Isn't it now time to talk about ending privatizing the protection of our embassies and

[FSogol]

using the USMC in lieu of Blackwater aka Academi aka Xe?

This is a failed GOP idea, which costs the country more than the Marine Corp did, and works less well.

[msongs]

1. time to deprivatize the military in total pretty much nt

[mopinko]

3. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Scuba]

14. +another

[avebury]

27. + 1,000 to that as well as de-privatizing the embassy/consul security.

If the military was used for both functions then it would be hard to cover up how many Americans are going into a situation. Using companies like Blackwater (and its various name changes) has been used to cover up the full amount of tax dollars being spent because they make it seem like we are not using as many members of the military as we would if no private companies were used.

[HiPointDem]

2. kr. apparently most of the military and intelligence establishment is now run by contractors,

with a truckload of crap & cost increases to show for it.

[nanabugg]

4. Kick!!! nt

[former9thward]

5. The security people there were former navy SEALs.

They were not rent-a-cop security as you are implying. The failure in Libya was due to the State department ignoring warnings that attacks were going to take place on September 11. Having two Marines there instead of two former navy SEALs would have made no difference against an organized attack by 400 armed people.

[FSogol]

6. Key word: "Former." Xe hires ex-military for their operations.

These mercenaries are guarding our embassies.

[former9thward]

7. I have no idea what point you are thinking you are making.

So they are former. Do you think they lose their skills? Do you think a 'former' SEAL is inferior to a Marine? BTW learn your definitions. A mercenary is someone who has hired himself out to a foreign government. You are insulting good, decent people who are giving their lives trying to protect our diplomats.

[FSogol]

8. I think the US Marines would do a better job.

Plus mercenary certainly CAN apply to a soldier hired by an organization. The employees of Xe are mercenaries.

Mercenary
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.

[former9thward]

11. By your first definition a substanial portion of the U.S. military are mercenaries.

Most join for the money they make. But keep on digging with your insults.

[FSogol]

13. Insults? Where?

Also, while I might make an opinion from time to time, I've have never claimed to have written the dictionary.

[elehhhhna]

9. no reasonw e can't pay mil w/ advanced skills etc. 100K a year ...

but also NO REASON to pay Halliburton 400K/year to LEASE the guy we recruited and trained

another problem w/contract labor is they can QUIT. Shit hits the fan? Contract cooks, etc. FLEE. Mil don't flee.

[former9thward]

10. Except there is no evidence anyone has fled.

And there have been plenty of wars, time and contractors for that to have happened if it would.

[elehhhhna]

12. oh heck yeah. google it. they FLEE.

not all of them - mind you - but recruitment gets dicey when your contractors are hangin from bridges, and it's impossible to then maintain sufficient TRAINED staff.

And I know contract staffing better than prettymuch anybody.

[former9thward]

17. Since you "know contract staffing better than prettymuch anybody"

you could provide a link to all these people fleeing. I won't hold my breath.

[elehhhhna]

20. google's your link, diy!

[former9thward]

30. I knew you couldn't back up your silly claims.

Don't you just hate the internet!

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Actually learn your definitions,

under international law they ARE MERCS. Sorry.

And it is time to end this sordid experiment just on cost alone.

[former9thward]

34. Fine cite this "international law".

Can't resist getting in a dig toward our military can you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. It is called the Geneva Convention

You might have heard of it


Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Article [Display Introduction] [Display Full text] [Display articles]
Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status
Article 47 -- Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057

And you did not, per usual, even look at the ECONOMICS of this. Mercenaries are more expensive, depend on low intensity warfare, and really... you think active duty Marines can't do this? For that matter, you think active duty marines cannot do KP, or other duties we have slowly given to contract labor?

And it is not a slam against the military. Here a little story for ya. Hubby retired from the USN... he got a call from one of these leeches. They were offering him a contract to do one of the jobs he was qualified to do in the Navy, for half a million dollars... read that again. He called them what they are, mercs, who should lined against the wall and shot,

Have you served? Because this is a military family, and MERCS are an insult to that service.

