Exclusive: U.S. Blocks Oversight of Its Mercenary Army in Iraq

[cory777]

Source: Wired

By January 2012, the State Department will do something it’s never done before: command a mercenary army the size of a heavy combat brigade. That’s the plan to provide security for its diplomats in Iraq once the U.S. military withdraws. And no one outside State knows anything more, as the department has gone to war with its independent government watchdog to keep its plan a secret.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), is essentially in the dark about one of the most complex and dangerous endeavors the State Department has ever undertaken, one with huge implications for the future of the United States in Iraq. “Our audit of the program is making no progress,” Bowen tells Danger Room.

For months, Bowen’s team has tried to get basic information out of the State Department about how it will command its assembled army of about 5,500 private security contractors. How many State contracting officials will oversee how many hired guns? What are the rules of engagement for the guards? What’s the system for reporting a security danger, and for directing the guards’ response?

And for months, the State Department’s management chief, former Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, has given Bowen a clear response: That’s not your jurisdiction. You just deal with reconstruction, not security. Never mind that Bowen has audited over $1.2 billion worth of security contracts over seven years.

Read more: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/iraq-merc-army/

---

Breaking Activist News http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

[gateley]

1. WHY are we going to have diplomats in Iraq? nt

[Ex Lurker]

2. Not unprecedented, actually

While head of the Agency for International Development in Vietnam, John Paul Vann commanded a division-sized element of indigenous troops.

[sudopod]

4. Well, that really inspires confidence, doesn't it? :p nt

[gateley]

5. But WHY? Why do we need anybody there -- or why such a

large contingent? Do you understand why this is something we do?

[Amonester]

6. Huh, to "justify" filling up the world's biggest embassy ever with...

diplomats?

Diplomats for what? Finding (making-up) "reasons" for a future war against Iran?

Speculating.

[Ex Lurker]

9. I'm not defending it, just pointing out it's been done before

I'm a history geek.

[gateley]

13. Understood -- I didn't think you were justifying it, but do you

know why we do this? I mean, do you know what THEIR justification is? Thanks.

[Ex Lurker]

23. I don't, sorry. nt

[JDPriestly]

12. It is another way to transfer taxpayer dollars to rich supporters

who are paid as military or security contractors.

[gateley]

14. Yeah, well I really didn't even need to ask, did I? It's always

the money. No matter what the question. :grr:

[harmonicon]

21. I thought that was the entire point of the war from the beginning.

I've never really understood the people harping about it being for oil. The people who had an interest in oil had their payday as well, of course. That wasn't from getting the oil contracts, but from us keeping so much Iraqi oil out of the market for as long as possible so that the oil they did own would make them even more money. Eventually had to be given contracts in Iraq as a consolation prize, but that was just peanuts compared to the real purpose which was a get rich quick scheme for a criminal cabal.

[Zorra]

8. New U.S. Embassy in Iraq cloaked in mystery

“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, old and new, saying it’s indicative of the work facing the United States here.

“It’s somewhat self-evident that there’s going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several years,” he said in Washington
snip---
Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/new-us-embassy-iraq-cloaked-mystery/

[inna]

10. Uh, there is nothing wrong with diplomats. It's fucking mercs that are a problem.

Especially, unaccountable, beyond-the-law ones like the ones obama is creating (in unprecedented #s, apparently).

Damn, i'm so fucking sick and tired of obama's outrages - and those who enable and tacitly - or vocally - support them.


:nuke: :nuke:

[SaveAmerica]

3. Is that crazy or what? My little knowlegde of the mercs at the DoS is an out of control group with

power to do whatever they want (that was in Iraq).

[grahamhgreen]

7. GTFO

[earcandle]

15. YOu would like Get Out

htp://www.earcandleproductions.com/Get_Out.swf

[JDPriestly]

11. Remember Caesar and Pompeii

Roman generals, each with a separate army that answered to him, fighting for power and the top spot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey

Things got worse:

Marcus Antonius (in Latin: M·ANTONIVS·M·F·M·N<1>) (January 14, 83 BC – August 1, 30 BC), known in English as Mark Antony, was a Roman politician and general. As a military commander and administrator, he was an important supporter and loyal friend of Julius Caesar. After Caesar's assassination, Antony formed an official political alliance with Octavian (the future Augustus) and Lepidus, known to historians today as the Second Triumvirate.

