Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
General Suggests Security Contractors Necessary
Share: 
by Alive in Baghdad | January 23, 2007 at 09:57 am
716 views | 10 Recommendations | 2 comments
American forces in Iraq are
still far short of the military deployment the United States had in
Vietnam. U.S. troop numbers in Vietnam increased from less than 20,000
in early 1964 to more than half a million by 1969. But the difference
between the force levels – and the two situations -- is a lot less than
most people think. There is, after all, not just one U.S. army in
Iraq.
The previous quote is meant to provide a better understanding concerning the "allied" forces currently in Iraq.
Today, January 23rd, General Petraeus is being questioned by the Senate Armed Forces Committee on how he will direct the pending operations in Iraq, including the "surge" called for by President Bush.
General Petraues was expected to discuss the importance of private Iraqi and foreign contractors in ensuring the success of the surge. Read this article in Bloomberg, published prior to the beginning of the hearing, and this piece by Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco and a reporter who has been covering the Pentagon and military issues for some twenty years, for background leading up to today's hearing.
You can also follow the hearings live via CNN Pipeline #3
What's interesting about these hearings is that on multiple occasions during the hearings General Petraeus has acknowledged that private security contractors may be necessary to ensure the success of the surge.
By his own admission, Petraeus confesses it could take 120,000 troops to secure Baghdad, although there are just over 80,000 available for Baghdad if one includes both MNF-I and Iraqi military forces.
This suggests that 40,000, or one third of the force necessary to secure Baghdad will be private contractors, who have as of yet never been held to any legal standard for crimes committed in the Iraq theatre.
Petraeus even acknowledged that his own security, when he returns to the field, may be ensured, not by US military forces, but by private security contractors, as has happened on his previous tours.
Perhaps it should offer some solace that,
A little noted clause in the 2007 Defense Bill, enacted last October, placed contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military laws that govern the U.S. armed forces.
To learn more about our current forces in Iraq, follow the link in the quotes.
Although it seems assured that General Petraeus will be confirmed, it reamins to be seen how Democrats and the rest of the Senate might respond, if at all, to depending on private security contractors, who's allegiances and even names are currently difficult, if not impossible to determine currently.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
at 10:32 on January 23rd, 2007
I'd like to know the back story on this, AIB. You were watching the general's testimony in Congress and you blogged this for NP?
Exactly what we're looking for! many thanks.
ps. Do you find Pipeline is worth the ??
at 10:49 on January 23rd, 2007
Exactly. The thing that has most concerned me about the 24 hour news cycle is that important nuggets of truth like this can come out, and quickly disappear into the maelstrom.
I watched most of the hearings via CNN Pipeline, and I have yet to find any news quoting General Petraeus' very clear comments that we will have to depend at least partially on mercenaries. It's also interesting that Senators Clinton and Webb will come out against giving more funds to the Iraqi security forces, yet although both were in the room with Petraeus, neither has yet said anything about the role of secuirty contractors(read mercenaries).