Re/Creating Tampa » Blackwater

Another Blackwater Debate

dave — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:51:34 +0000

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.”

Blackwater Banned in Iraq

dave — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:07:39 +0000

Interesting.

“BAGHDAD – Iraq said Thursday it will bar Blackwater Worldwide from providing security protection for U.S. diplomats because its contractors used excessive force, sanctioning a company whose image was irrevocably tarnished by the 2007 killings of 17 Iraqi civilians.”

Return to Blackwater

dave — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:24:25 +0000

(((Editorial Note: Below is a response to an earlier post I wrote about Blackwater. I wanted to bring it to the front page because it’s a thoughtful, first-hand account of working within the US military and working with Blackwater. There are also a few issues raised which I wanted to amplify, so there’s also an editorial comment at the end.)))

(((The degree to which we as US citizens should allow our military to become privatized is a profoundly important question. The degree to which we’ve allowed our national security to be turned over to private corporations is highlighted by this recent report noting that there are more military contractors serving in Iraq than US military. At the end of Tommy’s comment I’ll write about the roots of this type of privatization and why it’s a bad idea.)))

***

Tommy OSH: The problem isn’t Blackwater itself but the military and law enforcement agencies that under pay their best personnel. The best have figured out that their is more money in training, consulting and in personal security.

Blackwater took off because of its weapons experts, their vast firing ranges and the training they provided to nearly every government agency. When Blackwater entered the private security detail (PSD) business they were very new and not as experienced South African and British security firms. Blackwater PSD specialists comprising of former military special forces troops at its core did not have developed rules of engagement and followed the same rules of surrounding military units. Keep in mind though that in the early years of the Iraq war there wasn’t clear guidance for anyone to include the military.

Personally I have had different levels of experience with Blackwater. Their former special forces guys are excellent and very professional. Because of the performance of these key personal Blackwater was able to expand but they had to fill in the additional ranks with ex-military that could be characterized as less capable than the former special forces guys. That is probably what led to incidents leading to death of civilians in the 2005-2006 period. Plus the rules of engagement were tightening up on the military side as the Iraq government was taking more control of certain aspects of governance. The standard to fire warning shots or engage vehicles that were potential car bombs was tightening up. Incidents in which civilians were killed became significantly more costly to the Iraq-U.S. relationship. Some security firms did not evolve as quickly as the military in changing the rules of engagement, thinking that they could continue with business as usual.

Blackwater certainly has a very unique culture. It is a company that is favorable to Christian conservatives, which you could argue bodes well with the current administration. I believe the true reason it continues to expand its influence in the consulting field is because of its recruiting practices. It recruits through the military and law-enforcement good-old-boy system. Most of their employees were personally referred because they are known experts in their fields. It difficult for these guys to turn away $80-150,000 (sometimes more) salaries compared to the $35,000-$45,000 they are making from the government.

The government doesn’t pay individuals for their skills. When I was in the military I got paid the same amount as the guy handing out towels at the gym because we had the same rank. He also had more awards and medals than me despite never deploying. I served in 7 combat tours around the globe (4 in Iraq) and was one of only a dozen people in the Air Force that did what I did. So naturally I left the military to take a job with a consulting firm.

Given the amount of training Blackwater provides to the government it is of little surprise that Blackwater shirts are everywhere. I was once given a shirt by a Blackwater recruiter but gave it to a buddy who really wanted it. Shirts from Blackwater, Armor Group or other industry professionals say “I went to a Blackwater school or I was once employed by Blackwater,” which implies that you are skilled at your job.

Blackwater grew too fast and they learned that their rapid growth has consequences. Their biggest advantage is that they can get things done and provide support to the government without all of the bureaucratic red tape. On the other hand, Blackwater is learning which parts of that red tape process they need to incorporate into their business practices. Iraq created the Blackwater we know today, however it has struggled to keep contracts because of the bad press. The more experienced British firms have taken over some of the security contracts from Blackwater.

Blackwater will continue to succeed until the government starts paying people for their skills instead of rank. But that would require a drastic restructuring in the military rank system which really hasn’t changed since the Spanish American War.

