Mission Control – writing a Harvard thesis

As I mentioned in a post a couple of days ago, I went to hear Steve Fainaru talk about his new book on private security contractors in Iraq, Big Boy Rules: America’s Mercenaries Fighting in Iraq. He refers to these PSCs as “mercenaries” and I wondered why since technically they aren’t – at least not the ones who are citizens of any country in the coalition. Here’s his answer from an online chat he did Dec. 1:

Most of the security contractors do not use the word mercenary, and many are offended by it. I chose to use it because I think it’s important to call the job what it is: these are people who are fighting the war for money. That is their primary motivation for being there. Some have argued that because they are operating in support of the US-led coalition, and not a foreign government, they do not meet the definition. My point is that the companies hire not only Americans but also hired guns from other countries that have nothing to do with the Iraq war. They work side by side. So the companies are mercenary, but some of their employees are not? To me, that’s parsing it too far. And Private Security Contracting, to me, is a meaningless term. It obscures more than it describes, like collateral damage and improvised explosive device.

A former JAG lawyer, Tara Lee, (Sarah’s sister?, ok, like she’s never heard that one before) now in private practice, spoke about the Status of Forces Agreement — the fact that contractors would be liable for bad acts under Iraqi law. She expressed some outrage at the lack of due process protections for contractors… (ok, stop laughing, read on)

Nothing in this newly-signed Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq guarantees that a U.S. citizen contractor arrested in Iraq will get even the most basic due process protections. The SOFA doesn’t even permit the U.S. Government to detain U.S. citizen contractors who are awaiting trial in Iraqi courts. The SOFA requires that U.S. soldiers and government employees arrested by the Iraqi police will be handed over to U.S. authorities within 24 hours of detention or arrest. However, if the detained American citizen is a contractor, he or she is left entirely to the disposition of the Iraqi system, and will be left to sit in the Iraqi jail awaiting Iraqi justice.

Hmm. So it’s ok if contractors shoot and kill Iraqis for years in Iraq without being held accountable by any laws. Where was the outrage over that? Where was this “due process” she touts?

She continues…

The New York Times editorial board has called the SOFA’s exclusions of protection for contractors “an acceptable price to pay to show this country’s commitment to the rule of law.” A diplomatic concession that blatantly and offensively treats one class of American citizen differently than others hardly demonstrates the U.S. commitment to the rule of law.

Let’s think about this. So it was ok to use contractors for years instead of more U.S. or coalition soldiers or instituting a draft? Those U.S. citizen contractors she’s so concerned about now, where was she four years ago? Contractors, armed and unarmed, were the shadow army and clearly second-class citizens for years — their deaths have never been counted in official tolls.

She adds

To get it signed, the U.S. government made an enormous concession as to the due process rights of one currently unpopular class of its citizens: contractors.

They aren’t a separate “class” of citizens. Spoken just like a lawyer — that has the whiff of a class action lawsuit. Clearly an attempt to garner sympathy. Don’t take off your ‘rational thinking hat’ just yet and go for the hankies.

She also doesn’t seem interested in the rest of the contractors in Iraq – those third country nationals who do much of contracting work. Who get paid a pittance. Who get held up at the Kuwaiti border because their “paperwork” isn’t in order. Whose passports are confiscated daily at that border so they don’t skip out. Who could just as easily get arrested and end up in an Iraqi jail, without due process! Yeah, where’s her love for them? Or is this just a jingoistic polemic?

Then she begins to lay it on a bit too thick

We called upon a “total force” of soldiers, civil servants, and contractors to undertake that burden [in Iraq]. They answered that call, soldiers, civil servants, and contractors. They all acted, and continue to act every day in Iraq, on behalf of the U.S. government.

First, what’s this “we” stuff? “We” the American people did not call upon contractors to do anything there. The Pentagon, the State Department, USAID, and ABC news did. Not us. Get your facts straight.

Second, “they answered the call”? Sure, the soldiers and civil servants did. But it’s taking that sense of patriotism out of context when you say contractors answered the same call. If they answered that call, they’d be in a uniform or have a government badge.  Let’s not downgrade what those people are doing by trying to elevate the motivations of the contractors. Sure some feel patriotic but if the pay wasn’t there, neither would they be. Contractors answered the call of money as much as anything. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t cry us a river when things go south — especially if you weren’t there waving the same “treat them equally” flag when they were doing things wrong.

If things are going to be so unfair for them, let them exercise their American right to quit. That’s something they are “privileged” to do that soldiers can’t.

No one thinks the Iraqi justice system is fabulous. Or even-handed yet. But this myopic and hypocritical editorial smacks of “public optics” for the contracting industry.