U.S. Hiring of Mercenaries Needs to End: Blackwater Situation is Tip of Iceberg

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether or not security companies like Blackwater USA are, in fact, mercenary outfits.

Under the definitions adopted by UN Resolution 44/34, a mercenary is defined as this:

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

Private Military Companies (PMCs) like Blackwater fit several of these descriptions. Note item #s 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, and 2e. Part of 1c also applies. Item 2a(ii) is occurring unintentionally as Iraq is already unstable and deteriorating.


Some points:

• These security companies that are being used in Iraq ARE mercenaries under international law as outlined above. "Security contractors" is merely window dressing in PC talk.
  
• We don't pay our soldiers enough. They're good enough to be shot at, but not good enough to be paid well for their trouble? That's DISGRACEFUL.
  
• We pay soldiers for hire way too much. Period. The State Department should be using it's own people to protect their diplomats in Iraq, or work with the military to assign active duty troops to do it.
  
• The United States is not a party to the treaty that Resolution 44/34 establishes--the U.N. Mercenary Convention. That needs to change as this conflict begins to wind down and more troops begin to come home in 2008. The U.S. needs to sign this treaty.
• Iraq is trying to establish the rule of law in it's own territory, and having a mercenary army of 48,000 men not under their control or their laws firing indiscriminately at people isn't making matters any easier. It's fueling the insurgency and making matters worse.
  

In short, employing mercenaries isn't something that our government should be engaging in. And making them exempt from Iraqi laws while Iraq was under the direct control of the Coalition Provisional Authority has only added to the problems.

I think there's enough work around the world for these security companies to find and profit off of without getting entangled in parts of the world where the U.S. military is in action.

Predictions on Pakistan Appear to Be Coming True Sooner Than Expected: This is Not Good News

Uh oh.

I had written last week about Senator Obama's rash words promising to send U.S. troops into Pakistan without permission to hunt al-Qaeda down. I had written that it could easily expand into a mission to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons ("Some Candidates Want to Substitute One War for Others: What's the Point?" once U.S. forces crossed the border to start hunting al-Qaeda.

Look at what was on CNN's web site today.

The Pakistani issue that I raised may become moot if President Bush decides to secure Pakistan's nuclear arms before he leaves office. What are we getting into now??!

Walter Reed Army Hospital Problems are Tip of Iceberg: Government is Really Screwing Up

The brew-ha-ha over the poor condition of Walter Reed Army Medical Center seems to have raised the public consciousness over the very bad condition that parts of the facility are in.

Defense Secretary Gates is angry; the Army secretary and the commanding officer of Walter Reed were sacked, and repairs are seemingly underway.

Big whoop. The resignations and firings are meaningless, unless something positive results.

Walter Reed Army Hospital is slated for closure, and a new Walter Reed hospital complex is to be built. There was a reason for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) folks to do this. They said in their report that wounded soldiers and their families deserved a state-of-the-art 21st Century facility and that the current facility wasn't up to the task. It also said it would cost too much to repair the existing facility.

Instead of pumping millions into Walter Reed's highly publicized problem areas, why don't they close down Building 18, where the attention is focused? They're already renting hotel rooms or bed space at other hospitals for wounded and injured soldiers; they can handle doing that for the occupants of Building 18, too, until the new facilities are ready.

These soldiers were sent into hell to begin with; why are they going through hell back over here, too, in their own country? They don't deserve this.

Congress needs to make sure that all military medical facilities have the funding that they need; that includes access to mental health care and whatever else the soldier needs to recover, and banning medical co-pays for veterans wounded in combat.

Our government sent them there; it should be on the government's dime. Not one penny should be coming out of the pockets of the soldier or his/her family. Nightmare stories have been coming out about this for quite some time; soldiers are paying for government screw ups.

The soldier and the soldier's family should not see one page of paperwork; most are inundated with complex paperwork which, if not filled out properly, can deny the soldier his/her earned benefits.

The government needs to get this right, and soon. To allow this to happen is unthinkable.