Thursday, September 27, 2007

NYT takes aim at Blackwater; hits self

The New York Times is still obsessing over Blackwater – well at least it gives Halliburton a break. Today the Times reports:

The American security contractor Blackwater USA has been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq than other security firms providing similar services to the State Department, according to Bush administration officials and industry officials.

The Times doesn't have any precise figures for Blackwater, but explains:

In 2005, DynCorp reported 32 shootings during about 3,200 convoy missions, and in 2006 that company reported 10 episodes during about 1,500 convoy missions. While comparable Blackwater statistics were not available, government officials said the firm’s rate per convoy mission was about twice DynCorp’s.

So DynCorp's 'shoot rate' was around one mission in a hundred in 2005, and around one mission in 150 in 2006. Blackwater's shoot rate was about twice as high, so if we average the shoot rate for DynCorp over the two years (one incident per 125 missions) then double it and round down for good measure, that gives Blackwater a shoot rate of one incident per 60 missions.

I don't know about you, but I find those figures – both for Blackwater and DynCorp – staggering, even allowing for the fact that there must be other incidents where convoys come under attack, but keep going without returning fire.

I was under the impression that every time a convoy left the Green Zone it was like the scene in Mad Max II where the fuel tanker (no spoilers in case you haven't seen it) driven by Max leaves the good guys' compound. I pictured insurgents leaping off buildings on to the roofs of SUVs, IEDs going off left, right and centre, and suicide car bombs and RPGs coming from every direction.

Where did I get this impression? From watching the TV news and reading the mainstream news websites. It's almost as if… as if… the media is exaggerating how bad things are in Iraq!

Having helped the reader to establish that Baghdad is actually safer than anyone but the most optimistic Petraeus enthusiast had previously thought, the Times continues its half-hearted assault on Blackwater, claiming the company 'flaunts an aggressive, quick-draw image that leads its security personnel to take excessively violent actions', and so on and so forth. (See this post of mine and The White Rabbit for more on why these and other accusations leveled at Blackwater don't stick.)

Then, not content with shooting itself in one foot, the Times puts a well-aimed round through the other one (and they say Blackwater's guys are careless!) by giving a perfectly reasonable explanation for the disparity in the frequency of shooting incidents:

Today, Blackwater operates in the most violent parts of Iraq and guards the most prominent American diplomats, which some American government officials say explains why it is involved in more shootings than its competitors. The shootings included in the reports include all cases in which weapons are fired, including those meant as warning shots.

Sounds fair to me.

Yet the story limps on for another whole page: 'corporate culture…' 'stoking resentment…' 'close relationship with the Bush administration…' (That's right – Blackwater has close ties to an administration it does business with, and whose employees it's protecting.) Over 1,500 words of accusation, speculation and gossip, but nothing that comes close to a point.

Blackwater should of course operate according to rules of engagement as strict as those imposed on the military, and its contractors should be subject to the full rigours of either military or civilian law. It's crazy that those rules were apparently never agreed upon, and the company's activities should be curtailed until the legal stuff is sorted out.

But Blackwater, and companies like them, are here to stay, both in Iraq and elsewhere. There's talk of such outfits becoming involved in places like Darfur, where others either fear to tread or lack the necessary competence. And if I were a diplomat or aid worker I know who I'd rather trust with my life, given a choice between Blackwater and a bunch of stoned, rape-happy African 'peacekeepers' supplied by the UN.

So the Times might as well get over itself. This latest attack on Blackwater is overly aggressive, undisciplined and way off target – in short the Times is doing with words everything it accuses Blackwater's contractors of doing with bullets.

Update: Thanks to Instapundit and Hot Air for linking. If you came via Hot Air you may not have seen this excellent piece on Blackwater, with some great comments, which Glenn linked to earlier.

