Blackwater

[Brighteous]

This summer I had the unique opportunity to train at Blackwater's training center in North Caroline and work with a good number of their employees. They all had between ten and twenty years of experience in either the military or law enforcement and all had been overseas. What really surprised me was the amount of training that could be done on their property (which is completely self sufficient). They had their own LZ and 4 or five transport planes, about a dozen MH-6 little birds or something similar, and an entire fleet of heavily armored APC’s (looked similar to the French VAB) and an arsenal that would rival an IBCT.
I bring this up because I worry about the dangers of letting a civilian company have this much power. Despite their intentions, it is troublesome to see so much technology available to those with enough money. Perhaps this is an unfortunate consequence of living in a capitalistic society we’re sworn to defend but perhaps there is a line when economic theory must be set aside for national defense, or even good ethics.
The second problem I have with such an organization is the message it send to the world. It says that America cannot fight its own wars and needs to pay civilians to do the job of the state. This begs the question, “How sovereign is a state that privatizes a portion of its executive branch?” I don’t know the answer but it is certainly something to think about.
The men I trained with this summer at Blackwater taught me some invaluable tactical skills and every chance to speak with a combat vet is a gem. As a training facility it is top of the line. But in principle is it right to allow a private organization to be doing the work of the military, especially overseas?

[FeelinFroggy]

Originally Posted by Brighteous

They all had between ten and twenty years of experience in either the military or law enforcement and all had been overseas.

And yet you still refer to them as a "civilian company"?

I have no quarrel with a PMC founded by a fellow SEAL. To me, their help is welcomed.

[SGM]

They are a company with services for hire. Many private firms use them as they can't "hire" the U.S. Military. Many State department and other government offices use them (or other private firms) be cause their being there doesn't constitute U.S. military presents. Sometimes there might be caps on how many U.S. troops can be on ground, these firms don't count into that number.

I guess we could always make it different, take them into the system as the "American Foreign Legion" and go from there???

[Scrappy]

hmmmmmm.......

Perhaps we should just call it as it is.....A company comprised of prior-service military members.

You don't think they do mercenary work do you? That would be really scary.

[pingjocky]

How did I not see this thread until just now?? I'm losing my touch...

it is troublesome to see so much technology available to those with enough money

So the right to bear arms only relates to specific arms? Did you know that private citizens are "allowed" to own full-auto weapons? The catch is that you gotta be able to pay for them. They have almost been taxed and priced out of reach of the private citizen, but they are still available. So, if I have "enough money" as you say, I can buy MP-5's, Mk-43's, SAW's, M-2's...pretty much anything I want. What's so bad about that? Sounds like it's time for one of HE's speeches about the 2nd Amendment.

So why not helo's and armored cars. Those APC's that you saw are Blackwater's own creation. Heck, I say that if a person (or corporation) can build an APC...more power to 'em.

R/
Pingjocky

[mtnsldr]

Originally Posted by Brighteous

This summer I had the unique opportunity to train at Blackwater's training center in North Caroline and work with a good number of their employees. They all had between ten and twenty years of experience in either the military or law enforcement and all had been overseas. What really surprised me was the amount of training that could be done on their property (which is completely self sufficient). They had their own LZ and 4 or five transport planes, about a dozen MH-6 little birds or something similar, and an entire fleet of heavily armored APC’s (looked similar to the French VAB) and an arsenal that would rival an IBCT.
I bring this up because I worry about the dangers of letting a civilian company have this much power. Despite their intentions, it is troublesome to see so much technology available to those with enough money. Perhaps this is an unfortunate consequence of living in a capitalistic society we’re sworn to defend but perhaps there is a line when economic theory must be set aside for national defense, or even good ethics.
The second problem I have with such an organization is the message it send to the world. It says that America cannot fight its own wars and needs to pay civilians to do the job of the state. This begs the question, “How sovereign is a state that privatizes a portion of its executive branch?” I don’t know the answer but it is certainly something to think about.
The men I trained with this summer at Blackwater taught me some invaluable tactical skills and every chance to speak with a combat vet is a gem. As a training facility it is top of the line. But in principle is it right to allow a private organization to be doing the work of the military, especially overseas?

To paraphrase ole Stuart Mackenzie:

BRIGHTEOUS! INTRO! NOW!

[Scrappy]

LOL


I smell cake

[63Bravo]

Theres a reason Blackwater and other companies like them, are having "eyes" turned toward them. They operate outside the normal structure of laws concerning US Forces, and that has resulted in some mistakes that got media attention, and ultimately Blackwaters hands being slapped.

Blackwater News Item

I cant be the only person here who gets a slight "twinge" down my back when I think of all the military firepower, experience and training that a singular privately owned company has at its disposal?

Never fear though, I get almost the same type "twinge" when I think about Halliburton and KBR and how they have privatized everything else in war.

[pingjocky]

I cant be the only person here who gets a slight "twinge" down my back when I think of all the military firepower, experience and training that a singular privately owned company has at its disposal?

Last time I checked, the Second Amendment didn't specify what type of arms may be kept by private citizens. In all honesty, it was the writer's intent that the arms kept in private homes be equal to that of the US Military at the time...so that the citizens may overthrow the oppressive government (should it ever return to such). I have no problems with anyone keeping military hardware...it's their rights as much as mine.

R/
Pingjocky

[Des]

Originally Posted by 63Bravo

They operate outside the normal structure of laws concerning US Forces

One thing that the article doesn't state, is that Contractors working for DOD became subject to the UCMJ as of Jan 1 of last year.

And if CPA Order 17 is still in effect, it allows the home state of a contractor to waive immunity from Iraqi law.

A couple of other laws are available for use to prosecute. The groundwork is there, the systems just need to make use of it if they have to.

On a personal note, I'm cool with contractors. They are an means to an end when government forces are sometimes not available to be used or not suitable for the situation.

Besides, it's not like Governments using private soldiers is anything new.