Oakland, Calif.

As a United States Marine I am subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and subject to the responsibility and authority of a chain of command that leads to the office of the (constitutionally elected, still) President. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I work for the government because I believe in the Republic, our Constitution, and our civilization and I have committed my body and soul to its defence and preservation.

Wearing the uniform and doing what I do for a living means far more to me than a pay check every other week. It galls me that this (and the previous) administration have been so willing to outsource our work to mercenaries AND to federally employed DoD civilians for virtually every military occupation including combat arms. "Civilian Marines" is an oxymoron on the face of it: I have worked too hard for the title, honors, awards, responsibility, and authority that I bear to quietly accept this dilution, and potential dissolution, of the uniformed Armed Forces.

The ideology that the private sector/free market can do everything better was dubious to begin with and has been an outrage when applied to the military. Whether the political motives, the taxpayer money wasted, military and civil legal matters, the reduction of operational security and the casualties that result, the impact of their operations on local populations - now to include Americans - and the political impression remaining with them these service contractors have proven themselves a tremendously expensive liability. Not only are they reliant on the government's continued financial support but they rely on the contuation of chaos and have no motivation to complete their mission: it would lead to their certain dismissal.

Mercenaries are not loyal, not reliable, not accountable, not cheap, that has been the case for centuries, and if our government has such a preference to sell out its responsibility and the citizenry is less willing to participate in public service this could be the early notice of a decline of our Republic. Mercenaries were ineffective and dangerous in history and they are showing themselves ineffective and dangerous today.

Thank you to Mr. Scahill and The Nation for keeping the light on this subject.

P X Ellsworth
04/20/2007 @ 11:22am

Ann Arbor, Mich.

I saw the recent C-SPAN-2 interview with Mr. Scahill, and I enjoyed it very much.

At the risk of sounding too obvious, I would ask Mr. Scahill if he's attempted to contact the relevant House and Senate committees since the Democrats have taken over the congress to let them hear what he enunciated so clearly on C-SPAN.

He referred to Representative Waxman and others who have been investigating the various implications of our extensive use of private contractors/armies, but I wonder if there aren't others who haven't gotten the message yet.

I've written a note to my representative and senators urging them to read his book.

Ted Dushane
04/01/2007 @ 10:05pm

Alexandria,

There are probably more than 100,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. This piece is very informative, but there is some spin to it. KBR and numerous services companies have contractors there, there are Turkish trucking companies moving fuel, etc., etc. By far these unarmed "worker bees," most of whom are classified TCNs (Third Country Nationals, not Americans and not Iraqis), are the majority of the contractors on the ground.

Despite the differences between the two, and the confusing, perhaps intentionally, blurring of the two, this is a serious issue. So serious the Army has written a Field Manual for use by the various echelons of command to deal with contractors, and even if 2 percent (a low number by my informed guess) are armed, the perception to the world is that they are ALL armed, and thus legitimacy seems the fade from there.

They are not subject to UCMJ, they are not inside our military chain of command, and they are prone to act very violently (towards innocents and insurgents alike) because if they are reactionary they are losing lives.

Furthermore, if the perception exists that the US is employing a mercenary Army that is not subject to the laws and treaties we claim to so dearly uphold, how will we ever win the trust of the very people we are trying to save?

Andrew Rohrer
03/19/2007 @ 1:20pm

Tampa,

Please write on and describe some of the implications of the executive branch of government maintaining and controlling an army of mercenaries for possible operations within THIS country.

We have heard of camps being built across the nation. Among the rationales offered for these facilities is something like "the rapid implementation of new programs." Perhaps I am just filling the role of the "Resident Paranoid" here but I find the combination of more or less secretly built detention camps and a large and secretly controlled mercenary army in a time when the executive claims growing powers that already exceed even normal wartime parameters very, very frightening.

Let us fantasize the escalating campaign of rhetoric against Iran continuing into next year and some triggering event "occurring" around the end of summer. The administration, using powers the Congress has just failed to limit, expands its military activities in the area and ultimately pops a nuke or four (or simply facilitates the Israelis doing so) somewhere in the heart of Iran.

