Does the creation of private contract armies like Blackwater weaken our nation's military?

Question

I have been talking to soldiers, marines, and others about the 'contractor's army'. Some say they are good, some say they act outside international law and military law to protect U.S. 'business interests', ignoring the Geneva Convention. Some say our guys cannot get the job done. Some say Blackwater contractors have better equipment. Some say they use military equipment and are under military orders. I can find no concrete evidence at this time for any one of those arguments for or against. What do you think? Does anyone have more information? I have seen that they get paid a lot more than real soldiers. This made me concerned, with some military moms on food stamps, because the wages are low. I am also concerned whether armed men such as these will replace our regular US Army and National Guard, underdermining the true security of the United States. I do not know if we can trust people who will kill for money and not for democracy's sake...though I myself do not want Iraq war at all.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Licensed-Kill-Hired-Guns-Terror/dp/1400097819

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca43_baca/farm_bill_072707.html
Exempting special combat pay for our military families from the asset test for the first time (because of low income) allowing more military families to qualify. No real raises, just more food stamps, meanwhile large amounts of government money go to 'armed contractors' from Blackwater.

The Poverty Level 2006
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html

The recent establishment of a location in Illinois has some people worried.
http://www.blackwaterbook.com/news/2007/01/about_blackwate.html
"The administration hails Blackwater as a revolution in military affairs; others see its rise as nothing less than a dire threat to American democracy."

zac jeeper john t need to do some more research before they answer complicted questions such as this with opinion instead of fact. Also, do not assume that a questioner knows nothing about the subject which they are asking about. I know a lot obout Blackwater and their structure and activities. Please read my provided links before answering if you are unsure of the facts.
Blackwater may be contractors, as in services for companies in security, maintenance, etc., but the do have many areas of the company that 'play army'. They may be ex-militarty, but that is not the point of this information seeking question. I want to know how it effects our Army now and in the future, and especially, if martial law is imposed any time in the future, will they be the ones enforcing curfews, gun laws, arresting citizens, etc., outside military law and convention. Blackwater IS conducting military operations in Iraq and killing people. I thank those who responded here with fact, and not opinion.More?

"Licensed to Kill"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9142046234356623565

Blackwater in Baghdad Video


also see
Aegis Snipings in Iraq
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5734528875668338561

and this, about killing and making a living

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1198200663660134068

8-17-2007 Recent news and events have indicated that members of Blackwater will be charged with murder in Iraq for killing 8 civilians.
I think I shall close this question, as the current situation puts Blackwater up on the chopping block as a private army. Let us have a moment of silence for those they killed. Thanks for answering, everyone.

Answer 1

Companies like Blackwater are not answerable to International Law in the same ways as are a country's military, which is probably one of the reasons that Blackwater is getting so much work. The present bunch in the White House don't like the idea of following laws, even the laws of their own country.

In a broader sense, however, every dollar that is spent on private contractors doing the same job as the military is a dollar less for the military. As no contractor will ever do work without a healthy profit, the taxpayer is paying more for the same services as would have been provided by the military. In that sense, using private contractors is weakening the military.

Answer 2

Well first, why do you call blackwater an Army ?

Blackwater provides security guards, just like brinks and all the other security guard companies do.

You really think the security guard at walmart is part of an Army ?

The big difference, is blackwater provides security guards for high threat areas of the world.

Most of Blackwaters security, is provided to corporations employeess, they were hired by the corporation, not by the US government.

To many people seem to think that Blackwater employees are conducting operations in iraq, thats just not true.

As to the legality and their legal liiability.

All contractors hired by US companies and all US citizens in Iraq, and under the UCMJ.

Do you really think we should use the American army, to protect some corporations employees working in iraq ?

Let the corporations hire their own security guards, just like they are doing now.

