Lots of stuff you wanted to know about Blackwater, but couldn't bring yourself to ask...

The fallout continues from the deadly rampage by Blackwater mercenaries against Iraqi civilians on September 16 that left at least 11 Iraqis dead. Blackwater insists that their employees fired in response to coming under attack. The Iraqis claim the Blackwater personnel were unprovoked when they opened fire on civilians at a busy traffic circle while escorting a State Department convoy through Baghdad.

The September 16 incident set off a firestorm and at one point the government of Iraq said all Blackwater personnel had to leave the country and the company had to cease operating inside Iraq. This edict did not stand and Blackwater is once again roaming the streets, terrifying the populace with their mere presence and undermining whatever the hell it is the mission is supposed to be, and sowing seeds of hostility with the populace that prompt attacks against all Americans, thereby putting American G.I.’s at heightened risk.

The DoD on Wednesday announced that the Pentagon has sent a team of investigators to Iraq to probe security contractors and their operations in Iraq. In addition, a memo was sent to the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan reminding them that they have the prerogative to court martial mercenaries working under contract with the U.S. military if/when those mercenaries violate the Rules of Engagement that govern the U.S. military. Gates wanted to make sure that the mercenaries and commanders all understood that the military can prosecute their contractors. Gates, testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, on Wednesday said he also wanted to know whether the military has the resources to investigate private security personnel under contract with the DoD for alleged crimes. "My concern is whether there has been sufficient accountability and oversight," Gates said.

In the memo, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told military commanders that they're responsible for monitoring contractors under their control and charging those who violate rules of engagement.

"Commanders have UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) authority to disarm, apprehend, and detain DoD contractors suspected of having committed a felony offense in violation of the RUF (Rules on the Use of Force)," Gordon wrote. The memo was dated Tuesday.

England said commanders should review contractors' standard operating procedures and make any necessary changes to the way they authorize force to "minimize the risk of innocent civilian causalities or unnecessary destruction of civilian property."

The State Department hasn't distributed a similar memo, and it is unclear what, if any, U.S. law applies to the actions of its contractors.

So far, no Defense Department contractor has been charged under U.S. law, and no security contracts have been suspended for violations, Morrell said.

Yeah. It really is as thoroughly and completely fucked up as it sounds.

Four and a half years into Iraq, and six years into Afghanistan, they have decided it’s time to determine what, exactly, to do with mercenaries who attack and murder civilians without provocation, or otherwise commit actions that undermine the efforts of the United States to salvage something – anything – from this clusterfuck so we can claim some sort of semblance of a shadow of a specter of a pale imitation of victory™ and get the hell out of there.

(Keep Reading)

The Iraqi Interior Ministry has sent the investigation of the incident to a magistrate and is looking at possible criminal charges, although they may be hamstrung by the ghost of Paul Bremer and the CPA, in the form of Order 17, which essentially gave mercenaries immunity to run amok, unencumbered by the rule of law. Under Order 17, mercenaries can kill at will, with little or no fear of legal, or even civil, repercussions.

This week, Iraqi lawmakers began considering a proposal that would withdraw the provisions of Order 17 from Iraqi law and make security contractors/mercenaries accountable under the Iraqi system of justice. Iraqis have complained bitterly for years that the mercenary army is unnecessarily aggressive and damages property with impunity and mistreats and kills Iraqis with reckless abandon.

Point of Clarification: The mercenaries involved in the September 16 violence were under contract to the State Department, and that incident is under joint Iraqi – State Department investigation. DoD has no authority to investigate or try the Blackwater mercenaries involved. Gates, being competent, and not beholden to nor under the sway of Cheney or Bush, is looking for problems before someone else finds them and uses them against him. (I don't like the man, but I can not help but respect the talent). At State, on the other hand, the inept and outpaced Condi is still carrying her bosses water, overtly and contemptuously stonewalling congressional oversight into the incident. While the DoD does have contracts with Blackwater, the State Department outspends the DoD on Blackwater contracts at a rate of approximately 8:1.

The private-army aspect of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been controversial since the first days in Afghanistan, and there has been no shortage of animosity between the professional military and the mercenary army. To date, no personnel under DoD contract have been charged under U.S. law, and no contracts have been suspended for violations. The military has been taken to task though. Two Air Force officers were brought up on charges of assault and conduct unbecoming following a run-in between the officers and Blackwater personnel on a road outside Kabul in September 2006. The charges were later dismissed.

