« | »

Iraq To Deny Blackwater License Renewal

From an overjoyed Reuters:

Iraq to deny license to Blackwater guards

By Khalid al-Ansary

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraq will not renew the license of Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians while protecting U.S. diplomats, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

"The operating permission for the firm Blackwater will not be renewed. Its chance is zero," said Alaa al-Taie, head of the press department at the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

"It is not acceptable to Iraqis and there are legal points against it, like killing Iraqis with their weapons."

A U.S. embassy official confirmed that the embassy had been informed that the license would not be renewed, and said it was working on finding a new arrangement to cover its security…

Blackwater employs hundreds of heavily-armed guards with a fleet of armored vehicles and helicopters to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The firm boasts that no American officials have been killed while under its protection

How many will die because of this fit of pique?

This is a victory of Anti-American propaganda over actual substance.

"It is not acceptable to Iraqis and there are legal points against it, like killing Iraqis with their weapons."

Perhaps Mr. Alaa al-Taie hasn’t noticed, but there are a lot of Iraqis who are also terrorists.

One is reminded of the 1960’s slogan, “the next time you need a cop — call a hippie.” Or maybe a journalist.

Still, it will be interesting to see how long it is before Iraq quietly asks to have Blackwater back.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 29th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Iraq To Deny Blackwater License Renewal”

  1. artboyusa says:

    Good. Allowing a private army that’s accountable to no one to run all over the battlefield doing whatever it is that they do was bad policy from day one.

  2. 11ten1775 says:

    I disagree, artboy, but Col Rushworth says it better than I can:

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/community/opinion/marine_opinion_letters_063008/

  3. BillK says:

    Saddam killed plenty of Iraqis with his weapons as well, and Iraq didn’t outlaw him.

    artboy, I’ve no idea where you got the wild idea that Blackwater was “accountable to no one.”

    If you hire a contractor to perform a job, are they too “accountable to no one?”

    The only killing Blackwater guards did was in self-defense.

    Unless you believe every police officer or private citizen that uses a firearm in self-defense is also guilty of murder.

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    If they are not accountable, why are 5 of them up on murder charges? Unless you wear the body armor and heft the weapon, please don’t cast stones!
    BTW….they NEVER fought in a “Battle Zone”. Green maybe……

  5. Confucius says:

    “Still, it will be interesting to see how long it is before Iraq quietly asks to have Blackwater back.”

    How long did it take for Chavez to ask Big Oil to come back? The comparison will be interesting.

  6. artboyusa says:

    I’m just not happy with the idea of a bunch of hired guns running around the place or any other form of outsourcing either. I know the arguments for it but hey, I’m an old-fashioned kind of guy who thinks we ought to be able to run our own security, cook and serve our own food, wash our own dishes etc etc. We managed to get through our previous wars without these private contractors, so why change and where do you stop? What’s next – Hessians? I know Blackwater’s gotten a bad press and maybe a raw deal but that doesn’t mean having them around was ever a good idea.

    • Odie44 says:

      Screw bad press – look at the results “No American personel has been killed or harmed under Blackwaters watch”

      The press doesnt like any war, and since we are winning in Iraq and Bambi is at the healm – funny we haven’t heard a peep about Iraq in, say 6 months or so – including election SG pointed out yesterday.

      And “others” have been fighting along side Americans in every single war we have ever been involed, from Revolutionary days, to Tripoli, to Spanish-American, Vietnam, WW I and II, Korea, Iraq 1, etc.

      The fact 5 or so from Blackwater are underinvestigatino/arrested is accountability and I dont expect any group to be 100% innocent anywhere in the world. Its impossible.

      Even Levenworth exists for a reason…

    • jobeth says:

      Artboy, In all due respect I believe you are being very shortsighted.

      We have had many civilan contractors there whose very lives have been dependant on Blackwater. The military have other more “frontline” responsibilities and like police, can’t be everywhere.

      Our own American Contractors owe their lives to them. How many would be dead or injured right now if it were not for them.

      Do you think the Iraqis were or even now, strong enough to protect them? Not to even mention the terriorists.

      The Iraqis are quite happy our civilian contractors are there rebuilding but now they want to deny them dependable protection?

      Not a good thing.

  7. Reality Bytes says:

    So, if the boys @ Blackwater aren’t doing anything, you think maybe we could use them to patrol the border with Mexico?

