Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
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.
