SLATE BASHES CONTRACTORS: CONTRACTOR RESPONDS

Last week, there was an article posted to the on-line magazine Slate that purported to explain why civilian military contractors posed a variety of problems in Iraq. I just heard from a student of mine who is currently -- wait for it -- a civilian contractor in Iraq (although he tells me he has yet to protect anyone famous.) Today he emailed me his reactions to the Slate article. (He took the War and Media class from me, but Ithink his response is less about finding subtle biases and more about a straight up dispute of the facts.) With his permission, here it is, with just typos corrected

Hi Professor,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. I was looking at
Slate.com today and saw Mr. Carter's article "Hired
Guns". I'm not sure if you've read it. But basically
he writes a sensational article about private military
contractors running black operations, offensive combat
operations, and not following any rules of engagement.
I thought it might be helpful to you and your
students if I sent a short first person account of
what security specialists like myself are doing here in
Iraq.

First and foremost we follow Rules of Engagement set down
by the US military. Contractors are not authorized or
encouraged to actively engage enemy forces in combat.
Our jobs are to protect the lives, equipment, and
living/job sites of the personnel or corporation that
has hired us. We are highly skilled knowledgeable
security guards.

Secondly Mr Carter states that the Coalition
Provisional Authority has stated contractors and
foreign personnel will not be subject to Iraqi
criminal processes. He believes this allows
contractors to act above the law and that is a
problem. He does not explain that no US military or
civilian personnel will be tried by that authority.
If he had done a little more research he would have
discovered that contractors such as Blackwater
Security work for Dept of Defense(DOD) and carry US
DOD Identification Cards. In turn they are subject to
certain rules and oversight by military government
authorities.

Thirdly contractors do work outside normal military
hierarchy but are always accountable to normal
military chains of command. PMC do make contacts and
work with military units and government agencies.
Such agencies include the Iraqi Civil Defense Corp,
Local police Stations in area of operations, and local
civil governments. But these relationship are part of
doing business in Iraq. ICDC guard many of the camps
US companies live and work in. Local Police and Civil
Government need to be informed about possible
employment for their townspeople in these camps.
During the destruction of enemy munitions the local
community need to be informed about safety information
and time tables of these explosions.(Most blows at
these Ammo dumps are now topping 200 tons a day.)
Working with the Coalition, friendly Iraqi agencies
and local communities help with the overall mission
success in Iraq.

I would like to pick apart every line of Mr Carter's
Article and show how he has twisted the facts but I
have a job to do. There are problems on the ground
in Iraq between military units and civilian
contractors. But there is also alot of cooperation
and support between both sides. (My team for example
had to stop and assist a US army unit at an accident
scene. The unit in question did not have the
resources on hand to call in a medevac for their
injured and dead. We established a landing zone,
called in medevac, and beefed up security at the
scene.)

Now is not the time for negative articles taking away
from the efforts of so many people here in Iraq.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilians are risking
life and limb to finish what we started here. What is
needed is support from the American people. Let's do
the right thing. Let's finish what we started and
give the Iraqi people a future they deserve.

Please read through this and let me know any changes
you think I should make. Instead of using my name use
my pseudonym. D.P. Chauncey

Well, I'm not sure what I think of that pseudonym, as pseudonyms go. But I think the rest of it can stand
just fine.

Update: Through one of those odd quirks of coincidence, Captain Ed has tonight posted a long email from a contractor wanting to explain and describe the activities he's engaged in over in Iraq. Well worth a read, and although it isn't explicitly an answer to the media coverage, and this email is, it manages to accomplish the same goal.

Comments

[Athena]

That's a great post, very insightful.

My uncle is doing contract work in Iraq and my cousin is head of security for the whole country for a rather large firm. I hope I can get the chance to speak with them soon and get their perspectives.

And perhaps post their replies...

[AST]

It seems to me that the alternative to using the National Guard and these contractors would be to increase the size of our standing armies, which, in the long run would probably cost far more.

Also, I didn't see anywhere in the Slate piece about the activities of the UN and the innumerable NGOs that would be the alternative if Kerry were president. These groups would cut and run at the first sign of violence, and they seem to be more interested in keeping the locals dependent on them. This sounds a lot more like the BIA than the Pentagon; and a lot more like that Palestinian Authority than the Israelis.