As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Pakistan has Blackwater - The role of the PMC
Raynaga
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Based on several sources linked to both Blackwater and the military intelligence community, The Nation is reporting that Blackwater employees are directing and executing covert military activities inside Pakistan.
You can read the entire article here.
So, it looks like we are beginning to use PMCs in full combat operations, admittedly covert, rather than the security and convoy duty that has been SOP up till now. I'm curious if some of the military guys here would care to weigh in on this.
On the one hand, I can see why we would want to avoid having active military operating within Pakistan considering the political climate there. That said, reading the article leaves me with the impression that we have a private contractor performing hit jobs without accountability to the usual military command structure. This is particularly the case considering past incidents with Blackwater and the seriously questionable judgment and legality involved.
So, is it hypocrisy to be reasonably ok with a PMC being employed to secure officials and convoys (as I am) but experience disquiet at the discovery of further, more proactive activities? Both involve what are essentially mercenaries killing the enemy at our employ but the secrecy, accountability issues, and past conduct in relation to this kind of thing is, to me, terrifying.
If we can get results like Nisour Square from convoy duty, what are we looking at with black-ops snatch-and-grab and assassinations?
Members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help run a secret US military drone bombing campaign.
The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC's drone bombings as well. "It's Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC," said the source. When civilians are killed, "people go, 'Oh, it's the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.' Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that's JSOC [hitting] somebody they've identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they've culled the intelligence themselves or it's been shared with them and they take that person out and that's how it works."
You can read the entire article here.
So, it looks like we are beginning to use PMCs in full combat operations, admittedly covert, rather than the security and convoy duty that has been SOP up till now. I'm curious if some of the military guys here would care to weigh in on this.
On the one hand, I can see why we would want to avoid having active military operating within Pakistan considering the political climate there. That said, reading the article leaves me with the impression that we have a private contractor performing hit jobs without accountability to the usual military command structure. This is particularly the case considering past incidents with Blackwater and the seriously questionable judgment and legality involved.
So, is it hypocrisy to be reasonably ok with a PMC being employed to secure officials and convoys (as I am) but experience disquiet at the discovery of further, more proactive activities? Both involve what are essentially mercenaries killing the enemy at our employ but the secrecy, accountability issues, and past conduct in relation to this kind of thing is, to me, terrifying.
If we can get results like Nisour Square from convoy duty, what are we looking at with black-ops snatch-and-grab and assassinations?
Raynaga on
0
Posts
Seriously.
I can see no benefit to using Blackwater that don't make my stomach turn.
ELM just said why
they aren't accountable to the chain of command
I feel bad for the Pakistanis that'll be murdered in cold blood by these assholes.
That's not a benefit.
It is for the leaders of the military. No war crime responsibility. Not that Americans can be prosecuted for such things, but still.
good old plausible deniability
As for PMCs operating in Pakistan, I figured it would only be a matter of time. Osama still has a pretty hefty bounty on his head and you have to know several companies were probably jockying for the opportunity. I mean that area has to be just a veritable horn of plenty of high value targets.
I would agree except there's a pretty big gap between private companies independently going after Bin Laden and other high-value targets for the bounty and a private company conducting operations on the instruction and express cooperation with the United States government.
One is basically an attempt at war profiteering, or bounty hunting if you prefer. The other is government subsidization of mercenary units to sidestep political and regulatory concerns.
With the sentiment regarding the US over there, one incident by soldiers that could be linked back to the US military could be disastrous. This then dovetails into wondering what the reasoning is behind using a company with a proven history of exactly those types of incidents rather than the actual military if it is indeed necessary.
They're supporting other JSOC forces. They're not the main effort here.
This really isn't anything new. The CIA has been using independent contractors for decades.
Not supporting, so much as planning. We are paying a private company to tell our troops who to kill.
More worrisome is that they also advise JSOC forces on targets in Uzbekistan. Apparently we are also hunting people Blackwater sends us after in Uzbekistan!
If you are choosing what gets bombed, raided, or picked up, devising how its done, and supervising its implementation how is that any different regarding culpability for the results or the risks to the quality of those results based on who's providing them? If Blackwater is devising the plan and the plan goes badly because they drop the ball, which I don't see out of the realm of possibility considering their track record, isn't the result the same?
Former employees testified under oath that the CEO murdered/ordered the murders of people who were cooperating into the investigation into whether or not Blackwater was supplying weapons to Kurdish terrorists and/or the massacre of 17 civilians in Baghdad. Also that he views himself as a Christian Crusader tasked with eliminating the Muslim faith from the globe.
I mean, what the fuck?
Providing intel is a form of support.
And the plans are partially developed by blackwater. Do you really think that Delta and SF go on missions if they don't take any part in the planning process? More likely most of the Al-Qaeda operatives are captured to gain further intel rather than killed (depend on their level in the food chain, either way it's not like you can drop ordnance on a hut and then extract the HVT).
