Come off of it, Bruce. It is pretty clear to me that your outrage over US contractors is evolving. Recently, your excuse has become that US contractors are not subject to any country's judicial system. I can recall no such outrage before. Before, it was simply that they were "mercenaries," but now you respect and even "know" some.

Can you not see how you appear to be looking for excuses to bash the United States? Heck, even your "I have friends who are mercenaries [Americans, Jews, blacks]. Therefore I cannot be anti-mercenary [-American, -Semitic, -black]" sounds trite.

The US government uses these contractors to hide something from the (easily duped) US citizens? Come on! Can't you do better than that? The US in the ONLY country that has this practice? Well, the US is the only country that does a lot of things, Bruce. That doesn't prove what we do is wrong. It's not even evidence of what we do is wrong.

TM, not to diss your sources, which are not incorrect on the facts, but a summary with a better pedigree (the New Republic, anyway) can be found here: http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5207.

The Bosnian prostituion issue is not so cut and dry as you would like. The way I understand it is, an American hired by a British (!) corporation, which is a subsidairy of the the US DynCorp. company, complained that the British DynCorp sub. fired her because she complained that other of its empoyees, who had been hired by the United Nations to provide security in Bosnia, were involved prostitution in Bosnia. The UN had impeded the investigation into these allegations.

And the US government is primarily to blame for this because ...?

Edited by author 04-23-2004 04:11 PM
Kevin, I've been working in some capacity or other involving the Canadian military and/or with military personnel since the late 80s. I'd obviously be lying if I said I didn't know anyone who "turned merc." I know a couple "UN police," too, for that matter.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you started this thread, in #4596. I had no new interest in this old topic (the Bosnian Dyncorp stuff all happened long before I started the current blog) until you and others asked where my outrage was about the recently killed Dyncorp "merc" in Kosovo. I responded to make two points:

1) Strictly speaking, Dyncorp works for the American government, not the UN, so we should direct our outrage at the right place; and
2) I'm still outraged at what happened in Bosnia, even if I thought it was inappropriate to mention Dyncorp's many flaws in this context (which, frankly, it would have been, unprompted).

Mind you, the Bosnia circumstance was indicative of the whole problem of a "UN police force" in general, which turned in practice in that country into peacekeeping-on-the-cheap without even the minimal quality control provided by a military justice system. The EU's providing the cops there now, and I understand they're doing better, as the RCMP did in Haiti, and the FBI has done in several places. These polyglot forces, on the other hand, seem rife with corruption, largely because each country sends whatever it feels like (murderous Jordanians, American merc rapists, etc.) If we want to blame the UN for that, fine, but my point is you can't also blame Annan et al for the use of private "contractors" per se, because that was forced upon them by State. (The merc companies say the market will assure quality better than any steenking laws, but the Bosnia debacle was ongoing when Dyncorp landed the Hamid Karzai personal protection contract and the Kosovo job, and they have hundreds of personnel in Iraq now as well; in their case, immunity from prosecution is working out quite well from a bottom-line perspective.)

All to which your (entirely predictable) response is, "well, you just hate America," leavened with a dash of irrelevant American exceptionalism.

I've been talking in this space about the potential problems with mercenaries in Iraq for over a year, before the war started. My position on the whole issue of private paramilitaries hasn't changed one jot (it's generally problematic but occasionally necessary in specific cases), in fact I'd say my concerns are being largely borne out by events, there, and they happen to be concerns shared by a significant swathe of serving and ex-soldiers. You may not like it, but that's a fact.

As to hating America, you might want to ask why a decade later Dyncorp refuses to turn their employees who mistakenly killed Pennsylvania missionary Roni Bowers and her infant daughter in Peru over to face justice. Where's your outrage at that?

PS: Kevin, you misunderstand the situation around the Bolkovac trial. Bolkovac sued Dyncorp's subsidiary in Britain to take advantage of that country's "whistle-blower" laws, which were more favourable than the wrongful dismissal statutes she would have faced suing at home. It's jurisdiction shopping, but she and the employees she accused of misconduct were all Americans, working for an American company on a U.S. government contract.

Kevin: "Well, the US is the only country that does a lot of things, Bruce. That doesn't prove what we do is wrong. It's not even evidence of what we do is wrong."

I beg to differ, I think American exceptionalism is definitely evidence that what you do is wrong. I'll try to be as brief as possible. I am not suggesting that your viewpoint is held by every American, but a significant number of your countrymen use similar language, so please excuse my stereotyping.

