Another Blackwater post sparks another Blackwater debate. (See previous discussions here, and here.) BWGuy left the following comment to my brief post about Iraq banning Blackwater Worldwide.
“Sorry to burst your bubble but a security contractor costs almost 90,000 a year less than a soldier. If you did any research on the issue asside from just spouting liberal gossip then you would have a leg to stand on. In addition, the training, qualifications, and vetting are ten times higher than the military as well. I’m sure you also know that everytime the military shoots its not on CNN (the liberal media) The army has shot,killed and destroyed a thousand times more than all contract security in iraq and afghanistan combined. But thats not on the news because they wear the uniform, and the contractor’s who used to be in the exact same uniform are treated as though they got their training in iran or something. The U.S. contractors are U.S. Special Forces, Special operations, Police Officers, and all highly trained Vetted and deployed only after they hav been screened. The military has waivers for everything from drunk driving to beating your spouse and you can still get in, the high threat protection specialist is held to higher standards. No matter how you try and hire people there will always be a handfull that will end up making a bad choice no matter what job it is, People are hired and fired everday for exactly that, but you cant say that because one person made a bad choice that the entire entity is unable to meet its responsibilities. If the U.S. makes a bad choice should we throw 350+ million people in prison they’re americans too?”
Thanks BWGuy. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to respond.
First, since I also oppose gossip, let’s try to use demonstrable evidence and cogent argument.
1. “a security contractor costs almost 90,000 a year less than a soldier.” OK, I’m going to need a citation on this. Do you mean annual salary?
2. “the training, qualifications, and vetting are ten times higher than the military.” This is a non sequitur. It does not address the point of Iraq banning BW agents. Are you suggesting we should replace the US military with BW?
3. “the liberal media.” Really? Rather than each of us listing a catalog of incidents when the mainstream media shows conservative bias, or liberal bias, might I suggest that the MSM has liberal AND conservative components, and it is the part that differs with our worldview that stands out? I don’t give it a second thought when the NYT favorably mentions the reasonableness of legal abortion, but I immediately peg them as conservative when they use some right-wing think tank to bash unions. Similarly you (well, maybe not YOU, but you get the idea) throw the paper down in disgust when they mention global warming, but don’t give it a second thought when they write that Obama should not investigate the Bush administration.
4. “Got their training in Iran or something.” I have seen absolutely no evidence of this. I’m pretty sure everyone knows that (for the most part) BW employees are US ex-military.
5. “one person made a bad choice that the entire entity is unable to meet its responsibilities.” Ah, but the argument isn’t that one person made a bad choice (unless you mean Erik Prince), but that the whole organization is ordered to make choices the Iraq leadership disagrees with.
6. “If the U.S. makes a bad choice…” This is comparing apples to frogs. This is not a discussion about the US, it is a discussion about Blackwater. Please stay on topic.
Before I get to a few substantiated facts about Blackwater, let me suggest that your concept of liberal values and conservative values are fundamentally wrong. Much of what we understand as the cultural and political divide between conservatism and liberalism can be traced to the debates between Burke and Paine in their responses to the French Revolution. Paine argued that the revolution was a reflection of the rationalization of politics. Reason and logic would lead the way to a new world and new way of life for all humanity. Liberalism would banish superstition and ignorance from the human experience.
Burke countered that are things more important than cold-hearted reason. Tradition and slow, methodical change were the best ways for a society to organize itself. If there were nobility and the impoverished, then it should stay that way, and only change organically, over the course of generations.
Those who took up Burke’s argument also noted that there was no reason or rationality to courage, or love, or loyalty, or faith. The irrational heart was a better guide to life than the rational mind.
Liberalism is rooted in reason, rationality, science, evidence, and cogent arguments. Conservatism is rooted in faith, emotion, tradition, and resistance to change.
Now, back to Blackwater.
I’m not so concerned with one Blackwater operation spinning out of control. What interests me about the story is how the new administration will respond to the Iraq leadership’s assertion of autonomy.
Beyond Blackwater’s role in Iraq, however, I have several concerns about the role of Blackwater (and other contractors) as official agents of the United States.
First, the cost. From a March 15, 2007 Time magazine article (and believe me I wish I didn’t have to rely on the conservative Time magazine for this stat. If I had more time I’d locate the line in the State Depatment budget) “Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects U.S. officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.”
So, that’s $320 million in about 32 months, making for $10 million dollars a month (and about 1/3 of the entire State Department security budget). Why is that money going to a privately-owned organization rather than US soldiers? As you mention, most BW employees were trained by the US military. Since the US military is capable of training sufficiently skilled guards, why doesn’t the US military get the benefits of US tax dollars to pay those guards? Why is your money going to a private organization that has no governmental oversight?
Blackwater breaks the law – “A lengthy State Department investigation has concluded that the security contractor shipped some 900 weapons to the country—some of which likely wound up on the black market.” Why should US tax dollars support a private company that breaks the law and helps the enemies of US soldiers?
Blackwater doesn’t pay their taxes. It seems (though this is still an ongoing investigation) that Blackwater has been evading its taxes. Why do you support paying American tax dollars to a company that evades its tax responsibilities?
While many of the BW agents are US-trained military, not all of them are. “Last month Blackwater USA flew a first group of about 60 former commandos, many of who had trained under the military government of Augusto Pinochet, from Santiago to a 2,400-acre (970-hectare) training camp in North Carolina.” Why would you rather the money you pay in taxes go to Chilean (and Columbian, and Filipino) mercenaries rather than American soldiers?
Finally, Blackwater security costs quite a bit more than US soldiers, despite your assertion otherwise – “Blackwater charges the government $1,222 a day per guard, “equivalent to $445,000 per year, or six times more than the cost of an equivalent U.S. soldier.”
