Baghdad Cowboys

Blackwater, a private security firm operating primarily in Iraq, has apparently lost its license in Iraq. Following the attempted road bombing of a Blackwater seven SUV convoy carrying State Department officials, eight Iraqi civilians were killed in a shootout.

While Blackwater gets most of the bad press, they have only approximately 1,000 of the estimated 25,000 private security personnel pretty much roaming Iraq wherever they wish to go, without coordination with either U.S. or Iraqi forces and exempt from both U.S. and Iraqi law.

Despite numerous similar incidents, no private security contractor employee has ever been arrested for anything.

Sooo...it would appear that we are responsible for at least part of Iraqi lawlessness and instability. Great. I am really beginning to wonder if there is ANYTHING this administration can get right?

Privatizing security for U.S. government and even high-ranking U.S. military personnel was worse than dumb. While we are trying to enlist a patriotic Iraqi police force and Army, we are protecting our own VIPs with hired guns. And, no one at the White House gets it, because they think EVERYTHING should be privatized. Like what's democracy all about, if its not the right to profit?

It's time for the Administration idiots to rein in the other set of idiots they've unleashed on the Iraqis...the Baghdad Cowboys. Maybe Bush can hire them to protect the ranch in retirement and save the American taxpayer the expense of a Secret Service detail for life.

If I were Defense Secretary Gates, I would stop all privatization of security for U.S. military personnel immediately. Here's the simple rule: All U.S. military personnel shall be protected by U.S. military personnel...period. If the military can't protect its own people, what makes them think they can bring stability to Iraq? If the military doesn't have adequate numbers of trained people to do this...get them NOW and/or start getting Generals who will do so.

The same principle applies to ALL U.S. government employees in Iraq. Before the American military embarks on ANY strategy for the Iraqis, they need to first and foremost fulfill the security needs of our own personnel. Otherwise, pack it up and get out of town. Geez! Doesn't GW watch Clint Eastwood films? Didn't Clint make a series of films about teaching the town folk about standing together against bad guys and self-reliance? It's the Bad Guys who bring in the hired guns...not the Good Guys!

As we phase out privatized security, it is time to immediately bring these people under control. I would suggest the UCMJ initially and then, perhaps after one year, Iraqi law. And, since we are technically still official "occupiers" of Iraq (in terms of international law), I would suggest that the U.S. military has sole responsibility for the coordination of movement and security for ALL U.S. citizens in-country, civilian or otherwise. Nobody flies in with private security protection and does "deals" on their own.

How stupid can these people be?

From a different perspective, the fact that the Iraqi central government has seized on this latest insanity to crack down on American private security firms may be an indication of "push-back" in light of my comments above on partition. Sort of: "You want to go around us in dealing with the provinces? OK, see how you like it when we start prosecuting your own cowboys?"

Only a guy that hid from the Vietnam War in the Air National Guard and one who avoided military service with deferment after deferment would approve such a system. It's the "money can do anything," philosophy. "Need an Army, hire them." Or, "you can't trust anyone not in the top tax bracket." And these are the guys who won the last election based on PATRIOTISM! Hahahahaha.

Note: Regime change and bringing the fruits of democracy to the Iraqi people are two of the very, very few remaining reasons for invading Iraq, which have yet to be proven false. Small glitch. Although we apparently expected to be greeted in the streets with flowers by democracy hungry Iraqis, we did not think, from the beginning, they could be trusted enough to prepare meals for our troops, do the laundry, etc., etc. Sooo...we "privatized" support functions. Today, including the private security forces, these support people outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq (approximately 185,000 to 160,000). So..."withdrawal" means pulling out over a quarter of a million people. Aside from the logistics involved in getting these people out, withdrawal means terminating hundreds of contracts, many of which were "no bid" awards and alienating the "vested interests." If war is hell, for the many; it is also profitable for the few.