It takes more than sovereignty over a few million square miles to become the most powerful nation over the past 55 years or so. I believe it was the relative openness of American society, and an eagerness to act upon its ambitions, whether they were the ambitions of individuals or national institutions, that got the U.S. to that penultimate position. Obsessive national self-doubt is not a good thing, as evidenced by Canada, but a complete lack of critical self-examination can be equally disastrous. The U.S. has no monopoly on wisdom or enlightened leadership in any area of human activity, so critical self-examination is in order any time the U.S. is headed in a different direction than the rest of the world. It is not a case of Americans not paying attention to the criticism of other nations, in fact the knee-jerk reaction that you provided shows how intensely many Americans do listen to that criticism. The problem lies with the response. If you lock the door and pull the blinds, you will never see what direction you should be headed in.

Not even the political economy of North Korea exists in a vacuum; a nation as prosperous as the U.S. cannot afford to continuously fight to protect its mistakes. There is a saying in Newfoundland that "it's okay to scratch your ass, but you don't have to tear it to pieces, bye."

I heard a radio interview yesterday with Matthew Fisher, a fine war correspondent with the National Post, who is in Baghdad right now, and he made a very strong case for the argument that American "blunders", beginning with the premature departure from Afghanistan, are losing the War on Terror for the U.S., and by extension, for everyone else on the opposite side of Islamic terrorists, including Canadians. Fisher suggested that the enemy is probably stronger now than it was on September 11th. Aren't you concerned that all the sacrifices made by Americans, and by the British, the Spanish, Australians, Canadians, and everyone else that has tried to assist the U.S. in this war; have gone for naught? Don't you want some changes made?

You said, "Kevin, you misunderstand the situation around the Bolkovac trial. Bolkovac sued Dyncorp's subsidiary in Britain to take advantage of that country's "whistle-blower" laws, which were more favourable than the wrongful dismissal statutes she would have faced suing at home. It's jurisdiction shopping, but she and the employees she accused of misconduct were all Americans, working for an American company on a U.S. government contract."

____

I'm not so sure about that. I remember reading that she was fired by the British subsidiary. That would imply that she was its employee. I couldn't imagine what sort of cause of action she'd have against a corporation that she had no relationship with.

Re your charge that I am asserting American exceptionalism: I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that the US is generally reluctant to subcontract out its military to the UN and its police actions, and I would find it difficult to believe that many citizens would be eager to have our military tied up for long in non-military roles. "Peacekeeping" is a lot of wacthing, guarding, policing, etc., and not enough invading, bombing, killing and maiming of innocents, and the sort of stuff that gets people so excited. But there I go being predictable and simplistic again. (You knew I was going to say that too. Right?)

RGlasel,

No and yes.

Edited by author 04-23-2004 04:25 PM
No, Kevin, this time I was oversimplifying, as I realized later. Apologies for that.

For the record, the International Police Program which handles Dyncorp's UN obligations and gets the State Department funding is headquartered in Texas. It's a subsidiary of Dyncorp Aerospace in Britain, which in turn is a subsidiary of Dyncorp Inc. (US) (formerly Dynalectron, formerly California Eastern Airways) which has since been taken over by Computer Sciences Corporation Inc (US).

Edited by author 04-23-2004 04:50 PM
Just to be clear, here's a typical Dyncorp police employee abroad.

Would I call this guy a "merc?" Of course not. He's probably a kindly old cop who only did good work, like all the other Bosnian cops I know. But I'm not sure "contractor" works for these people either. And it's certainly fair to call his employer a "merc company," as some of its other staff in South America certainly would be accurately described by it. And yet... that American flag's pretty obvious, isn't it?

People wearing American flags on their shoulder and carrying weapons can be (and generally are) a force for great good in the world. I just think it'd be prudent if Americans had more control over the conduct of their armed flag-bearers than they have had recently in the case of Dyncorp employees.

That's not a prohibition in any sense on the use of soldiers, guards and police-for-hire; that's never been possible or necessary. Just a caution on their excessive or unwise use, a line that I think some "war on terror" taskings (such as guarding Karzai and Bremer) and the "International Police Program" are now approaching.

Kevin: Can I assume that you answered "no" to "Aren't you concerned that all the sacrifices made ... in this war; have gone for naught?" because you feel there is little possibility those sacrifices will be negated by bad decision making?

Thanks.

Look, you may not agree with US policy of contracting out certain services to corporations, but you cannot blame the US for the fact that the criminals activities of certain of the contractors go unpunished. The fact is, civilians are not subject to the military’s jurisdiction. And they cannot be made to be subject to its jurisdiction no matter how much you may want it. Nor are the contractors subject to US federal jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of any of the states of the US. This should be obvious, but it warrants stating: the lack of US-based jurisdiction is not tantamount to the US condoning their acts. There is simply nothing the US can do to bring these malefactors to justice.

