Have you been following all that furor over the September 16th (2007) shootout in Baghdad involving Blackwater contract security operatives? Blackwater chairman Erik Prince defended his company on Tuesday, deflecting charges that his staff acts like, "a bunch of cowboys immune to legal prosecution" while protecting US State Department personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Prince (a 38-year-old former Navy seal) told the house oversight and Government reform committee on October 2nd, "I believe we acted appropriately at all times,"
I happen to have had the distinct privilege of working for them as an instructor for a time so I may have a bit more of a stake in the controversy than the average person. I managed to catch the entire senate hearing on CSPAN the other night and found it very informative to watch as the democrats generally competed to make Erik Prince (Blackwater owner) look bad while the republicans did their best to make him look good. Partisan politics at its very best!
Just for the record:
What a crock!
There is no way the US Military with their present capabilities could currently perform the specialized diplomatic security work of close personal protection body guard duties that those 800 Blackwater specialists now perform for US Diplomats stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyone who says otherwise simply does not understand what diplomatic security is all about. The rules of engagement are totally different than Police or battlefield tactics and it takes extensive and specialized training to create an effective EP (Executive Protection) specialist capable of operating in a unique high-threat theater like Iraq. In EP, the entire objective is to protect the package at all costs within very specific escalation of force guidelines. American diplomats need and deserve to be protected, even if it means employing actions that may tarnish relations with the country in which they are operating. And. despite what you may hear, the 'loaded' costs of providing such a service via our military would be more expensive for our government than contracting the service out to a private contractor. NOT LESS!
Erik Prince is being targeted and harassed by the liberals because he is a true American with extremely high standards of performance for his employees and a very effective businessman. This is war and people get killed in war. And when the battlefield is an urban environment, civilians will die. Sure, there are rare occasions where individual operatives act inappropriately. When that happens, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! The problem here is that this war in Iraq is unique in so many respects. For instance, our current laws need to be revised in order to cover US Government contractors like Blackwater and that will be done thanks to recent incidents. Erik Prince is in favor of such a change in the law and he fully supports prosecution of any contract employee who crosses the line. And when this happens, all agree that those individuals need to be prosecuted IN AMERICA for their crimes... not in some third-world country where they will be very unlikely to receive a fair trial and are likely to be subjected to sub-standard conditions and very inappropriate punishment if convicted.
And oh. for the record: The dictionary defines "Mercenary" as a soldier hired for services in a foreign country. Blackwater employees only work for the US Government or US Government approved and sanctioned clients.
-Mike Jaquish
10/05/07 Reader Response:
Mike,
I just this hour returned from Ft Jackson and two days of live fire exercises. I like your blog, but consider how you would answer American troops who have complained about Blackwater's propensity to fire quickly. Their opinions are worth something -- unlike the Dems or Pubes.
-TN
MIKE'S REPLY:
The average citizen does not fully understand the objectives and rules of engagement for diplomatic security in an environment like Iraq and neither do our soldiers. We have the best military in the world but they are on a slightly different screen in terms of rules of engagement than the diplomatic security operatives. I suspect those you heard complaining about BW were those who simply do not have an understanding of this difference and were inwardly envious of the wonderful pay scales contractors command. Most BW employees are former Police and/or US Military (many are former US Navy Seals or Special Ops) so they too understand what the military rules of engagement are. However, they approach their mission differently because they have received additional training and are complying with specific State Department contract requirements that clearly govern their actions.
Diplomats in Iraq are the highest priority target for the enemy because taking out a US Diplomat is an incredible boost for their morale and it increases recruitment. US Diplomats also play a critical role in working to stabilize the situation there so taking one out undermines that process. It is therefore crucial that we pull out all the stops to ensure their safety.
On Tuesday night I watched 3 top members of the State Department testify after Erik Prince (BW owner) and they expressed nothing but praise and support for Blackwater tactics. There was a very high-ranking Ambassador, the head of DS himself (or possibly #2... a tall, gray-haired man with a deep voice... can't recall his name) and the man in charge of finances for State. The DS guy described the rules of engagement for BW shooters in detail and clearly described why it would not be possible for current US Military personnel to do the job without a lot of additional training. He assured the senators that BW generally follows the same procedures DS themselves would follow if they had enough personnel to do the mission themselves. (There are only 1,450 DS agents and BW currently provides an additional 800-1200 operatives.)
It is admittedly, a very delicate balance. Sure, no one should be allowed to kill any person unnecessarily and even with DS there are lines that cannot be crossed. Human beings being what they are, it is inevitable that they will make inappropriate decisions from time to time when being shot at. Even the US Military finds this to be the case (and there are currently several facing charges now). BW has been involved in something like 4 shootouts per week on average since being deployed in Iraq several years ago and they have only faced bad press on two or three incidents. I would say that is a pretty good record, wouldn't you?
In Iraq, there simply has to be a presumption that every other person or vehicle on the road may be the enemy when a diplomatic convoy is proceeding through an area. The general public there has been made very aware of diplomatic convoy procedures via local media and all diplomatic vehicles have warning signs ordering everyone to maintain a distance of at least 700 feet. If someone violates the directive, they follow procedure by issuing commands, flashing lights & sirens at them, then firing warning shots, then shooting at the tires or radiator of the vehicle if they fail to stop, then shooting into the windshield if they continue to ignore commands. In a heavily populated urban environment such as Baghdad, some rounds are likely to stray from the target because humans are human and because much of the time, you are firing from a speeding vehicle. If innocents die, that is very unfortunate, but the greater objective is to protect those who are there to bring an end to the conflict.
This latest controversy is actually very good for our nation because it is likely to clear up a lot of misunderstandings about this subject as well as get some needed laws passed to allow for intentional disregard of the rules of engagement by individual operatives.
-Mike Jaquish
ANOTHER READER'S COMMENTS:
Mike,
We are inundated with conflicting information from the internet and media. One can find agreement for any viewpoint. Currently, journalism is tabloid-style sensationalism. What happened to truthful reporting? The trend is frightening.
Our son serving in Iraq concurs on Blackwater?finding truth is challenging. During the Clinton administration I conversed with a priest about social morality. I expressed my concern that few citizens cared about the sexual indiscretions of our President. Many priests even believed it was personal/private business. The President of the United States is a public servant, and as such should above all set an example of honest, courteous and proper behavior, particularly on the behalf of our children and young people. This goes for CSPAN's editors as well.
Have you ever had the opportunity to watch a "live" news story on one of the alphabet channels, and then view the same event on BBC news? The difference in clips AND viewpoint is shocking.
Do you think America can/will rise to the challenge?
SD
MIKE'S RESPONSE:
I doubt it.
