Does Accountability Mean Anything Anymore?

With the recent actions of Blackwater USA and other security companies operating in Iraq, it is easy to forget that mercenaries are not the only ones involved in horrendous incidents in Iraq; our military men and women are. And this is tragic on so many levels.

First of all, our soldiers are there as an extension of the US people. Unlike contractors, these people have pledged themselves to represent and uphold the ideals of America. What kind of message are we sending when these men and women kill and brutalize civilians. My friend recently sent me an opinion article by Ted Rall wherein Mr. Rall quotes an article from East Bay Express.

The article Rall refers to describes horrific actions taken by members of the US military in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The actions described include the rape of a fourteen year old, her subsequent murder, as well as the killing of her parents and seven year old sister. The soldiers implicated in the rape cut a plea bargain that allows for them to be released on parole in twenty years. Rall makes the point that the same crime here in the States is punishable by life in prison without the chance at parole, or the death sentence depending on the state. Other actions described in the Express article included soldiers photographing bodies of dead Iraqis, and then posting them on a pornographic website for the world to see.

Rall’s point in writing this piece, and I can totally see, and agree, with where he his coming from, is that while the US military may have accountability, in reality there is little to no accountability governing our soldiers. One of the reasons for this is simply that investigating civilian deaths is not high on the list of military priorities. In effect, this gives soldiers the ability to behave as they wish–and unfortunately this sometimes includes the wild west attitude previously only attributed to security contractors working in Iraq.

So it seems that, yes the military has accountability, but that accountability means little. It means that sometimes a soldier who has acted illegally will be punished for his crimes, but mostly it just makes the empty promise that someone is watching these guys and making sure they are acting in lawful ways.

So if accountability does not even work for the US military, what makes us think that it would work for private security firms. After all, if we choose not to enforce existing laws, why should we even bother creating new laws? Just to make people happy, and to give us a new set of laws that we can ignore? Well, that may happen, but that possible result does not lessen the need for accountability and oversight in both military and private security sectors.

 Just because people are ignoring the law, does not mean that the law should not exist. And this is a serious issue that potentially affects every Iraqi civilian in Baghdad, but also the appearance of the US in Iraq. If we look like we play favorites, especially by turning a blind eye to these tragic actions taken on our behalf, then there is no way we can gain the trust of the average Iraqi. Stricter regulation is not a sure fire way to win the support of Iraqis, nor is it the only action that needs to be taken before the chaotic and violent situation in Iraq is resolved, but it is a first step.

Still, it is disheartening to hear that even when it has the opportunity and obligation to take legal action, our government still lets people get away with (literally) murder.

Here is the link to Rall’s opinion piece

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20071009/cm_ucru/scapegoatingblackwater

Blackwater Out?

Maybe, but it sure looks like it is a real possibility. The State Department is currently conducting a review of private security practices in Iraq, with a specific focus on Blackwater. Blackwater, the largest security company in Iraq with almost 1,000 employees, has been under intense scrutiny since September 16, 2007 due to an incident that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians.

Blackwater claims that their guards acted appropriately and in accordance with their mandate. This claim is hard to swallow, though, at least entirely. It is no secret that security companies–Blackwater especially–take a gung-ho, cowboy mentality attitude toward their work, and with some reason. Iraq is a war zone, and it is the job of the contractors to ensure the security of US diplomats and assets.

That, however, does not mean they should be allowed to act with impunity. US military soldiers are also in Iraq, and they are performing similar duties to those of the contractors, but with one significant difference: they are accountable. If US soldiers can be punished for crimes they commit in the line of duty, why can’t private security companies?

Well, they do not count toward the total military force in Iraq, and they are considered private citizens so military law does not apply to them. When he was the US Envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer issued Directive 17, which protected security companies from being tried under Iraqi law, and it is in their contract that they are not to be held accountable in US courts. How something like this comes to pass, I really do not know. I only know that it hurts my soul that this ever sounded like a good idea.

And now the US is paying for it in several ways. One, whatever progress we had made with the Iraqi people is quickly dissipating. When we have people associated with America gunning civilians down on the street, how can we hope to show the Iraqis that we are there to help them when our employees are killing them without reason? Is it any wonder that the Iraqi government has called for Blackwater to leave within six months and stricter regulation of the industry as a whole?

Now, it finally looks like the State Department (the branch of the government that hires the security contractors) is taking notice of the wild-west attitude and has decided to do something about it.  Or at least, they’ve decided to start thinking about how security for State Department officials in Iraq is handled.

The first step in this was Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ordering a probe into the incident in September. Then she ordered that a federal agent accompany all Blackwater missions, and that video surveillance cameras be added to all of Blackwater’s vehicles. Now, amidst outcries from the Iraq government, the State Department is considering cutting ties with Blackwater and moving them out of Iraq. This is a drastic measure, to be sure, and has many implications for how America will operate in Iraq, but it does seem like the best idea.

Of course, if Blackwater were no longer in Iraq, there would be a vacuum of security contractors, and that would have to be filled by someone, whether it was another security firm, or agents of the US government. Pulling Blackwater out is not the only option on the table, though, and it is highly unlikely that this would actually happen. Other options include cutting ties with Blackwater, but then hiring the ex-employees as temporary government workers. Another option considered was turning security concerns over to Iraq security personnel.

At the moment, though, Blackwater’s future in Iraq is uncertain, and there is no telling what the outcome will be, but this is a start., albeit a late one. It is time for our government to send the message that it will not tolerate war profiteering, nor will it tolerate a wild west attitude among its employees. Chances are nothing will really come out of this, but there is always hope that change is finally one the way.