Private security aren’t mercenaries
There are several definitions of a mercenary.
At Wikipedia, “the generic definition of a mercenary is a soldier who fights or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national, or political considerations.” For The Free Dictionary, a mercenary is “A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.” Merriam Webster Online says that a mercenary is “one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service.”
So, based on these three definitions, we can safely say that a mercenary is “one who is hired to fight for a foreign army, usually without regard to political or national ideology. He doesn’t care who wins, as long as he gets paid.” Got it.
If that is the common, accepted definition of a mercenary, then why do the liberals continue to lump anyone other than a U.S. military troop, currently working in Iraq who carriers a weapon, into that category?
Let’s face it, traveling in Iraq is extremely dangerous. U.S. forces, KBR, private companies both foreign and Iraqi, various Iraqi and foreign government agencies, Iraqi and foreign non-governmental agencies, journalists, etc. all travel throughout Iraq accompanied by guys with guns - otherwise known as contract security. They have to. If not, they present a choice target for insurgents, terrorists, bandits, and the like. Are all those “guys with guns” who are protecting those convoys mercenaries? Of course not - and what idiot would suggest such a thing? Apparently, lots of them.
Calling every contract security person in Iraq a “mercenary” is ridiculous. That’s like saying the armed security guard at your local bank is a mercenary, or perhaps the uniformed and armed civilians who check identification at the local Air Force base, or maybe even the armed security guard patrolling the car dealership parking lot at night. Come to think of it, that would make those big bruisers that protect limousine-liberal celebrities “mercenaries”.
At the FOB I was at, we had a contract security company bolstering the defenses of the base. Their management was nearly all U.S. citizens or ex-pats from a couple of other Western Countries, but nearly all their guards were local, vetted Iraqis. Per Multi-National Forces - Iraq, they had many restrictions as to what kinds of weapons they could carry, what types of ammunition they could use, and how they could use those weapons. They were not allowed to conduct any offensive actions - only defensive. Meaning, they weren’t allowed to shoot unless they were shot at, and then they weren’t allowed to conduct any pursuits.
If you look at the definition, and then the reality, it’s pretty apparent that these folks aren’t mercenaries. Let’s examine those two:
- Definition - “A mercenary is someone who fights for a foreign army.” Reality - Many of these contract security personnel are U.S. citizens, or citizens of countries that are part of the Coalition. So, if they are working for the U.S. government or one of its allies, they don’t fit the definition, do they? If they are Iraqi citizens, and they are protecting assets and facilities in Iraq, they still don’t meet the definition.
- Definition - “Fights or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national, or political considerations.” Reality - I can’t look into the mind of everyone, from every nation, who works security in Iraq. However, the majority of contract security guys I talked to supported the U.S.’s efforts in Iraq and saw what they were doing as an integral part of the overall mission. Sure, they were there to make money, but everyone wants to be paid for their work - including us soldiers.
Despite everything I’ve described, if you read the liberal and socialist blogs and websites, you will be bombarded with the “mercenary” label and the derision they throw at people in that line of work - to the point that if a contract security person is killed, they discount their deaths.
To illustrate my point: From the Socialist Worker Online, describing the four contract security personnel brutalized in Fallujah in April 2004, “The four men killed in Fallujah last week were not ‘civilian contractors’ helping Iraqis. They were mercenaries, former members of the US Navy Seal special forces, acting as hired guns in Iraq. They deserve no sympathy from anyone.” (emphasis mine)
One point I fully acknowledge is that there needs to be greater oversight of the private security companies. Some of them poorly vet their employees and fail to report indiscretions to the proper authorities. Some companies have even been known to hide employees with serious charges against them, or move them out of the country to where they couldn’t be prosecuted. If there is a real criticism of private security companies in Iraq, it is that one. I would fully support an international set of rules, or greater U.S. legal review of the companies that the U.S. taxpayer is paying for in Iraq, to ensure that if there are illegal actions, or actions that would be considered illegal if a U.S. soldier committed them, then those personnel must be prosecuted to the full extent of U.S., Iraqi, or international law.
Update - This post, at NewsBusters, was the post that originally got me going on this rant, and I forgot to mention it.
Category :
Uncategorized 
Tags :
Similar Posts:
- Blackwater giving the private security business a bad name
- Blackwater may be out, but the security business continues to flourish
- Hillary says we should “share” our prosperity
- Contractors, media now under UCMJ
- Iraq’s economy is booming
- Turks rally against radical Islam
- Iraq is the main effort in the global war on terrorism
- Obama used Blackwater for his own security?
- Peggy Noonan expresses many conservatives’ feelings
- More bad news for the anti-war left
I admit 100% that I’m not the brightest bulb but in reading various comments, engaging in arguments, I’ve learned one thing….the libs only use big words to make themselves look more educated!