NSR - Blackwater booted from Iraq

[DaveTV]

Blackwater security firm banned from Iraq - CNN.com
I always thought it was a bad idea having private companies operating like a foreign militia..

[leroy jenkins]

Awesome.

[buckethead]

wow.
though banned by the Iraq gov't not by the US.
blackwater's massive presence in iraq has allowed US troop levels to remain artificially low (relatively speaking)...let's see how long this holds - or whether we see a change in iraqi gov't leadership - by the real leadership in DC.

[stupendous man]

$5 says the bushies go to bat for blackwater.

[Theodore]

Eeeenteresting. Makes sense, it is an odd setup they have... God forbid we have the troops that are there do their jobs and not some contractor that is paid 10x as much. I have a few friends that are Marines and the entire contractor situation drives them INSANE.

[AKPogue]

It cracks me up to no end all the experts and their opinions from a News article.

[Gripen]

I have two or three friends that have/still do work for Blackwater or other PMc's. Even they have some mixed feelings about the contractor situation, but I dont think its as clear cut as ppl are making it out to be. PMC's, in my opinion, do have a place. Just look at Executive Outcomes and Sandline in Angola and Sierra Leone. They did a job no country was willing to do. It's a shame they weren't used in Rwanda as they were prepared too.
However, I realize the Blackwater situation is not the same thing. But I dont think its cut and dry either....

[DaveTV]

It cracks me up to no end all the experts and their opinions from a News article.

Huh..?
Just for the record, I was security in the military when you were in Little League(if that), I really don't need to clear my opinions with you before I post them..

[tromano]

Who cares. Blackwater didn't even exist as a company 10 years ago and are hardly the only ones around who can do the job. There will be a dozen other contractors lining up to take their place.

[Boomer28]

I have two or three friends that have/still do work for Blackwater or other PMc's. Even they have some mixed feelings about the contractor situation, but I dont think its as clear cut as ppl are making it out to be. PMC's, in my opinion, do have a place. Just look at Executive Outcomes and Sandline in Angola and Sierra Leone. They did a job no country was willing to do. It's a shame they weren't used in Rwanda as they were prepared too.
However, I realize the Blackwater situation is not the same thing. But I dont think its cut and dry either....

Just read a book about Executive Outcomes, facinating story. For sure they did some good in Africa (saved many villages & killed some bad guys) however there are many valid concerns that were raised over some of the work the company leaders "farmed-out" to some less reliable hired guns.

However noble the goals are of some of these outfits, it seems like things always get out of hand and end badly at some point. Tough issue for sure.

[pointedem]

nice dave.

[Dexter Rutecki]

It cracks me up to no end all the experts and their opinions from a News article.

It cracks me up the military guys who think that no one else should be allowed an opinion--as if all the news on Iraq is wrong (I'm sure everything is actually just fine over there). And there are plenty of military who know what's up and share the opinions of those of us who don't support this failed war.

Cue Jer to whine about how we don't know what Chatter means...

[truth]

The sad thing is that these services are even needed. It's typical of the quagmire of diplomacy that has hindered our ability to do what needs to be done with our military. If we are going to war then fucking go to war and finish the job. There is far too much pussyfooting due to public relations and politricks. War is ugly and brutal and if we are not prepared to see it through we should never go in the first place. I'm not condoning the loss of innocent lives but that is the price that we need to be willing to pay in these situations.

[Toadman]

Why is the Ski forum getting douched up with this thread? Seems like a lot of people are cracking up over it too. Hold it together boys and girls, ski season is just around the corner.

[DaveTV]

Why is the Ski forum getting douched up with this thread? Seems like a lot of people are cracking up over it too. Hold it together boys and girls, ski season is just around the corner.

Do you understand "NSR"..? Why are you cunting up the thread if you have nothing to add?

[moonlightdbag]

warfare + profiteering mercenaries = bad idea

[tromano]

Wikipedia on Sunk Cost.

Costs hat have already been incurred and which cannot be recovered to any significant degree. Classical economics proposes that a rational actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits. Behavioral economics recognizes that sunk costs often affect economic decisions due to loss aversion: the price paid becomes a benchmark for the value, whereas the price paid should be irrelevant. This is considered non-rational behavior (as rationality is defined by classical economics). Economic experiments have shown that the sunk cost fallacy and loss aversion are common, and hence economic rationality — as assumed by much of economics — is limited. In many cases after a certain amount of sunk cost has been incurred pursuing a course of action, the perpetuation of that course of action becomes assured. Very few partially built bridges exist, because once construction has started sunk costs are too high to revert the decision and stop again. The economic approach that sunk costs should not be considered when decisions are being made can lead to a situation where the sum of a number of good decisions can lead to one big disaster.

