This is significant: A tiny seedling of an Iraqi government just sprouted a thorn- and Blackwater was the first to get pricked. Now let's see who gets the shaft: Most likely, the Iraqi "government" is about to get defoliated, and Blackwater & Friends have a plan for that.
I keep wondering how anyone can know which Iraqi is a "civilian" and not one of the many "insurgents" or "terrorists" in the country? If they know who's a "civilian", then it stands to reason that they know who the insurgents and terrorists are. And yet....? Baron Max
Dear maximus i hope you are wellPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Whats the difference between an insurgent and terrorist? ~~~~~~ cheers zak
They're labelled as 'enemy combatants'. They need not be officially affiliated with any organized militia or army to get labeled as such. If a 'civlian' picks up an AK and points it at a coalition servicemember, then that 'civlian' is now considered an enemy combatant and therefore is fair game.
Well the US gov't, before it formed the Iraqi gov't, had already declared a law that US contractors could not be held accountable their actions. So the individuals involved aren't going to be prosecuted. Whether or not the company gets thrown out is a diff't issue but that isn't really going to change much--there are plenty of other mercaneries (I mean contractors) waiting to take the job.
I don't think the Iraqis are thinking this one through very well. If Blackwater (and other PMCs) are prohibited from operating in Iraq, US military line elements will take their place. Rather than having dedicated personal security specialists guarding an VIPs and reconstruction projects, it will be a squad of Marines. Given the situation described in the article, who would be more sparing in application of firepower?
And these 20 thousand marines are going to come from where, exactly? If we have soldiers available, why are we paying through the nose for mercenaries we have no control over? Good question. Would the Marines be even less discriminating, in their abuse of civilians? Could be. But when others speculate like that, they are accused of insulting the troops. And as long as we know as little as we do about what the mercenaries in Iraq have been up to, it is speculation. Official soldiers are more accountable than mercenaries - as we saw in Abu Ghraib, where none of the "contracted" people involved were even formally investigated. The Iraqis have their reasons, here.
From the areas they are currently patrolling, taxing the available manpower even more than it already is. This is another reason why PMCs fulfill a critical requirement in Iraq, although it is probably not as compelling to the Iraqi government so I didn't bring it up. Marines are shock troops trained to respond to any threat with brutal, overwhelming force. The same goes for any soldier, really. Our force structure is also fundamentally different than the way PMCs do business (we generally travel in larger numbers). Try to imagine the president visiting a public function escorted by a company of light armor, versus a secret service detail.
But that doesn't quite answer the question, which was whether soldiers would be more or less likely to abuse civilians in such roles. We don't know what the mercs have been up to, is the deal. They are accountable to no one. The Iraqi government wants them gone, for some reason, is what we know. and so this: The Iraqi government is probably aware of all these circumstances.