Kadaffi vs. Saddam = America's Disgrace

I understand your conflicted feelings. In all honesty though, when was the last war when our government acted only when the public was behind it? Certainly Obama didn't give two cents if the American people supported him attacking Libya. Bush certainly didn't take the public's concerns into account before invading Iraq. The list goes on. In some instances, when the American people feel the Government SHOULD act, for various reasons nothing is done.
Let's say a poor country is struggling to protect its population from insurgent/rebel attacks. Because the country lacks resources that any western power would be interested in, no western intervention is forthcoming to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocents. If a PMC has the capability and willingness to go in and assist this country in beating back the rebels, training up the country's military to handle future problems on it's own and afterwards the PMC departs.....wouldn't you say that's a worthwhile mission for a PMC?
The Brehmer detail must have been 2003 because we didn't invade until that time. Blackwater took over Brehmer's security in 2004 already so these two you mention couldn't have been there very long, most probably less than 6 months. Toward the end of 2003 Dyncorp was running the Brehmer detail and then Blackwater took over in 2004. The only thing I can reason as to why these two may have been there is to fill the gap from the time of the invasion until the government had the time to contract out the job to protect Brehmer. Like I said, at MOST I would say these guys couldn't have been on the ground there more than 6-8 months. Originally Posted by DTorchia

Robert Baer has written a scathing article on the role of mercenaries in Iraq. It's pretty shocking.

www.informationclearinghouse.i nfo/article17324.htm

I think the scenario you've put forward depicting mercenaries in conflicts abandoned by the world is a false one. It posits that there are mercenaries somewhere in the world who are altruists, and in my experience this simply isn't true.

The case most widely used for this argument is of course Sierra Leone, where I worked from 1992 until 2000. I can tell you that the mercenaries I knew there could have cared less about the security of the people. It's true that the security situation improved dramatically, but that was only an unintended consequence of their sole goal, which was to re-gain control of the diamond fields for the military Junta in Freetown which hired them. That Junta [the NPRC] was so corrupt that it's own soldiers had abandoned them, leaving them with no army of their own...therefore the need for mercenaries.
These merceanaries, "Executive Outcomes" as they styled themselves,
were to a man racist pro-Apartheid South Africans who had just come from fighting in Angola. In Angola they were fighting for the Marxist government [which they had fought against when in the S. African army] against the anti-Marxist opposition who were supported by the US. Those guys would fight or kill anyone, anywhere, as long as they were paid for it....period. And all propaganda to the contrary portraying them as romantic adventurers is nonesense. Please do not believe the rubbish published by Robert Brown in Soldier of Fortune magazine. It's a great resource, but Brown is not the "adventurer" he claims to be. He's a profane, murderous, manipulative psychopath with whom I've had more than a little personal dealings. He was a "volunteer" with Castro in 1958-59, and belongs in the category of the "Kallin-type" of international criminal.

I'll put it to you like this. Most of the guys I've worked with for the past 6+ years....Guys who've worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa and the Balkans....who've survived road side bombs, snipers, suicide bombers etc.....they've all said the same thing when the subject of Mexico comes up;
"hell no I won't work there!" It's safer in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The truth is that the Mexican Government is hanging on by a thread. It has made no effort to deal with the chronic problems that have plagued Mexico for the last 100+ years. Abysmal low wages, high unemployment, poor education....the list goes on. Whatever small hope the population that remains there had that things may get better, the Narco-terrorists are quickly eroding away. From a security standpoint, many parallels can be drawn between places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The central government holds no real power in the countryside. Small town Police forces either cooperate with the Drug cartels or quickly wind up dead. Most of the politicians are corrupt and cooperating with the Cartels.
Honestly, I feel if we closed the border completely, the Country would implode. The fact that so many have been able to "escape" to the USA and support their families from our country is the only reason the people there have not risen up and made a serious attempt to overthrow the government. Originally Posted by DTorchia

Hurrah!

Everyone who knows anything about Mexico knows that it's always been the most dangerous, corrupt country in all of Latin America. Poor Americans have been fed a toxic soup of propaganda for decades portraying our beloved neighbors to the south as just another stuggling country of poor people trying to pull themselves up out of poverty. In reality it is the most savage, murderous government of stealing, lying killers anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.

