The Other Side Of The Story

O Ye, O Ye, O Ye....

2007-07-09T14:04:00.000-04:00

Now come the days of the interested media, blogger, and academic!

Whew, as you can see by the post, I took some time off to tend to personal things, but boy-howdy, in my absence, there now seems to be a plethora of interested parties and publications on how the private sector and security fit together.

First, props and kudos to the people who are the long-haulers on the topic; Doug Brooks, president of the IPOA, David Isenberg, who is over at BASIC, Robert Young Pelton (better known to friend and foe alike as "RYP") who is somewhere in the world today, Peter Singer,at Brookings, and Deborah Avant who was at GWU, but I heard she may have transferred to UC-Irvine. Oh, and some Brits who have been doing this longer than most as well. Good to all of you for being, "first to market" in some way or another.

Now, we have some new kids on the block as well who are trying to become the experts of record; The guys over at the Virginian-Pilot, Bill Sizemore and Joanne Kimberlin who did the Blackwater piece last summer, Jay Price and Joe Neff at the Raleigh News & Observer, who did a series on the tragic, barbaric incident in Fallujah, T. Christian Miller from the LA Times who has done a few pieces on contractors, Steve Fainaru from the Washington Post, and some others.

Newer academic material is coming from Laura Dickinson at the UConn School of Law, Martha Minow at Harvard law School has also written on the topic. Steve Schooner from GWU writes on the complex contractual issues, and a new book by Professor Paul Verkuill at the Cardozo School of Law has just come out as well. Not to be outdone, Simon Chesterman and Chia Lehnhardt at NYU law School are also releasing a book soon on the private security "phenomena".

So... Why? Why is everyone so interested? Is it because of all of the sensationalism that surrounds private security companies? Is is because they see it as a way to make some money while fulfilling a publishing requirements? Is it because they have a particular political agendas? Is it because they hope to be part of a new administration next year as an "expert"? I think it is all of the above.

The question is, to what end will all of these self-serving reasons add to a desperately needed debate on the private sector's role in global security operations? Every time I go to one of these conferences I see the same thing; a conference that has chosen a sliver to focus on without regard for the way that sliver eventually fits into the greater picture. Sometimes, it's about law, sometimes, it's about contracting, and sometimes, it's about the future, but never has there been a conference that has brought together all of these necessary pieces so that everyone who is publishing on the topic can actually see the forest for the trees that they have been concentrating on.

To the credit of some, the debate and dialogue has changed recently. Indeed, some naysayers have recently written articles that call for a renewed look at the private sector's capacity to enhance government operations. Not that they've seen the light exactly, but they have come to despise, I think, the polemic rhetoric and the sensationalism more than the questions they may have about the efficacy of concept.

Most importantly, I think, is that the dialogue is moving forward, that as a matter of public policy, people are actually beginning to engage, not just debate, and that finally, the smarter kids in the class are seeing things from a broader perspective, not just from their own nerdy position.

Alas, we have many miles to go before we can fully evaluate the current and future impact of using the private sector to enhance government operations, but I am certain all of you will be there to write about it and keep us "posted"!

Urban Legend v. The Truth

2007-07-01T22:32:00.000-04:00

Each day, I read some article, some blog entry, or see some piece on the private security industry and every day I see the same inaccuracies being recycled and restated as if they were the truth. The problem with that is eventually, smart people read it, believe it, then use it in more mainstream stories and, voila! It's fact. Except, when it's not. Below are a few of the more well-known legends with some truthful follow-up.

1. Legend: PSCs are not accountable and Amb. Paul Bremer gave them total immunity.

Truth: CPA Order 17 gave immunity to contractors with regard to the terms and conditions of their contracts. Murder, rape, trafficking, black marketing, etc. are not part of any terms and conditions I have ever seen, therefore they could be charged under Iraqi law, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), the War Crimes Act of 1996, and now, apparently the UCMJ.

** Note: In truth there is a robust legal framework, it is the investigation and enforcement phases that need a lot of work.

2. Legend: PSCs suck the military dry of talent.

Truth: A July 2005 GAO report said that there was not empirical evidence to support that claim. Indeed, men and women join and leave the military for various reasons. I am sure some left with the thought of working for a PSC but that is an exception. Additionally, most major corporation in America, like General Electric have a junior officer/senior enlisted recruiting program, to say nothing of the airline industry. I don't hear anyone complaining about their efforts.