Answer 3

alot of blackwater guys have served in the United States Military. my old boss was an Army Ranger, then after he got out of the Army he joined blackwater. but to me, if they arent currently serving in the military and theyre working for a private military contractor, then theyre just a mercenary. i mean no offense by this, but it is what it is. and i do somewhat question the rules that are applied to some of these mercenaries. they are not under the UCMJ which somewhat bothers me, seeing that they are operating in a combat area. some (and only some) of these guys have done horrible things, not just to iraqi civilians, but also to American troops. i heard one story that several of these mercenary guys were selling weapons to insurgents that were being used to kill American troops. thankfully those assholes were caught and put in jail. but there is a problem in that there could still be more of them doing these type of things. all in all i dont think its bad to have them, i just think they need more oversight.




to the stupid idiot "zac" who posted about Rangers killing civilians. that was PROVEN to not be true. jesse macbeth is a liar and never served in the military, let alone the Army Rangers. the Army has absolutely no records of him ever having been in. if he actually had been in and the story was true it would be all over the mainstream news, just like abu ghraib or the stephen green thing. ive known Army Rangers who were part of the initial invasion force and NONE of them killed ANY civilians. you are full of extreme leftist anti-war bs. i dont have any problem with people being against the war, but lying about being in the military just pisses me off.

Answer 4

If there is a coup via the neo-cons it may not be completed by means of individual armies however as an alternative via the entire acquiescence of the US navy and the various US populace. This is the way it might occur: A flawlessly timed battle (inside months of a presidential election) is initiated with Iran and the Iranians retaliate via invading Iraq, blockading the Strait of Hormuz accordingly precipitating an vigour drawback, and launching missile assaults towards Israel. As the one hundred fifty,000 American troops in Iraq could be closely outnumbered maybe four or five to a million, the usage of nuclear guns could be accredited. This could rationale sabre damn in Moscow and Beijing. The US management could convince the nation that countrywide defense used to be in jeopardy and that a nuclear assault used to be a likelihood. The election could accordingly have got to be suspended as a result of the countrywide emergency. There could be many that could argue in contrast, however they could be berated and slandered via the federal government and the media as un-American and be accused of no longer assisting the troops in Iraq. The Republican Supreme Court could authorise the suspension of the election given the grave threat posed to the country. This "state of emergency" could be maintained indefinitely accordingly getting rid of the democratic state. My guess is that almost all of Americans could help the management considering they could be conviced that the measures have been indispensable and so they could no longer want to seem as unpatriotic. The Christian proper could be of their glory as this could sign the graduation of Armageddon and so they could take to the pulpit and shout that this used to be no time to speak approximately democracy and slander everybody who took an opposing view as a liberal, a traitor, and a satanist. It could all occur very, very swiftly, and is an overly, very horrifying prospect.

Answer 5

Not at all. Private Security Companies give more flexibility to US Foreign Policy. They are mostly former Soldiers doing jobs that free up combat Soldiers to do their "real job" of searching out and destroying the enemy.

They are not employed to directly confront the enemy, but in roles of protecting dignitaries, locations and other work that does not include combat missions. They are well paid and compensated because they have a dangerous job in dangerous parts of the world and they are well trained for those jobs.

Answer 6

I hate to break it to you but, yea most solders join the military for democracy reasons but that 20,000+ dollar cash bonus for signing your name on a piece of paper isn't half bad either.
so before you shun Blackwater contractors for killing for money you need to take that into prospective

And yea in some circumstances the Geneva Convention doesn't apply too PCA (privet contract armies) but that's the same for our military; at the beginning of invade of Iraq the Army Rangers were deployed to kill insurgents, fighters loyal to Saddam, and any innocent people that stood in their way of clearing bunkers that bombed beforehand; they were also ordered to open fire in the middle of Temple during a Mass and kill innocent women and children, they burned there body's and hung them from bridges just as Iraq-es did to the American troops.
There operation was to strike fear in the hearts and minds of the Iraq-es
HERE IT FROM A RANGER FIRST HAND
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZyMsrFY_Q
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYfrO5A48vQ

As for replacing the regular military, No, they more likely to get in the way than anything.

Answer 7

I do believe the private contractors do make things more difficult for the active duty esp as they are configured now. They make more money, follow less rules and I believe allow for much more graft and corruption.

Answer 8

They're mercenaries and need to be treated as such.