English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-04 13:04:18 · 13 answers · asked by Edge Caliber 6 in Politics & Government Military

what does the military not have the man power to do?

2007-10-04 13:09:05 · update #1

13 answers

Liberals can't tie their hands and make THEM wait until they are shot at to defend themselves against the terrorists.

2007-10-04 13:07:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

A lot of what they're doing is a traditional Marine Corps job. But when the elder Bush downsized the military at the end of the Cold War, the decision was made, and then reinforced by the Gulf War, that our military should concentrate on third-generation war and divest itself of almost every other task, while retaining the administrative structure of 1957, much of which worked on 19th century management principles. Even four years into it, there's been minimal impetus to expand fourth-generation warfighting capabilities.

2007-10-04 13:39:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

WASHINGTON (Reuters)05 October 2007:

- U.S. military reports from the scene of a shooting incident in Baghdad involving security contractor Blackwater indicates its guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

At least 11 Iraqis were killed in the September 16 incident, which has outraged Iraqis who see the firm as a private army which acts with impunity.

Citing a senior U.S. military official, the Post said the military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault.

"It was obviously excessive. It was obviously wrong," a U.S. military official speaking on condition of anonymity told the newspaper.

"The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them," the official was quoted as saying.

The Blackwater guards appeared to have fired grenade launchers in addition to machine guns, the official told the Post. He said U.S. soldiers had reviewed statements from eyewitnesses and video footage recorded at the scene.

An Iraqi Interior Ministry official and five eyewitnesses described a second deadly shooting involving the same Blackwater guards minutes after the incident in Nisoor Square, the Post reported.

The FBI is leading a State Department investigation of the incident, which occurred as Blackwater escorted a diplomatic convoy in western Baghdad. The Pentagon and a joint U.S.-Iraqi team are also looking into the incident.

North Carolina-based Blackwater has said its guards reacted lawfully to an attack on the convoy they were protecting.

In previously unpublished remarks prepared for delivery at a congressional hearing, Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince said the Blackwater guards "came under small-arms fire" and "returned fire at threatening targets," the Post reported.

Portions of the remarks dealing with the incident were left out of his testimony after the Justice Department warned Blackwater the incident was under investigation, it reported.

The Post did not say how they obtained these remarks.

Blackwater is also under scrutiny over other shooting incidents involving Iraqis.

2007-10-04 20:51:27 · answer #3 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1 0

keep in mind that security is just one of many situations in which that the government brings in private contractors to aid the military. contractors are also brought in for a wide variety of other things, including administrative duties, and maintenance support. i, for example, was a helicopter mechanic in the marines, and spent 2 years (off and on) in iraq. without the aid of private contracted civilian maintainers, our workload would have been impossible. the same companies provided maintenance support for our squadron while we were home in the united states. if you just walk all over a military base, you'll see lots of civilians doing jobs that military people used to do. i'm not saying that money and politics isn't playing a role in the whole scandal going on right now, but in general, contracted aid for the military is nothing new.

2007-10-04 13:20:52 · answer #4 · answered by hammi2002 1 · 2 2

They're not! It's just more giveaways by the Bush Administrations Department of Corporate Cronyism. And another way to privatize even more government services. Apparently, Conservative Republicans believe that the private sector can do anything cheaper and more effectively than the government. But the HUGE contracts awarded to those contractors and low levels of security over in Iraq would suggest otherwise.

2007-10-04 13:14:20 · answer #5 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 2 3

They were supposed to be able to provide security cheaper and more effectively than the military.

2007-10-04 13:09:13 · answer #6 · answered by milton b 7 · 2 1

Because the low paid regular army has their hands full. The mercs aren't strapped by the UCMJ and can take risks that the regular Army can't.




g-day!

2007-10-04 13:34:53 · answer #7 · answered by Kekionga 7 · 0 2

For profit. Our President Bush is going to privatize the socialist military! They can terrorize civilians without their hands being tied behind their backs!

2007-10-04 13:08:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

Over paid mercenaries? I dunno. How much is Iran promising to pay their suicide bombers? So, by your standard, the old folks working as greeters and those, driving around the parking lot at Walmart (security) are mercenaries?

2007-10-04 13:14:24 · answer #9 · answered by Doc 7 · 1 4

They do the jobs that the Military doesn't have the manpower or the mandate to do.

2007-10-04 13:06:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers