News Private Contractors: Barbaric Practice or Necessary Evil?

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think an awful lot of effort is being wasted here on mislabelling the entities involved. I, for one, am perfectly happy with the term 'mercenary' being applied to private military companies employed in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. However, it's just misleading and confusing to apply the term to other companies whose raison d'etre is NOT to engage in combat.

Aegis is a security firm, so I can probably safely make the assumption that they are NOT employed to engage in combat, but to protect things, people, areas, etc. In carrying out their duties they are allowed (and in certain cases probably obliged) to use deadly force. They are NOT mercenaries, however. The behaviour shown in the video clip does not effect the fact that they are not hired for combat.

So, Burnsys, what is it you actually want to discuss? The use of private military outfits? Or the evident disgusting conduct of Aegis employees in Iraq and how they should be dealt with?

The latter is, to me, more interesting. I'd be particularly interested to know if such behaviour has been reported by Iraqi civilians or authorities, and who to, and what action has been taken.

The obvious body to notify of such behaviour would be Aegis itself. I, for one, don't believe security employees are sent to Iraq and suddenly turn into gun-crazy maniacs. I would be less surprised if this is an institutional problem - that this happens, and so people newlt posted there follow suit.

If this is so, I would be surprised if Aegis didn't know about it. But what are they going to do? Pull out their staff? Own up to the government? Is there any profit in any corrective action such a company might take?

If not, then by allowing such behaviour, are they in violation of British law? If not, then we have a legalised terrorism. If they are in violation, then do the government know? If so, you have government-sponsored terrorism. If not, then they damn well should be.

My one doubt about this: on the website from which the clip was taken, the author talks about the press requesting "the other nine videos". If the press are aware of this behaviour, why are we seeing it only on a private website?

 

[Art]

I think an awful lot of effort is being wasted here on mislabelling the entities involved. I, for one, am perfectly happy with the term 'mercenary' being applied to private military companies employed in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. However, it's just misleading and confusing to apply the term to other companies whose raison d'etre is NOT to engage in combat.
Aegis is a security firm, so I can probably safely make the assumption that they are NOT employed to engage in combat, but to protect things, people, areas, etc. In carrying out their duties they are allowed (and in certain cases probably obliged) to use deadly force. They are NOT mercenaries, however. The behaviour shown in the video clip does not effect the fact that they are not hired for combat.

I would have thought anybody who is paid to carry and use arms to further the goals and aims of one party or another in an armed conflict would have to be considered to be partaking in combat. Especially when their duties entail taking on responsibilities such as guarding military bases and military convoys. Duties which up until Rumsfelds privitisation of the armed forces were core duties of regular soldiers.
These excerpts are from Aegis' own website

AEGIS contract has two parts:
Civil / Military co-ordination
Force protection
The largest part of the contract involves the establishment and operation of 7 Civil Military Operations Centres (CMOCs). The National CMOC is in Baghdad, with 6 others at each of the Multi-National Divisional Headquarters.
The purpose of the CMOCs is to:
Maintain situational awareness of logistical movement and reconstruction security operations
Share a common Relevant Operating Picture among security forces and reconstruction contractors
Effect co-ordination and liaison between reconstruction work and military operations
Provide threat assessments and intelligence to contractors
Force Protection is provided for the PCO, as follows:
3 Close Protection teams
23 vehicle escort teams
Static guard force
In a separate contract, Aegis provides security protection to the Oil for Food corruption inquiry.

November 2005
AEGIS expands Board and acquires Rubicon International
Aegis Defence Services, the London-based company that oversees more than 20,000 armed expatriates working in Iraq, has acquired a rival group in the first sign of consolidation in the highly fragmented private security industry.
The company has also appointed a series of high-profile non-executive directors, including a former chief of the British defence staff, as it looks to build its credibility with corporate and government customers.
The moves suggest a growing sense of legitimacy for companies such as Aegis - which are trying to shift the public perception of them as mere "guns for hire" - made possible by their high-profile activities in Iraq.
Aegis is headed by Tim Spicer, an ex-officer in the Scots Guards whose former company, Sandline, was involved in controversial military campaigns in Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea during the 1990s.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I would have thought anybody who is paid to carry and use arms to further the goals and aims of one party or another in an armed conflict would have to be considered to be partaking in combat. Especially when their duties entail taking on responsibilities such as guarding military bases and military convoys. Duties which up until Rumsfelds privitisation of the armed forces were core duties of regular soldiers.

I myself stated that they may use deadly force in the execution of their duties in two of my posts. I'm not arguing otherwise. Nonetheless, they are not paid to engage in combat, and they are not mercenaries.

There is plenty to talk about, and plenty to feel enraged about, without Michael Moore-ing the facts. These people in the video are clearly not acting in the capacity of their employment.

