alex and Zach do not know it this cool December morning, but today one of them will die at the hand of the other.

The facts of the incident are not much disputed. You may already know them. A security checkpoint. An American “security professional” far from home, and a local national just trying to do his job. One brandishes a weapon, one draws his sidearm. When all is said and done, Zach has used his government-issued pistol to shoot Alex twice in the chest, killing him deader than Elvis.

As they invariably do, the incident turns up in the media. There are cries of “Murder!” and arguments that it was self-defense. Zach is quietly taken out of country and returned to the States. There are public statements that the incident is being investigated by U.S. authorities. There are demands from the host nation that Zach be subject to local justice, however much that commodity may be in supply.

Zach, however, is immune from local prosecution under a policy put in place some time before.

Months later, there still has been no U.S. proceeding.

Clearly, you must agree, a horrible miscarriage of justice and another example of THESE BLOODTHIRSTY MERCENARIES CAUSING A BLACK EYE FOR THE UNITED STATES WITH THEIR WILD WEST MENTALITY AND FECKLESS COWBOY CONDUCT!

Except. Oh, except.

Except that this was not Baghdad. This was Manas Air Base, near Bishkek, Kyrgystan.

Except that “Alex” was not an Iraqi bodyguard, he was a Kyrgyz truck driver.

Except that “Zach” is a not a Blackwater hired gun, he is a U.S. Air Force airman.

A Tale of Two Shootings

There was of course, another shooting later that same December, one that is obligatorily trotted out every time a fire-eater is warming up the “zero accountability” and “thugs-gone-wild” drums. An off-duty Blackwater contractor shot an Iraqi on Christmas Eve. The two incidents have key differences, but they also have such striking similarity that they can provide some interesting insights into the PSC debate,

In keeping with the Rabbit’s goal of documenting every factual assertion as best we can, you can find details on the Manas incident here, here, here, and here, and details on Kyrgystan generally here.

The Christmas Eve incident is the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, so the facts on it are less easy to document. The story, as it circulated through the Green Zone and was later reported both in the media and to Congress, is basically as follows:

A U.S. Army veteran we’ll call “John Doe” is working as an armorer for Blackwater at its camp in Baghdad. On Christmas Eve, John attends a private party in the Green Zone and has several drinks. He leaves the party and shortly before midnight, while walking through an area known as “Little Venice,” is confronted by Iraqi armed guard “Raheem.” The two reportedly exchange gunfire. John fires his government-issued pistol, hitting Raheem three (or more) times in the chest and killing him deader than, well, deader than a bad metaphor.

John then shows up at the Liberty Pool complex and wanders around this Saddam-built, U.S.-operated recreation facility telling people he just shot an Iraqi in self-defense—but no one believes him because he appears drunk. Eventually, he is taken into custody by International Zone Police, questioned by U.S. Army CID and FBI, and tested for, at least, blood alcohol content. Apparently he is then turned over to Blackwater, which is directed by the U.S. government to remove him from Iraq. The incident is currently being investigated by the Justice Department and the FBI.

Among other sources, reporting of these events can be found here, here, here, here, and here. The details reported in the different sources vary slightly—e.g., John fired an entire clip, John fired ten rounds and hit with ten, fired ten and hit with three, fired only the three rounds that hit, etc.—but the basic sequence of events is sufficiently established for an accountability discussion.

In each shooting, you have an individual who signed a contract to provide their services in support of (choose your label) our ‘national security and support for democracy’ or our ‘imperialistic hegemony and cultural oppression.’ Each had taken the same oath of loyalty to the United States, and each was deployed overseas in support of U.S. operations in a predominately Muslim nation let us say not entirely pleased about an American presence on its soil.

Our Noble Military Heroes

In the case of the military airman, he is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which covers his conduct day and night, 24/7 for his military career, whether he is on- or off-duty. There is a charge in the Code for just about everything, from contemptuous words about politicians to dueling. And if there’s no specific section applicable, you just throw the guy under the Article 134 bus, which is more or less a blank check. If found guilty by a military court (a/k/a court-martial), the accused faces anything from a fine to the death penalty.

When the service member is overseas, however, there is a potential problem: What about the local justice system, civil and criminal? To partially shield its forces, the U.S. normally enters a “Status of Forces Agreement” or “SoFA” with the host nation, including Kyrgyzstan. Under most SoFAs, the U.S. military person can be liable under local laws except when a criminal offense is committed in carrying out official duty—then the individual is primarily subject to U.S. law. (And you thought the only thing under most sofas was loose change and dust bunnies).

How does the status of the Blackwater armorer compare?

Those Scary Mercenary People

The rallying cry of those seeking to polarize the debate, from random blogs to sitting Congressmen, is that the filthy mercenary committed “murder” which of course the criminal PSC abetted by sneaking him out of Iraq. Setting aside the worrisome fact that these individuals are perfectly happy ordaining themselves judge and jury and declaring without trial that the killing was murder, the positions of the private security professional (or bloodthirsty mercenary scum, as you will) and the military service member are remarkably similar—the conduct of each is subject to U.S. law, with only partial immunity from local prosecution.

I realize full well that this is contrary to effectively every assertion you have ever read regarding immunity and the notorious “CPA Order 17,” so we’ll closely examine Order 17 to see if it in fact puts John above Iraqi law, then we’ll consider whether his future may include appointment as the chief salad tosser in the Big House.

The Urban Legend

The standard hyperbole on CPA Order 17 normally goes like this Johann Hari statement:

As he scurried out the door in 2004, Paul Bremer—the first US viceroy to Iraq—issued Order 17, which exempted all mercenaries operating in the country from having to obey the law.

