By Jim Tankersley
A team of Democratic lawmakers led by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced a bill this afternoon that would quickly force private security contractors out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill, which Schakowsky dubbed the S.O.S. -- "Stop Outsourcing Security" -- Act, would force the State Department to phase out an estimated 800 private diplomatic security guards within six months of enactment. It would ban other private security guards in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else Congress has authorized the use of force by 2009.
Sponsors estimate between 40,000 and 100,000 private security contractors are currently at work in Iraq, though they complain the Bush administration won't share the documents necessary for a more accurate count. The contractors have generated controversy for their tactics, their compensation -- many are retired members of the military who pull down six-figure salaries -- and what critics call a lack of accountability for their actions.
In September, guards employed by the security firm Blackwater USA killed 17 Iraqi civilians and provoked cries of outrage in Iraq and in Washington. Investigating the killings, the State Department apparently promised immunity from prosecution to Blackwater guards it interviewed.
Schakowsky said it appears contractors "can get away with murder" in Iraq. "With this legislation, we're saying enough is enough," she said. "It's time to end the Bush administration's addiction to contractors."
Other lawmakers suggested higher stakes -- such as the future of America's signature form of government.
Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and a historian by trade, said history shows "mercenary armies can overthrow democracy."
Speaking about Blackwater in particular, he added: "A private army, in the hands of people in a democracy, is fatal... it's very fragile, this democracy."
Other lawmakers and speakers at the press conference, including the mother of a Blackwater employee killed in Iraq and an Iraq war veteran who co-founded the political action committee VoteVets.org, said the private forces undermine America's moral authority and demoralize comparatively lower-paid American soldiers.
The lure of private security jobs "is why we've had to lower our standards in the military to retain people," said Jon Soltz, the VoteVets co-founder.
Asked how a U.S. military already struggling to recruit enough troops could make up for the lost private security forces, Soltz suggested National Guard or Army Reserve troops could step in. Schakowsky said the military would step up its recruitment, likening the situation to the federalization of airport security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The bill faces an uncertain future. It has a Senate sponsor, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, but so far no home in a House committee. Stay tuned.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Get the mercenary thugs off the U.S. Government payroll.
Posted by: AJF | November 7, 2007 5:52 PM
Hey, Ms. Schakowsky.....you go girl!!!
Posted by: Mair | November 7, 2007 7:32 PM
Another way to deal with for-profit, private contractors is to not defend them when the iraqi or other foreign government for that matter tries them and finds them liable, the same way we'd try illegal aliens. This would mean that they would suffer whatever consequence the foreign country prescribes to the victim of their actions. If Iraq or Iran wants an immediate death penalty for shooting any of their citizens...sorry, you are a private contractor. The US government can't help you. Just another thought.
Take the US government out of the picture entirely and leave them out in the cold. The contracting out then is just to do the work, and no protection or umbrella for them. I don't think they'd do it, unless the folks at the top of the private armies are making millions at the expense of the poor souls that volunteer to take these dangerous jobs. But then would there be compensation for the injured, or to their families in the event of death? Probably not. I guess after all this rambling, perhaps there should not be a private army, as a matter of policy.
Posted by: Jimmy | November 7, 2007 7:58 PM
Losing the Iraq war because the American people will not allow it to be won. I laugh, U.S.!
Posted by: Diablo | November 8, 2007 5:43 AM
Here's how the State Departmenet "controls" Blackwater.
Blackwater mercenary thugs shoot three Iraqis in an Iraqi government compound dead with sniper fire.
The State Department "investigation" consists of asking the killers if what they did was right. They then chat about it in the motorcade on the way back to the green zone. No one ever bothers to talk to The witnesses at the Government ministry where the victims were killed, or to go back to the scene of the crime at all.
The State Department then declares the shootings justified with no further discussion with anyone, least of all the Iraqi government we are supposedly there to protect.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21684074/
Posted by: AJF | November 8, 2007 7:10 AM
These unemployables in D.C. who wish to ban private contractors are simply trying to throw sand into the gears of our crusade.
We need the the private contractors. These politicicans are the ones who are protected by the private contractors when they go to "investigate Iraq." so that they can have their picture taken for campaigning.
We've got a war going on and we ought to do anything that it takes to win. WE DO WANT TO WIN DON'T WE? or don't we? We have always done what it takes to win until that drug soaked generation disgraced our county during the Vietman War.
