The second day of New York Times analysis of the Wikileaks document dump includes a look at the use of "security contractors", a marvelous euphemism for mercenaries.
Contractors were necessary at the start of the Iraq war because there simply were not enough soldiers to do the job. In 2004, their presence became the symbol for Iraq’s descent into chaos, when four contractors were killed in Falluja, their bodies left mangled and charred.In 2003, then Secretary of Defense said, "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you want," a marvelous jab at the uniformed services that made quick work of the Iraqi military. Except it seems, with the revelations from these documents, that the United States most decidedly did not go to war with the military it had. It supplemented it with "security services" - with, as the article notes, little oversight and no accountability.
Even now — with many contractors discredited for unjustified shootings and a lack of accountability amply described in the documents — the military cannot do without them. There are more contractors over all than actual members of the military serving in the worsening war in Afghanistan.
The archive, which describes many episodes never made public in such detail, shows the multitude of shortcomings with this new system: how a failure to coordinate among contractors, coalition forces and Iraqi troops, as well as a failure to enforce rules of engagement that bind the military, endangered civilians as well as the contractors themselves. The military was often outright hostile to contractors, for being amateurish, overpaid and, often, trigger-happy.
I remember reading that private security firms had been hired to guard the new US embassy in Baghdad, and wondered why. From time immemorial that was the job of the Marine Corps. Apparently, having mercenaries protect US officials was necessary because the Marines were needed in the field. Or some such justification. I, for one, would not want my life and health to rest in the hands of someone who was not answerable to the chain of command and UCMJ (not that either seemed to work well at many points in the Iraqi War/Occupation).
This is yet another sign that we are crashing and burning as a nation. The Bush Administration wanted this war, they made their case to the American people, but they did not - ever - demand any sacrifices from us for it. No war time economic measures. No draft. Nothing. They figured they could outsource combat. Since that worked out so well for so many other declining world powers in history - Rome, Britain during the American War of Independence - I can understand why they decided this was the way to go.
There are really no words for the anger and sadness I feel over this.