You are wrong however in portraying the Mexican government as threatened by the cartels.

Buddy, the Mexican government IS the cartels.

Just go to Juarez and ask around.*

The violence there is SUPPORTED by the Mexican army, not SUPPRESSED by it.

What's going on in Juarez is that the government-sponsored national cartel is fighting to take control from the local one which has been running the show there for thirty years. That's all.

The Mexican President and his party are the cartels.

What is the US prepared to do about this...nothing. The US operators there now are a show...a charade.

*I'm being factitous. Please don't really go to Juarez. I was much more safe in Sierra Leone in the 1990s then anyone would be going to Juarez. Baghdad is safer than Juarez. Waziristan is safer than Juarez. Bogata is safter than Juarez. Libya is safer than Juarez.
ANYPLACE is safer than Juarez.

TAE- "I think this is a false scenario. It puts forward that there exists in the world a group of willing mercenaries who are motivated by altruism. This is simply a fantasy. The EO operators in Sierra Leone that I knew well could care less about the people of Sierra Leone. They were to a man racist former South African commandos who were all extremely loyal to the principles of the former Apartheid government. They hated all blacks, and didn't do anything to help the people who were being savaged by the rebels EXCEPT as an unintended consequence of their re-taking of the diamond areas, which was their sole goal. Before they came to SL they were in Angola, where they worked for the Marxist government there [which they fought against when in the S. African army] fighting against the US-supported opposition. They didn't care who they fought for or against AS LONG AS THEY WERE PAID.

I'm not opposed to mercenaries, but they are NOT do-gooders. They are ruthless international assassins and outlaws, NOT the romantic warriors depicted in Soldier of Fortune Magazine. I've met Robert Brown, that magazine's owner, and he is a profane, murderous psychopath masquerading as an adventurer - WHICH HE IS NOT. Personally I'm not opposed to people killing for money as long as the target deserves to die, and in SL anyone participating in the conflict deserved to die IMHO. But let's not romanticize the character or motives of the mercs."

Your last few posts were actually reasoned responses prior to this one. With this post you've simply gone back to over the top name calling and hyperbole.
It almost appears as if you're two different people. One that is capable of reasonably looking at an issue from both sides and then this other one that starts throwing around words like "international assassins", "murderous psychopath" etc.
It could be argued that the points you make against private contractors could very well be made against the U.S. Government, or, many other Governments as well. Certainly many people believe that the U.S. Government has taken many illegal actions while involving itself around the world. From the "gunboat diplomacy" days until our current involvement in Libya, I would not want to match point for point the many wrongdoings committed by our government. Kinda makes private contractors' actions pale in comparison.
You try to give these types of rants some form of credibility by asserting that you've "met" some individuals you accuse of these things.
Your observations are shallow and lack substance as does Baer's article which is filled with many, many generalizations. I've read one of his books, I agree with some of his points, others I don't.
I have to be honest with you, I really don't need you to tell me what a "mercenary" is or isn't like or how he's not like what's described in SOF magazine. I've worked as a Private Contractor for almost 7 years now. I think I have a pretty firm grip of what our job entails. Unlike Baer and yourself, I've worked and lived with my fellow contractors, day in and day out, year after year in Iraq and Afghanistan. THAT is how you truly get to know someone, not meeting them a few times in a far flung land or basing an opinion off an incident you observed. Call Robert Brown any name you want. Many could make the case that he's done more for this Country and has been more of a Patriot than you could ever hope to be. That's not a personal attack against you but you DID call the man a murderous psychopath. A man who's a Vietnam vet and served there as a Special Forces soldier. The issue I have when you name call and run these people down that you supposedly met is that we always only hear YOUR side of what these people are like. I've met plenty of guys who've known some of the guys from Executive Outcomes and Robert K. Brown. They certainly paint a a different picture than you do. Your opinion on these people is subjective at best and I weigh it against what I know from other people who's opinion I've come to trust.
You're entitled to your opinion of private contractors, RBK, and to anything else you like. I'm entitled to my opinion of you when you post rants like the one you did today.

