Here's a little 'FYI'. For what it's worth, this is no attempt to minimize the dumb-assed conduct of a few of the guys working at a certain prison in Iraq. When the investigation(s) are over, if things look as bad as they do right now...they should be punished to the fullest extent of any and all applicable laws.
===
1. Some have made comments to the effect that contractors working in Iraq are 'rogue elements' - that there is no authority to hold them to a code of conduct, etc. There is then the mandatory follow-up statement that alludes to the U.S. Government 'wanting it this way, so innocents can be tortured and killed without repurcussion'.
All contractors working in Iraq are under the authority of either the DoD, the Provisional Govt., or both. As far as conduct goes, they are generally held to a higher standard than military/DoD personnel - by both the contracting agency and the relevant authority. ROE (Rules of Engagement) for armed combatant type contractors in Iraq are far more strict than for Coalition military personnel. I'll give you guys a couple of examples:
If you are hired by a company that has a contract with the DoD, you go thru the same indoc that DoD personnel do before they go to Iraq. The same ROE, threat lectures, etc. You are there as a contractor by the grace of the DoD and/or the Provisional Govt. When contractors do stupid things, they get sent home at the least, or investigated for possible criminal charges, etc. I have one close friend working convoy security in Iraq. One of the guys in his detail 'suffered' an AD (accidental discharge - a cardinal sin if you pack a rifle for a living). He put a round from a SAW thru the floor of his SUV. He was gone the next day.
Drunk on duty - gone and blacklisted with every other contractor out there.
Drunk at a forward location even if not on duty - gone and blacklisted.
Etc.
Both the DoD/PGovt. and the contracting companies want it this way. The contracting companies get the 'hot gigs' from the DoD/PGovt. based on the reputation of their operators. Crazy/stupid/dumb-assed contractors piss off the local DoD/PGovt. authorities. There is no 'shadowy group of contractor-assassins hired by the CIA to torture and kill Iraqis without the U.S. Government having to answer for it'. Iraq is swarming with journalists - the majority being slightly biased vs. the U.S. at best - if there were such a story - with a shred of proof to back it up - do you think it would not be on page one of even the toliet paper at U.C. Berkely?
Most armed and/or intelligence contract positions require a current security clearance - that is issued by one of several U.S. Govt. agencies. There is plenty of Govt. oversight when it comes to contractors.
2. There are no 'offensive' contract positions in Iraq. None. I have 20+ good Friends working contracts right now, no small # of them coming off of some significant time in the special operations community. Former special operations types are coveted as convoy and site security because you can operate them in groups of 4, 5, or 6 and they can still take care of themselves. They are also being hired as instructors, etc. None are being used for recon, direct action, or offensive military operations of any kind - not in Iraq - they are elsewhere though (more on that later). If it's offensive action, it's Coalition military forces doing the work. Comments like 'because you can lose 100 contractors in an attack and the government won't take heat for losing troops' are assnine to say the least. Think about the guys taking these jobs for a second. Generally highly trained with a nose for danger. Who is going to sign up as a rogue suicide shooter when making $180,000+/year tax free providing convoy security is available? Use some common sense.
3. Why contractors? I hear some people say that you could get more force for less money by increasing military manning. Dead wrong.
The 'war on terror' is intelligence agent/intelligence analyst/special operations operator intensive. There are a huge pool of these types of people who are retired or no longer part of the government or part of the military. A lot of them spent 10 or 15 years where 'action' - a chance to actually do something meaningful - was not really there. Between Viet Nam and 9/11/01 there were not 'weekly' or even 'monthly' missions were actual bad guy terrorist types were the target of a direct action mission. There are a lot of intelligence types who spent 20 years listening to Soviet Embassy staffers. Listening in hopes of thwarting a terrorist attack (against anyone's women and children) has a much quicker payoff and feels much more rewarding.
So the collective side of the 'good guys' in the 'war on terror' (read: 90% of the Nations in the world) is now ~ 45% manned on the special operations and intelligence fronts (that's a purely hypothetical guess
). Do you increase the # of Green Berets or SEALs or STS by 100%? Not in a year if you don't want to lower the training standards. Not in 5 years. And in general a field intelligence or special operations operator isn't really 'ready to go' until he's had at least 3 years worth of training, an initial deployment, etc.
And even if you expand the numbers - increase the # of Special Forces Groups, increase the staffing in the DO at CIA - then you have a lot of 'add on expenses'. Insurance. Dependant care. Housing. Etc., etc., etc. Not to mention that you can't just 'fire them' if you all of a sudden do not need them anymore. They are govt. employees.
Here you have this huge pool of 'retired' Western (and now Eastern) Special Operations and Intelligence types. A lot of them want 'in on the action' (not talking about money - contrary to some assnine statements in the media) - if you do either for a living you do it because you believe in the job/mission/etc. and/or you are an action junkie. Why wouldn't a smart Govt. find a 'short cut' to get these guys back in action?
4. Which leads to the next point - mercenaries. Bull**** statement. These guys are hired by contracting companies that do all their work for the U.S., or the U.K., or France, etc. A mercenary fights for money alone - he hasn't historically cared who he fought for as long as the pay was good and the mission wasn't suicide. Any former military or intelligence guy working as a contractor is work for the Government of the U.S., or the U.K., etc. The mission is defined by the Govt. The Govt. goes to a trusted company to find the people for the mission. The term 'mercenary' is an insult and it implies that these guys would do whatever they were told to do for the money. This is totally inaccurate. There is no comparison between Hoare's 'commando mercenaries' (operating without U.K. sanction - but don't get me wrong I believe they thought the cause they were fighting for was just, in a 'good vs. evil' sense) and the U.S., U.K., German, French, etc. former military and intelligence types who are now working as 'contractors'.
===
Short version of 'interrogation 101' or 'the intel guys told us to strip them naked'.
Bull**** (again).
No point, no possible gain, and guranteed damage of efforts from an interrogation standpoint when you're talking about what was done to the Iraqi prisoners. I hate to ruin any future spy novels, but the only way to develop actionable intelligence from long term interrogation is the old fashioned way - cut their nuts off in front of their buddies-er-I meant:
Make them repeat the story. Ask for specific details. Do this over and over again, preferrably when the subject is fatigued (yes sleep deprivation and sleep pattern disruption happens - it's 'brain chemistry to aid interrogation 101' and any police detective will use it if he gets the chance - thus the 8-12 hour interrogation sessions at the precinct). Tell me the story of what your unit did just before the end of the war Habib. Tell me again. Start in the middle and tell it backwards. Are you sure his name was Haji? You said it was Haju 4 repetitions ago. We caught Haji last night and he says you never destroyed your SA-7 launchers before you disbanded. Etc., etc., etc.
A high % of the interrogators in Cuba are contactors. Same goes for Iraq. Arab-speaking experienced interrogators are in short supply. You can bet that they are going to get every retired intel/interrogator type signed up for a job if he's available. The guys in Iraq are running Iraqis as agents. You don't get people to act as agents for you if you condone stripping them naked, beating them, etc. Here's an excerpt from an email a Good Friend of mine sent me - he's currently an intelligence officer (contractor, former MI) working at the very prison that the misconduct took place at - I hope you'll pardon the fact that it lacks the common 'I know the U.S.A. is the Greatest And We Kiss Babies While we Slay Evil with our M4s' theme that a lot of those bull**** 'Email from a Marine in Iraq' stories have:
(post cont. in reply below)
