In The Beginning...

And so it goes... This will be my first foray into blogging. I undertake this new effort with the intent to raise the level of debate about the private sector's role in national and international security.

I will both offer my own commentary and most certainly comment on the sensationalism pandered by others surrounding the topic and will expect to hear from all sides.

This is not a listserv, nor is it a forum for people who've done no research, have no experience or simply want to pontificate or sensationalize. All will be treated with respect as long as all offer respect. I will continue to develop this blog with other resources to stimulate real debate and discussion as I come across them.

To start the ball rolling, I submit an unpublished op-ed. Let's see where it leads us in the debate.

Greenwald and Scahill Are The True War Profiteers

A few weeks ago, the House Sub-Committee on Defense Appropriations held hearings on, “Contracting Out”; a topic that deserves real discussion, but this hearing fell far short of that. In yet another display of “gotcha politics’, the sub-committee found wisdom in inviting to testify two socialist activist sensationalists; both closely working with trial attorneys in a civil action against Blackwater, and both true war profiteers.

Robert Greenwald, who freely admits his radical, polemical documentary, “Iraq for Sale” was purposely subjective and unbalanced (it intentionally tried to tie Blackwater to Abu Ghraib) to affect the mid-term elections and Jeremy Scahill, author of, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”, a cobbling of mostly already-written, politically-driven stories weaved into an epic tale, were called to testify as defense appropriation experts. Neither is an expert in federal contracting, neither has served in the armed forces, and only one has visited Iraq (years ago). As Congress continues to hold these necessary hearings, one hopes those invited to testify are actually qualified to do so. In this case, the American people weren’t offered an option for balance; they simply were presented with two polemicists who were pawned off as experts.

The American capacity to respond to humanitarian and security challenges worldwide has always depended on the private sector’s partnership for its responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, and quality. Since the American Revolution when George Washington wrote IOUs for supplies to sutlers and merchants to Vietnam where over 80,000 professional contractors served the country, the private sector has played a significant role in supporting U. S. national security and foreign policies. However, the challenge has always been when and where to integrate expertise (inaccurately referred to as “outsourcing”) into government operations.

Accountability and cost are two fundamental issues that warrant Congress’ focus.

Scahill and Greenwald’s specious claim that private contractors were granted total immunity is at the heart of their own commercial profit agendas. Scahill decried that Ambassador Bremer gave full immunity to private contractors through CPA Order 17. That’s wholly incorrect. CPA Order 17 states that, “Contractors shall be immune from the Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto." The order only offers the same protection to private contractors that active-duty servicemembers have for actions undertaken in the same dynamic environment in fulfillment of their duties to our country. The entire industry supports improved accountability, but willful hyperbole serves nobody’s interests. Scahill pointed out that there have been 64 courts-martial of active-duty servicemembers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). There are roughly 140,000 servicemembers in Iraq. There are only about 4,000 armed American contractors. Using the same ratio, roughly two contractors could have been court-martialed, and that’s assuming the training, maturity, and experience levels were equal (an incorrect assumption) and that a crime was committed. Most feel the UCMJ applies only to Americans and excludes third-country nationals (TCNs) and host-country nationals (HCNs) who are required by the terms of some contracts, and who make up the bulk of private security professionals in Iraq, but some military legal scholars feel that Article 2 already applies, even absent the Graham Clause. Applying the UCMJ to American civilians will also be met with constitutional challenges that will see private security companies and civil and human rights organizations uniting in objection. Modifications to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (2004) are being considered by Rep. David Price (D-NC) and others that offer a better solution because MEJA extends federal jurisdiction to American civilians, TCNs and HCNs serving U. S. contracts suspected of felonies where they could be tried and acquitted or punished as any other alleged felon in the United States. Congressman Henry Waxman, Senator Barack Obama, and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky are also offering legislation.

The cost of security was also addressed during the hearing. The claim that security professionals at Blackwater were earning $1000 per day is false. Scahill, who will speak in Chicago at, “Socialism 2007” is fond of using inflated and annualized numbers and loosely connecting remote possibilities to create a misleading visual for his readers. The cost of security in Iraq is erroneously portrayed as a function of premium charges by the industry when it is really driven by the demand for services. An unexpected outcome occurred after the fall of Baghdad. As we see still today, the environment is far more dangerous and requires more security than anticipated. That is a planning issue, not a pricing issue. Scahill and Greenwald use sensational terms like, “mercenary” (which he never defines) and “war profiteer” to help sell more books and DVDs (private security professionals serving the U. S. Government don’t fit any definition of mercenary – including the UN’s). But what they don’t tell you is that these men and women are retired or former military and law enforcement professionals, mostly working middle-class Americans, who want to continue to support their elected government. They have no guarantee of further work, they pay for their own healthcare, and they get no pensions. The cost to the government associated with them ends when their contracts end. They generally do not serve more than 90-180 days at time and therefore do not enjoy any tax breaks. Further, using the DoD’s own numbers, a side-by-side comparison of an average private security professional and a deployed E-7 Navy SEAL shows that take-home pay is nearly the same.

That didn’t make it into the hearing either.

The opportunity to invite a balanced panel that included industry was missed. American taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, but they equally deserve issue-driven debate, not politically-driven grandiloquence. All they got a few weeks ago was one-sided, political activism from true war profiteers who make their money as parasites to family tragedy and by impugning the integrity of honorable, committed professionals in harm’s way. The dearth of informed experts on this particular panel deprived taxpayers of the discussion necessary to learn and make sound democratic choices.

“Striking a pose” in favor of partisan politics will continue to allow true war profiteers like Scahill and Greenwald to politicize and exploit others’ tragedy and selfless service to great financial gain.

Hopefully, Congress won’t allow that to happen again.


That ought to get us started!