If characters like Tim Spicer and Robert Brown are not worthy of a rant then who is? Next you'll be complaining because I rant against Attila the Hun.

I have nothing but respect for your own service, however how does that take away from the facts Robert Baer brings out in his article?

The fact is mercenaries like Eeban Barlow and Tim Spicer are well documented as having fought not only for legitimate causes but for clearly illegitimate ones as well.

At certain points in the Sierra Leone war I was THE ONLY American in the country - the only one.* It was a very small place, and it would have been impossible for me to NOT have known the "Executive Outcomes" operators. They were racist pro-apartheid individuals who were there for the money..period. Several other of their colleagues from the former apartheid South African army were also working for the rebels and Charles Taylor. At least one of the guys from Executive Outcomes lives here in Austin right now**, and one of his buddies is currently employed in Columbia as the security Chief for a [redacted]. That's the nature of these guys. They are not moral people. They are not nice guys. That's why they call them mercenaries. They fight for money, not principle or ideology or anything else.

Robert K. Brown is a criminal psychopathic killer who spent his earlier years looking for someplace to fight so he could go around killing people. In the 1975 Angola war there were a bunch of his buddies used by the CIA, one of whom was named Kallin, who was a serial murderer and torturer there. Thank God the Marxists there finally captured him and shot his ass. The CIA Task Force Chief for the Angola war was John Stockwell, from Austin, Texas. Stockwell's family lived here for generations, and his father was a well known minister here who took John to Africa during missionary work. John became the Angola Task Force Chief and then resigned, and he's spoken and written many times about the criminal, homicidal nature of the mercenaries the CIA sponsored groups used.

Robert Brown definitely cleaned up his image after he was legally ensnared in permitting amateur hit men to place ads in his magazine in the 1970s. However he's the same profane, lying, murdering criminal he always was. His magazine has done nothing but put forward propaganda and lies about mercenaries -- portraying their criminal antics as some kind of romantic adventure. It's not. The "histories" of other mercenaries featured in such places, such as those of Denard or Hoare, are usually written by themselves, as is the rubbish from Eeban Barlow. Having been in Sierra Leone when he was there I can tell you that -- it's lies unverified by absolutely no one. If you believe it you're taking the word of a scoundrel at face value.

You and I agree on a lot of things, and I enjoy debating you because I respect you. Just because I have strong views on certain things you disagree with please don't take it personally. I do not consider you to be anything like Tim Spicer or Eeban Barlow.

*The first time this happened was in 1995 when Robert McKenzie was there. The rebels were just outside of Freetown and I went to the American embassy and asked if there were any other Americans there. They told me I was the only one.

**He's now going through the typical psychological pattern which operators of his type usually do. He's very remorseful for what he's done, is seeing a counselor, and has joined an evangelical church and is becoming religious. I've seen this time and time again. It's called guilt.

Ok, you've named specific individuals and though I still disagree with you on Brown, that doesn't change the fact that in your postings you make blanket statements about mercenaries in general as if they are ALL psychopathic killers who will fight for anyone as long as there's money involved. There are plenty of examples throughout history and in the modern age where mercenaries fought for a "cause" they believed in and wouldn't hire out to just anyone. That's not from SOF. In the early 80's I served in a National Guard unit. There were two guys in my platoon who had worked in Africa in the 70's and both of them were honorable men. I've met many others since then. One of my friends was in a Southeast Asian country not too long ago helping one of the ethnic minority groups there. The government in this country is extremely repressive and brutal toward this ethnic minority. War and killing don't lend themselves to easily debate the morality involved in those endeavors. There are those that believe that killing is NEVER justified or moral. So when we're talking about war and killing, who's to say who is a psychopath and who isn't? As I've mentioned to you before, though I love our military, I certainly know that there have been plenty of atrocities committed by SOME of our men in uniform. Rape, murder, etc. Then there are our elected leaders who lie to the public as to the true reasons for going to war. How are they more honorable than a mercenary that fights for money?
That's why the lines can be very blurred. I simply don't believe that because our government "sanctions" us going to war that this automatically makes the war just or the killing that takes place under those pretenses moral.
It could be argued that there may be more honesty involved in someone that simply fights for pay and doesn't lie about his motivations as our leaders so often do.
I'm not saying mercenaries are better than our military. I'm also not saying our military is automatically better than some mercenaries. That's why I argued your blanket statement. I'm not "romanticizing" them by any means. I've simply met enough over the years and seen enough from "conventional" armies to know that you can't draw simple conclusions as to the morality or righteousness of either one. It's simply more complicated than that.

