State Dept. planning to field a small army in Iraq

State Dept. planning to field a small army in Iraq

www.mcclatchydc.com

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

After reading this report, and taking a look at everything that is going on, this does not sit well in my mind. The military being there in this conflict, is not at issue, but the plans of the state department I feel is over reaching their bounds legally. To leave a civillian army in place of the military under the guise of nation building just seems like a bad idea. It reminds me of days gone by, where the military would come in, take over, then the civillian population would follow and colonize the place. History has shown this to be true on one point or another. I do not believe that it will sit well with the Iraqi people either, as it too will not bode well for the future. Too many indications from the current and past indicate this. Iraq, has been taken over multiple times in the past and with a people where past hurts are often remembered for a long time. The question also must be asked, what will happen if there is a renewed insurgency when the military leaves out, what will happen to the civillian army that is there, neither prepared or trained to deal with such. Are more people going to die, or slaughtered? Iran will not accpet such, nor is it believed that many of the other Islamic countries will, as it will only prove what they have been thinking all along, and was badly mistated by the former President Bush, that this was a crusade, and not to help stabalize the country.

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

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
To leave a civillian army in place of the military under the guise of nation building just seems like a bad idea. It reminds me of days gone by, where the military would come in, take over

The US has maintained a large private contractor force in Iraq since after the initial invasion. It's called shock and awe; the US military crushed Iraqi defense and infrastructure and US-lead private corporations moved in to take over the country with mercenary forces to protect them, all paid for by the American taxpayer.

Hell, the amount of known American paid mercenaries in Iraq outnumbered troops at the climax of the occupation. Know the best thing about American paid mercenaries? They have no obligation or desire to disclose any of their activities under the Freedom of Information Act, leaving the question of what 100,000+ private military contractors were really doing in Iraq. Obviously the American PMCs in Afghanistan are there to harvest opium for the CIA, but Iraq is a different story.

Well, they seem to have thought of everything when it comes to justifying a private army. I wonder what company(/ies?) will be hired to do the job. It better not be XE, for one.

My opinion is, eeh, what the hell. I'm not automatically opposed to the use of mercenaries - if used correctly and responsibly. They've justified the use of those mercs - and I can live with their justification. But the mercs need to be very strictly regulated - they need to answer for any future mistakes and/or crimes they commit.

Because if they don't, not only will it turn Iraq for the worse again. It will also continue to paint a pretty grim picture of America, and possibly deepen the roots and support for terrorism against the same.

So, by all means, go ahead, but use them responsibly, and think of the consequences.

I've never actually seen official numbers of the PMCs in Iraq, so I am skeptical. Besides that, the OP is effectively what Rome did to Iberia. We've been doing this actually for some time now, both with US civilians and non-US civilians. When Rome conquered Iberia, they allowed the soldiers to take a piece of land for themselves and settle. new farms and wineries went up and Iberia became a privately-owned land mass of the Roman Army. Some Roman soldiers stole land, while others were angry and used the displaced people to further their own political gains. In the end everyone sorta ended up happy. Iberia became like a second Italy, and one of the last Roman strongholds.

Unfortunately the US is not as honorable as Rome. And it has proven this quite a number of times. While the US has had success in turning most of the middle east into its own version of the Roman story of Iberia, using Israel as essentially its own version of Roman Sagunto, the US is doing it far less morally sound than Rome was, and so unless they fix themselves, this is going to be our Punic Wars, ultimately ending with some city's total burning and destruction.