Will the State Department get their own private army in Iraq?

[sad sally]

If Secretary Clinton's influence holds true, she may get her own State Department army in Iraq, either that or make sure a large American force is there forever. This story first came out last year, but Congress had lots of concern about just who the contract army would be - Blackwater? By the sounds of this exchange, looks like it's back on the table. From the 4/3/11 Face the Nation:

BOB SCHIEFFER: --that would be getting coverage, don’t get coverage. One of those is-- is
Iraq. I’m told that you’re concerned about what’s happening in-- in Iraq right now. Why so?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, I’m deeply concerned. We’re inside the ten-yard line in
terms of finishing the job in Iraq. But in 2011, all troops are supposed to leave Iraq, American
troops. I do not believe the State Department can carry on their mission of helping the Iraqi
government and people, reconstitute their society to help them build a civil society without
American forces there to provide security, air-- air power, logistical support the Iraqi army. This
idea of being pushed that we’ll have State Department army, I will not vote for that. I will not
support that. We need American troops in 2012, ten to fifteen thousand, left behind in Iraq to
provide to security to our people who are helping the Iraqi people maintain air superiority to
have an edge against Iran. And to make sure that the Iraqi army--
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): What--
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: You-- you say a State Department army. What are-- you’re
going to have to explain that. What are you talking about?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well--
BOB SCHIEFFER: What are they planning here?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, here’s the back-up plan. If all military forces have
withdrawn from Iraq in 2011, the State Department has come to the Congress and said we’re
going to need over fifty MRAPs, mine resistant vehicles. We need a fleet of helicopters and
thousands of private security guards to protect us as we go to the four consulates in Iraq to do
our job to help the Iraqis build a civil society out of a dictatorship. I think that is a losing formula.
I do not believe the State Department should have an army, that that that’s not the way to
provide security to our State Department. That if we’re not smart enough to work with the Iraqis
to have ten to fifteen thousand American troops in Iraq in 2012, Iraq could go to hell.
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Are-- are you--
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: There are fights now between Kurds and the Arabs.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- I -- I’m sorry. But I find this a-- a hard to believe. Are you talking about
we’re going to arm our diplomats and put them in these kinds of vehicles that people are driving
around in Iraq now?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah. You-- you-- you’ve got it, Bob. That we’re going to have
private security guards providing security. I think American soldiers and the Iraqi army should
provide security. We’re talking about helicopters, a fleet of helicopters so they can get around to
the four consulates, spread throughout Iraq. We’re talking about MRAPs, mine resistant
vehicles bought by the State Department, a mini State Department army. We’ve never done that
before. That will fail. I’m urging the Obama administration to work with the Maliki administration
in Iraq, to make sure that we have enough troops ten to fifteen thousand beginning in 2012, to
secure the gains we’ve achieved to make sure Iran doesn’t interfere with the Iraqi sovereignty
and-- and to develop this country. We can’t do it with a State Department army and I will not
support that. This is a defining moment in the future of Iraq. And the Obama administration has
the wrong strategy in libity-- Libya and in my view they’re-- they’re going down the wrong road
when it comes to Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_040311.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody?du

[truedelphi]

1. Well don't they already have their

Multi-hundred billion dollar palace inside the Green Zone in Baghdad?

SO nice to know that while our freeways are falling into rubble, our teachers and other workers are being pink slipped, while eight million households are fighting foreclosure and have a future in a tent city to look forward to, that those who are in charge of WWIII are going to live like Emperors and Empresses.

All Hail the American Reich.

[sad sally]

2. Gotta' protect US interests - no matter the cost.

[iwishiwas]

3. So he wants to keep several thousand troops in Iraq.

[RickFromMN]

4. Why does the State Department need an army? Argh.

Someone remind me...didn't the CIA have a private army during the Reagan years?
I seem to remember something about Iran-Contra and the Boland Amendment.

Last thing we need is more armies. We can't keep track of the armies we already have.

Can I be sarcastic for a moment...it would be just as stupid to let the oil companies fund their own army.

Then again, does it matter if the army is run by the oil companies, or run by the CIA or State Department?
The goal, in all cases, is to get around Congressional "interference" when someone wants to wage war.

Letting the oil companies have their own army has one advantage...
the cost of the army would be reflected in the cost of oil rather than buried in our income taxes.

There is always the problem the oil company army could act against the wishes of the United States.
Tell the oil companies it would be an act of treason if an oil company army acted against the United States.
Tell the oil companies the executives would be held personally responsible, would be tried for treason, and shot.

Some might say the State Department army will only be used for security and self defence.
Can we believe that? Was the CIA army, during the Iran-Contra Affair, only used for security and self defence?

Enough sarcasm from me.

If the President can't get Congress to agree with his plans to use the existing armies,
why let the President (or State Department) have another army just to get around the Will of Congress?

[sad sally]

5. Here's the story from 2010 - Contractors couldn't possibly become mercenaries, could they?

By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, July 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — Can diplomats field their own army? The State Department is laying plans to do precisely that in Iraq, in an unprecedented experiment that U.S. officials and some nervous lawmakers say could be risky.

In little more than a year, State Department contractors in Iraq could be driving armored vehicles, flying aircraft, operating surveillance systems, even retrieving casualties if there are violent incidents and disposing of unexploded ordnance.

Under the terms of a 2008 status of forces agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but they'll leave behind a sizable American civilian presence, including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, and five consulate-like "Enduring Presence Posts" in the Iraqi hinterlands.
...
The stakes, however, could be enormous. The Obama administration has promised Iraqis that the United States won't abandon their country when American troops leave. If it can't keep that promise, U.S. influence in the unstable region could dissipate, despite a seven-year war that's cost more than $700 billion and the lives of at least 4,400 U.S. troops.

Already, however, the State Department's requests to the Pentagon for Black Hawk helicopters; 50 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles; fuel trucks; high-tech surveillance systems; and other military gear has encountered flak on Capitol Hill.

Contractors are to operate most of the equipment, and past controversies that involved Pentagon and State Department contractors, including the company formerly known as Blackwater, have left some lawmakers leery.
...
"We have to make the case to them. We hope that people recognize the importance of follow-through here," a senior administration official said, alluding to the long-term U.S. commitment to Iraq. Walking away from that "would be a terrible mistake," the official said. He spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk for the record.

State Department and White House officials, while acknowledging the peculiarity of having a large civilian U.S. government presence in a war zone without American troops on the ground, said that the transition — already under way, in some cases _would go smoothly.

Planning began in spring 2009, and the transition is being shepherded by teams in Washington and Baghdad that confer in weekly video teleconferences.
...
Critics say it would be more logical for the military to leave several thousand troops behind to protect government officials and property.

However, that would require renegotiating the U.S.-Iraqi status of forces agreement, a sensitive step. There's "no thought of that right now," the senior administration official said.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97915/state-dept-planning-to-field-a.html#ixzz1IWCHMnhp?du