More on the Modern Day Mercs
Exclusive: Tabloid Attack Dogs Seek Next Victims: KBR and Blackwater
As a former mercenary, a title I claim proudly, these attempts by the media to portray Blackwater as the evil force in this war, while ignoring the enemy who launched this attack, were not surprising. Claims of civilian deaths had the media screaming for “justice”. May I ask…justice for whom? Contractors fight this war too, where it is impossible to distinguish civilians and insurgents from each other. Hiding behind women and children, these common thugs launch deadly attacks against contractors, then use shrill cries from the likes of CNN to spread enemy propaganda – using our own government and networks to turn the American people against our military and civilian contractors. Is that what we call justice nowadays?
For those crying for the removal of the armed contractors in Iraq, are you willing to send an additional 50,000 US troops into Iraq to replace them if they are forced to leave? The fact is they are an integral part of the armed strength that the West has in Iraq and have had no more questionable or criminal incidents that we have experienced with our regular uniformed military forces.
{See also my latest post on Blackwater : In Defense of Blackwater and the Modern Day ‘Merc’}
gurusteve
DFV the Scribe
Andre the Defiant
Wes
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Drowning Creek
Who is paying them? Maybe this is something obvious I’m missing.
Wes
27 Sep 07 at 8:23 am
They are paid by the respective governments that they are working for. I suspect some are paid by the Iraqi government themselves. It is much cheaper to hire a contractor than to deploy a soldier to do the same job. Especially if we are talking about armed babysitting of politicians or static infrastructure and driving trucks around. They are also important because they augment by sheer numbers militaries that are small in size to begin with. A bit of tongue in cheek here, but never fight a Republican war with a Democrat army is a wise maxim that we should all remember.
Dave the Infidel Sage
27 Sep 07 at 9:09 am
Still, though, are they significantly cheaper than additional forces in the US Army?
Wes
27 Sep 07 at 10:46 am
The answer is absolutely. It is very expensive to train, equip and support one soldier. Most of the Blackwater types are ex-military, many from elite units. Think of them as a strategic reserve of former soldiers that we are calling upon to help guard our interests in Iraq.
Dave the Infidel Sage
2 Oct 07 at 7:55 am
Your reply is simply inaccurate… how can you state: “It is very expensive to train, equip and support one soldier”, and follow with: “Most of the Blackwater types are ex-military, many from elite units[?]” Guess who had to foot the bill to train those ex-military elites? Bingo! Now guess who has to foot the bill to train more military elites because those aforementioned ex-military elites decided it would be better to get out of the elite units to become psuedocommando-billy-badasses? Bingo again! You are flat out wrong stating that there are fewer dollars expended for the United States mercenaries than military troops. Once you look through the muddled waters of the Defense Budget, you can definitely sort through enough to find the numbers which support this fact (however this attacks your credability due to the nature of which fact-finding is based, your downfall: research). The only reason troops are not used to their maximum capacity is because of the constant complaints made by troops and commanders alike concerning down time and rest (which you mentioned in the earlier and equally flawed blog “Modern Day ‘Merc”). The use of mercenaries is a political ploy which allows the campaigns to continue… rest assured though, it is not a cheaper one. For future comments, please use facts to qualify your statements, not personally held beliefs or opinions, afterall, proper public debate (as you like to say) hinges on the desire to seek what “ought” to be based off of what currently “is.” However, based on the arenas upon which your name pops up for commentary, I do not suspect you are influencing enough individuals for any real concern to be attatched.
Ben
10 Oct 07 at 11:18 pm
Ben should do his homework and realize how many support troops and large amount of money it takes to field just one combat soldier. The logistics, supply, bases, family support, and training is staggering. That is not the case with ‘the ready reserve’ of former military personnel that are available to be used as security contractors. They do not require that vast infrastructure to operate and are in reality far more economical. Few are actually even arguing this point because it is an obvious one.
