posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 05:07 PM
Does anyone out there doubt that the influx of 'private security contractors' in Iraq is the DoD's answer to the Geneva Convention violating nature
of urban combat? The U.S. has seen Israel's difficulties in executing (pardon the word) policy against Palestinians using the IDF. As soon as you
send soldiers to fight in urban combat, violation of Geneva Convention rules of war is inevitable as a result of the vastly different nature of urban
guerrilla combat today versus the nature of urban combat back in WWII. You immediately suffer the a**hole effect in an effort to fight effectively in
Back then, the goal was to repel an occupying army while maintaining the safety of the occupied civilians. Now, we are the occupying force and we're
trying to fight against the occupied civilians. Funny, but I think the Germans were lambasted for their war crimes with respect to concentration
camps more than their method of urban combat. Now the story is different and the U.S. is expected to 'behave itself' as it engages in similar forms
of combat. Is it all that surprising that we are striving to minimize the a**hole effect of occupation by utilizing soldiers who don't look so
obviously American? That's a big reason for the 'coalition'...to make this war seem less American and more global.
I, personally, believe that these 'contractors' are simply a result of trying to be successful in Iraq while minimizing the appearance of
inpropriety. Heck, the U.S. has had SOF dress civilian for years to improve intelligence gathering and operational capabilities. Why not extend that
philosophy by having 'civilians' do your dirty work?