| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| State Dept. May Phase Out Blackwater |
| 2007-10-11 |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #16 IMO, this article is just PC for the USA-IGA is kicking insurgent-Islamist butt in Iraq such that USA is confident enuff to begin bringing some US milfor units home, and turn over to the IGA. *Looming Islamist defeat in Iraq + no Amer Hiroshimas [yet] + Muslim locals mostly liking USA-Allies = USA refocusing on IRAN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-10-11 21:54 |
| #15 heh. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-11 21:20 |
| #14 pda. I see it as thinning the ranks of state if they are stupid enough to do this. how can that be bad? |
| Posted by: whiskey mike 2007-10-11 21:18 |
| #13 "critical thinking is in dangerously short supply" Verlaine, honey, that's unfortunately a general statement about the entire world. Especially about the |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-10-11 18:27 |
| #12 I fear the stripped pants are going to have to learn their lessons the hard way. Know-it-alls usually do. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-11 17:23 |
| #11 The Pentagon has been reluctant to provide security for diplomats but another alternative might be joint State-Defense department patrols. Yet another would be hiring Blackwater and other private guards as temporary U.S. government employees, the officials said. Rubbish! If State doesn't the manpower to do static and mobile security, how are they going to do patrolling? Hire BW personnel as temp U.S. employees? Bwahahhaha.... good luck with that one. Rice is out-to-tea, as usual. I wish that someone would ask her, or any US State donk if they would mind being met at the airport by an Iraqi indiginous security agency. The future of warfare (asymmetric warfare) will include all manner of private security organizations like Blackwater and London based Aeigis. War is hell, people get dead. We must get over it or get out of it. The continued MSM spin on this BW incident makes me nauseous. Lastly, we'd better damn well hope BW doesn't get a gut full of this crap and terminate the contract on their bloody own. I can assure you, it's being discussed. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-10-11 17:19 |
| #10 Excellent analysis, Verlaine, and I had no trouble believing the 'quote', because i swear I read it. Trouble is, I can't find it, even after reading a dozen different versions of the article. Can you tell me where you found that dandy example? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-10-11 17:11 |
| #9 That's the point. It's another lawfare operation. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-10-11 15:24 |
| #8 TW, the difference is a lot of other companies that do this sort of work do not want to sign up to become the next setup scapegoat for Maliki. They'll have a hell of a hard time replace Blackwater fully. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-10-11 15:22 |
| #7 I also note that the more recent shooting was done by Triple Canopy I think. Which is based in the Middle East (Dubai, I think???). So, we have no effect on that. It's a red-on-red issue, so the MSM have dropped it like a hot potato, after the initial articles on just the shootout itself. The MSM will *not* pursue that dog-n-pony show, but will go after BW, just because it's domestic and things can be honestly affected on BW by their "reporting." |
| Posted by: BA 2007-10-11 12:56 |
| #6 What Steve said. And what others here have said. I actually read this article yesterday - I usually don't go much beyond the headlines of most stories anymore, as I already know what will follow - and would point out that it employed one classic method of distortion. The headline and leading concept (Blackwater being replaced) is actually just one option - a fairly implausible one, as noted here - being examined in a wide-ranging review. In the other recent tragic shooting (because that's what it is), involving the Armenian Christian woman in Karadah, I looked at a story yesterday that contained an exceedingly pristine example of self-refuting media distortion. To closely paraphrase the article, it described the shooting as having occurred "without provocation, after the woman's car got too close to the convoy." My friends, the ability of a reporter to write that phrase, several editors to pass on it, and readers to read it without suffering a neck injury are deeply discouraging signs that critical thinking is in dangerously short supply. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-10-11 11:35 |
| #5 It would also shield them from accountability, which I think is a bad idea. The right idea is for the domestic nabobs to shut up and let tough people do the tough things required to keep decent people safe. There's nothing wrong with Blackwater. What the striped-pants crowd is doing is bowing to domestic pressure, which is their usual position. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-10-11 11:03 |
| #4 It is about time for Blackwater to move on, if for no other reason than domestic US politics. I would go so far as to encourage them to set up operations on an offshore island, out of US jurisdiction. That would mean that they could keep the bulk of their operations in the US, but move them offshore if things got annoying. They should also set up a system of shell corporations for personnel management, logistics, and finances outside of Blackwater proper. This would help shield them from government harassment. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-11 10:55 |
| #3 Word, TW. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-10-11 10:44 |
| #2 Using local Iraqis? Given the number of stories posted here about local muckety-mucks being set up for murder by their own guards, I imagine the State Department would quickly come to regret that choice. As for hiring other companies, if the others were that good, Blackwater wouldn't currently have the majority of the protection business. State (and Maliki's government) may well find themselves exploring the intricacies of being on the wrong end of a monopoly situation. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-10-11 10:22 |
| #1 . Some details from the article: Blackwater is now the biggest of the three firms working for the department in Iraq with about 1,000 employees and handles protection in and around Baghdad, the most dangerous areas of the country. It has been paid as much as $1 billion for its work in Iraq. Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, which work in the north and south, are far smaller and face resource constraints. Under the terms of the department's Worldwide Personal Protective Security contract, which covers privately contracted guards for diplomats in Iraq, Blackwater, Dyncorp and Triple Canopy are the only three companies eligible to bid on specific task orders there. If Blackwater goes, the slack would almost certainly have to be picked up by one or more other companies, which may require certifying other firms to bid, including non-U.S. ones, the officials said. Of interest to the department is the possibility of forming Iraqi companies with Iraqi employees to protect U.S. diplomats as local guards do for embassy staff in other countries, they said. That would bring the guards fully under the jurisdiction of Iraqi law but is not a short-term option given inadequate training facilities. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2007-10-11 09:05 |