***************

The bloodletting two weeks ago has set up a clash between the Pentagon and the State Department. The tensions have been long-simmering, and the events of September 16 turned up the heat. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event," said one senior military official in Iraq. "This is a nightmare. We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term."

In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government officials, many expressed anger and concern over the shootings in Nisoor Square, in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Some worried it could undermine the military's efforts to stabilize Iraq this year with an offensive involving thousands of reinforcements.

"This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their hands around yet," said another U.S. military official. "It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to anyone -- even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis."

Most officials spoke on condition of anonymity because there are at least three ongoing investigations of Blackwater's role in the shootings. There are also sensitive discussions between various U.S. agencies and the Iraqi government over the future of Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq.

Teddy Spain, a retired Army Colonel was willing to speak on the record. “I personally was concerned about any of the civilians running around on the battlefield during my time there. My main concern was their lack of accountability when things went wrong.”

Several commanding officers spoke frankly on condition of anonymity.

…"Given their record of recklessness," said the senior U.S. commander, "I'm not sure any senior military officer here would want responsibility for them."

…"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers. Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later," said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the Sept. 16 shootings, the officer added, "None of us believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their black eyes."

…"Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control," said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. "They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by."

…"Many of us feel that when Blackwater and other groups conduct military missions, they should be subject to the same controls under which the Army operates," said Marc Lindemann, who served in Iraq with the 4th Infantry Division and is now an officer in the New York National Guard and a state prosecutor.

…"The deaths of contractors from Blackwater helped precipitate the debacle in Fallujah in 2004 and now the loss of Blackwater is causing disruptions in the war effort in 2007," a military intelligence officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?"

The lousy reputation Blackwater has among members of the U.S. military has led to renewed debate over whether the DoD should handle State’s security contracts. The Department of Defense (understanding what security protocols should involve) has a more strident procedure for licensing and oversight of personnel under contract to their agency, the DoD also has more detailed incident reporting procedures when weapons are discharged. In addition, the military investigates promptly when incidents occur or allegations are made against mercenaries in their employ.

A Pentagon source insisted that "We are really making State respond, conduct an investigation and come up with recommendations." The source said that in Washington the atmosphere surrounding the confrontation between State and the pentagon is calm and professional but, referring to Iraq, said, "There is probably a bit more emotion going on in theater."

***************

As if Blackwater needed another revelation (they are also under investigation for smuggling weapons into Iraq that ultimately ended up pointed at American G.I.’s) the New York Times reported Thursday that mercenaries from Blackwater USA have been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding and escorting American diplomats than other companies providing comparable services.

The rate of Blackwater violence is at least twice that of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the other security companies operating in Iraq. Blackwater’s hired guns are just that, discharging weapons, on average, twice every convoy. (The other companies frequently escort convoys completely without incident.)

“You can find any number of people, particularly in uniform, who will tell you that they do see Blackwater as a company that promotes a much more aggressive response to things than other main contractors do,” a senior American official said. “Is it the operating environment or something specific about Blackwater?” asked one government official. “My best guess is that it is both.”

While the bloody rampage at the Nisour traffic roundabout was the most shocking in the level of wanton killing, the modern-day Pinkerton's of Blackwater are under investigation in six other episodes that left ten people dead and at least 15 wounded.

Slowly, American officials are accepting the position that Blackwater's behavior in Iraq is counterproductive to the stated 'mission' by fueling resentment among the local population.

“They’re repeat offenders, and yet they continue to prosper in Iraq,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who has been broadly critical of the role of contractors in Iraq. “It’s really affecting attitudes toward the United States when you have these cowboy guys out there. These guys represent the U.S. to them and there are no rules of the game for them.”

***************

Secretary of Defense Gates was in front of Congress asking for $190 Billion for the war effort for FY 2008. Congress is hammering out the budget now.

While the American public may not yet be ready to cut off funding to the U.S. military for the occupation of Iraq, I seriously doubt that there would be great wailing and bleating and rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth if, just for starters, the monies in the budget allotted to Blackwater fell victim to Congresses one true power.

There's more: "Lots of stuff you wanted to know about Blackwater, but couldn't bring yourself to ask..." >>

Pointing Up a Vital Distinction

In the fallout from the Walter Reed scandal, I am afraid that a vital distinction is being lost.

Walter Reed is not a VA hospital.

Walter Reed is an active duty military hospital.

Veterans Administration hospitals are operated under the auspices of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Walter Reed, like Brooke and Tripler Army Medical Centers, and the Naval medical facilities at Bethesda and San Diego, and Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland AFB, and all other military medical centers treating the active duty and war wounded, operates under the auspices of the department of defense.