    • heykev says:

      Maybe they could help with finishing building the fence. I understand the Mexican economy is in very bad shape, They are not getting the monies sent back there like they are used too. Next to oil, it’s the second biggest form of revenue for the country,

  8. Reality Bytes says:

    Now if you really want to protect the borders. LET THE ISRAELI IDF DO IT! Ohh, I just got chills. Quick someone, turn up the heat while I take my jacket off.

  9. VMAN says:

    Ya know in a way I gotta agree with artboy. Why can’t we protect our own diplomats? I also gotta say that all the catering and laundry contracting and all the other subcontracting that the military does seems wrong to me. What happened to KP duty? Some of the best restaurants I’ve eaten at were run by old Navy cooks.

    As far as all these security Companies running around out there today I guess we can thank the liberals for that. People like Mr Peanut and Slick Willie sure did run their share of good people out of the military and I have no doubt that the O hole will too. I guess if you spent your whole life killing people and breaking things it’s hard to be a used car salesman.

  10. artboyusa says:

    Thanks, VMAN. You’ll see from the link 11ten provided that the reason given is always something about lack of human resources, so therefore we need a bunch of civilians washing our clothes and cooking our food. Thanks for the interesting discussion everybody but I’m sticking to my guns. If we don’t have the resources to do the work, that’s an argument for either obtaining more resources or making better use of the ones you have, not an excuse for doing something which is not part of our tradition and which, frankly, I also think is kind of un-American.

    When the British didn’t have enough troops to fight the Revolutionary War they hired soldiers from the Duke of Hesse and those Hessians were deeply hated by our ancestors, much more so than the British troops. Why? Because the British soldiers were seen as fighting for King and Country but the Hessians were only fighting for money, which meant they were little more than profesional hit men and our ancestors despised them for it.

    When Americans have fought we’ve always (well, usually) fought to defend our country and our ideals; not for territory, not to steal someone else’s wealth and not for money either. We don’t have a mercenary tradition and I’d hate to see us get one.

    • JohnMG says:

      While I don’t necessarily disagree with everything you state. atrboy, it isn’t quite as simple as you present it.

      A few of questions first. Were we justified in taking the fight to Iraq? Was our military well-enough funded and equipped to fight a war on two fronts. Was the will to actually FIGHT demonstrated by those in congress who authorized the activity? Were those authorizing the presidential actions willing to fund the effort? Would these very same people authorize funding to increase the size of our military in terms of troop strength and equipment?

      The answers aren’t difficult.

      Yes. Fight them on their own turf, and crush them.
      No. Our military had been gutted and underfunded by Clinton.
      No. Most of those voting to authorize the president to act were doing so merely as cover for themselves. The reason many of them voted as they did was to be able to have it both ways in their own re-election bid(s) incase the war went well. (Consider Hillary, or Kerry, to name two.) It also allowed them to snipe incessantly at Bush.
      No. (See above.) Mr. Bush’s opponents used this issue to leverage spending on other projects in exchange for meager increases in funding the war. They then used “lack of armor” and “not providing enough bulletproof vests” and other contrived or manipulated shortages to further bash the president.
      No. Once they had authorized the actions taken by Bush, they put forth a constant litany of pettifoggery so that everyone would know that this was “Bush’s war”. In fact some of them worked feverishly to obstruct policies that could arguably have shortened the conflict. They hoped (and many still do) for things to go poorly for their own personal and political gain. (Harry Ried comes immediately to mind, but there are plenty more where he came from.)

      As far as contracting things out goes, ask any VietNam vet about this. RMK-BMJ was a prime sub-contractor in ‘Nam. They were everywhere, building hooches, mess halls, rec centers, and so forth.
      Locals were hired at all the permanent bases to operate barber shops, laundries, routine maintenance chores, work in the PX’s, and the like. And congress gave Mr. Johnson all the money and troop strength increases he requested. I spent my time in northern I-Corps so I can’t say first-hand how things were in Saigon, but I know our diplomatic corps’ needs were cared after by civilian contractors. It wasn’t until it became “Nixon’s war” that they got a “conscience” and started bitching about costs.

      During our Revolutionary war, the British also moved into the colonists homes and communities and conscripted them to perform non-military chores for the British. The Hessians were hated as much as were the Brits, because the Brits brought them here.
      As well, colonists with enough money could also pay to have someone else fight in their stead, a practice that was also commonplace during the Civil War. Would you consider those folks who did the fighting for those who paid themselves off as mercenaries any more than the Brittish who did much the same?

      I know this is a little thin in some places, but the history is there to support the Blackwater example, and it isn’t just recent history. It just hasn’t been used as a political bludgeon as has become so fashionable by an emboldened MSM and political party.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »