Peace surging not only in afghanistan, but yemen as well

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

It would be nice if he had the same skepticism for reports of civilian casualties as he has for the claim that the targets were AQ "hideouts." Because we all know it is impossible that a local official in the part of Yemen AQ hides out in is in bed with AQ?

Is that supposed to be a hard question to ponder? It's an obvious yes and it's not really outside of their historical character as far as I can tell.

Do you mean the people running those operations now? If so how do you think people generally react to the situation America gave them? Our foreign policy left them with no where to go. We do the same thing other empires have done throughout their history to maintain their vast nasty acquisitions. Why do you struggle to accept this? You're the one assigning the negative connotation to it. We're running a voluntary military operation that is supplemented with mercs and the regular whos who of war profiteers to expand our empire. It's not like this is something new to human history.

We told them they had to produce Osama and they could not do it like we wanted. It was either our way or you're a terrorist. It was an ignorant policy by an ignorant president. We forced their hand like we forced Sadam's.

fyp

I don't agree with 2/325 very often nor am I convinced that our current strategy in Afghanistan is the correct one, but he's pretty right in this thread. And your statement bolded above is very misleading. With the Karzai government in power, the US (along with its NATO partners) is trying to help that government maintain security within its borders. In international conflicts, this is not playing the role of the aggressor. The situation is not the same as Oct 2001.

Also, lol at folks ITT claiming truck drivers, clerks, administrators, etc. are hired professional soldiers (mercenaries). A professional soldier may drive a truck, but that doesn't make all hired truck drivers in a region professional soldiers. Draw a Venn diagram if this confuses you.

Why is the situation not the same now? I know there is a whole debate about what we should do not, I was not trying to prove what I think about that. I am just saying that we're not in this war because the we were attacked by their government.

Who claims this?

Quotes plz.

The government in place in 2001 doesn't exist anymore. What NATO is doing today in Afghanistan is not acting as the aggressor in an international conflict, they are supporting an elected government maintain security within its borders.

FYP

And much of this forum believes elected govt = our thugs for all governments, so the FYP is rather moot. Nonetheless, I intentionally used the caveat "In international conflicts..." in my original post to frame the discussion of aggression in terms of international law, not political ideology or personal whimsy.

Not according to Obama. I mean I don't think he frames the Afghanistan outcome in terms of victory/defeat and he's given a timetable for withdrawl more or less. Again Obama is privvy to info that we don't have and supposedly his judgement is superior to most. I say supposedly because we don't know and won't know for awhile if that's really true on this matter anyway.

Of course I didn't say he deserved the benefit of the doubt because he sounds nice and educated and like a professor but heh.

So you think Obama is easily pushed around by the military huh. Ok but you must not think he's a competant leader then. I have my doubts but his competancy as a leader for sure but I don't think we can call him an imcompetant at this point.

What do you call someone who willing enters a war zone to do a job that carries a comparatively very large chance of being killed, maimed or injured by enemy action?

I don't think the Iraqi national driving a truck is a mercenary.

I think the American or German that goes to Iraq or Afghanistan to drive a truck may not be a mercenary, but it is pretty close to the right word.

2007 NY times article on contractor casualties

A contractor.

A mercenary is a hired professional soldier, not just someone hired who faces risks. As long as you're redefining words as such, do you call anybody hired by a city who faces risk of injury a "police officer", even if they drive a garbage truck?

Yeah, because the Taliban have been around for millennia.

Define professional soldier.

Were the people in uniform doing these jobs during the Persian Gulf war professional soldiers?

If you are doing the same job without the uniform does that change anything?

Yes. The fact that some soldiers are cooks does not imply that all cooks are soldiers. Logic 101.

Exactly.

The job is meaningless.

The where and why are what matters.

If the where is a foreign war zone and the why is because one side is paying you to support their war effort, then you are not just a contractor.

The fact that it is being done on a historic new scale may mean there is no accurate term to describe it, but mercenary is closer than contractor IMO.

Mercenary: Merchant soldier.

Both the regular trooper and the mercenary are professional soldiers.

You're comparing a months-long purely military action with a decade-long nation building one. There weren't a bunch of contractors (zomg mercenaries!) in Grenada or Panama either.

When has that ever stopped Congress.

.

How is it a violation of the Constitution exactly? If Congress passes a law stating that you are subject to a portion of a set of laws, where were your rights violated? I'm genuinely seeking an answer, not being rhetorical. I guess in some sense there are some provisions of the UCMJ that should not apply to civilians (such as those mentioned in excerpt), but I am quite confident that the purpose of making contractors subject to UCMJ is simply to provide a legal framework for their actions in support of US gov't. They are working for the US gov't in another land, but aren't directly employed by the US gov't. This is a fairly new situation -- real world stuff that real world people have to deal with in a real way. And the Defense Bill provision was intended to provide some practical means of providing a legal framework for contractors in such a situation. I am confident that the military will not court martial contractors for items in UCMJ that are not comparable to basic US law for most citizens. If a journalist is court martialed for private possession of pornography, I'll ship you $100 on Stars if that's your real fear.

Also, your statement "You're in the Army now" is disingenuous. A contractor is free to quit at any time if not happy with the terms of his employment. If they're really uncomfortable about such a situation, they can leave at any time. Try that in the Army.

EDIT: Also, the provisions were passed in Oct 2006. There have been perhaps a couple hundred thousand contractors subject to them over the last 3 years (along with thousands of journalists and foreign nationals in theater as well). Rather than quote speculation about all the unintended consequences that could be imminent, there should be tons of stories about real abuses (those feared consequences) that have actually occurred if there was something to fret about here. If you can't find any, then that's a pretty good indication that the legal framework adopted has been a fairly effective means of addressing the legal limbo of overseas contractors that existed prior to 2007. Perhaps there have been some, I don't know. But I know that discussing the consequences of something that's been in place for 3 years without citing any of those consequences having actually occurred is not a convincing argument. The legal status of overseas contractors was a real concern. If you have evidence of abuses and maybe even offer a practical alternative, then we might have something worth discussing.

Well, that's what I am talking about.

True you got me, I agree that with those claims. The people who are there and basically replace the function of a soldier are still highly essential elements of the military force over there but do not engage in combat. If you wanna call them something other than mercs then that's fine, but they are still an element of the war that is crucial and, in my opinion, underscores the actual size of the war over there by sectioning them into two sections.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...court-martial/

I bet he would like to end his contract and come home. I bet he would also like a jury of his peers instead of a panel of military officers.

The practical way to deal with the situations would require the admission that some percentage of the civilian contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan are in fact mercenaries and that their presence is a violation of US and international law that must be ended. The refusal to do so has resulted in ridiculous broad brush tactics like subjecting 300,000 civilians to military law.

supporting an "elected" government manufactured by us to suit what the US government perceives as our interest.