This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
What is happening to the civillian soldiers dead or dying in Iraq
Published on May 6, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
Some years back, Fredrick Forsyth, the Dan Brown, of the 70's, wrote a book called Dogs of War. In this novel a group of mercennaries trasined by an American Company attempt to overthrow the Government of an African country by sending highly trained and armed gun slingers for hire from South Africa. How closely life imitates art can be gleaned by the fact that Sir Mark Tatcher, son of Dame Margret Tatcher, was convicted of just this crime:using mercenaries against the lawful government . The US government responed by cancelling the visa granted to Mark. The point however, is that the USA is doing just this in Iraq.

The Pentagon has virtually privatised the War in Iraq. More than 175 privsate firms are operating in Iraq and many of them are providing firesupport, logistical support and even are involved in armed combat in Iraq in total violation of Geneva Convention which grants protection only to legitimate armed forces of a nation. About 60 firms have been shortlisted by the Pentagon for outsourcing the War. As American and coalition casualities rise, the Pentagon has hit upon the strategy of outsourcing the War by hiring Private Security Firms whose men atre now actively involved in combat. Every soldier who is killed in the line of fire is entitled to 100,000 US $. More than 398 private security personnel have been killed in Iraq since the war began, thir families are getting nothing, though they have been contracted out by the Pentagon. This amounts to a double illegality: First, violationmof the Law Governong Warfare and secondly, citizens dying in Iraq have been erased from the official record. It is time Veterans took steps to draw the attention of the Us public to the plight of such individuals and their families.

Some of the fims involved in outsourcing the Iraq War are, Vinnell, Kellog, Brown and Root {YES a subsidary of Halliburton},and ERINY International of South Africa. Since these firms are private firms, they profit from the death and mayhem in Iraq. A highly questionable moral issue. The Abu Garaib Prison Abuse Scandal has drawn attention to the fact that with the chain of command ineffective while dealing with private firms, the US Government and the Pentagon will have to bear accountability for the conduct of such firms.

All in all, the situation with regard to this remanis grim.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 06, 2005

the Pentagon has hit upon the strategy of outsourcing the War by hiring Private Security Firms whose men atre now actively involved in combat.


Can you show a source for this info or is this merely someone's BS opinion? Last shown was that those people over there that are not US military were not allowed to actively participate in combat. They were however allowed to use firearms for self-protection.
on May 06, 2005
I can't think of a single war where there weren't civilian companies contracted, or civilians just plain hired for various purposes. The Geneva Convention doesn't ban this, it merely specifically removes them from its protections. If you have a problem with that part of the covention agreement, take that up with them.

In Desert Storm we had civilians all over the place. Everywhere from Reporters to Cooks and Communications. Do you object to reporters in a war zone? Do you think they are providing their own food and living requirements? No, the ones that are out with the troops are eating with the troops, sleeping in military tents, on military cots. In fact, they are almost completely supported by the military for their living needs, and their security.

If the chow hall was in a building, we almost never saw military cooks in the kitchen or serving meals. Civilian contractors were used to free up the military cooks for the units in the field. When Hussein lit up all those oil wells, was it military fire fighters who reponded? Well, yeah actually there were many units sent, but who ran the show? Last I knew, Red Adair was never in the military, but that didn't stop him from coming out of retirement. Do you resent his expertise (and a huge price) in putting out those fires years ahead of the timeframe the pinheaded politicians and press were projecting?

Even our own Special Ops units are taught that if they are on a mission where they are not in uniform, they may not be protected by Geneva. If you have a problem with Geneva, take it up with them. If you think using civilians in war is anything new or scandalous, you need to get out more.

Other than that, let me say that you did write a really good article, and it was an interesting read.
on May 06, 2005
This concept of contracting support services in a combat area was intended to release military from the support side to the combat side. We have seen this in the last two wars in the Middle East where they have utilized to a greater extent than in the past. Although the idea sounded good the consequences have been that the actual cost of providing the services by contract is higher then if the services were provided by the military. For example, contractors were paying up to $80,000 per year to drive large trucks in Iraq when the comparable cost to have Military member drive that same vehicle would be in the $30 to $40,000 range per year. In addition, when the civilian contractors come under attack combat elements are dispatched to protect the civilian workers. Thus the contracting idea of services in combat zones should be discontinued since it is more expensive and creates a distraction to our combat forces when the civilian contractors need to be protected.
on May 06, 2005
creates a distraction to our combat forces when the civilian contractors need to be protected.