3. Legend: There are 25,000 PSC contractors in Iraq

Truth: OK, that number might be close to correct, but only 4,000-5,000 of them are Americans. The rest are third-country nationals, and the overwhelming majority are Iraqis providing security in their own country. Additionally, of the 126,000 or so total contractors in Iraq, only 17% are American.

4. Legend: PSCs pay $1,000/day.

Truth: If anyone was paying that much, they are no longer in business because they clearly didn't understand the cost of labor, the market, and well... everything else. Half of that and less is more like it. There is also debate around pay for contractors versus pay for active-duty Soldiers. Using the DoD's own numbers, the gap, where there is one is negligible at best. The reason? Contractors have to pay for housing, healthcare, insurance, 401k, etc. on the back end and they have no guarantee of future work. I have a spreadsheet that shows how small the gap is but I couldn't get it to post properly. I will work on getting someone smarter than me to help.

5. Legend: PSCs are "mercenaries"

Truth: A term of emotion, the fact is that PSCs do not fit any known definition of mercenary. In this report by the last UN Special Rapporteur on the Use of Mercenaries made a distinction between mercenaries and PSCs. Although there is now a Working Group formed that I am told is not as sympathetic as the former Special Rapporteur (who is a now a member of the working Group). Additionally, "mercenary" means something different to Africans and to Europeans, further clouding the issue. Who best fits the UN definition of the term, "mercenary"? UN peacekeepers themselves in many cases. Many third-world nations actively recruit to fulfill their UN mandates to ensure the money continues to flow. Of course, that money may not go to training and equipping the peacekeepers, but to other more pressing national financial needs.

6. Legend: PSCs gouge the government.

Truth: The U. S. Government through GAO, DCMA, DCAA, SIGIR, and other offices have very sharp pencils. When an investigation does occur, these offices are equipped to identify fraud, waste, and abuse, but they each have staffing challenges at the moment. Additionally, most PSC contracts are "firm fixed price" instead of "cost-plus".

**Note: We will have a Contracting 101 post in the very near future since everyone seems to have a different understanding.

7. Legend: PSCs hire anybody.

Truth: The reputable firms hire retired and former military, law enforcement, intelligence, logistics, and other professionals. Most, if not all, have NCIC checks, physical fitness tests, DD-214 reviews, and clinical psychological evaluations. When necessary, full background checks are conducted by the U. S. government at the SECRET and TOP SECRET levels. Additionally, all prospectives must meet certain training standards, undergo human rights training, peer reviews, and exit interviews.

Does this answer the mail? Of course not, but it is a start in beginning to debunk all of the urban legend surrounding private security companies.

Tomorrow: CONTRACTING!

Private Security Companies in Domestic Policy

2007-06-27T14:04:00.000-04:00

Last week, I spoke about the value of the private sector in international operations, but this week I want to focus on how the private sector can add value to domestic operations; particularly in homeland security and disaster response.

Before 9/11, our borders, while periodically discussed, were not the topic of debate they are today. More importantly, all of the politics surrounding immigration and port security policies and solutions has left the American people with a big, fat lotta NOTHING. Witness Stephen Flynn's books, America the Vulnerable and The Edge of Disaster detail any number of catastrophic homeland security scenarios that could cripple the Nation.

From technology to training to operations, federal agencies have the ability to reach into the private sector for "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) solutions that can immediately enhance their abilities to fulfill their missions. For instance:

- Congress mandated years ago that there should be 2,000 new CBP Agents each year for five years for a total of 10,000 new agents. Blackwater and others have testified before Congress that they can either provide the surge manpower themselves or provide additional training capacity to assist in easing any capacity constraints the government, particularly FLETC might have. What happened? Nothing. Well, OK, politics happened and then some rice-bowl issues, and then... Well, nothing.

- The media is fond of quoting the statistic that says, "only 6% of the containers coming into the country are searched." I am not sure that's true anymore, but how about this idea? DHS can create a contract that would form a 500-person "boarding and inspection team" under the direct command and control of either the Customs & Border Patrol, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, or the U. S. Coast Guard. These teams could be broken down into 10-20 person teams and used on both coasts to inspect "vessels of interest" once they've crossed into U. S. waters.

