Is this the equivalent of Bush & Co. telling the army: You are not good enough to protect our people?
Does Bush & Co. think that poorly of our soldiers, that they have to hire mercenaries for protection instead?
2007-09-19 06:42:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Phillip: Read this and try again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070919/wl_time/cantheuslivewithoutblackwater
"The U.S. embassy in Baghdad relies heavily on Blackwater security to guard its personnel as they visit government ministries and other sites around Iraq. American diplomats have not been able to travel outside the Green Zone since Iraq suspended Blackwater's license following a firefight Sunday that resulted in the deaths of at least eight Iraqi civilians."
2007-09-19 06:50:22 · update #1
I also find it appalling that the US embassy in Baghdad is concerned that they cannot "survive" without Blackwater.
Too f-ing bad, if you ask me.
This war is too expensive, time to cut costs starting with military contractors.
2007-09-19 06:53:38 · update #2
Not enough troops. The 'gap' between the original estimate from Gen. Shinseki and the Rumsfeld deployment is a gap that's being partially filled by mercenaries like Blackwater and Titan.
You could do it with soldiers, but we would need to activate the draft. That was always a long shot at success, and in the current climate impossible.
So instead we pay five times as much for subpar performance that partially undermines the good work the military does.
2007-09-19 06:52:39 · answer #1 · answered by Latte 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because that's what Blackwater USA hires themselves out for, not to protect the military. The military is supposed to protect the military.
Blackwater is a civilian "militia" created by former Navy Seals.
2007-09-19 06:49:03 · answer #2 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually the military doesn't protect diplomats anywhere.
It's not their job.
The State department has the diplomatic security corp to protect diplomats.
So when the State department needed additional security in Iraq, the contracted out the job for security personal.
Private security personal provide diplomatic protection, in other countries, other than Iraq and Afghanistan.
2007-09-19 07:22:38 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well when saddam refused to let the un weapon inspectors in the country we gave them time and time again i really dont think a military strike was any way to solve the problem since britain thought they needed more time and if we did go on with the strike we were on our own we were already in afghanistan we really didnt need iraq on top of it i feel that iraq is now the main headline and the main focus and for what saddam had nothing to do with the 911 attacks but i think we should clean up the mess in iraq we cant just leave altogether when our troops are getting killed i think troops should be permately stationed over there to keep down the chaos but when i say that i dont agree with the thousands that are over there now our main focous should be on pakistan and afghanistan and any knid of terrorism should be wiped out for good
2016-05-18 06:59:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Diplomats are protected by the Marines.
Blackwater protects private individuals who can afford them.
Or they are subcontracted out to augment the military in certain areas that are deemed non-military critical. Done all the time. Even here our base has rent-a-cops at the gate. It's called capitalism and helping give jobs to people.
2007-09-19 06:47:57 · answer #5 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are a private security firm. What is wrong with hiring them to protect diplomats so the military can do it's job? Besides, the military is trained to fight battles not be bodyguards or meals on wheels.
.
2007-09-19 06:47:43 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you really want the enemy to bust a gut laughing at us, tell them our army needs civilians protecting them.
I think I understand that you want to know why Bush thinks our army isn't good enough to protect our citizens there and why Blackwater needs to be hired to protect them.
I did read it incorrectly the first time.
I think its a question of the Army being needed for patrols and not for protection purposes, although its always been my understanding that our Army protects our embassies overseas. The Blackwater group is protecting private citizens that work for the various companies that work there.
2007-09-19 06:47:03 · answer #7 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Forget killing kids, killing Sadamm, getting our soilders killed, wasting billions. This in GWB's eye's is the biggest failure in Iraq.
P.S - I'm sure these Blackwater thugs are the main one's inciting Sunni and Shitte fighting.
P.S.S - I wonder what's wrong with the Iraqi police? I'am sure they can guard our diplomats with up most efficiency.
2007-09-19 07:44:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a slap on the face to our special forces operating in Iraq like the US Army Rangers, seals and, Force Recon Marines , Green berets ha!!!! this is another company most likley related to the out our Vice Pres former employer , shameful shameful on the Dept of State not to use our fine military i was under the impression we have a training center in GA Brunswick ( fletc) to train our special agents (DSS) and others just for protecting our embassy diplomats
2007-09-19 06:50:18 · answer #9 · answered by aldo 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Private contractors" are allowed to protect, they're not allowed to go on offensive operations.
Using them in protection roles frees up military units to go hunt down the enemy.
Not sure I really like them much.. but there is a valid reason for them being there.
2007-09-19 07:07:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