Interesting. Because from what I've read, there's a dispute in regard to the one incident as to whether Backwater came under fire or not. But don't let that stand in the way of a nice little soundbite. ymmv.

aV

I've heard a lot more than that, including the piece I posted. (Not that anyone but Blackwater is saying they were shot at. The Army personnel who arrived said that people were shot while running away.)

The bigger problem is with the reliance on security guards whose incentives -- as you note -- run contrary to counterinsurgency strategy.

But without Blackwater, we'll have to rely on CIA renditions when we decide to engage in wanton acts of violence contrary to local law. Granted, the CIA tends to be more disciplined about having at least some evidence that a guy named Akmed did something bad somewhere before they pick up someone named Ahmad, but they're already pretty busy.

Rudy: Earth safe from alien attack
 

Time sez:

• (EXETER, N.H.) — Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Sunday said preparedness will be key for all crises, even an attack from outer space.
  
  During a town hall meeting in Exeter, a young questioner asked the former New York mayor about his plan to protect Earth.
  
  "If (there's) something living on another planet and it's bad and it comes over here, what would you do?" the boy asked.
  
  Giuliani, grin on his face, said it was the first time he's been asked about an intergalactic attack.
  
  "Of all the things that can happen in this world, we'll be prepared for that, yes we will. We'll be prepared for anything that happens," said Giuliani, who spent the day campaigning in key early voting state.
  
  Being prepared is a theme that runs through the campaign of Giuliani, the mayor during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York.

Giuliani then effortlessly wove together his experiences as NYC mayor and his neoconservative foreign policy impulses by explaining to the youngster that a Giuliani Administration would wipe out aliens much much as, years ago, NYPD officers gunned down street windshield wipers in Manhattan, and would use tactical nukes to blow up approaching spacecraft much in the way that his circle of advisors suggest be detonated in the Tehran suburbs in January of 2009.

Gattigap

And if that were fact I'd agree with you.

But it's not, because our information is all:

(a) Poor and internally contradictory;
(b) Second hand; and
(c) Biased from either side of the debate, depending what you are reading.

You know nothing about what's going on over there. Nor do I. All judgments should be offered from the perspective of "If we are to believe this news story, which appears to be mingled with editorial, then I think [insert conclusion here]."

"Where there's smoke there's fire" is no longer accurate, considering the polarization of the media into two distinct camps.

Blackwater has probably killed a few innocent Iraqis. So have our soldiers. I am sure there is culpability in some instances and excusable behavior in others. It is a war.

Without Blackwater, we'd need a bigger Army, or international help. We're using Blackwater to avoid incurring the costs (esp. political costs) for either of those things, but it comes with its own costs.

That. Is incorrect. Blackwater's main purpose is to guard high level targets because we don't trust the Army to do so. That's a criticism of the Army. But the charge that Blackwater's forces make up for lack of soldiers is just not true.

This is all concluded based on my review of media sources, so its probably got some flwed info in it, I'd say about the same percentage as your response to it will.

I'm not interested in arguing about culpability for individual incidents -- that's not the point. Blackwater gets hired to provide security for, e.g., diplomats. They don't report to the same command structure. Their mission is not to support our counter-insurgency effort, so why would they? Their mission is to (e.g.) protect diplomats, and so they will err on the side of shooting up innocent Iraqis, even though that frustrates what the military is trying to do. It is a war, and using contractors is not the best of fighting it. When the Iraqi government wants to kick Blackwater out of the country for a pattern of conduct, it's clear they're not helping us win hearts and minds.

That's not so. We use Blackwater as a force multiplier, because the Army is overstretched. If we had enough troops to do the job, we wouldn't be augmenting them with contractors.

Compare this with your post immediately preceding it.

Blackwater has a limited role. And no, they don't fight the war. That's what soldiers do. Soldiers are not bodyguards.

What's your point? We're not desperate enough to be hiring mercenaries yet? Granted. The government is paying Blackwater a lot of money. It wouldn't be doing this if there were enough soldiers to go around.

No, that's not my point at all.

My point is your conclusions are too broad and often rooted in more bias than fact. Which is fine. This is a chat board.

It is necessary, however, for that to be pointed out from time to time lest others here wander into the ludicrous notion your beliefs about what's going on over there are unadultereated fact. They are not. I'm just 'checking' you.

We hire the Blackwater mercenaries (they are a variety of that) to perform a limited service, and from what I've read, they are not filling in traditional soldiers roles. They are trained in security, not to advance military interests.

But you're right. Only a fool would argue they don;t step over the line. That point I concede. But whether they're hired to step over the line and act as soldiers? No. I don't agree. I think you want that to be the case because of your political views, but it isn't.

Protection of State Department officials traditionally has been a function of the Marines, as I understand it.

I get your point that we're not asking Blackwater to retake Fallujah, but that doesn't really counter Ty's point that we wouldn't have to hire these dudes in the first place if we weren't so overstretched with our traditional forces, and if the Administration weren't so enamored generally speaking with the idea of privatizing big chunks of what Marines and soldiers have done for decades.

I'm not sure we disagree on any of this. We agree that they're hired for a limited role, and that they sometimes use too much force. My point is that they're incented to use too much force. They're paid to protect, and there's no check on them (e.g., a real threat of prosecution). For this reason, hiring a firm like them is counterproductive to the larger war effort, because we're trying to win hearts and minds. If the diplomats were guarded by regular Army, they would do a better job of balancing the conflicting goals that situation requires. Maybe not a great job, but surely a better job. Hiring contractors takes the larger aims right out of the equation.

Fact: The number of Blackwater and other mercenaries we have hired exceeds the total troop commitment of all other countries, including England, in Iraq. The numbers are close, but with the in progress British withdrawal, Blackwater wins. A coalition of the willing, indeed.

As to security, give me marines any day - they are young and green enough to be willing to die for the mission, and they are likely to be motivated by patriotism more than money. Paid merceneries are just that - mercenary. In terms of security, merceneries have always been questionable security risks - if they'll kill for hire for you, they'll do it for someone else, too.