However, the malefactors ARE subject to local jurisdiction. Now, that jurisdiction may be deficient or even absent in certain cases, but it should also be noted that, in other cases, local justice may be considerable harsher (see Fallujah) than anything the US could mete out. These men, on the one hand, are somewhat free to do their evil best, but, on the other hand, they are to a large extent on there own.

It is for the contracting parties to decide whether the contractors are worth their costs.

Ask yourself this question: would you really be less outraged if it had been a US soldier who bought and sold prostitutes, had raped under-aged girls, and then were subject to a court martial? My feeling is that you would be only too quick to point to their acts as yet another example of US deficiency. The criticism would be no less as a result of the absence of contractor involvement, I think.

The Bosnia situation, to me, points out one of the principal problems with the United Nations. Three types of organizations could be involved in the type of activities done by the contractors: (1) a Governmental organization, (2) a non-governmental organization (NGO) (such as the UN), or (3) private (or public) companies. It seems to me that (1) is the best choice in most situations, if the task is that organization’s highest and best use. However, this is often not the case. The US military – and in this regard I believe it’s unlike most others – has other tasks for which it is needed or may be needed, which tasks cannot be handled by other countries. (3) is a better option many times for the US because of these limitations. The problem is often the lack of military discipline. But at least when the US government is the contracting party, there is some accountability. (2) is fine for purely humanitarian tasks but less fine for police and peacekeeping work. The UN is also notoriously corrupt, as we’ve seen time and time again. The UN is almost entirely unaccountable. But when (3) is contracting with a (2) (or when (1) subcontracts (3)’s services to (2)), disaster awaits. When you work for the Mob, you get dirty. The lesson of Bosnia is that the UN cannot do peacekeeping. It cannot do security. It cannot protect the innocent. It cannot be trusted in almost any endeavor.

At 07:05 AM 4/23/2004, you wrote:
>But I do think it is in
>its own way a euphemistic disservice not to call soldiers
>soldiers. "Civilian contractors" is confusing, inaccurate PR
>garbage, put out by people that are trying to pull the wool over
>people's eyes; call them PMCs, or "private paramilitaries," or
>even, if you have to, "a new class of mercenaries," as this
>week's New York Times editorial did, but I think it's incumbent
>on us to get some version of the word "military" in there
>somewhere if we want to have the frank discussion you're asking
>for, and which I would also welcome.

How about that old term, actually used in the US constitution,
privateers? It's usage there seems to cover gray area contractors who are under arms perfectly.

RGlasel,

No. I mean as of right now I feel that overall things are going about as well as can be reasonabley expected. I see no reason for panic -- as everyone on the left is, as almost everyone outside of the US is, and as even some on the right here in the US are.

But things could change if we do do something to really foul it up.

Bruce,

Re #4623.

Yeesh! Tell that guy to lose that powder blue hat. Someone might mistake him for the UN.

"For the record, the International Police Program which handles Dyncorp's UN obligations and gets the State Department funding is headquartered in Texas. It's a subsidiary of Dyncorp Aerospace in Britain, which in turn is a subsidiary of Dyncorp Inc. (US)..."

____


If this corporate structure is right, they need some corporate tax advice pronto: A US parent owning a UK subsidiary, which in turns owns a lower-tier US subsidiary is nuts. I hope those knuckleheads at State are indemnifying DynCorp, Inc.’s shareholders for their company’s excess taxes.

At 03:21 PM 4/23/2004, Kevin Smith wrote:
>"For the record, the International Police Program which handles
>Dyncorp's UN obligations and gets the State Department funding
>is headquartered in Texas. It's a subsidiary of Dyncorp
>Aerospace in Britain, which in turn is a subsidiary of Dyncorp
>Inc. (US)..."
>____
>If this corporate structure is right, they need some corporate
>tax advice pronto: A US parent owning a UK subsidiary, which in
>turns owns a lower-tier US subsidiary is nuts. I hope those
>knuckleheads at State are indemnifying DynCorp, Inc.'s
>shareholders for their company's excess taxes.

Not necessarily. It depends mostly on where revenue is earned/
repatriated to. And the parent and subsidiary of the UK subsidiary may very well be considered one entity for tax purposes (you have many choices about such matters, and some complex SEC/IRS rules
to navigate in any event). Large corporate accounting/financial
software packages, such as Oracle Applications and others of such ilk, even have features to handle these issues (and if the subsidiary/ affiliate companies share facilities or administrative personnel, the IRS will probably force you to treat them as one entity for tax purposes anyway).

The boundary of one legal entity and another is most certainly not the only, and in many cases not the most important, consideration involved in how corporate taxes are calculated.