The Nation: Obama's Position on Mercenaries in Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST
Tags: Iraq, Barack Obama '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Just out at The Nation:

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in.

Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)

Bottom line, according to Obama's senior advisor:

. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law."

More...

As to what the import is:

But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda"--all very broad swaths of the occupation.

Question: Is Obama's exit plan really an exit plan?

< Site Update | Keeping Obama' s Media Darling Status Is The Key To His GE Chances >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Nation: Obama's Position on Mercenaries in Iraq | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I am so afraid of this (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:14:49 AM EST

it isn't even funny. I hope my husband doesn't mind if I use some of his words he frequently speaks but often he says, "I have an idea what to expect out of Clinton and she isn't perfect but she can say NO to people who are going to be mad at her for saying NO to them. Obama doesn't seem to know what the word No is and claims to be able to tell everyone YES. Someone MUST say NO to continuing almost everything that the Bush administration has done concerning Iraq and our military."

This contractor stuff is dangerous as hell. There is NO REASON why our own forces can't be protecting our representatives except that people at the top feel that a certain amount of lawlessness must be allowed for in the protection of their precious hindquarters. What this soldier's wife wants to know is why is the possibility of their death so undesirable and so unthinkable when compared to yours or mine or the soldier serving this nation? They aren't kings and queens! If they don't want their fannies in danger then don't make wars and end the wars we are involved in out there quickly......today even! Then all the contractors can put their guns down and go home!

BUT HRC (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM EST

Has not said no to mercenaries, has she. According to the Nation HRC would not comment as to her position.


I trust her to do the right thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM EST

before I trust Yesman Golden Child Contractors are necessary Obama. She has been to Iraq so I know that she knows and has experienced its dangers. I'm grateful that she has made no comment as of yet because she must weigh what she has experienced and lived verses what could have been and what should be and what can be. The stress of visiting Iraq right now must be one of those things that nobody forgets ever.


But (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST

She has has plenty of time to address the issue. Another article at The Nation criticizes her for having Mark Penn as her advisor. His company worked for Blackwater.

The right thing would be for her to state that she will eliminate US use of private security companies in war zones, or elsewhere. Don't hold your breath on that one Military Tracy, cause it is not going to happen.

At best, imo, she will echo BHO's statement and demand accountability for the mercs.


: If she does I guess I'll just be voting (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST

me some Nader and I'll know that earlier than expected ;) There are some things I can color a little outside the lines on but this isn't one of them.

HRC on Contractors (none / 0) (#61)
by cal1942 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:35:08 PM EST

A while back Clinton said she would eliminate contract employees in the federal government. Not a sexy issue but one of greater significance than is generally understood and one that foretells a significant commitment to progressive good government values.

That may explain why AFCSME endorsed Clinton.

Whether she would include ditching outfits like Blackwater was less clear, but, a commitment to ridding the government of privatization disease would seem to eventually include eliminating private armies for hire.

It helped a little with the deep disapointment and depression when John Edwards dropped out.


No reason?!?! (none / 0) (#50)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:03:02 PM EST

There is NO REASON why our own forces can't be protecting our representatives

There sure is a reason -- a darn good one if you ask me.

Our forces are stretched to the breaking point. If, God forbid, another conflict broke out before we could draw down enough forces in Iraq -- we'd face a simple choice: private contractors or re-instating the draft.

C'mon. The standard line for any commander in chief is that you don't rule out strategic options ahead of time.

I didn't see HRC ruling it out, either.


Our forces are stretched to the (none / 0) (#55)
by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST

breaking point because of the surge. There is no surge end in sight either and having contractors only allows for our own forces to be more abused and worn more thin and once again silences this democracy. Look, if the American people were behind this B.S. in Iraq our forces wouldn't be stretched thin at all. People would be lined up outside the recruiters offices as I type this. We would be so flush with serving soldiers nobody would be stretched. Having mercs only leads to more brokeness. Want to deal with being broken today or being even more broken tomorrow? It's your choice as to what you want to support here. I'm just stating the facts of life.


: I'm dumbfounded by how easily (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST

it seems that so many people have become delusional about how that "all volunteer forces concept" was/is supposed to keep our nation out of wars not supported by the voters and citizens of this democracy! NO MORE MERCS people.......you can't have them and make any sort of claim that you are a democracy. As a serving soldier's wife, having to debate this issue with some folks in this thread has made me sick my stomach today.

What US Laws is he taking about? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST

Isn't one of the main problems that they aren't accountable to the chain of command? They aren't subject to "rules of engagement" orders?

As I understand it, this is the only reason the Bush administration uses them, because they aren't accountable.

What other purpose do they serve?

Why would the Obama campaign be parsing on such an obvious issue?

Different From Bush (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:21:42 AM EST

From the link BHO's position:

"I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law."

I can read (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST

I'm asking what US laws is he talking about?

Being subject to "rules of engagement" and following orders through the chain of command aren't US Laws that I'm aware of.

It's just an odd construction to me ... "US Laws."

I find it puzzling.


The Same Us Laws (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST

That hold military personnel accountable for murder, rape, and robbery for starters.


Is there a link to ... (none / 0) (#39)
by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST

Obama or his campaign specifying that?

It seems like a thorny issue. Are there provision in US law for the indictment and trial of a US citizen for murder, rape or robbery in a foreign country?

And what about contractors who aren't US citizens? Some of them aren't. How would they be handled?


: No, mercs are exempt from our laws (none / 0) (#53)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST

for rape, at least, so probably for the rest. (There are cases of rape -- by our merc men of our merc women -- not being prosecuted right now, much discussed on cable new and the 'Net, although certainly not discussed enough . . . if you want to search.)

Insofar as (none / 0) (#19)
by sancho on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:36:38 AM EST

U. S. law does not interfere with "U. S. security issues," that is. Obama will put a new face on the occupation of Iraq but he will not substantially change Bush's foreign policy there: to protect U. S. oil interests (because our country runs on oil). This goes back to the so-called Carter Doctrine. People who think Obama is the anti-war candidate are fooling themselves. This is not to deny that many years ago Obama gave a speech that was, at the time, against the war. Not relevant now or in the future