Or, as the penultimate Blackwater analyst Jeremy Scahill describes the “edict” that is Order 17:

It immunized contractors from prosecution in Iraq which, today, is like the Wild West, full of roaming Iraqi death squads and scores of unaccountable, heavily-armed mercenaries, ex-military men from around the world, working for the occupation.

And here is how Mr. Scahill’s helpful comments are reported in the Islamic press:

Paul Bremer, Bush’s envoy in Iraq during the first year of the occupation, issued a decree on June 28, 2004 granting immunity to Blackwater and other military “contractors” from prosecution for war crimes.

We opt not to join in this frenzy of uninformed assertions and hyperbole. Join us in our boycott. Fight the power.

So, let’s look at what Order 17 actually says, and then consider whether it is closer to a SoFA-type situation, or is genuinely Mr. Scahill’s license “to Blackwater personnel for any murders or other crimes they commit on Iraqi soil.”

What Does It Really Say?

We’d like to be able to defend the quoted assertions above with the pithy Churchill quote: "The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read." Given that the Order is just 16 pages long, however, with only one page devoted to contractors, it is difficult to justify these misstatements. First of all, paragraph 4) of Section 4 explicitly provides that as a general rule "all Contractors shall respect relevant Iraqi laws.” This is the polar opposite of the Section 2, paragraph 1) general rule for national military forces, which is that they truly “shall be immune from Iraqi legal process.”

Operations in a war zone will necessarily breach certain peacetime statues (everything from speeding to weapons possession), so the Order does allow a limited immunity for contractors:

Contractors shall be immune from Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto.

In other words, if the government contract controlling the individual's services does not require the act in question, then Order 17 does not give immunity for that act. Unlike his military counterpart, the contractor in Iraq is immune from Iraqi civil or criminal liability only when the act occurs as a necessary part of carrying out the official duty. Garden-variety criminal acts (a robbery, rape or bar fight) or full-on war crimes are, by definition, not part of the “terms and conditions” of the government contract.

Perhaps most tellingly, the ‘shocking’ and ‘unprecedented’ Order 17 rule that the U.S. shall have jurisdiction over contractor acts in the line of duty is similar to the contractor provisions of SoFAs in other nations. For example, the NATO SoFA provides in Article VII that the U.S. "shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction" over its contractors (defined there as the “civilian component”) for "offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty." The two structures are not identical, but Order 17 is hardly the stunning departure from common practice often touted.

In short, if a private security contractor performing gate guard duties in Iraq shoots someone, then like the U.S. airman (or the contractor) in Kyrgyzstan, it is an issue to be resolved under U.S. rather than local law. On the other hand, the Blackwater contractor in the Christmas Even incident was off duty, and not performing any contract function. His contractor status is irrelevant and he is treated as just another accused foreigner in Iraq. He enjoys no immunity from Iraqi prosecution. You read correctly--"John" is fully subject to Iraqi law.

An interesting question, then, is:

Why Hasn’t he Been Extradited Back to Iraq?

Independent verification is our goal here at the Rabbit and, unfortunately, we have pretty much reached the end of what can be documented. We can tell you that the PSC grapevine says there is no extradition because the Iraqis don’t want him back. Verifying that, just as proving any negative, is difficult at best. There is, however, one interesting indicator to consider.

Returning to Kyrgyzstan, we see that the host nation had no difficulty in making its demands known: The Kyrgyz parliament passed a resolution regarding the airman, the Interior Ministry filed criminal charges, the Prosecutor-General’s Office and Members of Parliament have issued public statements, the Foreign Ministry submitted queries to the U.S., and the Kyrgyz President made a public vow to personally oversee a criminal investigation into the incident.

From the corresponding sources in Iraq, we have heard … nothing. And this when, unlike the Kyrgyzs who have only secondary jurisdiction, the Iraqis have primary jurisdiction and demanding local trial is clearly their prerogative. From this one can infer many things: that they have more pressing matters to worry about such as mass beheadings, that they prefer it be handled in the U.S. system, that they have determined it was self-defense, that they are too busy adapting Muhammed al-Sahaf statements to the current Iraq situation, that they are pumped full of low-grade monkey tranquilizers, etc. You will have to make your own determination there.

Conclusion

These two case studies are helpful in analyzing the reach of CPA Order 17, but the principles discussed apply to all military and contractor acts. The degree to which private security contractors in Iraq are subject to local legal accountability is highly similar to contractor accountability in other countries and to that of their similarly situated military counterparts in other countries. Specifically, Order 17 does nothing to affect liability under U.S. law. It provides only limited immunity to contractors, and then only when the act in question was required by their government contract. Notably, uniformed military—unlike contractors—do have absolute immunity in Iraq. (Further, this limited contractor immunity in Iraq stands in stark contrast to the absolute immunity enjoyed by contractors in Bosnia under Annex 1A of the Dayton Agreement. See here at page 131.)

With regard to the specific Christmas Eve incident that is a favored firebrand whipping boy, the ‘powerless Iraqis facing the Order 17 license to murder’ spiel is a classic Wonderland argument. The individual in question is fully subject to Iraqi criminal law, but the Iraqis apparently have a complete lack of interest in proceeding. “But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here.”

The incendiaries of various political stripes are so vehement in their shrill declarations of “zero accountability” that I fully expect the PSC-accountability argument to be continuing while I am eating Alpo and wearing diapers in a seedy assisted living facility in 2044. Nonetheless, in part two on accountability we will continue to support critical thinking by looking at the facts underlying potential U.S. jail time for the Blackwater armorer.

-----------------------

Next week: Court-Martial!