Posted by: Hunthorse | November 8, 2007 7:32 AM
This is just plain political again. Blackwater is a very professional, disciplined team who is giving aid to our country. I think that is what Democrats aren't liking.
Posted by: Judy | November 8, 2007 7:42 AM
Blackwater defends and protects the visiting politicians. This is because our military is limited in scope. Next time a politician goes to Iraq, let them know in advance that our service people will escort them, leaving the serv. person's normal post unmanned, let's see who will go.
Posted by: holden | November 8, 2007 8:47 AM
hunthorse, are you posting from Iraq? If not, shut your stupid cakehole. 57,000 men and women died for a mistake and you call them 'drug soaked'. You 'sir', are the worst sort of filth and I submit that shut your yap.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 8, 2007 8:55 AM
for weinerdog43 >>>
Right on!!!
Posted by: Mair | November 8, 2007 9:10 AM
Under this administration, nothing will get done about Blackwater, since they have the Republicans in their back pocket with their thousands of dollars of contributions.
And ask the soldiers over there what they think of merecenaries getting paid 10 times as much as they are to play bodyguard.
Posted by: BobinATL | November 8, 2007 9:12 AM
While trawling the blogosphere I recently came across someone rhetorically asking ‘Who drives against traffic in a traffic circle?’
A fair question. The State Department contract with Blackwater, which is about 1,000 pages long and extensively detailed, stipulate that State Department convoys travel quickly and drive aggressively. Furthermore, no State Department official ever travels with less than three vehicles and they’re always the biggest stuff they can find, with those obnoxious “Warning: Stay Back” signs and all of that.
This is in contrast to the CIA, which drives around Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, with contract security, all the time, but doesn’t run into trouble. Why? Because they’re riding in unmarked beat-up pickups and following traffic patterns. The difference, surprisingly, is not the contractors - both employ them - but the agency that hires them and the terms of the contracts.
It’s sad to think that the State Department officially has the lead for public diplomacy. Who most heavily opposed the State Department terms under which Blackwater is employed? The Department of Defense (which also employs contractors, but again, under different terms), folks who actually know a thing or two about public diplomacy, even though it’s not their primary duty.
The State Department contract also stipulated that diplomatic security guards must wear wrap-around sunglasses (a cultural faux pas in the Arabic world) and prohibited facial hair (another cultural faux pas). Just what were these State Department boys learning at Georgetown?
Lest you think I’m making this up, the Christian Science Monitor recently ran a story along these basic line. It’s definitely worth the read: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1102/p09s01-coop.html
Posted by: Aaron R. Linderman | November 8, 2007 10:17 AM
Hey Jimmy, Diablo, Hunthorse and Judy....
Looks like the Iraq Government doesn't wan't to "win the war" either...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/middleeast/08ministry.html?ex=1352178000&en=744435e9964ad7ef&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Posted by: Rick Hegdahl | November 8, 2007 11:38 AM
AJF:
If you want more proof, read the article in Swamp Gas today about the February incident. Another situation where the State Department asks the Blackwater guys what happened, don't bother to ask for any opposing views, and pat them on the back for a job well done.
Posted by: BobinATL | November 8, 2007 11:47 AM
HHHMMMMM. Let me get this straight.
You don't want any more U.S. troops deployed overseas.
You don't want Iraq to explode into a fundamentalist Islamic enemy.
You don't want private security overseas protecting U.S. diplomats and civilians rebuilding Iraq.
Sorry. If you add all that up, the math just doesn't work.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2007 3:56 PM
Anoymous-
So the only solution is to let Blackwater mercenaries kill Iraqi civilians and government workers without any oversite, investigation or consequence?
We're supposed to win hearts and minds by splattering them all over the sidewalk indiscriminately?
Talk about the math not working.
Posted by: AJF | November 8, 2007 4:38 PM
When is murder not murder?
When you work for Blackwater.
Posted by: G.I. Joe | November 9, 2007 12:04 AM
Blackwater should be shut down. Period. Bring the troops home to defend our borders.
WHen our military doesn't have enough men to do the job...they shouldn't be asked to do it.Blackwater is a national security threat. If you think they couldn't be turned against American Populace, you're living in a fantasy world.
American Military in 130 countries worldwide, hardly any national security forces at home, and we have the biggest Security firn located in Virginia. You people better wake tf up.
This whole Iraq debacle better have some consequences for the powers who ordered it.
Posted by: Carl | February 11, 2008 4:04 AM