I think Blackwater gets in over their heads. Most people within Blackwater are well intended but they are growing greedy and want to monopolize their industry. As the war on terror and post-Iraq over hiring boom fades (which it is) so will their contracts and they will probably have to scale back (just like the Starbucks over expansion). Their contracts are very dependent on Republican fear-mongering and keeping terrorism as a key issue. When the next terrorist attack kills American citizens somewhere in the world demand for Blackwater-type services will go up again. I can understand why Blackwater seems creepy, it’s the nature of their business. But the nature of that business requires people keep a close eye on the ambitions of Blackwater.

***

(((Editorial comment: The underpayment of the US military did not happen by accident, and both political parties bear responsibility for cutting government wages, in both the military and in other government service.

One reason for the cut in wages is because defunding programs is unpopular. Since simply cutting programs creates a negative backlash for the incumbents the Reagan administration struck upon the idea of underfunding various offices and departments, and underpaying government workers. This serves two purposes, it creates a culture of incompetence, (unmotivated and poorly paid workers don’t do a very good job) which in turn encourages people, including government offices and departments, to turn to the private sector rather than the government for help. So, while the United States government has always turned to private contractors for a wide variety of goods and services, they are prompted to do so even moreso today because of the culture of red tape and incompetence that has intentionally been created in Washington.

The dream is that this would lead to reducing the costs in two important domains. One, if salaries are kept stagnant, or reduced, that keeps costs down. Two, if there is a free market competition for contracts for services and goods, that should reduce the amount spent on those goods and services. Good ideas on the surface, but what has happened is that unmotivated and incompetent workers actually end up costing more because of error and indifference. And, without a governmental oversight system in place for private contractors, corruption, theft, and fraud have skyrocketed, leaving the taxpayer with the bill.

As the mainstream media has proven itself untrustworthy and ineffectual it has lost its place as the so-called fourth branch of government. The real fourth branch of government is the contracting agencies that receive tax dollars to do work for the government, but without government oversight. Blackwater is one of these contracting agencies, but is far from being the only one. I may think Blackwater is creepy, but not because of the company. I find Blackwater creepy because of the role it has taken in our society.

The problem with Blackwater is not the people involved. The problem with Blackwater is that it raises a larger and profoundly important question – How far are we willing to allow our military to be privatized?

Finally, I think most of Tommy’s comment is spot-on, one quibble I have is he suggests that Blackwater is losing contracts because of bad press. I think they lose contracts because they are in a competitive field. Losing, and gaining, contracts is just part of the corporate fabric. Exxon went through a period of bad press after the Valdez, but managed to bounce back. Tylenol went through a period of bad press after the Tylenol poisonings, but managed to bounce back. Union Carbide got bad press because of the Bhopal disaster, but managed to bounce back. If Blackwater fails, it’s not because of the press. If our press were engaged we’d be having a national debate about the role of Blackwater and other PSDs, rather than talking about it in the occasional blog post.

Blackwater Is Creepy – UPDATED

dave — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:36:44 +0000

Am I the only one who thinks Blackwater is creepy?

Mark Frauenfelder at Boing Boing nicked this pic from the LA Times of a man wearing a Blackwater t-shirt assisting in a DEA raid on a medical marijuana dispensary.

The image has since been removed.

So, is this a DEA agent who just happens to be wearing a Blackwater t-shirt, or is this a Blackwater employee who is participating in a DEA raid?

“Blackwater is one of five companies picked by the Department of Defense Counter-Narcotics Technology Program Office in a five-year contract for equipment, material and services in support of counter-narcotics activities. The contract is worth up to $15 billion. The other companies picked are Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Arinc Inc..”

The Nation story about Blackwater in New Orleans after Katrina.

“When asked what authority they were operating under, one guy said, ‘We’re on contract with the Department of Homeland Security.’”

Here’s a documentary about Blackwater posted at Screening Tampa back in May.

Am I the only one who thinks having a private military force working as agents of the government is just a little bit wrong?

UPDATE (8/04) -

Rebecca Saltzman has more here.

Kris Hermes follows up and contacts the journalist who reported the story for the LA Times. Some questions are answered and some new questions are raised.

Here are the questions it raised for Hermes:

“why would an undercover agent, concerned about maintaining anonymity, conduct a circus-like, paramilitary-style raid in broad daylight with media swarming around? Doesn’t the DEA realize that by censoring a controversial photo, it is ensuring greater exposure of it, thereby creating a greater identity risk for the agent? Is it not careless, to say the least, when police are supposed to be explicitly identified during such enforcement actions, to have one of the agents conducting the raid be identified as Blackwater?”

Kudos to Saltzman and Hermes for noting this story, and for following up.