|
|
One of the bereaved recently had part of her story told on CNN:
As a parent I understand her grief. But, frankly, I have little sympathy for the wives and mothers of these dead men. Let us be frank. These men were paid very well to go to a very dangerous place. They knew what they were getting into. They were mercenaries, in it for either money, adventure, or some combination of the two. They could have left Blackwater any time. The families of these latter-day condottieri are upset at the deaths of their loved ones? Tough shit. They were paid to sling guns in a war zone. There is no glory in mercenary work; battle glory is one of the few, if arguably dubious, perks reserved for regular military forces in the service of the nation. Many thousands of servicemen toil and fight daily for a fraction of the pay, and with far less control over their immediate fates. My sympathies lie with them. Scott Helvenston left the Navy, then left a career in Hollywood for Blackwater. He—and his colleagues—had options, and chose their fateful stint as soldiers of fortune with both eyes open. Let their families mourn if they will, but I cannot. These men knew the terms of the game and rolled the dice anyway, not for God or Country, but for their own personal gain. They played with fire and lost.
Comments:
7 Comments posted on "Blackwater Blues"
Angry_Flower on October 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 AM #
True, I agree 100 percent, but I do not agree with the fact that these guys are being rung through the washer by the media. I mean who else is going to offer the kind of services these guys do? and If I were in their shoes I would shoot first and ask questions later as well. Let God sort the rest out!
The Cubelodyte on October 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 PM #
Who else is going to offer security for our diplomatic personnel and other in-theater assets? You’re kidding me, right? That role should be given to the military. If some corporation wants to hire Blackwater to protect their people or facilities, fine; go nuts. But using mercenaries to carry out government work is bad news, my friend.
Angry_Flower on October 4th, 2007 at 2:07 PM #
here’s the rub the people who are posing these threats do not work within the confines of the Geneva convention, but our military is expected to, and in fact is being highly scrutinized by that standard. Private contractors, or (mercenaries if it pleases you) are not bound by the Geneva convention and their tactics whatever they may be are necessary to provide the needed protection. Just look at their track versus the military and say a standard convoy. These guys are not front line grunts . They are highly specialized, highly trained security specialists.
The Cubelodyte on October 4th, 2007 at 4:16 PM #
And where do you suppose these fellows got all that highly specialized training? Does ITT Tech offer small arms and unarmed combat curricula? I think you’ll find most or all these Blackwater guys hail from elite military units, SEALs, SpecFor, etc. In any case the fact remains that Blackwater and its ilk are often paid agents of the government, despite their technical non-governmental status, so any misdeeds they commit in our service are going to generate blowback against America. Just because Haji al-Hashishim has no problem blowing up a bus full of kids doesn’t mean we should necessarily be sanguine about employing similar indiscriminate tactics. If we really need a bunch of badass ninja-commando-assassin-warrior-snipers to fight our enemies then we should be raising taxes to spend more money to train our forces up, forces under direct government control, not like private soldiers-for-hire, who have less accountability and can always just pack up and leave when they feel like it, leaving us in the lurch.
John on October 4th, 2007 at 8:54 PM #
Angry_Flower, you may expect the US military to “work within the confines of the Geneva convention” but they are plainly not doing so. If Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib don’t convince you of this, it was revealed only today that the Justice Department have secretly endorsed torture for months now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html
The_Angry_Flower on October 5th, 2007 at 9:28 AM #
Look if you could just take off your Liberal Demagoggles for just a moment you would see again the issue is still the Geneva Convention. The bus full of kids argument you are using is a fallacious distraction because nobody here thinks they are blowing up a bus full of kids, but it is possible innocents are getting killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We can spend all the money we want on training soldiers, but in the end it won’t make a different if they are still bound by the rules of engagement and the laws of war. On the flip side these private contractors are at an even greater risk because if they are caught or kidnapped they are not offered any protections under the Geneva conventions.
The Cubelodyte on October 5th, 2007 at 4:16 PM #
Liberal Schmiberal. When it comes to matters of national security I’m no bleeding-heart hippie; I just think this administration is fucking things up left and right. And if you think the Delta Force-type and CIA black ops guys we insert way deep into bad and scary places are bound by overly constrictive rules of engagement, you should probably rethink that. The point I’m trying to make (in our little debate here, not the original post) is that history shows time and time again that mercenaries are either bad news or ultimately unreliable. As Napoleon said: “A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him.” I think that’s still true. A nation needs to use an army of committed soldiers, not just some guys—however well trained—who show up only because they’re paid. It’s not like Blackwater is doing this work pro bono, after all. |
A sideshow to the