It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Private Contractors Now Outnumber US Military In Iraq

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Private Contractors Now Outnumber US Military In Iraq


www.baltimoresun.com

U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, new figures show.

Over 180,000 contractors in Iraq compared to 160,000 troops.

The number of private contractors is far higher than previously reported; shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on private corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq - a mission criticized as being undermanned.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
The fact that we have to pay contractors (mercenaries), who I would guess cost 4 times what a US soldier costs, to occupy Iraq shows once again what a bad situation it is.

In my humble opinion... if we are going to have to result to war, meaning we have reached the final option, than our nation would not need a draft because if we REALLY needed to go to war than the citizens of the nation would volunteer in droves. We would ration all goods and do absolutely everything to be victorious and end the war quickly. Any other kind of half-assed conflict is warmongering to say the least.

The use of private military forces leads to the dark side. Need I say more?



www.baltimoresun.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Does the name Halleburton ring a bell?

It should.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I think Machiavelli said it best.


I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.


/prince12.htm

'Nuff said.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Of course Halliburton rings a bell!
Im not quite sure what you are hinting at.

Here is a huge list of Private Military Companies (PMC) in the US:
en.wikipedia.org...

And the Main wiki search page for a PMC.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Halliburton is one of the biggest money makers of that war, that's what i meant.
There are others there, but this particular one is the top one.

$$$$$



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Well in that group of "mercenaries" for hire you can find a very great quantity of happy trigger "Rambos" that are having a great time in the land of lawlessness.

And we are paying them to kill with our tax payer money.

Then people can still do not comprehend why the middle east hate us so much.

What a shame and a disgrace.



[edit on 5-7-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I recognize that having people outside of the military command structure going around and causing wanton violence is not a good thing. Are there actual reports of this happening? Can it be proven? But to say that they are going around inciting violence is a heavy charge that is irresponsible to throw around.

If so, then bring them home and lock them away.

We have and may still be investigating Halliburton. I say good, let's get what is rightfully ours. But what about the thousands of other contractors who are trying to do an honest living on the ground and saving us, as the saying goes, "blood and treasure"?

And I am under the impression that we are not hiring people to fight the war; the closest they get is by providing security for areas like the Green Zone.

I say bully for contractors. They have less overhead costs (you would need to prove to me that, in net numbers, private contractors cost more for services rendered than the military would comparably), provide vital services with construction and security, and--most importantly--the people who work there don't take military orders and we can therefore infer that they want in some small way to be there.

The more contractors on the ground, the more poor and minority troops who never wanted to be there in the first place can be brought home. I frankly think it's a positive step in a foolishly mishandled war.

Maybe this is a matter of people not liking the war, not liking corporations, or not liking either. If so, let's have those discussions. Let's not deceptively meld them into a more complicated issue.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
you can thank VP Cheney, and assorted neocons, thru his
Office of Special Plans (OSP) for this re-making of the military....

the long term goal is to create NGOs (like Haliburton) which are
in actuality fascist-oligarchies, to do the bidding of the men-behind-the-curtains, aka NWO elites.

It is the restructuring of power projection, the CIA is no longer the
black-ops provider as it was in the pre 9-11 era.
NGOs is the vehicle of preference, as they are not constrained by congress or oversight (other than public opinion)...and are easily
under the pursuasion of the men with the 'coin'.

welcome to another arrangement of the NWO roadmap,
winding it way throuh the OSP (@ the independent Veeps office)

[edit on 5-7-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
I recognize that having people outside of the military command structure going around and causing wanton violence is not a good thing. Are there actual reports of this happening? Can it be proven? But to say that they are going around inciting violence is a heavy charge that is irresponsible to throw around.



Here is a thread with some information on the mercenaries operating in Iraq right now.

This people answer to nobody falls under not military but their own version and congress just turn their head to the way their do their do business in Iraq.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.corpwatch.org...

[edit on 5-7-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It seems to me that the article clearly states that the contractors are for construction/reconstruction, etc. not military activities or mercenaries. Doesn't the article state that private security wasn't included in the count?

Anybody have the breakdown of how many of the 180,000 are involved in construction?

I think its great that 118,000 of the 180,000 are Iraqi's, don't you? The people there need jobs/money, and the reconstruction needs done. Rebuilding the water, telecom, electric, roads, etc. is a worthy and honerable cause.

Isn't it?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Anybody have the breakdown of how many of the 180,000 are involved in construction?


Watch this program online...

Frontline: Private Warriors



Between the logistics giant Halliburton and a myriad of armed security companies, private military contractors comprise the second largest "force" in Iraq, far outnumbering all non-U.S. forces combined. There are as many as 100,000 civilian contractors and approximately 20,000 private security forces.
...
KBR has 50,000 employees in Iraq and Kuwait that run U.S. military supply lines and operate U.S. military bases.
...
Warns George Washington University Professor Steve Schooner, an expert on military contracting, "We have tens of thousands of armed contractors in Iraq defending the Green Zone, defending the military, defending contractors… But they're not part of the military command structure." Schooner suggests there can be trouble when private contractors carry weapons and have tactical responsibilities yet aren't getting the same information or direction. Peter Singer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of "Corporate Warriors" agrees: "There's a bubbling resentment … and you're starting to sense a backlash from the military."


