CT Blue

Apparently the difference between a mercenary and a “contractor” is that a contractor doesn’t do offensive operations. At least that seems to be the line peddled by the various “security” companies to which the United States has thrown large amounts of money for off the book, and off the Geneva Convention (not that it matters) soldiers.

The Washington Post’s recent article (Iraq Contractors Face Growing Parallel War) exposes much of the reality of the mercenary armies we are employing, while sticking determinedly to the protective euphemism.

The security industry’s enormous growth has been facilitated by the U.S. military, which uses the 20,000 to 30,000 contractors to offset chronic troop shortages. Armed contractors protect all convoys transporting reconstruction materiel, including vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police. They guard key U.S. military installations and provide personal security for at least three commanding generals, including Air Force Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees U.S. military contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I’m kind of practicing what I preach here,” Scott said in an interview on the use of private security forces for such tasks. “I’m a two-star general, but I’m not the most important guy in the multinational force. If it’s a lower-priority mission and it’s within the capabilities of private security, this is an appropriate risk trade-off.”

The mercenaries are dying and getting wounded in large numbers, numbers which have gone largely unreported.

The offensive/defensive distinction I mentioned above is drawn at least three times. It is not clear why it is important. The function that the mercenaries serve is military-they guard convoys that would otherwise be guarded by military personnel, at a cost per person far exceeding what we would pay for military personnel. That’s a bad deal for Uncle Sam, except that for the extra expense he gets to hold down casualty figures for “the troops”. As one of the contractors point out, every death of a not-troop is one less death of a troop that must be reported:

“When you see the number of my people who have been killed, the American public should recognize that every one of them represents an American soldier or Marine or sailor who didn’t have to go in harm’s way,” [Army Corps of Engineers logistic director Jack] Holly said in an interview.

For the companies involved, war is the ultimate growth industry:

ArmorGroup, which started in Iraq with 20 employees and a handful of SUVs, has grown to a force of 1,200 — the equivalent of nearly two battalions — with 240 armored trucks; nearly half of the publicly traded company’s $273.5 million in revenue last year came from Iraq. Globally, ArmorGroup employs 9,000 people in 38 countries.

The company, with headquarters at a complex of sandstone villas near Baghdad’s Green Zone, is acquiring a fleet of $200,000 tactical armored vehicles equipped with two gun hatches and able to withstand armor-piercing bullets and some of the largest roadside bombs.

At least they’re getting the armor they need, which is more than can be said for “the troops”. I suppose if you’re paying your cannon fodder $135,000.00 a year you have more incentive to protect your investment than if you’re hiring naive kids out of high school at low pay, or drafting unwilling National Guardsmen.

It really is time to end the charade about these people. If we are going to face up to the reality in Iraq, apparently a big “if”, we are going to have to stop playing with our language. If we used the proper terminology, e.g., “torture”, not “harsh interrogation techniques”, “mercenaries”, not contractors, it would be that much harder for Bushco to sustain its dirty war, not to mention its criminal enterprise in its entirety.