And of course the New York Times has to say something about PSC’s and the SOFA. This editorial comes packed with ill informed opinion, it is insulting, it disrespects the sacrifice made by PSC’s in defense of the client, and makes no mention as to the repercussions of not protecting PSC’s in Iraq. Typical of the NYT. As for a a counter point, I recommend Michael Cohen’s reply to this editorial on his blog called Democracy Arsenal.
I like the accountability part, but the attacks are not necessary and show a complete ignorance of the dynamics. ‘Spray and pray’ or ‘trigger happy’? How about ‘survival’ and ‘protecting the client with lethal force when necessare, when in a war zone’? Obviously the author of this editorial feels that non-lethal weapons or no weapons at all are the best tools for protecting someone in a war zone?
For the record, weapons and lethal force are a fact of life in a war zone. And those that are tasked with using those weapons, and implementing lethal force when necessary, have a huge responsibility that is not taken lightly. That is how I felt, and ‘spray and pray’ or ‘trigger happy’ were not words used within my lexicon. Nor would any of my peers or companies have any respect for me if they were.
Of course you will get those that might not make the grade, but you find those types both in the military and the PSC industry. And for those individuals, I say deal with them properly and apply the laws of the state they are working for. Like the soldier, the PSC is a tool of the state, and a representative of the state. We should have the protections of the state, just like the soldier has. UCMJ can and should be enforced with PSC’s, and why it isn’t shows that the client really doesn’t want to put the effort into that kind of protection. Although we can argue that we are covered by UCMJ, but still, the client should be making this distinction with a well thought out SOFA agreement and the proper regulation of this industry.
We are a tool of the client, and if there is any blame at all, it should be on how the client uses that tool. And to me, the client should be dedicating the necessary resources to properly regulate our industry. The companies cannot be expected to police themselves, and the client must be involved with quality control. I do not believe in over regulation though, and we should not hinder the free market forces that can enhance a company. But throwing PSC’s at the mercy of Iraqi Law with an ill thought out SOFA, without any consideration for how that will impact the PSC industry and the overall war effort, is akin to breaking rocks and cement with your sword and thinking that is a good use for that weapon/tool. -Mudeer
——————————————————————
The New York Times
December 3, 2008
Editorial
At Least Some Accountability
American forces in Iraq have relied far too heavily on private security contractors who have operated with no real legal accountability. The trigger-happy tactics of these armies for hire have alienated Iraqis. The fact that they have been out of reach of Iraqi law has been an especially bitter pill to swallow.
For some of those contractors, that get-out-of-jail-free card is now being withdrawn. A new agreement with the Iraqi government that allows American troops to remain in Iraq stipulates that contractors working for the Pentagon who commit crimes will be subject to prosecution in Iraqi courts.
