| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| U.S. general: Security contractors use 'over-the-top' tactics in Iraq | |
| 2007-09-29 | |
| WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Security contractors in Iraq use some over-the-top tactics and overreact at times, a top U.S. general in Iraq said Friday. Many in Iraq have witnessed security contractors operating in a questionable fashion, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq. "I can certainly say I've seen them do some tactics that I thought were over the top. But that's something we've got to keep working out," Anderson said in a briefing to Pentagon reporters via teleconference from Iraq. His comments soon after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wants closer oversight of Pentagon contractors in Iraq. Gates has dispatched a team there to review accountability and oversight. Anderson did not offer specific examples of incidents he had seen.
Under an order laid down by the U.S.-led occupation government in 2004, security contractors are not subject to Iraqi law for actions taken within their contracts, a condition that irritates Iraqi officials. About 137,000 civilians are working for the U.S. military in Iraq, Gates said Wednesday. That number includes at least 7,300 of the estimated 25,000 private security contractors working in Iraq, he said. After the Blackwater shootings, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England issued a memo to commanders in Iraq outlining their responsibility for holding contractors accountable, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. Anderson said the assessment team sent by Gates is getting a feel for how the military employs contractors, to what scale, what functions they're providing and what differentiates between Department of Defense and Department of State contractors in the security role. The State Department also is investigating the role of private security contractors. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, a management and policy expert, will lead the effort, along with a high-level panel of outside experts, including retired Gen. George Joulwan, former commander of NATO forces in Europe; Stapleton Roy, former U.S. ambassador to China; and Eric Boswell, a former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants an interim report by next Friday. | |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #5 I think the difference is that security contractors aren't traveling in Bradleys and Strykers and don't have on-call access to JDAM's. So they have to be a little more aggressive. Security contractors also don't have major league death benefits for casualties, unlike the military. Anderson shooting off his mouth isn't helpful to the mission in Iraq. Without security contractors to take care of logistics, we could need a lot more troops to carry out the mission. Troops we don't have, given the current political climate. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-09-29 14:01 |
| #4 And the leading contender for the "Dry Snark of the Day" award is ... Frank! |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-29 12:40 |
| #3 The responses are "over the top" only after combat and from someone else's perspective. I can guarantee you that the people who were there that were ambushed saw things VERY differently. When you are under fire from a pile of masked black turbans intent on ambushing you and your protected, you tend to use the best of your ability and equipment. If this seems to call for throw everything you have at them, then thats what happens. Look to the 4 on the bridge in Fallujah a few years ago or the kidnapped soldiers who were mutilated and gutted, to see what a lack of sufficiently severe response does. Their enemies choose not to observe the Geneva conventions, so these guys are not bound by Geneva convention either. And unlike the Army with lawyers restricting the ROE, these folks WILL get deadly on you in a hurry. Thats their job - to protect their charges, not to be nice or PC. In this instance, the harsher and worse response they give, the less likely it is that someone triggers said response another time, either out of fear, or because they are dead. And unlike US troops, these people are NOT formally representing our nation, they are representing their employers - usually the Iraqi government. So some of this is the press and a few politicians and REMFs criticizing people who are out there doing the job on the edge that US troops cannot do for political reasons, and that the Iraqis are incapable of doing for themselves, yet. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-29 11:32 |
| #2 See: Barney Frank |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-29 10:39 |
| #1 Just wondering...has anyone, anyplace ever used "under-the-bottom" tactics? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-29 10:19 |