Blackwater Security Changes Company Name in New Public Relations Move: Will It Help?

Security outfit Blackwater is changing its name from Blackwater Worldwide to Xe to repair its badly damaged reputation, following a serious shooting in Iraq and the loss of it's State Department contract for providing diplomats protection in and around Iraq.

The shooting incident left a dozen Iraqi civilians dead and caused Iraq's government to request that they leave Iraq. It was one of several incidents that Blackwater was involved in and the straw that broke the camel's back. Five Blackwater employees were charged in the shooting, which prosecutors say was not justified.

Xe will not actively seek new security contracts and is focusing on it's other lines of business that are not under public scrutiny the way that it's security operations in Iraq were.

The State Department contract was worth $300 million to Blackwater/Xe; they took in a little over a billion dollars last year from contract work around the world.

The entire system of using mercenaries to do government work in war zones needs to be examined closely. If it is determined that the services provided are necessary, then they need to be subordinate to both the U.S. military and the Iraqi military. They seemed to ride roughshod over U.S. military units, which was a big distraction for U.S. combat forces who didn't like being told what to do by a company not in their chain of command.

I'm not sure if this name change will change much of anything. It's their actions that people will be watching, not their packaging.

Iraq Orders Blackwater To Pack Up and Leave: U.S. Investigation Continuing

The Iraqi government has ordered mercenary outfit Blackwater USA out of the country over the shooting of nearly two dozen Iraqi non-combatants last month.

Their current contract will expire in May, though the Iraqis seem ready to demand that they leave much sooner than that. The State Department investigation is still ongoing, and SecState Rice will decide what happens next.

It's time for the mercenaries to find work elsewhere and not at U.S. taxpayer expense.

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.