Nine Americans were killed in Iraq today.

[xiphias]

Five of them were soldiers, killed in a roadside bombing. Four were "civilian contractors". And they were killed, and their bodies were mutilated by a mob.

These contractors worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, out of North Carolina. They are, vaguely, a mercenary outfit, who focus mainly on training security forces. They've got courses available to the general public, too -- their pistol course looks good. . .

My point is that it's no less horrifying for police officers or security guards to be brutally killed than it is for anyone else. But it seems like people are trying to obscure the fact that they ARE security forces. I'm not sure exactly why they're doing this, but it seems like they're trying to imply that the folks killed were, I don't know, businessmen or something, rather than security guards, or mercenaries, or whatever.

I guess, when I hear "contractor", I think "construction," "information technology", and so forth -- not "security." And I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to obscure the picture, or if it's just my own brain confusing me.

Comments

[burgundy.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you said this; I hadn't known it. I too think things like construction and IT. And it doesn't make it less bad, but... you're right, there's a difference. And in a way, that's what they're there for, that's why they're there, to possibly be engaged in violent stuff, although of course that doesn't mean that I want people to be killed. Bah. Not articulating well.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is a deliberate attempt to obscure, given that AOL News is using the headline tag "Americans Massacred in Iraq," when it's news to me that 9 people, killed in two separate incidents, qualifies as a massacre.

[ckd]

How many people died in the "Boston Massacre" again?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Five, after being attacked with thrown rocks, and the soldiers, defended by John Adams, were acquitted, largely because it was demonstrated that they didn't fire until attacked. But that is another case where the word "massacre" was inappropriately applied -- members of a mob injured and killed while attacking a soldier, who was rescued by a squad of his mates who used the minimum force possible is hardly the normal definition of the word.

[ckd]

The misuse of the word is precisely my point; it's hardly a new problem....

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

I'm with you, I hear contractor I think building, I hear civilian I assume innocent non-combatant. Why don't they call them mercenaries, then everyone knows what we're talking about ::sigh::

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Saying "mercenary" would ALSO seem inaccurate to me. Because, when I hear "mercenary", I'm thinking about somone whose job it is to actually do front-line combat. And that's not exactly what these people do, either. They do site security, and they do training. So, "armed security" might be a better term. I don't know. But, in my mind, it feels somewhat different -- not less bad, but different -- to know that all nine Americans who were killed today were carrying weapons at the time.

Re: Mercenary?

[(Anonymous)]

It is very obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re: Mercenary?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

No. she's correct. As I've found out more, and Blackwater has been moved into more direct roles, it looks like the term "mercenary" is becoming more and more accurate.

[redbird]

I suspect they're trying to hide the fact that they're hiring mercenaries--if nothing else, we might start asking why National Guard and Reserve troops are being pulled out of well-paying civilian jobs and thrown in there at very low pay, if there's money to pay contractor rates.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not entirely sure whether it's cheaper or more expensive to use Blackwater over regular US Military. But what they're really trying to hide is the actual number of casualties.

Nine American combatants were killed today. When we report casualties, we will list five soldiers killed today. And, as I understand it, this is a pretty typical ratio . . .

Contractors in Iraq

[(Anonymous)]

The March 2004 Esquire magazine has an article on this topic - "Hired Guns" by Tucker Carlson. You'll find it a fascinating read. It seems that the State Department and Pentagon have outsourced much of the private security to several US firms - most notably DynCorp and Kroll. They have several billion dollar contracts, not just in Iraq, but also Afghanistan and places like Bosnia. They are staffed with US ex-soldiers (mercenaries) who are on private payrolls under subcontract to the US government. This way the military keeps their manpower counts down, and private individuals take all the risks. "On the battlefield, contractors cook soldier's food, delivery their mail, provide their housing, and take care of their equipment. (DynCorp maintains virtually all US military aircraft in the Middle East) ... Civilian contractors have been hired to destroy captured Iraqi weapons, clear unexploded ordnance from military bases, transport armored vehicles into the country, and train the new Iraqi army."

Not that's it is a bad gig if you can get it - "An experienced security consultant willing to live in unruly places can make $250,000 a year in Iraq".

Most interesting reading (and a very different look at the situation in Iraq from what you see in the nightly news.

dod

contractors

[(Anonymous)]

It's worth noting that "contractors" sometimes means "CIA contractors" (although apparently not here). It covers a number of people doing government business while not officially employed directly by the government...

Re: contractors

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't argue that the word is inaccurate -- merely that it leads to a misleading mental image.

Re: contractors

[(Anonymous)]

Yup, it's deliberately ambiguous. I was just pointing this out for future reference (it's surprising how often one sees minor news items such as "small plane containing two contractors lost in Colombian jungle").

P.S. Livejournal just asked me to confirm that I am a human being. I hope they accept my credentials as a genuine human. If not maybe I should go consult with a doctor or scientist.

It also...

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

makes the US military look somewhat less professional to be using these mercenaries, regardless of the truth in this, because it does NOT make them so, and in Media-Wars "image is everything". Also by making the merely "[poor innocent] civilians", it makes The Enemy look much more barbaric and dangerous, justifying the whole situation, telling the folks at home "look who we're dealing with", as if you actually had to hype-up the Muslim barbarism.

Lastly, I think that obscuring the truth and using mis-information, has become so deeply part of the mindset of the US Army, that they do it out of habit. This whole situation is severely messed-up.

Debka-File has an interesting take on this specific attack. Worth the read.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

And they didn't belong there, any more than the official soldiers. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere *hyuk hyuk hyuk*"

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

You know what ELSE is horrible about this? Their families don't get government pensions, or military funerals. Even though their loved ones died for the US just as much as the soldiers.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Good point, although Bush is also trying to shove the dead soldiers into the ground with as little notice as possible.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Also, it's the government particing outsourcing, just as its corporate owners do. Treat 'em as work-for-hire, and you don't have to pay any of the auxiliary expenses.

[gingicat]

It's yellow journalism, plain and simple.

Dunno if you heard Morning Edition on NPR this morning, but they made it pretty clear that *they* consider the Blackwater folks to be soldiers, worthy of respect as such. And then I walk into Oak Grove station and see the Boston Herald headline: "Civilians brutally killed" or somesuch. The Globe really wasn't much better, burying details about Blackwater well inside the paper.

The Iraqis saw men in military uniforms, protecting food. How were *they* to know that the US media wouldn't consider them combatants? Not that this makes the method of killing them any better, but you see my point.

private contractors

[(Anonymous)]

to kill an american no matter where he or she is unacceptable, and would like the opportunity to defend as an private contractor

Re: private contractors

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes. But there's a difference between killing a soldier and a non-combatant. I'm not saying that EITHER of them is okay. But there is a difference, at least rhetorically, and emotionally.

And it worried me when I wrote this six months ago, and it continues to worry me today, that there appears to be some sort of attempt to cause ambiguity about who is a non-combatant and who is a soldier.