This war is like no other. Our current situation, with Americans having their heads in the sand, is like none that has come before. This administration is making history. Unfortunately, many of us will never become aware of it and most won't care until it's too late.

There is absolutely NO reason to believe that the numbers in the original article are correct. That's what they are allowing us to think. Just like the death toll and many other aspects of this war and this administration.

It's actually much worse...

[edit on 5-7-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
So, but out of the 180,000 listed in the original article, how many are military types?

None?

All of them?

What?

I ask because the OP article states that private security was not included in the count, and the ones in the count of 180,000 are construction ect. Which if true, it seems like the numbers are being misconstrued as military types when they aren't. Right?


[edit on 7/5/07 by makeitso]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Blackwater and Halliburton, two of the world's most sincere and ethical corporations in the world...
just kidding.

Just the idea of Cheney being involved with Holyburton makes me wonder what is really going on here. Are the Prez and VP being paid off so these big players can make millions off of an injust war?

makeitso, its not the point if they are all fighting on the frontlines. A lot of them happen to be truck drivers stealing oil. Some of the contractors are being paid to sit in a trunk with the engine running for hours. Does this sound like fuel efficiency to you?

Let me lay it out for you.

US tax dollars are paying for contractors to be in Iraq. Yes, your hard earned money is being paid directly to BIG BUSINESS. If this isn't one of skeviest scandals of the war, I don't know what is. Maybe the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and millions displaced. Is that a better more vivid picture for you?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Private security was not fully included in the count. (What does that even mean?)

I don't see anything being "misconstrued". Read the article. Many (no, I don't have a number, does it matter??) of these contractors are occupying Iraq. If you (or anyone) don't want to believe that, and prefer to think instead that they're over they building schools, churches and waterways and kissing children on the forehead, be my guest.

If you want to know how many contractors are carrying guns, do some research. But you still won't find out the truth.

My point is that we don't know. We don't know crap. This administration has a privatized war going on that we don't know about. They can give us a bunch of numbers to make us think we know something, but we don't. And we certainly aren't going to get much information from one article in the "Baltimore Sun".


[edit on 5-7-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Right now they're in Iraq shooting up civilians for fun and profit.

But just wait till they're here in the US shooting up civilians for fun and profit...

(PS - BH: nice avatar,
)

[edit on 7/5/07 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
No biggie.

My point is that the OP article was/is being misconstrued to mean that in addition to the 100,000 + coalition troops there are 180,000 contract "fighters" performing military/private security activities in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This war is like no other. Our current situation, with Americans having their heads in the sand, is like none that has come before. This administration is making history. Unfortunately, many of us will never become aware of it and most won't care until it's too late.


I don't see how this is any different from using contractors during the American Revolution? How is that making history?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Ok the article states what you said, correct.

Does that mean there aren't over 200K contract killers (mercs) in Iraq/Afghanistan right now? For all we know, the US military could have invaded Iran by now. US media doesn't report squat.

FOX news says they're 'fair and balanced'...Heavily towards the right side of the aisle, way past fascism.

Ok I found a source on wikipedia. There are over 100K US troops there right now.


en.wikipedia.org...

The "Coalition of the Willing" troop counts are as follows, not including casualties.


United States: 250,000 invasion--165,000 current (6/07)
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--5,500 current (5/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--638 current (2/07)
Denmark: 300 invasion--460 current (2/07)
TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT, REGULAR TROOPS
297,494
South Korea: 3,600 peak – 1,200 current (5/07; deployed 5/03)
Romania: 730 peak – 405 current (5/07; deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 troops – 300 current (2/07)
El Salvador: 380 troops (2/07) (deployed 08/03)
Czech Republic: 300 peak--89 current (5/07)
Azerbaijan: 250 troops (2/07)
Latvia: 136 peak--125 current (2/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 180 peak--100 current (2/07)(deployed 8/03)
Albania: 120 troops (2/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak--53 current (2/07)
Slovakia: 110 troops (2/07) (deployed 8/03)
Armenia: 46 current (2/07; deployed 1/05)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops (2/07; deployed 6/05)
Estonia: 35 current (2/07; deployed 6/05)
Macedonia: 33 troops (2/07)(deployed 7/03)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (2/07)(deployed 9/03)
Moldova: 24 peak--12 current (2/07)(deployed 9/03)
Bulgaria : 485 peak--155 current (2/07)(deployed 5/03)
TOTAL CURRENT DEPLOYMENT AS OF JUNE 2007
175,866 Regular Troops
~182,000 Private military contractors (118,000 Iraqi, 43,000 Other, 21,000 US)


About 182K private MILITARY contractors. They state only 21K US troops, but that doesn't mean the Iraqi contractors weren't hired by Halliburton/Blackwater.