Dave the Infidel Sage
11 Oct 07 at 9:00 am
While Ben makes a valid point about training, he is woefully inadequate with his own facts. Note to Ben: if you are going to throw stones (”For future comments, please use facts to qualify your statements, not personally held beliefs or opinions”) make sure you get out of the glass house. But thanks for stopping by and I encourage you to continue having your arguments destroyed on our humble bi-partisan blog.
E the Wise
11 Oct 07 at 12:27 pm
I am disappointed. I challenged you to prove me wrong by backing your statistics with factual information and all you did was attack what I wrote. By my count, there are seven of you and at least 14 family members who get to live with the unitelligible rantings of your narrowly held beliefs. Somewhere amidst the 21+ of you, someone should be able to point out the simple mathematics used to falsly claim the skewed cost ratio between the common soldier and the “modern merc.” Among teachers, lawyers, wise old men, and financial analysts, I think it is suffice it to state that one of you could prove me guilty of calling out your bluff. But you did not. Perhaps you are simply not in to making proofs, only theories. Maybe the computer guru of the group could do the research and find out that I may not be as wrong as you would like to believe. All I have found in your writings is that a majority of the time, you all seem to be far too impressed by your access to word play than your ability to use language effectively warrants. I would rather be proved wrong than be attacked again, but in case this does not happen, I will leave you be in your odd twisted world, hidden under the tiny umbrella of denial that you believe protects you.
Ben
11 Oct 07 at 5:46 pm
Well Ben, I didn’t think we had to spell it out for you but since logic is not one of your strong points I’ll help you out.
While I agreed with your point about training, it is foolish to believe that the federal government can do anything as inexpensively as a private sector company that has profit as its bottom line. The military is bound by no such terms like ’stockholders’ or ‘profit.’ I suspect Ben knows this and chooses to ignore the simple logic of it since he is opposed to the use of private security firms in Iraq.
More importantly, Dave never argued for eliminating the military as Ben seems to imply. Naturally, the bulk of our fighting forces will always be the brave men in the trenches. But when they leave the military, they will be leaving the hundreds of bases that house them and their families (expenses that private firms don’t incur), they will leave behind the bureucratic layers found at the massive structure we call the Pentagon (private firms operate in less intrusive and inexpensive places), and they will shed the clothing mandated by the military in favor of the less constrictive gear shown in the picture above. Additionally, the private firms will leave the heavy armour and heavy artillery to the military and opt for small teams and fighting units.
I thought this was understood but apparently Ben needs to be shown the obvious. Perhaps he should insult out humble blog less and attend class at the local university more.
E the Wise
11 Oct 07 at 6:17 pm
Do you waste time like this always Big Ben? BTW, you call a bluff, you don’t call it out. Take another English as a second langue course if you care to banter in a sarcastic way.
See, it works this way: If you troll by and say somebody is wrong on there facts, then it is up to you to produce the sources to impeach you silly goose. Even a Hillbilly like me knows that.
Oh, and buddy, it is not you against the site, It is just you making a fool of yourself, by yourself.
pgwarner
11 Oct 07 at 6:38 pm
I never meant to imply that the military should be eliminated. I simply meant to state that when one soldier leaves the military to join a private security firm, that vacuum must be filled by another soldier who has to go through all the training with all of the costs Dave mentioned that follows. This would be a cost incurred because the privates sector exists, not because the government is running innefficient bases, though I know this is most likely the case anyhow.
Since we have established that the military is not going to just disappear (let us hope not anyway) the current costs of maintaining a peace-time garrison should, in no way, be manipulated into the factoring of costs for deployed soldiers. Only the costs inherent with that action should be factored in. Nevertheless, the following article also does not account for all of the costs incurred by the private security firms- such as “housing, subsistence, vehicles and large equipment items.”
The article (followed by a few closing words I would like to add):
“U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in Iraq”
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Monday, October 1, 2007; Page A17
It costs the U.S. government a lot more to hire contract employees as security guards in Iraq than to use American troops.
It comes down to the simple business equation of every transaction requiring a profit.
