Is Blackwater Proper?

[TheEgoist]

Blackwater have been featured in the news the past week. What do you believe is the proper Objectivist position on private enforcement agencies such as Blackwater, who basically work as Quasi-Military in places like Iraq? Does this violate the concept that only a Government may act in forceful retaliation, and if so what about things like Security Guards and Rent-A-Cops?

[DarkWaters]

Blackwater have been featured in the news the past week. What do you believe is the proper Objectivist position on private enforcement agencies such as Blackwater, who basically work as Quasi-Military in places like Iraq? Does this violate the concept that only a Government may act in forceful retaliation, and if so what about things like Security Guards and Rent-A-Cops?

I would like to leave discussion of Blackwater USA aside for the moment, since I am presently uncertain of the details of their activities in Iraq.

With regards to a private security firm, I think that there are circumstances where they are legitimate in an ideal Capitalist society. Specifically, in situations where an individual wishes to protect some asset in the event that a government run police department is unable to respond in time. However, all of these security firms should operate under the premise that they cannot initiate force and that the government remains the final arbiter of force. In other words, such firms should not be permitted to act in place of the government or in opposition to the government.

[intellectualammo]

Blackwater have been featured in the news the past week. What do you believe is the proper Objectivist position on private enforcement agencies such as Blackwater, who basically work as Quasi-Military in places like Iraq? Does this violate the concept that only a Government may act in forceful retaliation[...]

As far as I understand, the US government has contracted them in Iraq. They were hired to be there by our government.

Edited October 5, 2007 by intellectualammo

[punk]

I would like to leave discussion of Blackwater USA aside for the moment, since I am presently uncertain of the details of their activities in Iraq.

With regards to a private security firm, I think that there are circumstances where they are legitimate in an ideal Capitalist society. Specifically, in situations where an individual wishes to protect some asset in the event that a government run police department is unable to respond in time. However, all of these security firms should operate under the premise that they cannot initiate force and that the government remains the final arbiter of force. In other words, such firms should not be permitted to act in place of the government or in opposition to the government.

The main problem with Blackwater is that they appear to be in some sort of nebulous legal limbo regarding judicial oversight.

If employees of a private security firm commit a crime there has to be some body capable of holding them accountable.

At present it appears that neither the Iraqi government, or the US government (through either military or civilian courts) is able to hold Blackwater employees to any sort of rule of law.

[intellectualammo]

At present it appears that neither the Iraqi government, or the US government (through either military or civilian courts) is able to hold Blackwater employees to any sort of rule of law.

From the Wiki:

Blackwater is currently the largest of the U.S. State Department's three private security contractors.^[7] At least 90% of its revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.^[8] Missions conducted by Blackwater Security Consulting have raised significant controversy both through casualties suffered^[9] and inflicted by their employees.^[10] Blackwater USA is currently contracted by the United States government to provide security services in the Iraq War.^[1] The cost for each Blackwater guard in Iraq, $445,000 per year, has come under fire.^[11]

Security Guards, Bouncers, Bodyguards, Rent-A-Cops all are subsumed under rule of law...

[DarkWaters]

The main problem with Blackwater is that they appear to be in some sort of nebulous legal limbo regarding judicial oversight.

I do not think this is true. Their actions are currently being investigated by the U.S. State Department.

[punk]

I do not think this is true. Their actions are currently being investigated by the U.S. State Department.

But the State Department isn't a law enforcement office.

In fact, it appears the State Department investigation was prompted by the fact that no one seemed to be able to bring Blackwater employees before a court of law of some sort.

The State Department can only cancel Blackwater's contracts. This is entirely different from a law enforcement body bringing criminal charges against particular employees.

[DavidOdden]

The State Department can only cancel Blackwater's contracts. This is entirely different from a law enforcement body bringing criminal charges against particular employees.

The problem is really that they aren't operating in a country with a government and a system of laws. So the problem is with Iraq, not Blackwater -- if you ever need a real live argument against anarchy, just took at Iraq.

[D'kian]

Does this violate the concept that only a Government may act in forceful retaliation, and if so what about things like Security Guards and Rent-A-Cops?

There's a difference between retaliatory force and defensive force.

It is always moral and proper to use force, when necessary in self-defense, in defense of a third party, or even to defend your property. A private security firm is contracted to use defensive force, but not retaliatory force. The guard at your gate can, say, fire on thieves breaking in. But he cannot, and should not, take off after the thieves, arrest them, try them, convict them and jail them (or execute them).

[intellectualammo]

From a New York Times article on the recently released "Immunity Deals Offered to Blackwater Guards":

The immunity deals were an unwelcome surprise at the Justice Department, which was already grappling with the fundamental legal question of whether any prosecutions could take place involving American civilians in Iraq.

Blackwater employees and other civilian contractors cannot be tried in military courts, and it is unclear what American criminal laws might cover criminal acts committed in a war zone. Americans are immune from Iraqi law under a directive signed by the United States occupation authority in 2003 that has not been repealed by the Iraqi Parliament.

and from another news article :

But the Iraqi government, which has conducted its own investigation, concluded that the Blackwater guards fired the only shots in the episode and were completely at fault. A US military investigation also concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.