[Toadman]

Do you understand "NSR"..? Why are you cunting up the thread if you have nothing to add?

Hey, I'll cunt and you douche, and let's call the whole thing off.

[Greydon Clark]

I heart 21st Century Hessians.

[Platinum Pete]

It makes perfect sense to me that private industry profits be protected by their own security in a warzone. Let the real soldiers fight the war, and let the private security defend their industry. Set up strict rules of engagement and oversight, know that there will be slop, and go for it. Since our soldiers are there to overthrow Saddam and fight the terrorists, let them do that, not guard the Halliburton oil well drilling machine or whatever.

[Jer]

It makes no sense at all - not if you want to win a war or rebuild a country.

The U.S. is throwing cash at the war profiteer companies, just so they can turn around and throw cash at their mercenaries, so that the actual soldiers can do the dangerous and dirty work for a tenth of the cash given to the mercenaries - who then take over less risky roles from soldiers.

Yeah, that makes sense: let's spend more to do the easier jobs. Badly.

We have two armies, both funded by taxpayers: the real one, in which the troops get relatively poor wages, treatment and equipment in order to carry out the dangerous and deadly work; and the mercenaries, who get exorbitant pay, their choice to serve or not, and often better protection than the regular troops.



It does make sense if your goal is to throw hundreds of billions$ to your favorite war profiteers. And anyone else who can grab a pallet-load of $100s.

Or if your main goal is to cripple and hogtie your own government for decades into the future, out of some dimwitted ideological commitment to anarchocapitalism.


But here's a conundrum for the 'tards in charge: if they're really committed to a sovereign Iraqi gov't, then Blackwater has to go. No sovereign gov't can tolerate mercenaries running around against its will.

[Platinum Pete]

Witherspoon,in your desperate race to the soapbox you ran right past my point without looking.
My point was that having US soldiers guarding oil wells is dumb, they should go fight the terrorists or whatever permutation of their mission is the current assignment. Send in some well equipped security guards (mercenaries) to guard the oil wells. The Army is not in the oil business (officially), so they shouldn't be put in harms way for the sake of the oil company; let the oil companies pay someone market rate for taking on that risk. The US Gov't should pay the oil companies for this work, those companies should pass along the costs to their customers. {Exchange oil wells and oil companies for whatever business is going on out there. }

Is the current system imperfect: YES.

[Jer]

No.

In your desperate reach to believe that a simple business / military divide can exist in an occupied country in the midst of a simmering civil war, you ran right past the reality that not only is that military/business model and system "imperfect" - it is a completely screwed up way to even think about doing the job.

Your critical error is in your use of the term "customers." You're applying the usual pseudo-free market model of independent stakeholders and consumers.

This isn't a trading floor. We don't have time for some market equilibrium to be reached. The price penalties for poor business practices are paid out in blood and bombs, not chart ticks. These contracts often have guaranteed profits built in, a percent of whatever is spent, regardless of what is accomplished. That alone blows the weak market analogy out of the water.

There is only one consumer here: the Department of Defense, spending taxpayer dollars. To protect oil wells, patrol streets, and guard ambassadors. Whether Blackwater does it at 10x the cost and half the competence or the Marines do it - it's all in service of the same consumer with the same goals (whatever those may be today.) It's a shell game. Meant to confuse idiots.

The DOD has the option of doing the job with military personnel - people who are already trained and able to do the job, who are supported by all the management and logistic support needed to do the job well and accountably - versus paying many times as much for people who are mostly not as well trained and obviously not capable of doing the job, managing their people, or accounting for their expenditures.

The administration deliberately chose to do this in an impressively profligate and stupid way. They apparently did so because of their ideological commitment to the same economic model that apparently has you blindfolded.

And we are paying a heavy price for that willful blindness.

[connersw]

The U.S. is throwing cash at the war profiteer companies, just so they can turn around and throw cash at their mercenaries, so that the actual soldiers can do the dangerous and dirty work for a tenth of the cash given to the mercenaries - who then take over less risky roles from soldiers.

Yeah, that makes sense: let's spend more to do the easier jobs. Badly.

You obviously have no idea what Blackwater actually does. Not trained? Do you have any idea who these men are or where they come from?

Yes, there are contractors profiting off of this war, but it is inevitable. There have been mercenaries involved in every US war since the American Revolution.

[Cliff Huckable]

Blackwater NOT the US military take care of all the big politicians and important stuff while the real military is relegated to lesser duty.
What a crock of shit.
Why don't Bush and Cheney just come out and say, "We have so little faith in our own guys we can't trust them to protect us. Face it, people, our military sucks - outsourcing is the way to go! Whoo-hoo!"