The contract that Blackwater Security Consulting signed in March 2004 with Regency Hotel and Hospital of Kuwait for a 34-person security team offers a view into the private-security business world. The contract was made public last week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee majority staff as part of its report on Blackwater’s actions related to an incident in Fallujah on March 31, 2004, when four members of the company’s security team were killed in an ambush.
Understanding the contract’s details requires some background: Regency was a subcontractor to another company, ESS Support Services Worldwide, of Cyprus, that was providing food and catering supplies to U.S. armed forces in Fallujah and other cities in Iraq. And ESS was a subcontractor to KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, which had the prime contract with the Defense Department.
So, Blackwater was a subcontractor to Regency, which was a subcontractor to ESS, which was a subcontractor to Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary, the prime contractor for the Pentagon — and each company along the way was in business to make a profit.
Under the contract, Regency was to pay Blackwater $11,082,326 for one year, with a second year option, to put together a 34-person team that would provide security services for the “movement of ESS’s staff, management and workforce throughout Kuwait and Iraq and across country borders including the borders of Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan.”
Blackwater’s personnel were to do more than just convoy security. They were also to run command centers in Kuwait and Iraq 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that were to control all ESS security operations; prepare risk assessments; develop security procedures; train ESS personnel in security; and even vet other Iraqi security forces hired by Regency.
But their main role was to provide “tactically sound and fully mission capable protective security details, the minimum team size [being] six operators with a minimum of two vehicles to support ESS movements.”
Blackwater’s pricing was to be on “a per person support basis, not including costs for housing, subsistence, vehicles and large equipment items,” according to the contract. The team would be made up of two senior managers, 12 middle managers and 20 operators.
Regency was to provide Blackwater personnel with housing and necessities, including meals, as well as office space and administrative support. In addition, Regency would provide basic equipment, including vehicles and heavy weapons, while Blackwater was responsible for purchasing individual weapons and ammunition.
According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators.
According to data provided to the House panel, Regency charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people. How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed on by ESS to Halliburton’s KBR cannot easily be determined since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with security being a percentage of that charge.
Halliburton’s KBR blended its security costs into the blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department.
How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S. troops is easier to determine.
An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 a day.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.
(National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines — but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them tofineprint@washpost.com.)
Additional thoughts:
Regardless how you chalk up the differences in costs between private security and the traditional military, I would have to respond to the original piece by Dave and say “Yes, I am willing to send an additional 50,000 soldiers to replace the private security if there is a mass exodus of those individuals. Afterall, this is the occupation of soldiers and if we do not have enough to fight our wars, then we need to change the policies that limit how many troops we have. I believe this is what Dave was hinting at when he mentioned that we should “never fight a Republican war with a Democrat army.”
As I wrote earlier, using the private security is simply a ploy (in my opinion) to artificially inflate the supposed strength of the military without having to remedy the fact that we are not either meeting recruiting quotas or have not, thus far, had substantial gains in Iraq or Afghanistan to justify the perceived abilities of our military.
Apologies:
I admit I could have discussed this in a more civilized manner than I did. I realize for the most part, we are all seeing our own side of this matter using the statistics (which we all know can be spun) to give credibility to the claims that support our own views.
I appreciate the site allowing me to write my piece and then follow with lively conversation. However, I would like to apologize for my personal attacks which were rude, uncalled for, and completely unprofessional. I may not agree with everything that appears on the site, but that gives me no justification to resort to personal attacks.
To answer Pgwarner’s question: No, I do not try to waste my time, I was searching for something and tripped across your site, read a few lines, then could not stop my diarrhea of the mouth. Forgive me for this irrational behavior.
Finally…
As a matter of fact…
I am a student at the local university: The University of Akron. I will continue attending classes- perhaps I will learn to be more patient with my arguments and think more clearly before I type. Additionally, I am also in the military which is why I can so quickly say yes to sending more troops if they are needed. Thanks again for your hospitality.
Very Respectfully,
Ben
Ben
11 Oct 07 at 9:58 pm
Great points on the costs. And apology accepted.
