USEDCARSALESMAN

"Western Insurgents:" Private Military Companies and the Evolution of Their Operations in Iraq

The web-site, Privatemilitary.org, states that "Private Military Companies" or "PMCs" are:

"...legally established enterprises that make a profit by either providing services involving the potential exercise of force in a systematic way and by military means, and/or by the transfer of that potential to clients through training and other practices, such as logistics support, equipment procurement, and intelligence gathering. It is a potential because the mere presence of a PMC can deter aggressors from considering the use of force a viable course of action. Neither does there have to be an actual or potential military role; a PMC's involvement may as well be directed towards enhancing the recipient's military and security capabilities."

Privatemilitary.org also seeks to differentiate PMC personnel in the field from mercercenaries:

"The foreign or multinational constitution of various legitimate military actors challenge common perceptions of 'mercenaries' as simply soldiers in foreign service and/or working for private gain. Hence Private Military Companies, as well as the military units listed here, should not be labeled or dismissed as simply mercenary forces, there are many other factors to consider when defining either mercenary forces or PMCs."

Well, Usedcarsalesman believes that the executives at PMCs may, understandably, wish to encourage a more open-minded public view of what their companies do. But, the reality is that the rank-and-file guy who contracts with a PMC is simply capitalizing on his hard-earned, specialized military skills in trade for high-pay and the self-esteem that comes from having his skills needed by other entities in the world. He's, for better or worse, a mercenary.

Now this isn't Usedcarsalesman writing some post on how bad mercenaries are for the world etc. In fact, he believes that employing PMCs contractors, lately termed "American Gangsters" or "Western Insurgents" is actually a winning decision -- at least in strategic terms -- for the U.S. In fact, said PMCs are likely the only military organizations that are unencumbered enough to make Iraq a reasonably civilized place for foreign investment and domestic reconstruction, Post-Saddam, in the 21st century.

But, you might ask, "Why PMC's in Iraq? Don't we have Special Operations Forces to kill the insurgents and train the Iraqi police?"

As you may recall, the U.S. Armed Forces defeated the Iraqi military quite rapidly in the 2003 invasion. But, what the U.S. Forces responds to now are "insurgents" -- ex-military or aggressive civilian Iraqis but mostly foreign nationals who want to invest their likely soon-to-be-abbreviated lives in sniping, exploding IEDs, or blowing themselves up to kill the U.S. military and Iraqi citizens allied with it.

Usedcarsalesman says that when you confront an insurgency composed of (likely ex-military) civilians, you defeat it using a vastly superior "Insurgency" composed of (likely ex-military) civilians.

Within this dynamic, its is apparent that U.S. special operations units are not right for the job of defeating an Iraqi insurgency -- like it or not, they are part of an apparatus who's war is basically over and won in Iraq. Instead, you, like the U.S., purchase the services of a vastly superior "Insurgency," a "Western Insurgency" -namely that of Private Military Companies.

More on PMCs:

Private Military Company men are highly-paid & well-equipped. There are no political repercussions when employing them as personnel -- no notes home to mother's who's sons have died fighting for the U.S. effort. And PMC personnel do not have to follow a Military Code of Conduct (as of 2006), their violations of which would be used by enemy insurgents to make a case against them in the international media.

One of the PMC "number" is disposable, dis-ownable, can be labeled a "humanitarian worker" when his actual work for the day was the execution of 42 "head-shot" kills. Or he can be dressed as a Red Cross aid-worker when, in reality, he was actually part of a death squad formed to assassinate specific enemy insurgent individuals. Even better for the Pentagon, PMC personnel can be scape-goated.  They get out of hand and the military employer with whom they contract can cut its ties to them, say "we had no idea." But, no matter what, the Pentagon does not get "stuck-with-the-'political'-check" in the press when "outsourcing" to PMCs.

Are there enough personnel in PMCs to get the job done in Iraq?  Frankly, Usedcarsalesman says no. Many in the PMC fold are being used to train the developing Iraqi police force, the idea being to allow the Iraqi citizenry to self-police and self-govern. Usedcarsalesman, your humble blogger says, "yeah right."

Usedcarsalesman knows that the Iraqi police force is composed of the same guys that were in Iraq when Saddam was around.  And those guys have demonstrated a strong precedent of doing whatever they have to keep their heads on their shoulders and feed their families, even if it means playing ball with the new guys in charge, the U.S. military. 

Also, consider that most of the Iraqi Police force likely also lost brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins in Desert Storm, circa 1990-91 and again in the 2003 invasion. You don't think, despite oaths and background investigations, that many in the Iraqi Police are going to be up for some sabotage, revenge etc?

So the PMCs may end up facing what U.S. military faced in the Vietnam War: a need for reliable personnel other than native citizens to help them fight in, police and control a given area. The United States instituted a draft in the 1960s to assemble such additional personnel for the Vietnam conflict. It didn't have the desired effect, but what else was the U.S. going to do, then, during the Cold War?

To run Iraq, PMCs (non-governmental organizations) will take a different tact to raise the private army they are going to need:  they will offer cash via their large client (the U.S.), a lot of it and to a lot more ex-military people than they are currently. Usedcarsalesman expects to see Iraq turn in to even more of a large scale, "Wild West," "Wyatt Earp," Soldier of Fortune paradise over the next decade. It's certainly been moving up in that direction for the last two years, just as have the fortunes of PMCs.

As a result of their likely effectiveness in Iraq, Usedcarsalesman predicts that Private Military Companies will become seen as one of the new, dominant "faces" of Warfare in the 21st century.