The triumvirate broke up in 33 BC. Disagreement between Octavian and Antony erupted into civil war, the final war of the Roman Republic, in 31 BC. Antony was defeated by Octavian at the naval Battle of Actium, and in a brief land battle at Alexandria. He and his lover Cleopatra committed suicide shortly thereafter. His career and defeat are significant in Rome's transformation from Republic to Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Antony

I have been thinking that it would be possible for various powerful people to organize private armies of this sort.

Horrendous thought, but it could happen.

I hope I am being way too pessimistic, but this looks like an ominous step in a very dangerous direction.

Our military is supposed to be funded by Congress (thus giving them the authority to oversee its functions through control of its budget) with the president as the commander in chief.

We are supposed to have one military with one unified command.

The State Department should not have any separate military or paramilitary, governmental or private, organization.

The CIA is a big enough problem, much less a separate quasi-army under the State Department.

[earcandle]

16. I hear you LOUD AND CLEAR. LET ME BE CLEAR>>>>

[truedelphi]

18. You say:

Our military is supposed to be funded by Congress (thus giving them the authority to oversee its functions through control of its budget) with the president as the commander in chief.

We are supposed to have one military with one unified command.

The State Department should not have any separate military or paramilitary, governmental or private, organization.

The CIA is a big enough problem, much less a separate quasi-army under the State Department.


What this nation is supposed to do and be is now a moot point.

We are now a Banana Republic without the bananas.

And don't forget, when John Kennedy tried to disband rogue elements of the CIA, he was rewarded by that little trip to Dallas and the actions of the "lone gun man, and the magical single bullet."

[Mimosa]

24. JD, have you read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome novels?

My bud the med prof and I recently undertook to reread the series starting with 'The First Man in Rome". Few non-fiction books explain the machinations of wars and politics as well as McCullough's historical novels. They're simply awesome. :)

Wars were moneymaking enterprises for Rome's prominent individuals. It's how they established and increased their fortunes. McCullough's novels help one understand how the system (both then and now) work while being completely entertained. It's a wonder that at least the first 3 novels never have made it to screen. They have the potential to be far better than the HBO 'Rome' series.

BTW, even losing wars are profitable for the defense contractors.

[JDPriestly]

27. I'm going to put McCullough on my list of books to read.

Thanks.

[The Big Vetolski]

28. Ummm...the legions of the Roman Republic were not private armies.

In the late Republic, they were usually volunteers who joined for a small bit of pay with a promise of their own land at the end of their term. The problem was, the aristocratic and plutocratic Roman Senate didn't want to pay up. Roman generals such as Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Julius Caesar and Pompey used their soldiers' discontent to threaten the Senate and gain power for themselves. Sometimes they did things that helped the Roman people as well, and sometimes they sold out to the powers in the Senate.

The whole process took more than a century, but by the time of Caesar Roman soldiers were more loyal to their generals than they were to the Roman Republic. This helped doom the Republic, and didn't help the Empire all that much, either. Now, if our own government keeps screwing over our own enlisted men and women, and if some general or admiral decides to use their grievances to advance his own political career, yes, it could happen here.

[saras]

17. Al-Jazeera English will tell us all about it, too late

As will much of the world's press, also too late.

[guruoo]

19. Having private security contractors under US command is certainly preferable to their operating

independently, as they were first allowed to do.

[Angry Dragon]

20. That is all and good

the article said no one could get information about their duties
who was in charge, nothing

So which general is in command of them, who do they report to
what is their function, all kinds of questions??

Army, marines, navy, air force??

[guruoo]

22. Says they are under command of the State Department which if true

would mean DSS, CIA, or both (sometimes hard to tell apart).

[KoKo]

25. K&R

[buckrogers1965]

26. Once forces like this are created

They won't always work for the government. Ask Rome about their mercenary armies.