THe protocol by the way has not been updated, but discussions have been had, on nationals who are actually party to a conflict.

Tell me, were these two FORMER SEALS active duty in the Armed forces?

[former9thward]

36. I notice you did not bold the first section of the definition.

I understand why. These former military members are providing security for our diplomats. They are not there to "fight in an armed conflict" I bolded that because you apparently think that is the only way people can read something so that may be your problem also.

You also did not bold section d. I understand why. (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; There, I did it for you. You are welcome.

You see the way law works all of the sections have to apply not just the ones you pick and choose.

I was in the Air Force and having former military members do various things that are not directly related to combat saves money. On that point we don't have the thousands of pages of the Defense and State department's budgets in front of us so we will have to disagree.

You are saying that former Navy SEALs should be put against the wall and shot? No, you are not from a military family.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I will note that you did not realize this is under revision

care to ask where this came from? Rhodesia.

International Humanitarian Law is REACTIVE, rarely PROACTIVE.

Realize that for MEMBERS OF OUR ARMED FORCES, many of them, these guys are mercs. They are lower than whale shit, and they are despised.

But hey, I am taking a slam at the military. the same military that hates mercs.

You go on, defend them... for for it, go, we know you will.

And yes, I am from a military family... and many vets feel the same way.

I realize YOU ARE NOT.

Have a good freaking long fracking life, in my ignore list. You crossed a line,. defending mercenary scum, that is a line that leads to the iggy list

Goodbye...

[former9thward]

38. OMG, ignored by anonymous electrons on the internet!

How can I go on! BTW you have ignored me before. So keep your list up to date.

[elehhhhna]

21. "ignoring warnings"? Link or retract, please

[former9thward]

31. I have already linked elsewhere

but since you only read selected things before you post here you go. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 They were warned 3 days before by a Libyan official.

[hack89]

16. A 20 year old marine or an ex-special forces veteran with years of combat experience

I know who I would want protecting me.

[RandiFan1290]

18. Yes time for them to go

They send guys into situations with no regard for their safety. They are all about making a buck. Keep it light and save a few bucks for Erik Prince. Fuck that!

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay 3X the cost...

...of a Marine just so some private interests can suck on the government tit.

Why should our government be a cash cow for mercenaries?

[porphyrian]

22. Some things just should not be privatized, like Social Security. n/t

[fadedrose]

24. and the Post Office

always get in a plug whenever I can - clumsy in this thread, I admit.

[porphyrian]

25. Good point, though. n/t

[RB TexLa]

23. But there is greater cost possible with military personnel doing it.

The private security is more expendable. If they are attacked and killed there is not the same response as if US Marines are attacked and killed.

[porphyrian]

26. They are also held to a different standard.

The U.S. military must adhere to laws and codes that private security can sometimes circumvent, though their actions may be illegal. The difference is primarily in what happens if they are caught.

[cr8tvlde]

28. So that's why the BW/XE folk earn 10 times what a GI earns?

To protect the military folk? What about those GIs in war? Pay them 10 times and cut the forces accordingly so they don't have any rules when they get caught?

Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. The private forces gut the highly experienced military guys and then, yes, they become mercenaries for 10 times the pay.

[porphyrian]

40. I'm not endorsing it, I'm making an observation. n/t

[RandiFan1290]

29. Our troops catch the blowback from their lawless bullshit. nt

[porphyrian]

39. I'm not endorsing it, I'm making an observation. n/t

[chill_wind]

41. Yes. Greater domestic social and political costs--

because people really start paying attention when we're over-reaching, over-extending (or would, when the discussions/ notions of a draft could eventually come into play.)

(eta-- I'm commenting with the wide-spread use of mercenary forces in mind, in general)

[malaise]

32. Yes n/t