- Probably the most visible and perhaps controversial use of the private sector in domestic operations was during relief efforts for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Private sector companies deployed to the area swiftly and efficiently in support of both commercial and government requests. While urban legend about their activities contained in polemical books and documentaries still periodically circulate, the fact remains that they provided security, airlift, and rescue support that saved countless lives and made follow-on operations more manageable. Contracts have already been let and awarded to DynCorp's joint venture, "Contingency Response Services".

In a world where our National Guard is deployed with all of its equipment for extended periods, leaving Governors with a resource deficit to respond to crises, the private sector must be looked to to supply needed response capacity. What is needed is a better understanding by all parties involved of that capacity, how it can fit, and why it's a partnership and not a used car deal.

The Private Sector in Sudan? Part Deux

2007-06-24T14:24:00.000-04:00

One cannot speak only of Darfur when speaking of Sudan. The north-south civil war that culminated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is seen by some as a marriage between war criminals and victims. Largely brokered by the United States, it has specific provisions for wealth-sharing, common defense, and a timeline for both an election referendum and a secession referendum in 2011.

Last October, President Bush signed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act and revised Executive Order 13067 which kept sanctions on the Government of Sudan (GoS - the North) and rescinded them for the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS - the South). These efforts allowed direct investment by US companies in Southern Sudan except in the petrochemical and extractive industries. There was some confusion as to whether this applied to the private sector's involvement in security sector reform, but that was further clarified by President Bush this past April when he signed documents allowing the private sector to participate in defense and security initiatives. This is important, because a secession referendum that results in a vote for secession by the South most probably will result in the North re-invading the South. Certainly, Bashir has no intention to allow the South to control the oil there, along with the teak and gum arabic resources.

In Southern Sudan, the private sector has the ability to directly affect the security of a nascent democracy who has a very specific timeline for survival. Security-sector reform (SSR) programs like creating a police force, professionalizing the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), and engaging in disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) operations, so that rule of law/justice, agricultural, business, and political experts can perform their very important work are paramount and a perfect fit for the private sector. Blackwater particularly pitched such plans for both Darfur and Southern Sudan. Now may be the time for those plans to be revisited. Other companies like PAE and DynCorp have already been executing US government programs there.

As I mentioned in the previous post, investing in everything in Southern Sudan will have a huge affect on sustainability going forward. But nothing happens until demining is finished and roads can be built. Road construction will allow business and public safety operations to flourish. No roads, no nothing - period.

Sudan will not be the only opportunity for the private sector to have a positive affect in Africa, but it can demonstrate there to the world just how effective it can be in DDR and SSR programs and how a long-term investment can pay the greatest dividends.

Open minds and innovation can help assuage human suffering. The private sector is part of that innovation. We should no longer be asking, "why should we use the private sector?", we should be demanding why we aren't to the fullest extent possible.

The Private Sector in Sudan? Part One

2007-06-24T11:13:00.000-04:00

For nearly four years, the word has watched in horror as the people of Darfur have been displaced, starved, and murdered. The result - roughly 300,000 to 400,000 killed, nearly 3 million displaced, and an emboldened Omar al-Bashir Sudanese government that seemingly fears nobody.

Darfur, nearly the size of France, has an African Union force of about 7,000 whose original mission was to monitor the safety of the UN monitors, not to intervene in the violence. The mandate was later upgraded but not the size of the force. 7,000 AU troops in such a large space is like playing, "whack-a-mole" at the carnival; you hit one Janjaweed head and another pops up somewhere else. Additionally, it has been reported that the AU, who to their credit have piece-mealed together a force against great odds has only been performing roughly 20% of its assigned patrol missions because of weapons, aircraft, and transportation maintenance issues which is attributed to a fiscal shortfall. Not a good thing for the only force who bothered to show up to the genocide.

The AU deserves credit for its efforts, but they need support; professional support. Could the private sector provide that support. Certainly. Here are some thoughts on how the private sector can partner with many different government/NGO/IGO players under the right international mandate:

1. Provide basic aircraft/vehicle maintenance tasks; perhaps even provide air transport.

2. When the AU moves against and channels or defeats the Janjaweed militias, provide "trailers"; a security program that can set up protection of the displacement camps and villages and provide safety within those camps and villages. This secure space would allow humanitarians to do the work that many of them have been prevented from previously doing.

3. Provide on-site training and mentoring to AU forces and over the long-term, create public safety programs with and for the Darfuris themselves.

