Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Paul_in_Van
Trad climber
Near Squampton
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:08pm PT
|
And here I was thinking that someone had moved the climb Blackwater in Squamish to somewhere where it stood more of a chance of being dry.......
(super bad seepage for most of the year prevents people from climbing this uber-classic 12a).
P
|
|
NateC
Mountain climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:17pm PT
|
The only way to shorten the conflict is to get the hell out of the ME, period.
I agree with that completely as well. The unfortunate part is how the hell do we get out of there after we've created the mess?
We're already bad guys for what we've done there. To simply throw in the towel and walk away after what we've started is the most despicable thing I can think of.
I just don't see a real solution no matter what and it saddens me deeply.
Locker, in my mind the term "killer" has a very negative connotation. A killer to me is someone who relishes in it. A person who enjoys killing.
I do not see our troops, or contractors for that matter as "killers". They are doing a job that many people find unpalatable. Killing is unfortunately an awful reality for many of these people.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:18pm PT
|
NateC,
The answer isn't:
The simple answer in my opinion...$200,000.
The answer is Congressional authorization and oversight; military command, control, and accountability; ROE's; and mission effectiveness.
That and the American people's ability to perceive the true costs and force levels associated with a conflict. SpecOps units going into Afganistan, Iraq, or Iran in advance of a conflict has enormous implications in Congress - contractors, be they CIA or DoD get played fast and loose and are used exactly because of that.
|
|
NateC
Mountain climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:23pm PT
|
Healy,
You missed my points. Reread my posts.
Though, I'm game for this discussion. How do you have gov't, military, and congressional oversight, as well as strict ROE that state you must not fire upon unless fired upon first (even if someone runs up and sticks the gun in your chest- it has happened in Iraq)...
how do you have all of these things and fight against an enemy who not only has none of these limitations but is also exploiting these limitations.
After the mess we've made, you can't just answer that question with "we get out of the ME." The situation just isn't that simple. I would very much like it to be.
The answer is Congressional authorization and oversight; military command, control, and accountability; ROE's; and mission effectiveness.
That and the American people's ability to perceive the true costs and force levels associated with a conflict. SpecOps units going into Afganistan, Iraq, or Iran in advance of a conflict has enormous implications in Congress - contractors, be they CIA or DoD get played fast and loose and are used exactly because of that.
Just to make a further point of what I already stated...
Fighting a war with contractors is nothing new. They weren't called contractors back then but the D-Day invasion was launched with similar tactics and "contractor" individuals working with resistance movements in order secure landings for paratroopers who paved the way for the larger ground invasion.
Without "contractors" WWII wouldn't have turned out the way that it did. At least not without cost 1000's more lives.
The tactics aren't new, just the words used to describe them. Nothing has changed in this war that hasn't been done in the past. The leadership is just piss poor.
|
|
NateC
Mountain climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:38pm PT
|
No sweat Locker. I actually see where you are coming from.
I've enjoyed the discussion. Work is done for the day, and I'm sure I'll find something better to do than argue on the internet when I get home.
Have a good weekend everyone.
|
|
My Name Is Drew
Big Wall climber
Dogtown, LosAngeles, CA.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:41pm PT
|
Is that like blackrain over Japan?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 07:58pm PT
|
"I understand the point you are trying to make Hawk. The thing is, the DOD doesn't give a sh#t who goes down. The opportunity to work for a contractor is a really good one for a lot of guys who went into the military and are now using those skills to make a healthy living for themself. "
That is how it STARTED but that's not what's happening now. The US Taxpayer pays for those guys to get recruited and trained and then they simply muster out and then get hired as a contractor doing essentially the exact same job for 4 - 6 times the money. Additionally, they are currently not being ruled by the code of conduct of ANY country and are being treated as outside the law.
If you want to hire "contractors" to wash dishes, drive trucks and do laundry more power to you, but trigger pullers should be wearing the uniform of the US military, under the control of the US constitution and the code of miltary conduct.
Furthermore, there are reports that mercenaries are being recruited from South and Central America among other countries who have experience in death squads and militarys of ill repute. These are not the type of people that should be fighting under our country's flag.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 08:06pm PT
|
Nate-
So you are saying that we should forget trying to create a democracy in Iraq and simply create another brutal dictatorship in the name of security?
You are asking how we can have things like the ROE when our enemy does not? Because we are fighting a political war, not a military one. Our goal is not the physical domination of Iraq but the political conversion of its people. You can not have a no holds barred ROE and then expect poeple to see you as anything but a mortal enemy. Look at Abu Ghraib! The damage that the Abu Ghraib scandal did to our efforts in the ME is immeasurable, and that damage is magnified every time we are seen as not working for the interests of the Iraqi people.