There's bound to be a few Monkey Tennis newbies among you, so here's the welcome spiel: I've been at this for just two months, so do check out some of my earlier stuff while you're here, and let me know what you think. A couple of recent favourites are my earlier Blackwater post, and this one on the MoveOn 'Betray Us' ad. I try to mix it up a little, but as I explain in my mission statement, most days I run into some egregious MSM mistake/distortion/outright lie regarding the War on Terror, and that kind of fills up my blogging day, meaning I don't get to add many smaller posts linking to cool stuff I've found – I'll try and do better!

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

59 American soldiers have died this month in Iraq.
While that number isn't comparable to the one-day body counts in Mad Max II, I would imagine that for those 59 families, the media protrayal of Iraq as an awful place that we need to leave is pretty accurate.

Anonymous said...

Sad and unfortunate for the families. It doesn't give the Times the right to exaggerate.

Anonymous said...

Well, Anonymous, the average number of monthly deaths in the US due to farming accidents is between 50 and 60 (600 to 700 per year). Each death is a tragedy for the families, as is any loss of a loved one.

We really need to stop all farming in the US (close those ethanol plants, of course, with no corn to send to them) and let the UN provide our food, even though the farmers do the job voluntarily and know that it is hazardous.

Anonymous said...

I'm dead set against the privatization of our military and security forces, either overseas or at home. There is absolutely no friggin' reason why "Blackwater, and companies like them, are here to stay, both in Iraq and elsewhere" aside from pure greed and to facilitate authoritarian rule. There can be no place for expensive politically-connected mercenary armies in a democratic society. We've never needed them before and we don't need them now. Our military could do the same job at a fraction of the price. Back in WWII we were serious about keeping profiteers out of the war effort. What happened? This is just another in the long list of example how many on the right, while crowing about all things American don't know the first thing about what is right and true about our country.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious isn't it? Let's have a war AND let corporations profit from it.

I would say that anyone who can't see this new paradigm in the United States government's relations with corporations is blind.

The Bush administration's first goal is to help the investor class find new places to make money. Profit uber alles...profit uber alles.

So why not take the tax money spent on a war and give it to Halliburton, Blackwater, et al?

If we're gonna have a war, shouldn't the ahem "economy" benefit from it?

Anonymous said...

The British Navy was the world's most powerful military force in the late 1700s and 1800s partly because it provided a profit incentive to the sailors. They received a cut of the prize money in any ship that was captured.

Francis Drake only sailed around the world because he could raid Spanish ships on the way.

The pursuit of profit is human nature, and if you look around you, it has served us very well from the houses we live in to the cars we drive and food we eat.

Capitalism bothers many people because it seems illogical for a selfish action to produce a common good. Yet that is exactly what pursuit of profit does and continues to do for those of us lucky enough to live in countries that adopted capitalist policies.

Anonymous said...

Hah, now there's a twist. "Our military could do the same job at a fraction of the price." Leftists are always so anti-military, but in this case the military presents itself as an manifestation of government-controlled business, aka Socialism, so it gets the win.

Anonymous said...

Privatization of our military? We get what you mean... we need a government controlled EVERYTHING, with a democratic leader in charge. Period. Nope, I'd rather higher a private firm.

Anonymous said...

I doubt there's much to this. Blackwater guys tend to be ex-military, and for all you "no mercenaries!" people, keep in mind Blackwater is a pretty nice post-service paycheck for our fighting men and women.

You don't support the troops by denying them lucrative employment opportunities -- or by trying to lose the war they're fighting.

Anonymous said...

The military could do this at a fraction of the cost? What fuzzy math are you using there anonyleftist?

Pay and Allowances, Qualification and Upgrade training, subsistence, family support, LOGCAP, on and on, combine to make the GI far more expensive than a contractor.

Anonymous said...

Oddly enough, my experience in Iraq in the military had me with about a one-in-four chance of having to fire a weapon once leaving the gates (around Sadr City).

That leaves Blackwater with a much more impressive ratio by their numbers.

KM - Boston said...

Anonymous, were you born yesterday?

Do you remember the very large military that the USA HAD in the early 90s? Maybe you were too young at the time.

