Finally someone is asking questions about mercs.

[Underseer]

Someone in congress that is.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...rice/gao.html\

Washington - US Rep. David Price (NC-04) is taking the lead in the search for answers to the disturbing questions raised in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.



Price, a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Legislative branch, is asking the General Accounting Office (GAO) to pursue an independent, non-partisan investigation into the Department of Defense's increased reliance on private contractors to carry out security duties. Both military and civilian personnel have been implicated in the inquiry surrounding the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.



Price has drafted the letter and teamed up with US Reps. Bud Cramer (AL) John Spratt (SC), and Henry Waxman (CA) to circulate it among colleagues for additional support. Just released early this afternoon, he has gathered 35 co-signers already.



The text of the letter follows:



Dear Comptroller Walker:



We are writing to request that the GAO investigate the use of Private Military Firms (PMFs) by the Department of Defense and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq.



The appalling abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison, which apparently involved a number of civilians working under government contract, has alerted us to a more general problem related to the widespread use of civilians to perform a variety of essential tasks in Iraq. Through contracts and subcontracts, the CPA has relied on PMFs to perform security duties that were previously carried out by US military personnel, including logistical support, interrogation of prisoners, convoy security, guarding vital facilities and personnel, and training Iraqi army and police forces. The use of PMFs to perform these duties raises a number of serious concerns.



We urge you to carefully perform a comprehensive review of the use of PMFs in Iraq for security activities, including but not limited to:



· The scope and extent to which PMFs are being used in Iraq and how this utilization of PMFs compares with previous conflicts.



· The cost and effectiveness of using civilian workers instead of military personnel for activities broadly defined as related to security;



· Whether DoD budgeting and accounting processes enable the government to predict and track the actual cost of PMFs and the services they provide;



· The screening process required for PMF personnel;



· The statutory authority under which DoD and the CPA have contracted with PMFs to perform security functions, in some cases without security clearance, in Iraq;



· The laws and code of conduct that govern the activities of PMF personnel, including the extent to which PMFs are performing tasks that would be illegal or improper for military personnel;



· Whether the use of PMFs has compromised the military chain of command;

· The extent to which PMFs are involved in security and other “mission critical” activities that would leave our mission in Iraq vulnerable if PMFs were unable or unwilling to continue to perform the duties under their contracts;



· Whether the comparatively higher salaries of PMF personnel are affecting retention or morale among our armed forces;



· The propriety of using humanitarian funds from the Development Fund for Iraq to pay for activities of PMFs.



We have an obligation to our troops and to the people of the United States and Iraq to ensure that any civilians engaged to perform security services in support of the United States mission in Iraq are acting appropriately and are effectively contributing to that mission. We strongly urge you to expedite an investigation in this area and encourage you to contact us for any additional clarification of our concerns. We look forward to your response.



Sincerely,





DAVID PRICE JOHN SPRATT

Member of Congress Member of Congress





HENRY WAXMAN BUD CRAMER

Member of Congress Member of Congress

I don't consider this a partisan issue, and I hope it doesn't turn out to be, but I'm really uncomfortable with this whole business about privatizing the military. I've been bugged about it since long before 9/11 when the Bush administration started privatizing the military.

For one thing, I am not convinced a private firm can do this stuff more cheaply or better than our own military personnel can. The other thing is that I don't know about the loyalties of mercenaries: a soldier's first duty is to America while a mercenary has to divide such loyalties with the corporation furnishing his paycheck. This also creates a big moral grey area such as we're seeing in the Abu Ghraib crisis. For instance we still don't know if we can prosecute the mercenary that ***** that Iraqi boy. Lastly, I think this business of privatizing the military is a slap in the face of the competence and abilities of our military personnel.

[WebDragon]

I've only recently heard of the mercs being used along side the military. From what I understood, they're only used in 'time of need' i.e. when they're really short on manpower. In fact I thought that this is the first time in recent history that the US military has done this. Is that accurate? or have they been employed more regularly in the past?