I consider Robert Young Pelton to be the best journalist on international conflict because he actually speaks to the people that matter. On Monday morning he made one of his periodic appearances on "Coast to Coast AM." He made these points about private soldiers.

1.The ones he's known from the African wars literally have no other way of making money, and therefore they're often reaching for crazier and wilder schemes, such as the failed coup in Equatorial Guinea, which involved several friends of his.

2.The pay for private soldiers has gone down considerably recently.

3.Many or most are not military veterans, but are former policemen or security guards.

4.The largest employers are governments, oil and mining companies, maritime shipping lines.

5.The reason why the US used mercenary-run operations in Iraq is because there was no one else qualified who was available.

6.The reason why the US uses private companies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is simply because the US doesn't have the manpower in its organic forces under the volunteer system.

7.It was known from the beginning that private soldiers would create serious controversy, so companies such as Blackwater were set up to be dissolved and then re-formed with the same personnel.

He also commented on the Afghan war.....

1.Pakistan is harboring Osam bin-Ladin

2.Pakistan is supporting Hekmatiar and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

3.The Pakistan-US partnership is a farce.


I agree with all his points.

I certainly don't disagree with most of his points either. As far as #3 on top, not sure if you're quoting him on African mercenaries? I can state as a fact that the vast majority of U.S. private contractors hired for Iraq and Afghanistan by any of the big companies for work with the State Department, HAD to have either military or police backgrounds as a condition of employment. Pelton knows this very well as he came to ride out with BW when he came to Iraq. I seriously doubt he could name one single "Security Guard" that he met on any of the U.S. Department of State contracts. I've read his books "The World's most dangerous places"....some of his advice and observations in those books I certainly agree with, a few I don't. As with all journalists, I've found he still tends to sensationalize at times and takes himself a bit too seriously as a subject matter expert. While I agree that he's certainly made an effort to spend more time around private contractors then other so called journalists, in the grand scheme of things, his encounters are still brief and limited. I also know for a FACT that some of the guys he spoke with were ahmmm, (how should I put this politely?) jacklegs that played up to him and his camera/mic about what bad asses they were. Unfortunately, cameras and microphones sometimes bring out the worst in people or at the least, shut down their ability to refrain from putting their foot in their mouth.
I'm not sure about what views you have about Policemen in Iraq since you didn't elaborate on point #3.
I will say that in my experience I've often times found them more reliable when it comes to judicious use of force compared to some of the ex-military only guys.
As I've mentioned to you in other threads, I've definitely seen the best and worst come out in people when placed into hell holes like Baghdad, Afghanistan etc.
Not all of their actions, whether good or bad, are dependent on their employment background or training, whether they are military or private contractors, etc. There's so many other factors that come into it. Sometimes their upbringing can affect their actions more than any training or indoctrination they've received. Sometimes religious views can come into play, the list of variables goes on and on. That's why I often point out that it's impossible to make blanket statements such as: "our military is better than mercenaries" or "mercenaries are all international assassins". These are simply generalizations that overlook the fact that all large organizations are made up of a cross section of society and therefor exhibit all the good AND bad traits that our society as a whole exhibits. You'll have good and bad in all of these groups.
Personally what I have always stressed to those around me is that it comes down to leadership and personal accountability. My men understand what I expect of them. They know which lines I will not tolerate them crossing.
In Al-Hillah Iraq I was assigned a young man that had a reputation for shooting needlessly. He certainly had done his share. After a heart to heart prior to our first mission with him in our truck, I never had an issue with a single bad shoot from him while he was assigned to my truck. Good leadership starts at the very top and filters down to the smallest squad level. If leaders do their part, most times so will the men that follow them. In the end, that's what makes the difference between a good military unit, a good Police Department or any other large Company.