The Clinton administration decimated the military (soldiers, support and equipment) and declared a "Peace Dividend" because since the USSR collapsed, the world would be peaceful from then on.

Well, guess what? When you go to war, there are lots of support requirements that used to be met by the military and now have to be met by private contractors - Blackwater, Halliburton, Brown & Root and hundreds of others.

Don't like privitization? Blame Clinton and do some homework.

David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/27/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Anonymous said...

Didn't anyone else notice that the "shoot rate" for DynCorp decreased between 2005 to 2006? Wouldn't you consider that a positive trend?

jollyspaniard said...

Casualties amongst US forces are practicaly negligible when you compare them to previous wars. Heck training excersizes in preparation for D-Day probably were more dangerous.

So I find questioning the war on those grounds bogus.

Questioning the war on the grounds that the price paid in terms of Iraqi lives (nearly two thirds of a million premature deaths attributed to the war) is a different story.

Unknown said...

anon said:
"It's pretty obvious isn't it? Let's have a war AND let corporations profit from it.

I would say that anyone who can't see this new paradigm in the United States government's relations with corporations is blind."

Corporations profiting from war is a "new paradigm"? Perhaps you haven't heard of the "military-industrial complex". I'm sure there's a wikipedia entry; check it out.

Anonymous said...

If the Blackwater guys shoot more often it is probably because they don't feel as constrained by the "stupid" rules of engagement imposed on our military.

74 (William Powell) said...

Whomever thinks that private contractors have never before been used by the U.S. in a war has no understanding of our history. Look up Pinkerton Detective Agency in Wikipedia. Not only were they hired by President Lincoln as his personal bodyguards, but the U.S. Military employed them extensively for things like guarding shipments and security of facilities.

Anonymous said...

Theres a reason these security companies are necessary RIGHT NOW - Clinton virtually shut down the military during his term. He made the worthless Iraq-Containment policy with its equally worthless no-fly zones come out of the military budget.

That is not acceptable. We need to realize that the world is a dangerous place, and spend appropriately on defense.

Mike said...

I'm a bit late catching up with the comments, as my internet was down all last night. Thanks to all, including the lefties for politely stoking the debate. If I could give a prize for the best comment it would go to Black Bob for this:

'Leftists are always so anti-military, but in this case the military presents itself as an manifestation of government-controlled business, aka Socialism, so it gets the win.'

Hope Bob doesn't mind if I use that in a future post!

BUCK SARGENT said...

For the record, I'm an infantry NCO about to go back for his third tour. (I reenlisted, so save your boo-hoos for someone who cares).

I'll say this: contractors earn the fair market value for what we all do over there. Soldiers don't because we're govt. employees just like the President. He doesn't earn what Michael Eisner does either. However, soldiers also get paid roughly the same salary whether we're at war or not, so it equals out eventually over a career.

Blackwater employees (who are all ex-Spec Ops guys; good luck being accepted if you're not) only get paid while they're at war. Thus, the higher pay ratio. Plus, they don't have the trillion dollar baggage that comes with govt. employees, such as health insurance, retirement pensions, initial training costs, etc. You'd be surprised just how expensive maintaining just one G.I. from basic training onward can be. It's a lot more than the cost of one Blackwater guy who's on average performing far more dangerous work on a daily basis.

Like I said, I'm in the infantry, and frankly, I'd rather the govt. farm out that type of protective detail work than make us do it. It's often dull and monotonous and it detracts from the real offensive operations that we're trained for. Plus, it would just be our heads that everyone would be calling for after we were forced to take the EXACT SAME ACTIONS that the press rails against Blackwater et al. for taking.

Newsflash: diplomatic convoys in Iraq are huge targets for the enemy, and Iraqi civilians are notoriously bad eyewitnesses of anything. During my last tour, local shopkeepers were being openly gunned down on the street by the Mahdi Army, aka JAM (guys dressed just like ordinary Iraqi "civilians") while we were literally a block away drinking chai with the local police captains trying to establish good rapport.