Ultimately, I think the answer to your real question is that we are in a lose-lose situation in Iraq. If we play by the rules we get hammered, if we don't we lose political support. Either way its a failed mission and a failed policy.
|
|
My Name Is Drew
Big Wall climber
Dogtown, LosAngeles, CA.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 08:22pm PT
|
Yep, a second glance and it appears I misread your post.
my bad.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 08:24pm PT
|
Cops have rules of engagement. The bad guys don't play by them. Whats different about this? Because Its a war zone? We have a "war" on drugs. Should cops be allowed to shoot first?
Nate, I think you are drawing too fine a line between your definition of contractor and your definition of mercinary. You say its okay just because they are U.S. citizens? Mercy.... Too many of them get paid to fight.
This is one of the hidden costs of the war. Contractor lives or Military lives, we sent them. We should count them.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 08:40pm PT
|
NateC,
There is a vast and wide difference between indigenous 'resistance' or opposition forces and sending in either mercs or specops personnel. This is a lot of dancing around classifications aimed at justifying the use of such personnel.
In the end you seem to be saying is 'they fight dirty and so we have to too and we can't use our military personnel for that'. That I disagree with entirely. We can use specops teams in combination with indigenious resources under presidential authority, with congressional oversight, with military command and control, and with ROE's appropriate to the mission. The argument to the contrary is the same one they've been using for not utilizing the FISA court for eavesdropping when that court in fact provided them the exact facilities the administration tried to claim it lacked.
What the above does require is that we as a nation, a president as an individual, and congress in the form of oversight committees take ownership of any and all such operations and results. They don't have to be public, just owned - and this administration has create a war in part by not owning things it knows would never fly with the American public and made a science of 'plausible deniability' through the use of 'contractors'. Own our sh#t and we can use the military and our courts, try to avoid owning our own sh#t and we're no different or better than those we seek to oppose.
That Rumsfeld and Cheney and their crew of civilian clowns totally screwed-the-pooch from day one-minus-730 is another story altogether and one that has f#cked the active military, Guard, and Reserve in the ass. Supporting the troops? On a petard is clearly what the administration meant.
|
|
NateC
Mountain climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 08:51pm PT
|
Ultimately, I think the answer to your real question is that we are in a lose-lose situation in Iraq. If we play by the rules we get hammered, if we don't we lose political support. Either way its a failed mission and a failed policy.
That's exactly what I was saying.
Moosie,
The police are allowed to shoot as soon as a weapon is pointed at them as a threat. Our troops are not allowed to shoot when their lives are threatened, they are only allowed to shoot when fired upon. That has been the difference between living and dying for more than a few of our troops. That's what I was talking about regarding ROE.
This news of South Americans and other non-citizens being recruited is news to me, and I'm very attached to the situation.
Look, everyone here seems to have this sense that I'm gung-ho let's go get some. I'm not. I am however in touch with the very reality that we are faced with. There is a war going on. There's no such thing as fighting fair in a war. You may or may not agree with it, but it's reality not opinion.
I'm not voicing support for the politics of using these personnel, I'm simply voicing my opinion that many of these personnel are not the scum of the earth that a lot of people would like them to be.
As for the arguments for and against the tactics that are being employed, I'm not arguing either way, even though Healy and HDDj would like to make it that way.
What I have pointed out is that there are a lot of things that people are finding out about during this war that have gone on in all the wars past. It doesn't make them right or wrong, I'm not picking a side. What I'm saying is that this has gone on before, and it will go on in the future.
JFK employed many of the same tactics, but a lot of the people who are sickened by the thought of it happening in this war would be his biggest fans if it was happening today.
My arguments have all been based on the original post by Hawkeye that was comparing the use of contracted forces to some kind of backdoor draft. Simply put.
I'll try to keep up with the conversation as I can but I'm packing for a trip so forgive me if it seems like I just left the discussion after having a different view.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 09:12pm PT
|
Thanks for the factual posts Nate...
I DO know about these organizations and the people who work for them.
Nate, your posts are dead on.
When the US rebuilds anything over in Iraq, and private construction companies do the work...who do you think protects them?
Who protects diplomats and their families?
If you traveled there, who could you hire as a bodyguard?
Who do you think the media uses?
And NO they don't go out on offensive ops.
They protect the client and if the sh#t hits the fan they don't stick around to fight...they get the f*#k out of there.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 09:17pm PT
|
NateC,
I'm not knocking the individuals who are employed by these Private Military Corporations (PMCs), or their competency, tactics, or ROE's.
I am specifically saying that the only reason we as a nation have and are resorting to this is because we are unwilling to own our own sh#t. War is hell, deplorable tactics are sometimes necessary (bulldozers burying trenched infantry comes to mind), and ROE's sometimes need to be brutal.