Look, Although I am generally always correct, the other poor souls here tend to be misguided from time to time. I was probably miffed because I didn’t get the impression that you looked at some of the other material here. The bottom line is that half of this site agrees more with you than Dave. And that is why our format is good. We encourage the banter and fact checking and won’t hate you for having an opposite opinion. We are a humble left-right blog that gets about 1000 hits a day, and thoughtful people like yourself will certainly find things you agree and disagree with throughout. Keep up the good work and go Zips!
E the Wise
12 Oct 07 at 8:02 am
First of all I would like to beg your pardon for my language, I’m german and not very familiar with english, at least I try to.
But I miss one important argument in this discussion,in my opinion important.
Without discussing the point of how or who pays the mercenaries, I would like to say that the difference between a “common” soldier and a mercenary is the interests they have and why they fight or want to fight.(I want to say firstly I explicit don’t want to generalize).
A “common” soldier usually is send somewhere he is needed.He fights for his country, for his comrades and surely for those he loves. That is a point that makes a soldier less efficient, he fights for a idea. Surely, I don’t want to send robots to war but I find it kind of sad to endanger people that aren’t absolutely voluntaries.A mercenary usually looks what mission has more profit, that makes him definately a voluntary if he accepts a job and the point I wanted to tell is: every mercenary you let take the place of a soldier you change a man who is absolutely aware of what he is doing and is training constantely for it, witha a soldier who is possibly send to war, while getting to be a father leaving his baby and wife alone.
It is logical that the number of mercenaries should be limited in some sort of way and the military should lead the operations, but if a man wants to fight for money, why don’t let him do so and save another man who maybe won’t fight.
I know it sound kind of stupid and childish but I think that the mercenaries are a very good resource to help the military down there.
And I wanted to agree with the leading Text “more on the modern day mercs”, that it is very very difficult to distinguish foe or civilian in iraq, foe and citizens are mostly dressed the same way, usually troops get ambushed and or attacked from different directions, often in crowded areas. And you have to admit it is difficult to think, when bullets are rushing everywhere and comrades of yours are getting hit and/or try to take cover.
every person who has not enough training and who has a weapon in his hands in a moment like that would shoot back at every thing that moves or start to run and don’t stop.
Which does not mean I appreciate civilians to be killed without reason.
P.S. sorry for the many mistakes I surely did.
But I found your Discussion so interesting I had to write something.
C.J.C
16 Nov 07 at 8:40 am
Well, Ben you have turn your rantings and beliefs into patting your own back by flaunting your educatation supplied to you by whom I ask? The government dont be a fool, firms like Black Water are PRIVATE organizations they pay for there own training which is minimal because most are ex military, and many already own their own guns, ammunition, and gear. They are payed via contract only they are not given meals and among many other things. They are proven to be more effective and are able to quitly do things our little niave citizens are to foolish to believe are nessicary. Men like these are the ones who get their hands dirty to protect our country to their fullest extent. While I do believe the men and women that serve are military are vital I do not agree with sending an addition 50,000 soldiers like you suggested Ben, enlist these mercs who are yes money hungry and sometimes have bloodlust. Men like these are made because of war, this is what they are good at and this is what excites them and makes their lifes furfilling. Let them do the amazing work they do like at the base in an US military base where 8 blackwater men held a base againts 100+ iraqs.
Big E
10 Mar 08 at 5:05 pm
Wow, have we regressed that far to have petty squabbles over the cost of military vs mercenaries. Just another example of how America has become fractured and a reason why we are facing the problems we are today. I don’t disagree about their being a need for highered guns in the private sector. We have always had bodyguards and that is how it should stay. Relying on highered guns to fight wars much less an illegal war according the constitution is craziness. It’s like gov’t sponsored vigilantiasm. Last time I checked vigilantiasm was illegal in the US. We are missing the bigger picture and a scary one also. This “private army driven by profit” as some of you have stated is rivaling the size of regular armies. Blackwater has already been used after Katrina in the relief efforts and the US State Dept. has ideas of using them again on domestic soil for other purposes. I don’t know about you but I for one do not want them operating in a domestic capacity against US citizens. That’s a job for the police who are bound by the rule of law and act in the publics best interest and not for the interest of profit. Debate is healthy but if your missing the bigger picture than both arguments are futile and what was the point.