[Underseer]

I've only recently heard of the mercs being used along side the military. From what I understood, they're only used in 'time of need' i.e. when they're really short on manpower. In fact I thought that this is the first time in recent history that the US military has done this. Is that accurate? or have they been employed more regularly in the past?

At the very beginning of this administration (well before 9/11), they started using private firms to handle support roles the military used to perform for itself: mid-air refuelling, food preparation, that sort of thing. Little by little, the Bush administration has been privatizing more and more of our military.

For instance, Abu Ghraib had two different private contractors working there: one which assisted in translation, and another which assisted in intelligence gathering and interrogation. The one involved with intelligence is accused of giving the order to "soften up" the prisoners prior to interrogation.

[ScanMan]

At the very beginning of this administration (well before 9/11), they started using private firms to handle support roles the military used to perform for itself: mid-air refuelling, food preparation, that sort of thing. Little by little, the Bush administration has been privatizing more and more of our military.

For instance, Abu Ghraib had two different private contractors working there: one which assisted in translation, and another which assisted in intelligence gathering and interrogation. The one involved with intelligence is accused of giving the order to "soften up" the prisoners prior to interrogation.

I have to agree with you on this point.

Let's see this makes...ummm....(pulls out calculator)...ONE time that I've agreed with you.

I've got no problem with support services being bid out on competitive contract....okay, MAYBE the mid air refueling, but food prep and that sort of thing is okay.

Translation services? No problem there, I can understand that the military would find itself short of Arabic and whatever else translator it needed over there.

Interrogation? Okay, BIG red flag here...this is a problem.

When I was an Army commo tech part of my job involved working with crypto equipment, so I got to be "interrogated" about twice yearly as part of my clearance. We were never subjected to physical abuse, but let me tell you from personal experience that a sucessful interrogator needs to gain the trust of the subject.

The ones who would yell and scream and make us "do stuff" got fed a line of crap that they didn't know was crap, but it sounded good so they were satisfied. Humiliation does not REDUCE resistance to interrogation, it INCREASES resistance.

The successful interrogators would put you on a sleep deprivation and time dislocation cycle and then just talk to you in a friendly, brotherly way. It was always shocking to watch the tapes afterwards and see what you said without realizing you were saying anything.

Even after a few "interrogations" it was still pretty easy for the pros to crack us, even when we knew what to expect. If you put a person on a controlled eating and waking schedule with erratic days and nights, after about 4 days they become very compliant.

Interrogation requires real pros to control the cycle from beginning to end, not contractors letting "weekend warrior" MP's handle the "softening up" of subjects.

[Underseer]

Like I said, I don't consider this a partisan issue.

Mid-air refuelling crews? You're right that there is no issue of divided loyalties here, but there is still a matter of cost. Mid air refuelling requires skilled and specialized people (pilots, boom operator, etc.). In the civilan world, skilled and specialized people cost you more money. If the skilled and specialized person is expected to also risk his or her life in a potential war zone, the pay necessary to induce someone to work for a civilian firm goes way up.

By contrast, our military routinely pays people crap for highly specialized skills, mostly because they know they can rely on people's patriotism. I have a hard time believing that over time, an air refuelling private firm can perform the same service as cheaply as the military can.

Cooks? OK, those skills are definitely not as specialized, the skills are certainly not all that rare, and there's not much issue with divided loyalties. But you're still asking cooks to work in potential war zones. Just look at what's been happening to foreigners in Iraq. With civilians, danger pay is often a lot steeper than it is with military folk (especially after Bush cut danger pay for the military). You have to pay civilians a lot more to get them to risk their lives than you do soldiers.

I'm sure there are more functions that have been privatized that I haven't read about yet. This administration seems really gung-ho about privatizing the military, and it all just seems a slap in the face to the competence of the military, a bad financial move, and a potentially dumb security choice.

I mean we've all heard about ex-military mercenaries in Iraq making in one or two months what the soldiers are earning in a year. What does that do to morale in war time?

Oh yeah, and the interrogation.



If anything good comes from this Abu Ghraib nonsense, I hope more light is cast on the increasing use of mercenaries. I don't like this trend at all.