Within minutes we would haul to the scene on foot and ask who shot the man and people would point at us and say "you did." (Meaning U.S. soldiers.) We were the only ones in the area, so we knew this to be untrue, but the rumors (actually well-timed enemy propaganda) had already spread so fast that even this man's relatives were already convinced that we had shot him down. He had only been killed for this very reason: to blame on us and thus discredit all the hard work we had already put in around that section of Baghdad.

This type of scenario is what occurs on a daily basis all around Iraq. This is why the war has made such hard and slow progress. All-out combat is relatively rare in Iraq and has been for years. 90% of patrols go by without incident. But we are fighting an information war constantly, and it certainly does not help that our own media is so often complicit.

"Buck Sargent"
OEF 2003-04
OIF 2005-06
OIF 2007-?

Anonymous said...

Frankly, for those of you who keep: A)saying Iraq is a quagmire, B)going on about how we NEED socialism, & C)keep nagging the military to "be more sensitive"(yes, people have said it to me), here are a few things to consider:
A) Although my heart goes out to families who have lost loved ones, Iraq is not a quagmire. The death count is no-where CLOSE to any other war we've fought. I also have it on good authority that it's not nearly as bad as the media says it is over there. B)Please remember that socialism is the basis of communism, & look at how well it's served the countries who have adopted it completely. It should only be used in small doses, like alcohol. C)"Being more sensitive" is a large part of what's killing soldiers in Iraq right now. If you want more of them to stay alive, we should just let them do their job without B-Sing them all the time. If not, we should let mercenaries like Blackwater do THEIR jobs, as they won't be weighed down by similar BS.

Mike said...

Buck, thanks for a great comment. Hope you don't mind if I put it up as a post – more people need to hear this kind of insight and wisdom from the guys who know.

It's an honour to have you visit my blog. If you ever want to drop me a line with something you'd like me to post it's mikebmcnally (at) hotmail (dot) com.

Thanks for your service and God Speed

Mike

Anonymous said...

If you want news from Iraq straight from Iraqis without all the MSM filtering and distortions, http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ This Iraqi also links to many other Iraqi and middle eastern blogs.

I love the web. It hardly takes any effort at all to do an end run around the leftist news media and get direct to the actual information.

Anonymous said...

The worst carnage ever in modern warfare was at the battle of Antietam during the US Civil War. 23,000 died in less than 24 hours.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Buck, see you over there. 2nd Brigade 101st is wheels up in a couple weeks for Tour Three.

Good hunting, man.

Anonymous said...

The Iraq war has been a disater for the Republican party.

Anonymous said...

actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.

Anonymous said...

Hello all!

Anonymous said...

Magnific!

Anonymous said...

Wonderful blog.

Anonymous said...

qufJbi write more, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful blog.

Anonymous said...

Please write anything else!

Anonymous said...

Hello all!

Anonymous said...

Good job!

Anonymous said...

Good job!

Anonymous said...

actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to author.

Anonymous said...

Good job!

Anonymous said...

Wonderful blog.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful blog.

Anonymous said...

Nice Article.

Anonymous said...

Please write anything else!

Anonymous said...

Save the whales, collect the whole set

Anonymous said...

Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!

Anonymous said...

If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

Anonymous said...

Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

Anonymous said...

All generalizations are false, including this one.

Anonymous said...

What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?

Anonymous said...

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Anonymous said...

C++ should have been called B

Anonymous said...

Beam me aboard, Scotty..... Sure. Will a 2x10 do?

Anonymous said...

What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?

Anonymous said...

If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

Anonymous said...

When there's a will, I want to be in it.

Anonymous said...

Save the whales, collect the whole set

Anonymous said...

actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.

Anonymous said...

student american express

Anonymous said...

Loans are quick drawing up and low interest fast payday loan no credit

Anonymous said...

Have a financial emergency? Bad credit? No credit? Other financial problems? You will find help on this site online payday loan. Quick and easy loan in drawing up and low interest.