The VA health system, under the leadership of Undersecretary Dr. Michael Kussman, was a government system done right before they were overrun by a flood of Iraq and Afghanistan war wounded. The VA computer system is the envy of all civilian healthcare employees who struggle mightily with archaic HIS syustems. I know from HIS platforms - I've been a Cerner Pathnet and Meditech "Super User" in every facility I have ever been employed by that used those data management systems. The VA system rocks.

It is an apostacy that the VA faces funding cuts at a time that the active duty services are rushing to dump their wounded off onto the VA system.

The VA is the largest provider of mental health services to the returning veterans of America’s current military actions. Over a million troops have rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq, with a quarter million of them at minimum needing counseling services because they face readjustment issues. Yet they are facing staff cuts and closing of the Vet Centers that provide these crucial services. As a result, troops are not getting the care they need - the care they deserve - sometimes to tragic ends.

It is high-time the VA be fully funded and the Vet Centers fully staffed.

A country that can not or will not adequately accommodate the needs of those it sends to war needs to stop sending its sons and daughters off to war.

Editorializing aside, it is vital to remember that VA Medical Centers and Military Medical Centers are two separate and discreet entities, answering to different cabinet secretaries.

The Military Medical Centers answer ultimately to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The VA Medical Centers answer ultimately to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson.

Remember the distinction and do not let the media or the politicians conflate the two.

Doing so is a disservice to those who serve and that is not conducive to accountability.

There's more: "Pointing Up a Vital Distinction" >>

An End to Stop-Loss?

The Air Force Times reported today that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has instructed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, the Secretaries of the respective branches and other top defense officials that he wants plans on his desk by 28 February to find their manpower elsewhere. Stop-loss authority allows the services to extend people on active-duty at will by delaying planned separations, retirements and demobilizations.

“Use of stop loss will be minimized for both active and Reserve component forces,” Gates wrote in a Jan. 19 memo. This will affect the Army more than any other branch of service. The Air Force has not employed the stop-loss policy since 2003. The Marines have all but abandoned the practice and the Navy has only employed the controversial tactic twice - in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, a total of 301 Navy were retained until December 2002. In the spring of 2003, 179 Corpsmen were retained in service beyond their scheduled dates of separation.

When American men and women enter into service, a bargain is struck. That bargain amounts to a sacred trust. Those who agree to serve are betrayed when they are held in service beyond their exit date against their wishes.

By stopping the reliance on stop-loss, Gates is doing the right thing.

There's more: "An End to Stop-Loss?" >>

Mental Health and the Returning Soldier

When Tyler Jennings returned to Ft. Carson, Colorado from Iraq, he became depressed and anxious. It got so bad, he decided to kill himself. One night in mid-May of last year, with his wife out of town, he tied a noose around his neck, opened a window and sat on the ledge, drinking vodka - hoping he would get so drunk that he would either slip and fall or work up the nerve to propel himself to his death.

Five months before, he had sought help from mental health professionals on base who reported his symptoms as "Crying spells... hopelessness... helplessness... worthlessness." When the Sergeants who supervised his platoon found out he was seeking therapy and self-medicating, they began to haze him. That hazing he was subjected to was what drove him to that ledge that May night, with a bottle of vodka and a noose around his neck. He was made suicidal by the threats of those Sergeants to eject him from the Army rather than see he got the help he not only needed...but deserved.

"You know, there were many times I've told my wife -- in just a state of panic, and just being so upset -- that I really wished I just died over there, cause if you just die over there, everyone writes you off as a hero."

After hitting bottom in May, Jennings called his supervisor to report that he had nearly suicided and that he would be skipping formation to check himself into a psychiatric facility; per DoD clinical guidelines; which state explicitly that soldiers with suicidal ideations should be hospitalized.

Instead of working within those guidelines, a team of soldiers was sent to his home, to arrest him for being AWOL for missing work. "I had them pounding on my door out there. They're saying 'Jennings, you're AWOL. The police are going to come get you. You've got 10 seconds to open up this door,'" Jennings said. "I was really scared about it. But finally, I opened the door up for them, and I was like 'I'm going to the hospital.'"

What Tyler Jennings experienced was not an isolated incidence. Numerous Soldiers at Ft. Carson who have returned from Iraq have reported that they feel betrayed by the way they have been treated when they returned and had problems adjusting to life stateside. Those they answer to have marginalized them and branded them as "weak willed."

This in spite of the evidence accumulated by the DoD studies that show 20-25% of all returnees will experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or other difficulties readjusting to life back home. These are soldiers who had no reprimands prior to serving in Iraq, but who began to spin out of control upon their return.

