[Swamp_Thing]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/


What?? Brutality in Iraq? Naaah...

[pyro-manic]

Well, that's what you get when you hire mercs to do your dirty work for you....

[kasperl]

Mm.

Using mercs is icky ground as far as the Geneva convention is concerned, anyway.

'sides, those mercs get paid like 3 or 4 times the army pay. That means that military must pay at least 3 times the cost of a soldier, including the weapons and uniform. Odd, at the very best. A way of funneling out funds, at worst.

[pyro-manic]

I think that's the idea, though - the army isn't accountable for the action of mercs, so they can get them to do all kinds of nasty stuff and then say "It's not our fault! We didn't know they'd do that! We just pay them!"...

[Flipside]

Well, isn't getting Kurds in as armed mercenaries in Iraq somewhat like asking the Vatican to take control of security in Northern Ireland?

[vyper]

The Vatican would be razed to the ground in two weeks.

[Flipside]

True, but you know what I mean

Actually, I subscribe to the Micheal Moore school on Northern Ireland, which involves a Priest, a Hosepipe, a lot of Holy Water and the Orange Parade

[Rictor]

Uhm, what is a soldier if not a poorly paid merc with nationalist overtones? You pay them money, they go and kill stuff - that seems to be the basic premise, no?

Though I do agree that warfare by the US is becoming increasingly privatized, even down to the grunts on the ground, who AFAIK make up the second largest force in Iraq, ahead of the UK. Its actually a very, very smart move, in a sickening sort of way.

[pyro-manic]

A soldier is a representative of his nation, so anything that a soldier does is the responsibility of his country.

A Merc is not a representative of a country, so his/her actions are not the responsibility of anyone other than the company employing them. It's all about accountability.

[Rictor]

I find that distinction to be largely abstract. You pay, they fight - thats the basic principle here. Soldiers and mercs are equally representatices of their nation, first of all as citizens of that nation, but also because they are both fighting on the side of that nation. The only difference is that "security contractors" go through a proxy; they're not hired directly, but rather a nation pays their company to do the work of soldiers. Its absurd to say that the laws of warfare are somehow not applicable becuase the guy with the gun in his hand is wearing a Blackwater patch on his arm instead of a US flag.

[aldo_14]

Security contractors would be liable under civllian rather than military law, IIRC, in the same way security guards or police are.

[Rictor]

And civilian law allows shooting unarmed innocents??

[Flipside]

Nope, if they were not defending themselves then it is Murder in American law, and since they are working for the Americans, I think that is what should apply.

[kasperl]

But since it was on Iraqi soil and against Iraqi's, you're  looking at Iraqi law here. Meaning a Iraqi police officer would have  to make the arrest, meaning that there is no way in hell these guys will get prosecuted, sadly enough.

And Rictor: Read the Geneva Convention, there are a few clauses calling anything properly uniformed and adhearing to the laws of war a military, but it's all rather shaky once you get to small groups of mercs.

And yes, I once did spend a night reading most of the Geneva convention. Twas during the invasion, actually, since I was checking about the video thingy,

As for arming Kurds and letting them police Iraq, not the best decision they could make. But right now, whoever you give a gun in Iraq, you know there will be some grudge left from quite a few years ago. You can't go right.