Mercenaries are paid about four times as much per month as the starting salary for a soldier, so we would have more money to pay soldiers if we didn't use those guys, or at the very least, our government shouldn't be paying more for merc than they pay our troops.
Also, unlike our troops, they aren't subject to the UCMJ, so they are unaccountable for their actions. Consequently, they have been more abusive with Iraqis which leads to more ill-will against the occupation which could result in violence toward our troops. Just today, the Iraqi government demanded that one of the mercenary companies leave Iraq. If the mercs behavior is so bad the Iraqi government is willing to defy Bush, you can be sure other Iraqis would be mad enough to take a shot at one of our soldiers.
So how exactly is using these private contractors, who got their job through political connections helping the troops?
2007-09-17 15:30:58 · 11 answers · asked by yurbud 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
In the past, protecting State Department personnel was the job of the uniformed military. Go back and look at the photos from the Iran hostage crisis.
Also, most of the missions they are doing parallel the regular military missions, like protecting convoys.
For those of you who don't think the mission is worth risking our troops lives, why would you want ANY troops there then? I don't want them to risk their lives either, but the reckless behavior of mercs increases not decreases that risk.
2007-09-17 18:13:38 · update #1
it relieves our troops of some hazardous duty.
just try to remember, US troops good, enemy bad.
2007-09-17 15:35:24 · answer #1 · answered by karl k 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I never knew security guards were mercenaries.
I'll have to tell that to the Brink's guard at the bank next time i see him.
I bet he'll be surprised that he is now a mercenary.
So you think American soldiers should provide security for foreign companies, doing work in Iraq ?
Cause thats what most of the security contractors in Iraq are doing.
The State Department has always used private security companies to guard diplomats and even some US embassays in the world.
So why is it a problem now ? When it wasn't a problem 5, 10 or 15 years ago ?
And I think I read the same article you read, and that article is wrong. All contractors hired by US companies in Iraq, are under the UCMJ.
They have been since 2006.
2007-09-18 01:14:30 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The largest private contractor over there is a subsidiary of Haliburton. It's a security outfit that hires ex-special forces guys. Not exactly your run of the mill soldier, sailor, or marine.
If we've got anyone who can operate outside of the UCMJ these are the guys that I would want. At least if they have to carry out an 'abusive' operation we know they'll do it right.
The Iraqis need to stop worrying about what we are doing there now and start thinking about what they're going to do when we leave - other than die in car bombings and the like.
2007-09-17 22:38:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
From what I have read these Companies were hired by the Iraqi Government, without the approval of the White house. Seems to me that if it was the US that was paying them the Iraqis couldn't just order them out ,now could they?
2007-09-17 23:02:06 · answer #4 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are providing security under contract to various State Department activities in Iraq like the Agency for International Development. They are not filling in for any mission which would normally be assigned to U.S. forces.
2007-09-18 00:33:11 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a place like Iraq I'd rather see the Blackwater folks (totally voluntary in their participation, albeit for a large wad) being the target of insurgents than US troops who have little choice in the matter.
2007-09-17 22:36:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They're expendable. Our soldiers aren't. We don't need to use our soldiers to protect so called VIPs and other high visibility targets. Let those guys do it. Proportionately, they're taking a much higher casualty rate than the military.
2007-09-17 22:34:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually if you did any research you would find they have very little to do with actual combat other then defensive actions. And where do you think we are going to find another 20,000 troops lying around to do guard duty?
2007-09-17 22:35:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They get paid to go into dangerous situations. Why put our soldiers into more danger than they already are in.
2007-09-17 23:10:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Republicans don't give a hoot about anyone but themselves, including soldiers. They are well known for being racists, bigots, sexists, Islam-haters.
2007-09-17 22:35:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