4. Invest, invest, invest... What creates sustainable economies is a combination of world aid (with benchmarks and metrics) and private-sector investment. From micro-lending to infrastructure planning, to small-business mentoring, the private sector can create momentum and sustainable results.

5. Long-term security sector reform models which can be somewhat modified and duplicated around the region.

OK, so now you say, "Well, it's now moot because there are going to be 20,000 peacekeepers there soon." True, but the legendary Marine and former Commandant, Gen Robert H. Barrow once said, "Success in battle is not a function of how many show up, but who they are." 20,000 ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-motivated peacekeepers from varied third-world nations may not deliver the results that we should be demanding. Even with the numbers, you can still use the private sector for all of the things I listed above.

Additionally, there is a dangerous precedent being set in Darfur today. While hailing the fact that the Sudanese government has "accepted" 20,000 peacekeepers, we should also ask at what price? Have we been so captivated by process that we have forsaken innocent lives just to achieve an agreement with a government that has been hiding behind it's sovereignty? If so, who asked the dead if that was a fair deal for them?

Perhaps the private sector will not play a pivotal role in Darfur's security this time, but it will not be the only time "Never Again" will be challenged in the future. The responsibility to protect will be tested and an evaluation of the private sector's ability to respond to that test must be conducted today to prepare for tomorrow.

UCMJ vs. MEJA: A Championship Fight!

2007-06-15T07:55:00.000-04:00

One of the most contentious points regarding the private security industry is that of accountability. No one point is more debated and discussed.

For the purposes of today's post, we will not consider international accountability. Today, we will consider the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (2004) (MEJA) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For most professionals in the private security industry, the UCMJ is nothing new; as former military members, it is the Code by which they lived by for the term of their enlistments and commissions. But MEJA may be something new for most.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently had inserted into the UCMJ (Art. 2) five words that would see the Code applied to contractors not only in time of war, but also in "contingency operations". With this, of course, now comes the legal debate over just what that means, when it means it, how it means it, and to whom it means it. Whew...

Some military legal scholars believe that the UCMJ has always applied to contractors and even third-country nationals when you consider the black-letter of the law. In fact, the debate in military legal circles is not UCMJ vs. MEJA, but how they co-exist to provide an over-arching accountability system. However, the Pentagon has yet to create and publish implementing instructions for use of the UCMJ for contractors.

Since I am not a lawyer (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night) I will proffer some basic questions that I think most will ask (in no specific order):

1. What is a "contingency operation" and what does it mean to "accompany the force"?

2. What articles of the UCMJ would actually apply to contractors?

3. Can contractors be given Non-judicial punishment (NJP)? If so, how will money be taken from them, how will extra duties be assigned (since they should be assigned toward correcting the perceived deficiency). AND, will NJP authority be delegated to the CEOs of contracted companies?

4. What if an "offense" conflicts with the terms and conditions of a contract?

5. What if someone is working for a federal agency other than the DoD? Can they be charged under the UCMJ?

6. Is it even constitutional to try a civilian in a military court?

7. Is the JAG Corps ready for an increase in workload? Do they want it?

8. Is a "fair trial" still guaranteed for a civilian?

9. Are all other federal civilian employees covered by the UCMJ?

And finally....

10. Does applying the UCMJ to civilians also indemnify them from tort actions as it does active-duty servicemembers?

Like I said, I am not a lawyer, and these questions may be easily answered, but they are certainly worth asking...

The industry evolves in accountability just as it does in service. Everyone agrees that bad actors should be held accountable for bad actions.

Let us know what you think...

Cool Reports on National Security

2007-06-12T19:29:00.000-04:00

For decades, the realm of national security and the discussions pertaining to it seemed to take place only inside the government; DEEP inside the government. But today, there are think tanks, committees, and all manner of groups providing analysis and informational reports for the public and government leaders alike. I have put together just a few here for your enjoyment. Obviously, there is room for the private sector in any of these initiatives.

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change

This report is the work of eleven former three-star and four-star generals and admirals brought together by the CNA Corporation. Complete with videos of these retired warriors, this report brings together two seemingly partisan issues into one argument for change.

Getting Down To Business

This report was delivered in January 2007 by the Business Executives for National Security and speaks to public-private collaboration in disaster response. For those of you who were involved in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, this may be a good read for you.