 

[Art]

I myself stated that they may use deadly force in the execution of their duties in two of my posts. I'm not arguing otherwise. Nonetheless, they are not paid to engage in combat, and they are not mercenaries.
There is plenty to talk about, and plenty to feel enraged about, without Michael Moore-ing the facts. These people in the video are clearly not acting in the capacity of their employment.

Global security calls them mercenaries

Part of the US Occupation force in Iraq, the in-country commander, LTG Sanchez decreed that federal civilians will not carry weapons. But being well acquainted with some fellow federal civilians, if they were armed over here it would scare the "you know what". Consequently, every time civilians leave their "safe area", they must have what are called "shooters" with along. They are sometimes the mercenary security teams who are hired and paid by the contractors. Other times they are young American men and women in the US Army.

I think perhaps your definition of combat is too limited. If restricted to mean 'one army fighting another' then it follows there is no combat in Iraq as the US are fighting insurgents who are not part of any army.

I also believe it is important to determine the legal status of these 'guns for hire' as there are important ramifications under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think El Hombre has a good point actually.
A Merc is generally considered one who has been hired specifically for the purpose of offensive combat operations. The definition that Burnsys provided would seem to agree with this but admittedly it seems a bit hazy.

---edit---

in order to fight in an armed conflict;
----
Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
----
Is motivated to take part in the hostilities

These particular bits stand out in my opinion as supporting the idea that they are referring to offensive combatants.

 

[Art]

I think El Hombre has a good point actually.
A Merc is generally considered one who has been hired specifically for the purpose of offensive combat operations. The definition that Burnsys provided would seem to agree with this but admittedly it seems a bit hazy.
---edit---
These particular bits stand out in my opinion as supporting the idea that they are referring to offensive combatants.

Based on the logic that only assault troops are combat troops then soldiers involved in logistical supply or base duties are not combatants which doesn't make a lot of sense as if not combatants they would not be considered by the Geneva Conventions to qualify for the status of 'protected person' if captured.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Based on the logic that only assault troops are combat troops then soldiers involved in logistical supply or base duties are not combatants which doesn't make a lot of sense as if not combatants they would not be considered by the Geneva Conventions to qualify for the status of 'protected person' if captured.

The difference is that Mercs aren't soldiers belonging to a specific military.
And I'm not sure what you are meaning here about non-combatants not having 'protected person' status. Mercs, which seem to be defined as active combatants, are specifically stated to not be 'protected persons' aren't they? So I'm not sure where your line of logic is going with the parallel.

 

[Art]

The difference is that Mercs aren't soldiers belonging to a specific military.
And I'm not sure what you are meaning here about non-combatants not having 'protected person' status. Mercs, which seem to be defined as active combatants, are specifically stated to not be 'protected persons' aren't they? So I'm not sure where your line of logic is going with the parallel.

The GC says regular army combatants are 'protected persons'. If the definition of combatant is restricted to only assault troops then non-assault troops ~80% of the military would not qualify as 'protected persons' which is clearly not the case, hence mercs who are performing support roles for a military must also fall into the category of combatants which in their case results in the opposite effect i.e. they are not 'protected persons'.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The GC says regular army combatants are 'protected persons'. If the definition of combatant is restricted to only assault troops then non-assault troops ~80% of the military would not qualify as 'protected persons' which is clearly not the case, hence mercs who are performing support roles for a military must also fall into the category of combatants which in their case results in the opposite effect i.e. they are not 'protected persons'.

Wouldn't civilain contractors be considered protected as civilains? The distinction then between Mercs being active combat or non-combat would become more important wouldn't it? If they are combat active then they can not be considered civilians and protected as civilains but if their only resort to combat is for their own protection then they can still be considered civilians and protected as such don't you think?

Soldiers on non-combat duty are still soldiers. All of them no matter what their assignment can be reassigned to combat duty and are trained for it. I think that GC simply covers any person belonging to a military as the same for this reason. Besides, your opponents aren't going to check your duty orders before they shoot at you, just your uniform if even that.

 

[Art]

Wouldn't civilain contractors be considered protected as civilains? The distinction then between Mercs being active combat or non-combat would become more important wouldn't it? If they are combat active then they can not be considered civilians and protected as civilains but if their only resort to combat is for their own protection then they can still be considered civilians and protected as such don't you think?
Soldiers on non-combat duty are still soldiers. All of them no matter what their assignment can be reassigned to combat duty and are trained for it. I think that GC simply covers any person belonging to a military as the same for this reason. Besides, your opponents aren't going to check your duty orders before they shoot at you, just your uniform if even that.

I should have said "armed support roles". Contractors has become a hugely over used term in Iraq. Builders over there to help with reconstruction and their minders are one thing but guys who sit in watch towers guarding military bases with machine guns, sniper rifles and rockets or who accompany military convoys as protection are something else. It certainly isn't the image one thinks of when one hears of a contractor. In fact when the four contractors were killed in Fallujah for a long time I assumed and I'm sure others did too that these were simply construction workers or whatever that had been brutally slain. It was not until much later that I discovered they were actually military 'contractors' armed to the teeth.