WAR: The Shadow Soldiers of Iraq

A New York Times article is examining the role of private security in Iraq. More than any other conflict in history, the Pentagon is turning to private security firms to take on jobs once given to the military. These "shadow soldiers" have arrived by the hundreds, to fill the ranks of security firms that have set up ship in Baghdad. By DAVID BARSTOW, NYT, Published: April 19, 2004 New York Times Free Subscription may be required Far more than in any other conflict in United States history, the Pentagon is relying on private security companies to perform crucial jobs once entrusted to the military. In addition to guarding innumerable reconstruction projects, private companies are being asked to provide security for the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer III, and other senior officials; to escort supply convoys through hostile territory; and to defend key locations, including 15 regional authority headquarters and even the Green Zone in downtown Baghdad, the center of American power in Iraq. With every week of insurgency in a war zone with no front, these companies are becoming more deeply enmeshed in combat, in some cases all but obliterating distinctions between professional troops and private commandos. Company executives see a clear boundary between their defensive roles as protectors and the offensive operations of the military. But more and more, they give the appearance of private, for-profit militias � by several estimates, a force of roughly 20,000 on top of an American military presence of 130,000. An excellent read. [Edited on 19-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

This is a really bad precedent. Given how things are deteriorating in Iraq, I'm afraid these shadow troops will perceived as mercenaries as opposed to civilian workers. Another interesting point to be considered is cost. I'm sure we'll never get the numbers but commonsense tells me the total cost to us taxpayers is going to be a lot higher than it would be if regular army were used

Does anybody knows how much influence does the alqueda and hamas has on the fightings in iraq? and does anybody knows who is the new palestinian hamas leader I kind of sleep trought that one, are we fighting iraqis or alqueda and hamas in iraq.?

This shadow soldiers sound to me so kind of pay guerrillas I thought us do not deal in this type of things.

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by marg6043]

Well sorry to say my husband just informe me that they are not guerrillas but contractors like himself that even when he is retaired he still works for the goverment, he works in the field of communications.

Are they not being paid to kill by a non government entity? Are they not for hire? They are merc's!

Merc is in iraq working with medical supplies they are not fighters.

Some are soldiers for hire and everyone knows it.

my husband tells me that is not such think as soldiers for hire that are contractors, he is a contractor himself for EMA and if is any soldiers they are not from us but from some other country and they will be for hired by some companies for security and recently one of the owners of one of the companies that supplies security was taken hostage. US does not uses soldiers for hired because is not in the best interest for us to hire mercenaries and the companie my husband work with was asking for voluntiers to go and setup comunications for the olimpics in grece because is some scare of atacks during the olimpics and I told him over my death body he is going out of the country and he is a retaired marine but he is not a soldier for hire or mercenary.

Does anyone out there doubt that the influx of 'private security contractors' in Iraq is the DoD's answer to the Geneva Convention violating nature of urban combat? The U.S. has seen Israel's difficulties in executing (pardon the word) policy against Palestinians using the IDF. As soon as you send soldiers to fight in urban combat, violation of Geneva Convention rules of war is inevitable as a result of the vastly different nature of urban guerrilla combat today versus the nature of urban combat back in WWII. You immediately suffer the a**hole effect in an effort to fight effectively in those situations.

Back then, the goal was to repel an occupying army while maintaining the safety of the occupied civilians. Now, we are the occupying force and we're trying to fight against the occupied civilians. Funny, but I think the Germans were lambasted for their war crimes with respect to concentration camps more than their method of urban combat. Now the story is different and the U.S. is expected to 'behave itself' as it engages in similar forms of combat. Is it all that surprising that we are striving to minimize the a**hole effect of occupation by utilizing soldiers who don't look so obviously American? That's a big reason for the 'coalition'...to make this war seem less American and more global.

I, personally, believe that these 'contractors' are simply a result of trying to be successful in Iraq while minimizing the appearance of inpropriety. Heck, the U.S. has had SOF dress civilian for years to improve intelligence gathering and operational capabilities. Why not extend that philosophy by having 'civilians' do your dirty work?

You may be right but this soldiers are not contractors, they are supply by security firms base in iraq. May be I am getting the wold contractor in another meaning I guess if you supply me with a security soldier it will be seem as a contracted soldier or a mercenary for hiring. Will that be the right way to put it?