Princeton Project on National Security

All ten-million pounds of brain power at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and beyond was brought to bear for this report. It is the result of many conferences, many discussions with national security experts, and world in need of some strategy.

Making Liberia Safe

The RAND Corporation, the national think tank, put together an exceptional list of recommendations for Liberian security sector reform. The report is long but of significant value for those of you who participate in this global arena.

IPOA Report on Proposed Legislation in Congress

OK, this one is a quick report from the International Peace Operations Association on current and competing legislation in Congress aimed at the private sector in national and international security operations. This snapshot gives you a glance at what these lawmakers see as important to manage.

There are many other reports out there, but the ones above are a bit different in their approaches and might be of greater value than the same ol', same ol'...

Read and learn, then comment!

Ambulance Chasers...

2007-06-12T15:21:00.000-04:00

OK, so... I do not want this blog to be focused only on Blackwater; there is a lot more to this industry and far more to the discussion, but I found a recent event to be particularly interesting and perplexing.

As I am sure everyone knows, Blackwater is being sued by the families of the four brave souls who were brutally murdered in Fallujah. The judicial process is taking its course, as it should in a democracy. What I found interesting was a press release by the families' lawyers last week and in related stories such as in the Virginian Pilot and the News and Observer that asks for public donations to help these same lawyers continue with the case. Now, the News and Observer story quotes one of the attorneys, Dan Callahan as saying, "...we are just a small firm..." However, if you go to the law firm's website and look at the "News & Articles" section, they seem to be doing alright for themselves. One of their wins was for nearly $1 billion! In fact, most personal injury firms will take on consignment cases particularly if they are hopeful of developing a new practice (in this case, the private security industry) which seems to be the case here. So, the question is, if this has been a case on consignment, have these attorneys reached their limit of support? Did they assume that they would reach some sort of victory in the form of a settlement much sooner than now?

Callahan also claims that Blackwater is suing the families, but again, it seems that's not exactly true. As I read it, Blackwater filed a suit against the administrator of the estates (which it seems were set up solely for the lawsuit and contain no assets) for filing a suit in the first place which violates the contract signed by the four men killed in Fallujah.

There are numerous tales of personal injury attorneys' outrageous tactics to win cases. In this case, The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that Dan Callahan also wrote a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi asking that the Congress investigate Blackwater. Well... that seems kinda shady, doesn't it? I mean, really, should attorneys in a civil action be able to usurp the judicial process and have Congress conduct discovery for them? From what I have read, there is no protection from Congressional inquiry, but it still seems a little too conspiratorial for me.

My point? Nothing is as it seems, and these lawyers are no different. If you feel like these attorneys have the families' best interests at heart, then by all means, give until it hurts. But if you feel that perhaps these guys are just ambulance chasers and are feeding off the barbaric tragedy these families have suffered, send them a penny each and let them know that they are no better than the companies they sue.

More on the industry tomorrow...

In The Beginning...

2007-06-11T19:20:00.000-04:00

And so it goes... This will be my first foray into blogging. I undertake this new effort with the intent to raise the level of debate about the private sector's role in national and international security.

I will both offer my own commentary and most certainly comment on the sensationalism pandered by others surrounding the topic and will expect to hear from all sides.

This is not a listserv, nor is it a forum for people who've done no research, have no experience or simply want to pontificate or sensationalize. All will be treated with respect as long as all offer respect. I will continue to develop this blog with other resources to stimulate real debate and discussion as I come across them.

To start the ball rolling, I submit an unpublished op-ed. Let's see where it leads us in the debate.

Greenwald and Scahill Are The True War Profiteers

A few weeks ago, the House Sub-Committee on Defense Appropriations held hearings on, “Contracting Out”; a topic that deserves real discussion, but this hearing fell far short of that. In yet another display of “gotcha politics’, the sub-committee found wisdom in inviting to testify two socialist activist sensationalists; both closely working with trial attorneys in a civil action against Blackwater, and both true war profiteers.

Robert Greenwald, who freely admits his radical, polemical documentary, “Iraq for Sale” was purposely subjective and unbalanced (it intentionally tried to tie Blackwater to Abu Ghraib) to affect the mid-term elections and Jeremy Scahill, author of, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”, a cobbling of mostly already-written, politically-driven stories weaved into an epic tale, were called to testify as defense appropriation experts. Neither is an expert in federal contracting, neither has served in the armed forces, and only one has visited Iraq (years ago). As Congress continues to hold these necessary hearings, one hopes those invited to testify are actually qualified to do so. In this case, the American people weren’t offered an option for balance; they simply were presented with two polemicists who were pawned off as experts.