Edited October 30, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Robert J. Kolker]

Blackwater have been featured in the news the past week. What do you believe is the proper Objectivist position on private enforcement agencies such as Blackwater, who basically work as Quasi-Military in places like Iraq? Does this violate the concept that only a Government may act in forceful retaliation, and if so what about things like Security Guards and Rent-A-Cops?

The government hired Blackwater Inc. to privide security services in Iraq. Blackwater is there because the government put them there. That makes Blackwater an agent of the government as surely as the FBI is an agent of the government.

Bob Kolker

[Strangelove]

While I support what it would mean for Blackwater to be contracted to do work for the government in theory, in practice, I am not sure that the experiment has been a good one.

For a start, the CEO of Blackwater is a fundamentalist Christian who has given a lot of a money to Republican candidates to advance their socially conservative agenda. As I understand it, in return for his loyalty to the cause, Blackwater won many no-bid contracts. In a perfect world, I would expect the contracts to at least require different companies to prove their capabilities, the same way in which Airbus and Boeing had to compete when presenting potential designs for the Joint Strike Fighter.

In addition, as many people have pointed out earlier, since this sort of contracting is fairly new, the legalese has not been brought up to standard yet, so while the regular US Military has a system set up in order to properly maintain discipline and in order to make sure the soldiers are doing what their mission requires, it is unclear whether or not Blackwater is being held to similar standards.

So while I expect the government to get smarter at how it deals with contractors in the future, for now at least, they seem to have some work to do.

[Robert J. Kolker]

In addition, as many people have pointed out earlier, since this sort of contracting is fairly new, the legalese has not been brought up to standard yet, so while the regular US Military has a system set up in order to properly maintain discipline and in order to make sure the soldiers are doing what their mission requires, it is unclear whether or not Blackwater is being held to similar standards.

That is the answer. The government should maintain the same standards of accountability for the mercenary as they do for the regular armed forces. The mercenaries should be used mostly for security work. The regular army is for fighting wars. But the level of accountability should be the same.

Bob Kolker

[intellectualammo]

I do not think this is true. Their actions are currently being investigated by the U.S. State Department.

And I think that what we were talking about, is this case here or part of it, that has just been dismissed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9123101936.html

[Zip]

Why wouldn't Blackwater be "proper"? What does"proper" denote in this context?

Blackwater is providing a service for which the government is paying. How is that any different than a computer programmer selling his time and using his business to fulfil a government contract?

[RussK]

Blackwater is not the only private contracting firm in Iraq; there are multiple who provide services to the military and State Dept. In fact many of these companies provided crucial support during the beginning and later, intense part of the war, fulfilling jobs in specialties where military personnel were lacking. The only problem I have thought about concerning private armies deals with their employment by other governments, especially those who are our enemies.

[Jake_Ellison]

Why wouldn't Blackwater be "proper"? What does"proper" denote in this context?

Blackwater is providing a service for which the government is paying. How is that any different than a computer programmer selling his time and using his business to fulfil a government contract?

Programming computers doesn't involve the use of force. One of the main principles of Capitalism is to restrict the force used by agents of the government. That is done through a carefully crafted framework of laws, checks and balances, and political oversight.

In the case of a computer programmer none of those things are necessary, in the case of a mercenary hired by the government, they all are. And they aren't there now. Another thing that isn't there, or in this thread for that matter, is a convincing argument as to why a mercenary can do a better job than the military. The only one I can think of is precisely that they aren't governed by laws and engagement rules, and that's an argument for changing the laws and rules that govern the military, not for circumventing them.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[2046]

What about letters of marque and reprisal? Would it be proper for the US government to use those to combat Al-Qaeda instead of what it is currently doing?

[Zip]

Programming computers doesn't involve the use of force. One of the main principles of Capitalism is to restrict the force used by agents of the government. That is done through a carefully crafted framework of laws, checks and balances, and political oversight.

In the case of a computer programmer none of those things are necessary, in the case of a mercenary hired by the government, they all are. And they aren't there now. Another thing that isn't there, or in this thread for that matter, is a convincing argument as to why a mercenary can do a better job than the military. The only one I can think of is precisely that they aren't governed by laws and engagement rules, and that's an argument for changing the laws and rules that govern the military, not for circumventing them.

As soon as those men take a government contract they are or should be agents of the state.

To clarify, I'm not arguing about Blackwater specifically, that is a situation that has arisen because the government employing them has NOT ensured that they act as agents of the state as you pointed out.

My question is this, in a nation with a properly constructed Government would it be illegal for Mercenaries to exist?

I can think of at least one reason why in a voluntarily funded government mercenaries might be used... It might be cheaper for the government and therefore the citizens. A standing army is a very expensive thing. To use a mercenary force on an as required basis so as to not have to pay for hundreds of thousands of soldiers sitting around (most of the time) would be effective both in terms of economics and military effectiveness, because the mercenaries would be able to hire out to other places keeping their skills sharp.