Do you watch or read the news much? Maybe not. Because if you did you would know that the civilian contractors are allowed to protect themselves. And have been since this mess started.
on May 06, 2005
Miler,

I was recently offered a job by a sub contractor for Halliburton doing IT work in Iraq. (i have no idea how they found me, i didnt apply for the gig) They ABSOLUTELY FORBID the carrying of any firearms of any employee. They told me that i would have my own bodyguard who was an employee of Wackenhut (the Government's preferred private security company) watching my back when i was working in the field. I asked the recruiter if any of the other contractors allowed civilians to carry firearms, and i was told that the US government forbids any civilian contractor working for the US government in Iraq to carry weapons.

I wasnt seriously considering the gig anyways, but the fact i couldnt pack would have made me turn it down if i did want the job.
on May 06, 2005
Reply #5 By: thatoneguyinslc - 5/6/2005 10:28:06 AM


--How funny, my cousin is contracting and he always carrys...usually a semi,or a knife...


BTW

Online chess at letsplaychess.com">Link

on May 06, 2005
Agreed Colgene, it isn't very cost effective, but it has always been necessary. There hasn't been one war in history that did not include civilians in the war zone. Everything from "Militias", to Food and Medical Services and Mercenaries. How long has it been since you've seen a stateside military mess hall, medical center of even central issue facilities and military training centers with an all military staff? Does the need for that level of support decrease just because the troops were deployed?

As for "a distraction" defending and protecting civilians. We housed, fed, supplied and protected the press when they were in our compounds in Desert Storm. I would much rather have seen our time and unit assets going to people who were actually there to help us out with our mission than the whiny reporters we were forced to support.

As usual, it all comes down to budgeting. The pentagon only has so much money that can go directly to the services. There are whole parts of the budget that can only go to civilian contracting. Furthermore, the drawdown of the mid 90s created a huge market for civilian contracting, for the same budgeting reasons.

I would love to see a military where, everyone who is deployed to a war zone is military. For that matter, I'd love to see a military where the slots that are filled by troops that will never deploy are civilians. However, the military we have the military we do because of 2 decades of design. Some of it was a good idea, others weren't, but we are where we are now.

For the future though, let's hope there are lessons learned and policies made. If my experiences and observations following Desert Storm are any indication... I'm not holding my breath.
on May 06, 2005
I have heard of contractors carrying weapons, but i have also heard that if they get caught with a gun they get fired and lose their bonuses. If i were there i think i would run the risk and pack a gun anyways. Money isnt everything. I'll take breathing!
on May 06, 2005
OK how about a little factual data here.

Yes the US Governement contracts certain things out to the private sector, such as VIP protection, guarding of assests and training of personell.

In fact they pay very well and yes they are armed and no they won't lose their jobs if they are. They are not takin gpart in active military operations, but they do get in engagments by just protecting themselves.

And they pay very well. DynCorp pays $123,000 for a 1 year contract for police officer in Iraq. And its tax free if you stay outside the US for 330 days out of the year.

from www.policemission.com

On behalf of the United States Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, DynCorp International FZ-LLC (DIFZ), is seeking individuals with appropriate experience and expertise to participate in an international effort to re-establish police functions in post-conflict Iraq. Interested applicants must be active duty, retired or recently separated sworn civilian police officers. US citizenship is required. If interested, please call toll-free 866.258.8770 or e-mail cops.recruiting@dyncorp.com.


Qualifications

US Citizen
Applicant must have a total of eight (8) years work experience with at least five (5) years being at the position of sworn civilian law enforcement.
Actively serving sworn civilian law enforcement officers, or recently separated sworn civilian law enforcement officers (within 9 years).
Ability to communicate in English.
Valid US driver's license and ability to operate a standard transmission vehicle.
Unblemished background.
Excellent health and be able to pass a law enforcement physical and physical agility evaluation.
Valid U.S. passport will be required.
We are seeking applicants with two years experience in specialized skills.
Must be able to qualify with a 9mm semi-automatic hand gun.
Additional Details
Up to 1000 civilian police advisors may be deployed to Iraq to help the Iraqi citizens organize effective civilian law enforcement agencies.



Advisors will work with Iraqi criminal justice organizations at the national, provincial and municipal levels to assess threats to public order and mentor personnel at all levels of the Iraqi law enforcement system.

The Iraq mission is one-year contract. This is an armed, plainclothes mission. Compensation for the year is up to $120,632.00.