Nearly all of these soldiers said that the problems they experienced were exacerbated by supervisors and fellow soldiers who castigated them for having emotional difficulties. Some supervisors admit it freely, maintaining that there is no place in the Army for those who can't deal. Other supervisors accuse those experiencing difficulty of malingering, or even cowardice; refusing to believe they are truly experiencing difficulty, instead they just don't want to go back to war. In a report on NPR, two Sergeants interviewed said they often refused to allow soldiers in their charge the time to attend mental health counseling sessions.

Military spokespersons maintain that soldiers diagnosed with PTSD or other serious emotional and readjustment issues can attend group therapy sessions on their bases, but the soldiers at Ft. Carson aver that in many instances the group sessions only served to exacerbate their problems and make them feel worse.

Those seeking treatment are told by the therapists that they are not permitted to criticize their Officers and Sergeants, even thought it is the Officers and Sergeants who are harassing them and punishing them for being "weak minded."

Only in the military can you be prohibited from bringing up in therapy what is really bothering you.

The military issue has become enough of a public concern that Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barak Obama (D-IL) and Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) (Senator Bond's son is currently serving in Iraq) have asked the Pentagon to open an investigation into the treatment - and punishment - of returning soldiers who experience difficulty with mental health issues. "It is tremendously problematic that Fort Carson officials take it upon themselves to make medical determinations without input from mental health professionals," the senators said in the letter to Dr. William Winkenwerder, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

Besides asking for an investigation, the senators asked Winkenwerder to look into whether commanders at Fort Carson, near Colorado Springs, have given a low priority to mental health treatment for soldiers suffering from service-connected mental health problems, and what plans there are to correct any such problem.

They also want details about available mental health treatment for soldiers, how many soldiers at Fort Carson have sought treatment in the past four years, and how many have been diagnosed with PTSD after service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"The goal, first and foremost, is to identify who's having a problem," said Winkenwerder. "Secondly, it's to provide immediate support. And finally, our goal is to restore good mental health."

The Army is very fond of touting the programs it has in place to care for soldiers, pointing out that the Pentagon has sent therapists to Iraq to work with soldiers on the ground.

All the programs in the world can't help Soldiers who are not allowed to utilize those services.

This is an issue that can't be ignored. The soldiers were sent into harms way deserve to receive the treatment they need, and how you feel about the war is irrelevant, put that aside for now. This is a bigger issue. These are real people, they are our fellow Americans, and they have been betrayed by their Sergeants and Commanders.

Don't let them be betrayed by American citizens. We have been down that path before, and it was not to our credit. Contact the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees; and the Senators who have demanded the investigation.

This is a tragedy and these soldiers deserve better.

Demand they get it.

There's more: "Mental Health and the Returning Soldier" >>

Department of Defense cuts services to wounded veterans

The Saturday issue of the Air Force Times reports that the Department of Defense abruptly laid off most of the case workers who have been charged with helping severely wounded soldiers transition back to active duty or civilian life after experiencing life-altering injuries. Everything related to recovery that is not direct medical care falls to caseworkers such as these.

The caseworkers for the Military Severely Injured Center were informed Wednesday that they should finish up all open cases because Friday would be their last day. The center officially opened in February 2005, with its primary offices in Arlington, Va., but also hired advocates at hospitals around the country. Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Lewis, Wash.; and Fort Campbell, Ky., all locations serving a high number of returning wounded, had case workers cut. The fate of the caseworkers at Arlington is not yet known, but only Brooke and Tripler Army Medical Centers and the Naval Medical Center in San Diego survived the cuts.

The DoD is now referring all severely wounded military personnel to the Army's Wounded Warrior program. Sources reported that the cuts came about because officials at the Wounded Warrior program felt the MSIC represented a duplication of services, but declined comment when contacted by a reporter for the Military Times newspapers.

“I’m just livid about this...They did a fabulous job for these families. The kind of work they do for these families who are hanging by a thread ... no other organization helped service members and their families like they did.” said Janice Buckley, Washington state chapter president for Operation Homefront, an organization that helps service members and their families with short-term financial needs.

It seems counterproductive to terminate the services of those who assist the wounded, especially at a time when additional troops are being sent into battle and more wounded will be returning to the homefront in need of services. If duplication of services was really an issue, it could have been addressed without the unforeseen termination of the employees and the vital assistance they provided to service personnel in need.

There's more: "Department of Defense cuts services to wounded veterans" >>