A Way Bush May Attempt to Influence the November 2006 Congressional Elections

Usedcarsalesman is originally a D.C. metro-area boy, so he'd like to think his opinions on activities within the U.S. Executive Branch are a little more grounded than those who's political experience consists of viewing -The West Wing- on a regular basis. Anyway, in the following, Usedcarsalesman wants to go on the blog "record" and state his, admittedly, speculative opinions on the "behind-the-scenes" activities of the current Bush Administration and how these activities might affect the November elections:

1. First off, Osama Bin Laden has been in U.S. custody since before the November 2004 elections. There, Usedcarsalesman said it. Also, Usedcarsalesman speculates that Bin Laden was wheeled out by U.S. intelligence just prior to the November 2004 elections to cut the video in which he threatened further attacks on the U.S. The captured Bin Laden is a "card" that the Bush administration is looking to play at some point -- it maybe the November 2006 congressional elections. Most likely though, rather than see a full on, "we have him" you are going to see another staged Osama Bin Laden video "love letter" to America where he's shown talking about all the terrorist damage he is going to arrange. But, who knows?

Ok, so where did Usedcarsalesman come up with this crackpot Bin Laden capture idea? Well let's recall the capture of Saddam Hussein. Remember how Hussein was found by our forces hiding out munching candy bars in ditch behind some shack in Iraq a few years ago? Here's what Used believes really happened with Saddam: our forces swamped Iraq and Saddam, by way of representatives, ultimately agreed to cut a deal to keep his head on his shoulders. Part of that deal was doing the little staged "song-and-dance" showing him curled up in a fetal position when he was discovered by U.S. troops -- the formerly strong, arrogant leader humbled by U.S. forces before the world press. Saddam at his more recent "trial" may or may not be acting -- frankly, I presume he was legitimately pissed off. But, the reality is that Saddam, when all is said and done, will get the "Elba" treatment -- a cushy life imprisonment on a very comfortable spread with great food and lots of conjugal visits.

Anyway, what does Saddam have to do with Bin Laden? Well, 'Used' is simply recounting Saddam's "capture" to give you, fellow bloggers, a frame of reference with which to consider Usedcarsalesman's speculation on the long ago capture of Osama Bin Laden. As you might recall, with Saddam, you had a former national leader who had billions of dollars in cash, military support all over the place in Iraq and who ended up turning up "alone" (gimme a break) in an Iraqi ditch somewhere. Bin Laden, on the other hand, had it no where near as good as Saddam and look where Saddam ended up.

Yes, Bin Laden did have money, but he required treatment for kidney dialysis. And, he was no national leader which meant he had no military to hide behind and really no country of his own to give him the home-field advantage when hiding-out from the U.S. "Satans." He was also likely totally dependent on a small network of supporters and, again, he was inherently a "satellite" to his own chronic health needs. Furthermore, the small size of Bin Laden's organization made any enforcement of secrecy regarding his location a challenging undertaking. If one guy in Bin Laden's group gave him up, it was "game over" for Bin Laden. Usedcarsalesman speculates that the hide-out game ended for Bin Laden probably in 2002-2003. Thus, Bin Laden, like Saddam, is likely an active tool of the current administration. Bush will employ Bin Laden for his own devices prior to the November 2006 Congressional elections.

2. Have you noticed that gas prices have been dropping? 'Used' can buy a gallon of regular in Los Angeles for under $3.00 now. Its not a stretch to speculate and say that the U.S. public seems to tie gas prices with the current administration's success in Iraq. Prices go up and people believe the war effort there is not succeeding; prices go down and people believe the opposite.

The administration, Usedcarsalesman speculates, is using "back-channels" with oil companies to encourage a reduction in fuel prices at the nations pumps. U.S. Consumers, seeing the decline in gas prices, believe that the current Administration and Republicans, in general, are doing something right in the Middle East, and, thus decide to vote Republican in November 2006 Congressional elections. Republicans then maintain control of the House and Senate and the current President Bush benefit because he does not have to function as a lame-duck President for the last two years of his second term.

3. Last, but not least, 'Used' is looking for the Bush administration to create some decent terrorist scares before November 4th, ie. "Terrorist plot to mine all the soccer fields on Long Island, N.Y. is thwarted -- Nation's youth turn to Curling in droves." No, seriously, the reality is "Federal Fear" works for the Bush White House and for any Administration. It will work for the Republicans in the November elections. It doesn't' take much, just the transmission of a few White House press releases suggesting that the Bush Administration "may" have foiled a massive terrorist plot.

After seeing news reports, citizens will go to the voting booths come November 4 and think, "do I want a Democratic congress handling this? Sure, those Democrats are smart and they'll probably hold a lot of congressional committee hearing that will take a lot of time and they will attempt to be fair and insure civil rights and such...But, in my opinion, rights and fairness take a back seat when my ass is potentially on the line due to domestic terrorist violence. Therefore, given September and October, 2006's terrorist threats, I am voting Republican -- their party has been in charge of fighting the terrorist baddies for the last 5 years since 9/11, so they have the experience to manage the recent threats and make everything else -- civil rights, etc. -- secondary."

Ok, so Usedcarsalesman has put his butt on the line in this post. 'Used' restates that he believes that citizens in the U.S. will have a new Osama Bin Laden "Threat" video to view in the next 6 weeks, if not a full-fledged Osama "captured" press event. 'Used' sees reason to believe that gas prices are being used to manipulate U.S. public opinion in advance of the November elections and that said prices will decline through November 4, 2006 to indirectly generate voter support for the Republican party's congressional candidates. And, 'Used' maintains that in the next 6 weeks, the U.S. will receive news that a major terrorist event was thwarted by the efforts of he current Bush Administration -- this also an Administration effort to manipulate voter opinion in advance of the upcoming congressional elections.