Did you know that Blackwater is considered the subject matter expert in close protection? I'm talking in the world, not just in the USA. They train some of the worlds elite fighters including Canada's. Why? Not because they are cheaper, but because they are better.

How did they get to be the expert? Well, the military trained most of them but someone offered these highly skilled individuals better pay and better lives.

That simple right (on the soldiers part) to seek out what is best for you, for your life is central to this issue along with the right of the company owner who said, "Hey there's money to be made here..."

[Maximus]

But should there be money to be made here? The British used mercenaries against the colonists, German Hessians. Morally, does that make us no better than the British Crown during our revolution? Mercenaries sell their services to the highest bidder,considerations of nationalism aside. What assurance is there, beyond their contract, that they would remain loyal after the terms of that contract are up?

There are many questions that need to be examined.

[SD26]

That is the answer. The government should maintain the same standards of accountability for the mercenary as they do for the regular armed forces. The mercenaries should be used mostly for security work. The regular army is for fighting wars. But the level of accountability should be the same.

Bob Kolker

I agree, it is the answer.

US Armed Forces are also bound by the whims of politics too. Don't cross this line, don't fire at known terrorists until fired upon. The Blackwater folks, a good number of whom were formerly active soldiers and sailors in elite US units, can do operations for the US Military for their security and intelligence that they. the US Military, can't do because of those politics.

As you say, the regular army is for fighting wars. Wars have the goal of victory. I don't recognize that ideology as we seem to be back to policing and tribal negotiating and pandering.

Edited January 4, 2010 by SD26

[RussK]

Another thing that isn't there, or in this thread for that matter, is a convincing argument as to why a mercenary can do a better job than the military. The only one I can think of is precisely that they aren't governed by laws and engagement rules, and that's an argument for changing the laws and rules that govern the military, not for circumventing them.

I already mentioned one in my previous post: private contractors fill a void for military personnel shortage and/or inexperience. In Iraq the countless number of private contractor firms filled important roles from convoy security, intelligence, investigation, to FOB (base) security. At one point in time, the ranks of interrogators was extremely low, and numerous things had to be changed to fulfill HUMINT requirements, including employing contractors. Furthermore, on FOB's the employment of private contractors helped streamline and expand military operations. Third country nationals comprised the bulk of FOB security: guarding gates, manning towers, patrolling parameter, interior security (guarding buildings), and bomb detection. Soldiers are too busy doing the other things, fulfilling the military's objectives. The only specialty I've never known private contractors to be involved in is the medical field.

Blackwater is just a drop in the bucket, really. The list of organizations is deep and the list of roles they provide is much more than the small list I gave. Additionally, none of them are over there running roughshod, doing whatever they want; they all must follow rules, including rules of engagement.

[Jake_Ellison]

Alright, RussK, you have indeed presented an argument and I missed it. I would like to know if, in your estimation, the bulk of the activities these firms perform would be part of a military campaign aimed solely at achieving victory, rather than nation building?

they all must follow rules, including rules of engagement.

Are they subject to military justice? If not, what does "must" mean, they get fired if they don't, or do crimes they commit have automatic consequences comparable to those soldiers face (consequences within the American justice system, as opposed to some foreign one)?

Edited January 5, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Andrew Grathwohl]

RussK, you propose that private contractors fill voids that the military cannot. If so, why are they still private contractors, if they are engaged in military activity overseas? It's quite fishy to me that they would continue to operate under the employment of a private firm, if all they're doing is providing services that our own military is unable to provide efficiently/properly. What's the practicality of not being an employee of the United States, when engaging in military activity on behalf of the United States? Why not buy the equipment and hire the men themselves?

To me, there must be a reason of practical evasion involved. Is there no benefit - no rule that can be ignored - in being a private contractor versus a member of the armed forces?

Just to share a personal anecdote... a family friend is working with the peace core currently in Afghanistan, and the only pictures I've seen of her have shown multiple heavily-armed private contractors guarding her. She must always be under the protection of these guards if she is to leave her base. She must travel everywhere in a heavily-armored truck, owned and operated by the same private contractors. What would the reasoning be behind this? A marine could just as easily do this job - why not hire these contractors as employees of the military? (I'd ask her myself but it's almost impossible to communicate with her due to her location). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the government had a monopoly on the use of force. Is the hiring of private contractors not a contradiction of that principle?

[RussK]

Alright, RussK, you have indeed presented an argument and I missed it. I would like to know if, in your estimation, the bulk of the activities these firms perform would be part of a military campaign aimed solely at achieving victory, rather than nation building?

Are they subject to military justice? If not, what does "must" mean, they get fired if they don't, or do crimes they commit have automatic consequences comparable to those soldiers face (consequences within the American justice system, as opposed to some foreign one)?

Yeah, they've been subject to UCMJ since 2007. If war would have been declared in Iraq, they would have been subject to UCMJ from the beginning; that's how employees with CACI and other companies were able to get off the hook for abuses. Furthermore, with the recent SOFA agreement, private contractors are no longer immune to the Iraqi court system. Really though, when I said "must follow rules," I was referring to them being required to get their convoy plans approved and follow the same rules of engagement as coalition forces.