This war was expressly 'sold' by positioning it on every front as not requiring anything from the American people -
 it would be paid for by Iraqi oil
it would require next to no troops
it would require no resources after the initial engagement
it would require no torture
it would require no use of our courts
it would all be handled simply, cleanly, and with no angst or discomfort for the American public
in fact if all goes according to plan the only prisoner or dead body anyone will see is Saddam's
It was a mix of a self-fulfilling delusional fantasy and flat out lies. The whole purpose of 'contractors', Gitmo, rendition, manufactured intel, illegal wiretaps, and felonious legal findings from several AGs was specifically and solely to hide the true intent, nature, scope, and consequences of this war from the the American people. The administration's manipulation of the senior military command structure was basically all but criminal and I salute those senior officers who retired and spoke out rather than taking part in such a broad ranging conspiracy of stupidity. Those senior officers who stepped up and rolled over are a disgrace to their uniforms.
The [url="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html" target="new"]blistering commentary[/url] of retired Lieut. General Greg Newbold on the behavior of our military leadership at the start of this 'war' should be required reading for every citizen.
P.S. We are currently f#cked in Iraq regardles of ROE's or tactics. The invasion was a mistake, period. But, we MAY have been able to get in and out almost clean - or certainly better than this - had we gone in with a 5-600k force level, instantly restored the infrastructure and oil production and then simply walked away leaving the Baathists and the security forces intact. This will in the end simply be THE benchmark international case study on the folly of the inappropriate use of military might, how not to plan and conduct a war, and especially how to mismanage the aftermath of war.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 09:19pm PT
|
"The police are allowed to shoot as soon as a weapon is pointed at them as a threat. Our troops are not allowed to shoot when their lives are threatened, they are only allowed to shoot when fired upon. That has been the difference between living and dying for more than a few of our troops. That's what I was talking about regarding ROE. "
It doesn't help that everyone HAS a weapon.
|
|
NateC
Mountain climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007 - 09:25pm PT
|
Healy, I agree with you completely at this point and we really are talking about different things.
HDDj- It doesn't matter if everyone has guns. There are a WHOLE LOT of guns in America. The difference is that if you take aim upon a police officer, he WILL shoot you. He won't wait to make sure that you are shooting at him first.
In Iraq, if a gun is aimed at one of our soldiers, he/she cannot do anything about it. He/she must wait until fired upon before protecting himself.
This has resulted in true "mercenaries" taking advantage of the ROE that have been established in order to get very close before killing our soldiers.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2007 - 02:47am PT
|
well, i am agreeing with you guys on all fronts really.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2007 - 03:07am PT
|
Healje says it well,
"It was a mix of a self-fulfilling delusional fantasy and flat out lies. The whole purpose of 'contractors', Gitmo, rendition, manufactured intel, illegal wiretaps, and felonious legal findings from several AGs was specifically and solely to hide the true intent, nature, scope, and consequences of this war from the the American people."
Nate, it sounds to me like you are concerned that we think these contractors are a bunch of Rambos and thats why we don't agree with using them. That just isn't the case for me. My concern is that they are a part of the cost of war and should be reported. In fact, if Rumsfield planned on using them from the beginning in order to make it look like this would be a small war needing few troops and few commitments, then we the people should have known that. Especially if part of what they are doing is getting around the ROE. Not that I think the rules are good, I haven't looked at them, but just because it smacks of underhanded dealings by our leadership which concerns me greatly. This administration plays fast and loose with the rules we try to live by. I don't like that.
Our using contractors carrying weapons while not reporting it and not counting their deaths is the same as our not allowing the media to show flag drapped coffins. It is an attempt to hide the true cost of war.
It also smacks of profiteering. A great way to help ones buddies make some serious money at the expense of the American people.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2007 - 08:50am PT
|
This is the last paragraph (before the References setion) on the Wiki"take it with a pinch of salt"pedia entry for Blackwater.
Author Chris Hedges has warned against the establishment of mercenary armies as a threat to democracy in his June 3, 2007 article for the New York Times, "What if our mercenaries turn on us?"
Yeah, what if one of these private armies did turn...
Nah, I'm just being paranoid. It could never happen. I mean, the US is no banana republic, is it?
Does anybody know where I can some insurgency training in case a (private) army ever did invade/take over the ...
...What's that you say, Blackwater does this sort of training. Got a phone number (if you can't beat them, join them).
Nah, I've got to get away from this paranoia that the neo-cons would use force to remain in power and pursue their agendas. I have to stop listening to the lefties, I have to eat my broccoli, I have to clean up my room, I have to...
BTW, is there a difference between a private army and, say, a corporal or sergeant army? Does that only mean that privates can serve in a private army?
What about a captain army? Or major army? A general army?
I’m confused.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!