All lodging, meals, and transportation, as well as logistical, technical and administrative support necessary to accomplish the advisor's mission is provided at no cost to the officer.

Resumes should detail specific experience, certifications, specialties, ranks and assignments. Please include dates of employment.

Not a bad gig for young guys with no family.
on May 06, 2005
I served in both combat in combat service support units and in the combat units we had almost no non-uniformed personnel except for a few in Germany that worked in the camps. The problem arises when you're in a tactical situation and you need for example resupply of fuel. If you depend on civilian drivers and the convoy comes under attack you must dispatch military to help protect the convoy for the simple reason you need to protect the supply of fuel. That is also true if the other logistics or food service. We were told the civilianization was to save money. It has not done that and that whole process needs to be reviewed. what it has done is made companies like Halliburton very wealthy.
on May 06, 2005
Once again the Colonel chimes in with Class Warfare stupidity. Col, even though you obviously slept through every class you took on the history of military campains, tell me, what war have we ever been involved where comanies didn't make a lot of money by supplying support and equipment for the war.

Rosie the Riveter worked for someone... right?

You make somewhere around what these guys are making, but u have already shown that rich is only what others make, not you.

I have been involved with the U.S. military since 1982. I can't remember a post that didn't have a noticeable civilian support corps. The only mess halls I ever ate in that didn't have civilians were National Guard Armory chow halls and I have yet to see a medical center staff that was all military.

Face it, you can't run a military without civilians. Period. Attention to detail is something that is even trained and ingrained in Officer training. One would think you would have picked up enough of that special ability to notice the difference between the civilians and military personnel serving you. Or was it that, since they were beneath you, they didn't matter?
on May 06, 2005
ParaTed2K

This has absolutely nothing to do with class warfare. This has to do with a claim by people like Rumsfeld that contracting services, that were formally provided by military members, would save the country money. It has not produced those savings. Many companies make money from providing supplies, equipment, materials and civilian construction at stateside installation. That's all part of the system and I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about support components in a battlefield or tactical situation. I don't have to read about how the military operates, I lived it . Where the hell you get off telling me about how the military works after I spent 30 years serving in the military. You Bushies care nothing about the truth only simply defending a man who has screwed the military including the veterans!
on May 06, 2005
If there's anyone who knows anything about outsourcing, it would have to be someone named Bahu Virupaksha.
on May 06, 2005
Although the idea sounded good the consequences have been that the actual cost of providing the services by contract is higher then if the services were provided by the military. For example, contractors were paying up to $80,000 per year to drive large trucks in Iraq when the comparable cost to have Military member drive that same vehicle would be in the $30 to $40,000 range per year.


Sir

How much does it cost to train one Army recruit? I know costs are very high because our retention NCO brief us every year.

How much does is cost to maintain, keep trained and equip a National Guard or Reserve Army Truck Co for the six out of eight years that it will not be most likely deployed?

Most families of military members who have die will receive the now average $500,000 one time SGLI (Soldier life insurance), $1,500 a month for life, $500 per month per child under 18, health services for rest of life, and some other benefits that I can't remember from off the top of my head. While the civilians must purchase these plans out of the $80,000 they are paid. My brother (just retired navy) has just signed a contract with Raytheon, and when he completes his contract in one year, he expects to receive only about half the money originally posted due to hidden fees and taxes (remember military member deployed are tax exempt, but not civilians)

I assure you the US Government saves allot more money through contracting. The food service personnel, from my companies who have returned from deployment, stated that the civilian cooks in Kuwait are nationalities like Indian, and Philippine. I am sure they are getting much less then our military privates. The military for the last 12 years have been using more and more civilian contracts because more and more Government works are the primary targets for Unionization as of late. Clinton recognized that and was the man who rightly opened the contracting for many service support jobs. The 71 series MOS (Admin assistant) personally has seen their numbers cut in half since the first Bush started the draw down in early 1992.

If I was to go and not be allowed to carry a gun, you could be sure that I would wanting double the pay.
on May 06, 2005
in combat zones mixing civilian and military does not work. The amount per unit of work that the government has been charged from everything from washing clothing to cooking meals or driving wheel vehicles is outrageous and is significantly higher than military cost to perform the same function. the civilian contractors are using military equipment and when they get in trouble they can't defend themselves the way a military unit can. The only thing contracting in a war zone has done is made some companies very profitable.
2 Pages1 2