The CRU
11 Mar 08 at 11:17 pm
Pretty specious arguments there CRU. I especially like how you assume the police are bound by the rule of law but Blackwater isn’t. I didn’t know that there were Americans not bound by the rule of law?! Furthermore, if Blackwater works for profit, I would think that acting appropriately in situations like Katrina will gain more profits in the form of more contracts later.
E the Wise
12 Mar 08 at 6:38 am
Re comment by CJC, It is interesting the discussion on the reasons both military and mercs are there and there reliability when the crunch comes, coming from a city that is heavily reliant on the military i know the days of soldier going to defend his country are over, they go for the same reasons, the bonus and packages they recieve, not only them but their families while they are away, I’m certainly not dissagreeing on them recieving this but their motivation is the same as the private security, both are leaving behind family. I think the mindset of the modern day soldier is very different from there previous generations, especially when we are now involved in many defense of other nations from each other. A lot of soldiers join nowadays for the training they recieve (other than combat) and when sent to defend something or someone they are not combat keen, the mercs on the other hand are the men who have applied to defend specifically. I hope im not crucified for my comments and im certainly not anti soldiers. this is just based on my experience with them.
George Jones
22 Mar 08 at 8:34 pm
You know whats interesting, something Blackwater supporters never take into consideration. In the US, the average ex-special ops serviceman now working for a US-based mercenary corporation spent 3.1 less years in the military than career special-ops soldiers.
Instead, they leave the military to earn a quick dollar as a mercenaryand retire early. Can somebody please do the math, because of Blackwater, these highly trained soldiers are spending less time with the military.
How much is 3.1 years of service worth to the military if you consider the training cost of special-ops? Cuz thats how much money we are losing. Since they receive higher wages, thats even more money lost cuz 95% of all contracts are from the US Tax-Dollars. Contracts issued by Iraq are using American Foreign Aid dollars, again from Tax Payers Money.
Why do pro-mercenary advocates, so desperately want to rape American tax-payers of their hard earned dollars? I hope this isn’t too complicated for lowly educated military folks.
Ken
25 Mar 08 at 8:14 pm
Ken isnt that a contradiction there that you speak of how much money the American government is spending on the training and education of their soldiers although you do speak of the special forces they are still military personel, and you explicitly call them lowly educated? Are you saying that that the American government is doing a poor job in training their troops and wasting their money as you state when they leave (in such a poorly educated state, as you think) or are you just generally confused on this topic?
P.S Dude thats just plain rude what have they done to offened you?
Alex
26 Mar 08 at 12:34 am
Also about the cost of PMC’s is that they are far more effecient than National Military, one becasue these PMC’s are ex-special forces and because they do not have a huge chain of command to work with like in the National Military and becasue they are a bussiness and an uneffecient private military bussisenes will get less contracts in the future, so i guess what im trying to say is that PMC’s get the job done quicker and therfore can sometimes (not always i may add) be cheaper.
Alex
26 Mar 08 at 12:41 am
Great points alex!
pg - your humble messenger
26 Mar 08 at 8:40 am
3.1 years less than “career” special ops doesn’t seem like much comparitively. Ken’s argument is flawed because if we consider that a career in the military is 20 years, then a Blackwater guy spent 17 years in the military. He implies, then, that the military devoted scads of taxpayer cash to train this 17 year special ops vet and that it was a waste of money. I beg to differ.
He also implies that Blackwater is raping the U.S. taxpayer because their personnel earn higher wages. Conveniently, Ken left out the fact that they don’t have the massive equipment costs of the U.S. military. Alex rightly points out that there is also not the bureaucratic structure of the U.S. military.
I suspect Ken knows this but chooses to ignore the facts because he hates both military and security types. His satirical language says as much.
E the Wise
26 Mar 08 at 11:24 am
Sending BW/Merc is not cheaper….How is a single contract of 175k roughly cheaper than a PFC/CPL Salary of 24-30k…. Why is it that SEAL’s i know personally wait to ETS and then do re-up because blackwater offers them a 6 month tour contract for 150k you tell me something doesn’t smell fishy.