The American capacity to respond to humanitarian and security challenges worldwide has always depended on the private sector’s partnership for its responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, and quality. Since the American Revolution when George Washington wrote IOUs for supplies to sutlers and merchants to Vietnam where over 80,000 professional contractors served the country, the private sector has played a significant role in supporting U. S. national security and foreign policies. However, the challenge has always been when and where to integrate expertise (inaccurately referred to as “outsourcing”) into government operations.

Accountability and cost are two fundamental issues that warrant Congress’ focus.

Scahill and Greenwald’s specious claim that private contractors were granted total immunity is at the heart of their own commercial profit agendas. Scahill decried that Ambassador Bremer gave full immunity to private contractors through CPA Order 17. That’s wholly incorrect. CPA Order 17 states that, “Contractors shall be immune from the Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto." The order only offers the same protection to private contractors that active-duty servicemembers have for actions undertaken in the same dynamic environment in fulfillment of their duties to our country. The entire industry supports improved accountability, but willful hyperbole serves nobody’s interests. Scahill pointed out that there have been 64 courts-martial of active-duty servicemembers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). There are roughly 140,000 servicemembers in Iraq. There are only about 4,000 armed American contractors. Using the same ratio, roughly two contractors could have been court-martialed, and that’s assuming the training, maturity, and experience levels were equal (an incorrect assumption) and that a crime was committed. Most feel the UCMJ applies only to Americans and excludes third-country nationals (TCNs) and host-country nationals (HCNs) who are required by the terms of some contracts, and who make up the bulk of private security professionals in Iraq, but some military legal scholars feel that Article 2 already applies, even absent the Graham Clause. Applying the UCMJ to American civilians will also be met with constitutional challenges that will see private security companies and civil and human rights organizations uniting in objection. Modifications to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (2004) are being considered by Rep. David Price (D-NC) and others that offer a better solution because MEJA extends federal jurisdiction to American civilians, TCNs and HCNs serving U. S. contracts suspected of felonies where they could be tried and acquitted or punished as any other alleged felon in the United States. Congressman Henry Waxman, Senator Barack Obama, and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky are also offering legislation.

The cost of security was also addressed during the hearing. The claim that security professionals at Blackwater were earning $1000 per day is false. Scahill, who will speak in Chicago at, “Socialism 2007” is fond of using inflated and annualized numbers and loosely connecting remote possibilities to create a misleading visual for his readers. The cost of security in Iraq is erroneously portrayed as a function of premium charges by the industry when it is really driven by the demand for services. An unexpected outcome occurred after the fall of Baghdad. As we see still today, the environment is far more dangerous and requires more security than anticipated. That is a planning issue, not a pricing issue. Scahill and Greenwald use sensational terms like, “mercenary” (which he never defines) and “war profiteer” to help sell more books and DVDs (private security professionals serving the U. S. Government don’t fit any definition of mercenary – including the UN’s). But what they don’t tell you is that these men and women are retired or former military and law enforcement professionals, mostly working middle-class Americans, who want to continue to support their elected government. They have no guarantee of further work, they pay for their own healthcare, and they get no pensions. The cost to the government associated with them ends when their contracts end. They generally do not serve more than 90-180 days at time and therefore do not enjoy any tax breaks. Further, using the DoD’s own numbers, a side-by-side comparison of an average private security professional and a deployed E-7 Navy SEAL shows that take-home pay is nearly the same.

That didn’t make it into the hearing either.

The opportunity to invite a balanced panel that included industry was missed. American taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, but they equally deserve issue-driven debate, not politically-driven grandiloquence. All they got a few weeks ago was one-sided, political activism from true war profiteers who make their money as parasites to family tragedy and by impugning the integrity of honorable, committed professionals in harm’s way. The dearth of informed experts on this particular panel deprived taxpayers of the discussion necessary to learn and make sound democratic choices.

“Striking a pose” in favor of partisan politics will continue to allow true war profiteers like Scahill and Greenwald to politicize and exploit others’ tragedy and selfless service to great financial gain.

Hopefully, Congress won’t allow that to happen again.

That ought to get us started!