[Peace-discuss] Blackwater

[Barbara kessel]

Private Security Puts Diplomats, Military at Odds
    By Sudarsan Raghavan and Thomas E. Ricks
    The Washington Post

    Wednesday 26 September 2007

Contractors in Iraq fuel debate.
    Baghdad - A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State
Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the
shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16,
bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military
and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and
government officials.

    In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military
officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more
control over Blackwater, which operates under the department's
authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the
discussions. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that
they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded
by actions such as this event," the official said.

    "This is a nightmare," said a senior U.S. military official. "We
had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to
hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time
when we're trying to have an impact for the long term." The official
was referring to the prison scandal that emerged in 2004 in which U.S.
soldiers tortured and abused Iraqis.

    In last week's incident, Blackwater guards shot into a crush of
cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and wounding 12. Blackwater officials
insist their guards were ambushed, but witnesses have described the
shooting as unprovoked. Iraq's Interior Ministry has concluded that
Blackwater was at fault.

    In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government
officials, many expressed anger and concern over the shootings in
Nisoor Square, in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Some worried it
could undermine the military's efforts to stabilize Iraq this year
with an offensive involving thousands of reinforcements.

    "This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their hands
around yet," said another U.S. military official. "It's not
necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis
hate them, the troops don't particularly care for them, and they tend
to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to
anyone - even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis."

    Most officials spoke on condition of anonymity because there are
at least three ongoing investigations of Blackwater's role in the
shootings. There are also sensitive discussions between various U.S.
agencies and the Iraqi government over the future of Blackwater and
other private security firms in Iraq.

    A State Department official asked why the military is shifting the
question to State "since the DOD has more Blackwater contractors than
we do, including people doing PSD [personal security detail] for them.
. . . They've [Blackwater] basically got contracts with DOD that are
larger than the contracts with State."

    According to federal spending data compiled by the independent Web
site FedSpending.org, however, the State Department's Blackwater
contracts vastly exceed those of the Pentagon. Since 2004, State has
paid Blackwater $833,673,316, compared with Defense Department
contracts of $101,219,261.

    A Blackwater spokeswoman did not return telephone and e-mail
messages seeking comment.

    The State Department official, directly addressing the question of
Blackwater, said: "The bottom line of this is that we recognize that
there's an issue here. We don't think we need to be told by anyone
else that the incident on September 16 raised a whole series of other
issues with respect to how these kinds of contract services operate,
and that's why we're both working with this joint commission with the
Iraqis as well as [conducting an] internal investigation here to
ensure we can address some of the underlying issues."

    Scores of private security firms play a vital role in the U.S.
military mission, from force protection to securing the perimeters of
American bases and guarding generals. They free up more U.S. soldiers
for combat duty and to secure neighborhoods.

    At the same time, the military has long been wary of private
security guards, especially those who, in the military's view, don't
follow the rules of engagement that govern soldiers. Often, private
guards quickly drive away from the scene of an incident, leaving
soldiers to deal with the aftermath, officials said.

    "I personally was concerned about any of the civilians running
around on the battlefield during my time there," said retired Army
Col. Teddy Spain, who commanded a military police brigade in Baghdad.
"My main concern was their lack of accountability when things went
wrong."

    In Iraq, Blackwater operations have been a source of controversy.
In 2004, insurgents ambushed four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah
and mutilated their bodies. U.S. Marines were ordered to invade the
city to capture the assailants, triggering one of the war's most
fierce battles. The firm mostly hires former Navy SEAL operatives.

    "They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers.
Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later," said an Army
lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the Sept. 16
shootings, the officer added, "None of us believe they were engaged,
but we are all carrying their black eyes."

    "Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control,"
said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. "They often act like
cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone
else tries to play by."

    "Many of us feel that when Blackwater and other groups conduct
military missions, they should be subject to the same controls under
which the Army operates," said Marc Lindemann, who served in Iraq with
the 4th Infantry Division and is now an officer in the New York
National Guard and a state prosecutor.

    A Pentagon source in Washington said, "We are really making State
respond, conduct an investigation and come up with recommendations."
The source described discussion in Washington as calm and professional
but, referring to Iraq, said, "There is probably a bit more emotion
going on in theater."

    There have been private discussions in the past over whether the
Defense Department should oversee the State Department's security
contracts, according to the Pentagon source. Defense rules for
licensing, oversight and incident reports when weapons are discharged
are more stringent, the source said. The military is known to quickly
and routinely investigate incidents involving its contractors.

    But "it would be a turf battle," the source said. State would
oppose it because "you are taking away a primary mission their
regional security officer has - you'd be breaking new ground." At the
same time, "DOD is not volunteering to take them over."

    "Given their record of recklessness," said the senior U.S.
commander, "I'm not sure any senior military officer here would want
responsibility for them."

    An Army brigadier general said finding a way to prosecute security
companies for violations was more crucial than regulating them. In
Iraq, they were given immunity under a regulation, Order 17, crafted
by Iraq's U.S. overseers after the 2003 invasion.

    The Iraqi government has backed away from a threat to expel
Blackwater, largely because of its role in protecting senior U.S.
diplomats and civilian operatives. Officials said they would take
action once the investigation by a 16-member U.S.-Iraqi commission is
completed.

    "I think the military culture fully accepts these days, rightly or
wrongly, that we can't go to war anymore without these contractors,"
said one Iraq war veteran. "I do not expect calls for action from
within the structure and have heard none. If action comes, it will be
from Capitol Hill or pressure brought by the press."

    "The deaths of contractors from Blackwater helped precipitate the
debacle in Fallujah in 2004 and now the loss of Blackwater is causing
disruptions in the war effort in 2007," a military intelligence
officer said. "Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on
what are essentially mercenary forces?"

    ----------

    Ricks reported from Washington. Correspondent Joshua Partlow in
Baghdad, staff writers Steve Fainaru in El Cerrito, Calif., and Ann
Scott Tyson and Karen DeYoung in Washington and staff researcher Julie
Tate in Washington contributed to this report.