M
7 Apr 08 at 9:44 am
“However, based on the arenas upon which your name pops up for commentary, I do not suspect you are influencing enough individuals for any real concern to be attached.” - Ben
That is actually one of the more innovative insults I have had hurled my way over the years. Of course, if you were to “google” my full name my columns and commentaries show up on over one hundred different websites, in a variety of other authors articles, and in one lonely French doctoral thesis…
Sometimes “shouting the truth from the mountaintops” is more like yodeling from a small hillock, but we do what we can with the resources we have at our disposal. Some of us have to be content changing the world one person at a time.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
10 May 08 at 11:01 pm
“Sometimes “shouting the truth from the mountaintops” is more like yodeling from a small hillock, but we do what we can with the resources we have at our disposal. Some of us have to be content changing the world one person at a time.”
Nice line, Dave!
hairybeast
10 May 08 at 11:28 pm
“Why do pro-mercenary advocates, so desperately want to rape American tax-payers of their hard earned dollars? I hope this isn’t too complicated for lowly educated military folks.”
Wow this hurts. Me being a Military folk and all. I would like to point out that there is infomation that describes in great detail the cost of training a US service member for the hundreds of different job fields that exsist. Take for example me. I enlisted in the US Navy, the navy the paid for my plain ticket to boot camp, then the gas for bus to truck me to boot camp, they clothed me, fed me, gave me hair cuts, tought me every thing i need to know to be a entry level service member. This was all done in the wonderfull Great Lakes area, its a rather large trainning comand. After that i was sent to Hospital Corps school where I learned the basics of medical care and some advanced classes for entry level nurseing. Then after that I procceded to Field Medical Service School in California where I then learned Emergency Field Medicine and Tramua care. Then I procceded to my first duty station with the Marines and the trainning list goes on and on, No mind I did attend college classes while doing all of this. Just recently I decided I wanted to specialize in the medical field, so I attended the Naval School of Health sciences for Respiratory Therapist Tech. So I am currently a Respiratory specialist and have been for about 2 yrs. To throw this in there I am almost done with my requirments list to be able to test for my respiratory certification so I can get my civilian credentials.
To Ken: From us lowly edumakated.
Based on what you have demonstrated to me by your post leads me to belive that you are most likly anti military or were once part or planning on being a part of the armed services but had a bad / life altering experiance which left a ill taste in your mouth. Now you feel the need to lash out at Americas armed service men and women who put thier lives on the line daily just so you can sit back in your house and enjoy the freedoms that our protected because of us. Now im not saying you shouldnt speak although maybe you should think twice before makeing any offspring. But please calling the Military lowly educated is just poor form, when in fact military men and women are highly educated in thier specific job field on top of a “traditional education”.
Rick
20 May 08 at 8:04 am
Rick was all that misspelling in your post about being “edmukated” to make a point? If not, you might want to try a spell check before you address someone suggesting you’re uneducated, otherwise you look silly.
We all make spelling mistakes while posting, but it was your subject matter that made me point this out. No disrespect, just pointing out the obvious.
…and THANKS for the work you do in the military. People like you keep this country safe. Keep up the good work and stay safe.
Jeff
20 May 08 at 8:24 am
Jeff:
yes the spelling was intentional, while some of them obvious others where some what more subtle or atlest ment to be.
atleast now I know that my point was noticed.
Rick
20 May 08 at 8:35 am
Rick, all points are noticed on ConClub. Thanks for taking the time to share yours with us.
hairybeast
20 May 08 at 9:07 am
LOL! Bravo Rick! Some peoples tend ‘ta underpreciate hillbillies don’t ‘ya know?
While going to therapy yesterday we parked next to a van with handicapped plates. It had a bumper-sticker that read…
“If you can read this, then thank a veteran because it’s written in English!”
Thank you for your comments Rick. You might find this comment and thread interesting.
pg - your humble messenger
20 May 08 at 9:12 am