Open Side Menu Go to the Top

12-21-2009 , 10:31 AM
Peace surging not only in afghanistan, but yemen as well

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Official Barack Obama Peace Surge Thread
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Official Barack Obama Peace Surge Thread
12-21-2009 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillydilly
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?
12-21-2009 , 12:53 PM
Quote:
So I guess the Canadians, French, Germans, South Koreans, etc. are all there to build the American Empire?
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.

Quote:
And the guys running cross-border operations between Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't the aggressors today?
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.
12-21-2009 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
IIt was an ignorant policy by an ignorant government. We forced their hand like we forced Sadam's.
fyp
12-21-2009 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
2/325

Oh its a complicated situation with no clear answers, but the USA is playing the role of the aggressor. Whatever narrative you gotta put on top of that is your business but I think what we are doing is empire building.
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.
12-21-2009 , 05:16 PM
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
Who claims this?

Quotes plz.
12-21-2009 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
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.
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.

Quote:
Who claims this?

Quotes plz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedorfan
When you are spending billions to supplement 130,000 plus personnel in a country we invaded, doing things that would otherwise have to be done by trained military soldier, then yes they are paid mercenaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedorfan
lol so stupid, they are still mercenaries, just as a soldier is a still a soldier even if he isn't going on assault missions everyday and even if he doesn't do any assault mission he is still a soldier in the military. We still have to pay them, this isn't volunteer work, and they are doing work that would otherwise be done by military, hence they are mercenaries, really that hard to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeBlis
.
12-21-2009 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
an elected government our thugs this time around
FYP
12-21-2009 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikTheDread
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.
12-21-2009 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
The vast majority of the Left supported invading Afghanistan after 9/11. Now, people have realized that the war is an unwinnable one -- we'll be in there indeterminately, just like Iraqhe fighting will keep going on until the US decides to make it stop.
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.
12-21-2009 , 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Like Maddow said, Obama said enough contradictory and inexplicable things that there's plenty to "like" about what he said. Much of what was to like was that he sounded "thoughtful", that he gave due consideration to all options, that he wasn't reflexively for escalating the conflict and sending more troops.

But "send more troops" is the conclusion he came to, and I don't think it's defensible.

Re: he's not a cowboy, he's a nice sounding guy who sounds thoughtful and we should trust him. This was basically albeit indirectly addressed by Greenwald:



I get that the two guys share some superficial personality differences, and sure, I suppose as a matter of taste I like eloquent East Coast types when put against inarticulate cowboys, but since they're basically pursuing very similar policies (escalation of the foreign adventures, wishy-washy commitments to actually exiting from these entanglements), there's no reason to give Obama's judgment "the benefit of the doubt" just because he sounds nice and educated and like a professor.
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.
12-21-2009 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't clear that he's being pushed forward by an arrogant and incompetent military establishment.
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.
12-21-2009 , 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri

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.
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

Quote:
That brings the total number of contractors killed in Iraq to at least 917, along with more than 12,000 wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews.
Quote:
“The insurgents are going after the softest targets, and the contractors are softer targets than the military,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense for manpower during the Reagan administration. “The U.S. is being more aggressive over there, and these contractor deaths go right along with it.”
12-21-2009 , 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroPointMachine
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?
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?
12-21-2009 , 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedManPlus
For the Taliban 18 months is like a Long Weekend...
Who think in terms of centuries, not US election cycles...
They will just lay low... then take over in 2012.
Yeah, because the Taliban have been around for millennia.
12-21-2009 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
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?
Define professional soldier.

Quote:
Nearly 300 companies from the United States and around the world supply workers who are a shadow force in Iraq almost as large as the uniformed military. About 126,000 men and women working for contractors serve alongside about 150,000 American troops, the Pentagon has reported. Never before has the United States gone to war with so many civilians on the battlefield doing jobs — armed guards, military trainers, translators, interrogators, cooks and maintenance workers — once done only by those in uniform.

In the Persian Gulf war of 1991, for example, only 9,200 contractors — mostly operating advanced weapons systems — served alongside 540,000 military personnel. But at the end of the cold war, Congress and the Pentagon were eager to seize on the so-called peace dividend and drastically scale back the standing Army. The Bush administration expanded the outsourcing strategy to unprecedented levels after the invasion of Iraq.
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?

Last edited by ZeroPointMachine; 12-21-2009 at 10:47 PM. Reason: sp
12-21-2009 , 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroPointMachine
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.
12-22-2009 , 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
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.
12-22-2009 , 01:45 AM
Mercenary: Merchant soldier.

Both the regular trooper and the mercenary are professional soldiers.
12-22-2009 , 08:38 AM
Quote:
Were the people in uniform doing these jobs during the Persian Gulf war 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.
12-22-2009 , 09:04 AM
Quote:
During a 1993 research study by Rand, it was discovered that some field commanders wanted to gain some type of legal authority over civilians in order to either compel them to deploy as originally intended or remain on station until they are relieved properly. As stated earlier, the only time a civilian can fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is in the event of a congressionally declared war. Placing a civilian under the Uniform Code of Military Justice on any other occasion would be a fundamental violation of that person's constitutional rights. The drawback is that the field commander's hands are tied to some degree, and the only recourse in the case of a non-performing civilian is to have the contracting officer modify or terminate the contract. Perhaps another penalty or censure might be devised.
When has that ever stopped Congress.

Quote:
The 2007 Defense Bill, enacted in October, placed contractors and others who accompany the military in the field under the same set of military laws that govern the armed forces.

"Basically 100,000 contractors woke up to find themselves under the Uniform Code of Military Justice," said Peter W. Singer , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes on civilian military contractors and whose article on a defense blog Thursday called attention to the change.
Quote:
But the provision might also have unintended consequences, if the military chooses to use its new power to court-martial civilians. For instance, the language in the law is so broad that it can be interpreted as saying that embedded journalists and contract employees from foreign countries would also be liable under the military code. Other punishable offenses under the code include disobeying an order, disrespecting an officer, and possession of pornography -- far less serious than the crimes that Congress envisioned when drafting the bill.
.

Last edited by ZeroPointMachine; 12-22-2009 at 09:20 AM. Reason: You're in the Army now!
12-22-2009 , 01:03 PM
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.

Last edited by ctyri; 12-22-2009 at 01:23 PM.
12-22-2009 , 04:46 PM
Quote:
The government in place in 2001 doesn't exist anymore.
Well, that's what I am talking about.

Quote:
Also, lol at folks ITT claiming truck drivers, clerks, administrators, etc. are hired professional soldiers (mercenaries).
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.
12-22-2009 , 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
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.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...court-martial/

Quote:
The Air Force is holding Justin Price, a 29-year-old contractor working at an air base in Iraq, in connection with a fire that damaged a Predator drone. In detaining him, the military is invoking a 2006 amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice — never applied to a U.S. citizen — that extends military jurisdiction over civilians.
Quote:
Until the federal court rules, Price is confined to the air base in Iraq.
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.

Last edited by ZeroPointMachine; 12-22-2009 at 09:38 PM. Reason: cant spell
12-22-2009 , 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
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.
supporting an "elected" government manufactured by us to suit what the US government perceives as our interest.
Official Barack Obama Peace Surge Thread
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Official Barack Obama Peace Surge Thread

      
m