The resulting outrage at the resumed use of nuclear weapons brings the citizenry into the streets and finally focuses the awareness of the nation on the heinous nature of the activities of this administration and the streets fill with angry Americans. With National Guard already stretched thin and unlikely to act against citizens of its own country, the administration calls in its private army of mercenaries, unfettered by the constraints of criminal and even military law and loyal only to the source of their paychecks, and declares martial law, postponing the upcoming elections. Those who continue to resist are conspicuously rounded up and whisked away to those centers where they quietly disappear into "enemy combatant" status and ... well ... that's way too paranoid, isn't it, Mr. Scahill?

What do you think?

John Gillmore

John Gillmore
03/19/2007 @ 10:03am

Vancouver,

The use of mercenaries by imperialistic powers is par for the course. Most empire builders in history have used them at one point or another. The existence of all these hired goons should be evidence enough for anyone to conclude that the United States has adopted policies consistent with imperialistic objectives.

It is this imperialism that is more bothersome than the existence of hired goons. The hired goons probably won't lead to the demise of the Republic, whereas the current pursuit of foreign occupations will. Seeking to control foreign soil by force has led to the demise of every civilization that has pursued the path, so why should the American experience be any different, claims of shock and awe notwithstanding.

Imperialists eventually establish that they are idiots (and ultimately traitors to their own people) but our batch of imperialist are just plain stupid too. To pay the outlandish sums we are paying for hired goons to do essentially the same job that soldiers are paid to do is little more than larceny of the public treasure. After all if you are going to be occupying a foreign country, at least do it as cost effectively as possible. I can't think of any other imperial power who has opened up the public trough to hired goons the way that the Bush people have. No bid and open ended contracts indeed.

Makes you wonder if they are just trying to accelerate the demise of the Republic. Once the public treasure is depleted and in the neo-cons pockets they will most likely take up residence in some foreign land, like Haliburton has elected to do. My question is who will protect the neo-cons then. They will need to hope that their hired goons remain loyal to the end. Oh I forgot, mercenaries never do. When the money is gone so are they, and often times with the heads of their benefactors on a pole.

Mike Foister
03/19/2007 @ 02:58am

San Luis Obispo, Calif.

Well done, Mr. Scahill.

This secret, unchecked army is a terrifying trend reminiscent of the most brutal regimes in history. It breaks my heart that it is happening here and now.

Wouldn't it be nice if your very articulate article ripples throughout the rest of our media and become a priority topic throughout America?

Thank you for bringing this out in the sunlight.

Cecilia Boettcher
03/17/2007 @ 10:55pm

Honolulu, Hawaii

Mr. Scahill,

Thank God for Blackwater. Don't forget, Iran is next in this War-- not 'so called' War. We'll need the bases in Iraq and Afgahnistan for this next phase.

As for the Blackwater folks dealing with the looters in NO La, what are you smoking? You talk about it like it's a bad thing.

Get a clue and hop on board for the big win. You'll be the first ones to go if we loose.

Wayne Kilthau
03/16/2007 @ 6:11pm

New York, N.Y.

The article refers to the presence of "more than 100,000 private contractors on the ground in Iraq." Yet, of the predominant subject of the article, Blackwater USA, Scahill says, "Blackwater currently has 2,300 personnel deployed in nine countries, with 20,000 other contractors at the ready."

Now, I firmly agree that the role of private contractors working with the US military is a troubling trend, and I don't doubt the nefarious connections between Blackwater and the Pentagon.

However, even if most of the 2,300 contractors referred to are assigned to Iraq, that means roughly 2 percent of the total number are Blackwater's people. From what source do the remaining 98,000 contractors spring?

If Scahill's numbers are accurate it seems the article is focusing on a tiny fraction of the total number of contractors and makes me doubt the validity of his general conclusions.

Tim W. Brown
03/16/2007 @ 2:00pm