These aren't ex law enforcement and line dog grunts that are gathering intel, these are ex spec ops types. If you could use one word to describe a (ex) member of the spec ops community it would be competent.
Just because they're now receiving a pay check from blackwater doesn't mean that they're any less competent.
Yes, I do think they sometimes go on missions planned by their former comrades in Blackwater. The article talks about how these guys get super security clearances because of the fact that the Special Forces branch KNOWS them personally and they have a mutual trust.
And I don't inherently trust the military even if they are competent, especially when it has been shown that the most fundamentalist assholes end up in Special Forces and that these ex-Special Forces guys are led by a man who sees himself as a Crusader against Islam.
So yeah, they may be good at planning operations. But I question their goals which seem to be plunder and Crusade.
That explains it.
You're pretty naive if you think that members of JSOC don't review the intel before planning the missions.
Nah, his views just mean his company shouldn't get government contracts. Especially in the Muslim world. Even the possibility of that perception is disastrous.
And if the responsibility for that plan is tied to a company that much of the region would (correctly) view as perpetrators of homicide and war crimes and was residing on our payroll when that operation was conceived...yeah, I don't see that ending well.
With the convoy duty and VIP protection stuff they could at least say they were just going from point A to point B and something occurred. When they are the ones actually planning the strategy? Not so much.
And does that make their use in this context acceptable?
And you'll note I called them mercenaries :P
So are we to judge the whole of the US Military by the actions of a few? I don't think it makes any sense to assume that just because they're in Blackwater they're any less competent than the active duty spec ops guys that they're supporting (or any more bloodthirsty).
However I agree we probably shouldn't be working with Blackwater. The experienced and competent personnel will probably flock to whichever contractor gets the best contracts.
If someone kicks in the wrong door they're not going to indiscriminately open up on everyone in the hut. It really doesn't work like that.
This whole article is suspect, not that it would surprise me if it was true.
People who go around calling them PMCs bring to mind people who feel themselves educated because they read popular mechanics and watch CNN.
The acceptability of men who kill for cash is entirely dependent on your views of violence in general - really they're a more honest version of the 18 year old Marine who signed up to escape poverty, get buff, and get a free college education.
Uh yes, we do judge the US Military by the worst actions we observe, and the inaction seen afterward.
Because all you see and all you know is what is in the papers and on TV.
Did you read the article I linked? About the actions of Special Forces in Iraq? That is how they act WITH oversight. That is the kind of actions they plan WITH oversight. I don't trust any of the special forces or black ops just because they are better at killing people. The solution to terrorism is not more killing, just like the solution to drugs isn't incarceration.
Hah
Way to misinterpret that story. They painted that on the side of their bradley to draw fire away from the FOB/COP.
Hah
Way to misinterpret that story. They caused the conflict by vandalizing mosques with christian imagery, and incited non-insurgents to attack while firing grenades willy-nilly.
Reading comprehension.
It says nothing about the SF guy doing that.
That's not willy nilly.
Unless shooting people that shoot at you is whilly nilly.
Hah
Way to misinterpret that story. Your mom's a whore.
So I'm not real sure what the issue is, but ok. To go back to the first question, how does there being a long, varied history of mercenaries in warfare relate to whether or not their use in this instance is acceptable?
I don't judge the entire military by the actions of some, no. But I do judge a company by the conduct of their employees and their management, both of which have numerous instances of gross negligence or outright misconduct. Since it sounds like we agree on using Blackwater to be a mistake, I guess that issue can rest.
On the kicking the door down and killing everyone inside regardless, of course not. But snatching the wrong person or people doesn't seem at all implausible in light of past occurrences. Nor does planning a drone strike on a target which is incorrect or has a high amount of civilian casualties. While I would agree that this risk would be present with regular military as well, accountability would be greatly increased and with the ratio of these kinds of mistakes with Blackwater compared to normal military operations arguably more likely.
Do you lack reading comprehension or something? The entire story is about how weaponized christianity is attempting to incite conflicts both home and abroad, and how it is harming our efforts abroad.
How do you honestly read that entire article about the dangers of christian involvement in the military and only come out with "fuck yeah! Christian heroes drawin' fire and gunnin' down A-rabs!"
Well at least I know where he stands on the humanity of foreigners.
I didn't see any connection between the story and the article. The whole story seems to be taken out of context. What better way to enrage muslims and draw their fire than to write something offensive on your vehicle? The fact that the SF guy was christian is irrelevant. His FOB/COP was already taking fire, I really don't think he caused anyone to fire on his vehicle. Iraqi civilians aren't easily goaded into a fight.
I can't help but find the entire article hilarious after my experience in the military.