These corporations are running a private covert war away from Baghdad. Probably stealing all of the Iraqi oil and lining their pockets...Saying there is a low supply of oil meanwhile they have billions of barrels stockpiled in the White House basement.

What a bunch of cowards. I can't do it anymore. These guys disgust me.

Those numbers don't include the withdrawn troops.

These are just the infantry...and armored divisions.

Coalition of the "Willing" or Forced


Countries with Soldiers on the ground as of June 2007





As of June 2007, there were around 166,000 Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel deployed to the western, northern and central regions of Iraq. The latest figure includes the 28,500 troops sent to Iraq as part of the troop surge plan, which began in early 2007. When completed, the increase will consist of about 17,500 troops deployed to Baghdad, around 4,000 to Anbar Province, 2,200 military police to guard an increasing number of prisoners, and 6,000 - 7,000 support soldiers. An additional 30,000 troops are deployed in the Gulf region.[17] As of June 28, 2007, a total of 3,570 American military personnel (including all branches of the military) had been killed in Iraq: 2,943 in engagements and ambushes (assault rifle and sniper fire; RPG, primitive rocket and mortar attacks; the shooting down of several helicopters and a jet; but mostly roadside bombings) as well as vehicle accidents which occurred as a result of hostile fire. A further 628 were killed in non-hostile incidents including a small number of drownings, illnesses and electrocutions, but mostly vehicle and weapon accidents (a sizeable portion of the latter are believed to have been suicides, but such information is not readily realeased). As of 19 May 2007; at least 61,672 American military personnel have fallen ill, been wounded or injured: 34,650 of these requiring medical evacuation. Four soldiers are currently listed as captured. The Iraq war has caused considerable debate in the United States, with several prominent Senators demanding a withdrawal due to considerable casualties and a lack of progress. The US military itself has encountered some difficulties in sustaining such large deployments, and to this effect extended tours of duty and relaxed restrictions regarding volunteers with a criminal history under the so-called Moral Waiver. Both of these changes are expected to increase the probability of violence against Iraqi non-combatants.




Operation 'Iraqi' Freedom official website


BAGHDAD — Hundreds of Soldiers became citizens of the country they risk their lives for, while others decided to extend their time in service to continue the fight against terrorism.

The U.S. Army conducted a naturalization and re-enlistment ceremony at Camp Victory on Wednesday.

Over 160 Soldiers became U.S. citizens at Camp Victory’s Al Faw Palace, while 600 servicemembers serving around IraqAmerica’s 231st birthday. re-enlisted on

Becoming a U.S. citizen is a life-long dream come true for the newly naturalized Soldiers.

“I always wanted to become one ever since I was a little girl,” said Pfc. Kellin Varela, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. “So I decided to do it when I joined the service.“



Many soldiers (poor minority) only join so they can become US citizens. What was that about no amnesty? It seems the Bushies have already done so in the military. The homefront is next, its only logical. Forget the border fence, hello NAU. Then the NAU unites with the EU, and then there's the AfU, an AsU...We're screwed.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by biggie smalls]

mod edit, resize images

[edit on 9-7-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Wow, did you ever mess up the page view. haha. I've done that by accident too.


quote biggie
Does that mean there aren't over 200K contract killers


So were working on supposition?

I've asked about the breakdown of job types in the count of 180,000. Noboby has given an answer except BH who says that nobody knows, and indicates she doesn't believe they are building contractors.

So I guess were all working on suppositions.

Seems to me like the info is probably out there somewhere. 180,000 - 200,000 "merc's" seems pretty high since there aren't even that many troops in Iraq.

So I'm looking for some clarification/breakdown on these numbers in an effort to "deny ignorance" for myself instead of working from preconcieved notions or suppositions.

It looks like the article say they got the info from the LA times.

I found the LA Times article. It says they got the Feb. census from a Freedom of Information Act request. Unfortunatly they didn't publish the material.

They do list the major contractors, their discription, and their number of employees. Unfortunatly this only totals around 80,000 by my count and it doesn't say if they are in Iraq. But at least we have some info instead of supposition.


Company: Kulak Construction Co. Description: Based in Turkey, supplies construction workers to U.S. bases Total employees: 30,301

Company: KBR Description: Based in Houston, supplies logistics support to U.S. troops Total employees: 15,336

Company: Prime Projects International Description: Based in Dubai, supplies labor for logistics support Total employees: 10,560

Company: L-3 Communications Description: Based in New York, provides translators and other services Total employees: 5,886

Company: Gulf Catering Co. Description: Based in Saudi Arabia, provides kitchen services to U.S. troops Total employees: 4,002

Company: 77 Construction Description: Based in Irbil, Iraq, provides logistics support to troops Total employees: 3,219

Company: ECC Description: Based in Burlingame, Calif, works on reconstruction projects Total employees: 2,390

Company: Serka Group Description: Based in Turkey, supplies logistics support to U.S. bases Total employees: 2,250

Company: IPBD Ltd. Description: Based in England, supplies labor, laundry services and other support Total employees: 2,164



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join