Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Officials Reject Idea of Blackwater Founder Privatizing the War in Afghanistan

posted by martyb on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the further-privatizing dept.

takyon writes:

Afghan officials reject push to privatize war

Afghan officials have rejected a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince to have his private military contracting company take over the training and advising of the Afghan armed forces.

Prince lobbied several Afghan politicians on a recent trip to the country and has been discussing his proposal to privatize parts of the U.S. military mission in the country for over a year, according to Reuters.

But Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has repeatedly dismissed the idea. "Under no circumstances will the Afghan government and people allow the counterterrorism fight to become a private, for-profit business," Ghani's national security adviser said in a statement to Reuters Thursday.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has also rejected the proposal, saying in August, "When Americans put their nation's credibility on the line, privatizing it is probably not a wise idea."

See also: The Last Americans Fighting in Afghanistan
17 years later, Americans tend to consider Afghanistan a failure

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Officials Reject Idea of Blackwater Founder Privatizing the War in Afghanistan | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 29 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:25PM (22 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:25PM (#745245)

    Those dead guys were mercenaries.

    .

    The mercenaries had been using ILLEGAL ( illegal under the Geneva Convention ) ammo which caused horrible wounds to people who were shot with it.

    .

    What is a horrible wound ? Well, when you're shot with a 7.62mm NATO round, it makes a hole in your body not much larger than the diameter of the round. The illegal ammo blows a hole in you the size of a pot roast, with ONE shot. Visualize that wound and imagine what you'd think if one of your buddies suffered such a wound.

    -

    Is it any wonder the "enemy" in Fallujah wanted to kill those mercenaries and burn them and hang them on the bridge ? If your buddies had been shot with ammo
    that blew their bodies apart and caused them to quickly bleed to death as a result of being hit by one round, you'd want to get some payback on the guys who did that.

    -

    The larger lesson is that mercenaries will do stuff that regular military may not do, and that doesn't lead to world peace. It leads to people wanting revenge by any means possible.

    So it's a wise decision not to allow a private army in Afghanistan, because the blowback would ultimately be against the US, not against the private army.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:13AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:13AM (#745266) Journal

    Parent is completely correct. Articles published in the Army Times by Blackwater recommend so called "blended metal" rounds, and say the reason regular soldiers should not use them, rather than just the mercs, is that a self-inflicted wound could be fatal.

      So instead of this ad for a war-criminal mercenary brother of the Sec. of Ed, we could have had a nice informative aristarchus submission, if they had not all been rejected without notice or explanation.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Snotnose on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:33AM (1 child)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:33AM (#745274)

    What is a horrible wound ? Well, when you're shot with a 7.62mm NATO round, it makes a hole in your body not much larger than the diameter of the round. The illegal ammo blows a hole in you the size of a pot roast, with ONE shot.

    Not quite. The entry hole is the size of a pencil. The exit wound, on the other hand, is much bigger. This is kinda how bullets work. Ideally there won't be an exit wound, cuz that means wasted energy. You want the target to absorb as much energy as that bullet has, which means there is no exit wound.

    The round the US military uses? When it hits you it tumbles, causing even more havoc in the body.

    --
    When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:55AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:55AM (#745289) Journal

      Not quite. The entry hole is the size of a pencil. The exit wound, on the other hand, is much bigger. This is kinda how bullets work. Ideally there won't be an exit wound, cuz that means wasted energy. You want the target to absorb as much energy as that bullet has, which means there is no exit wound.

      The theory goes like "Wound, but don't kill the enemy soldier; taking care of 1 wounded take other 3-4 away from the battle"

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:41AM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:41AM (#745280)

    1. The Geneva Convention doesn't have much to say about small arms ammo. You mean the "Hague Declaration concerning the Prohibition of Dum-Dum Bullets" -- or at least, that's what you would mean if you had half a clue, anyway.
    2. The US didn't sign and isn't bound by that Declaration. They generally issue non-expanding ammo voluntarily, partly to avoid outrage, and partly so they can supply ammo to other NATO members who have signed said Declaration, but it would not be "ILLEGAL" for them to issue expanding ammo instead.
    3. Your characterization of 7.62 NATO wounds is absurd. Perhaps you're thinking of 7.62x39, a much slower cartridge that IS notorious for ice-picking? Or perhaps you're simply not thinking, because you assume whoever fed you this information is a reliable source. Well, they aren't, because 7.62 NATO can have pretty impressive [youtu.be] terminal ballistics.
    4. But then, that doesn't matter, because the US doesn't use 7.62 NATO for much but machine guns. 5.56 NATO is used in almost all rifles, and terminal ballistics of good, Hague-compliant, 5.56 ammo, such as M855A1 [youtube.com] or (from long barrels) good old M193 [youtube.com], is really quite impressive.
    5. Finally, if we're convinced, despite all facts, that fragmenting ammo vs expanding ammo will make the difference between world peace and bloody revenge, wouldn't it possible to place restrictions on what ammunition the contractors can use as part of their contract?

    In short, you're regurgitating info on a subject you know nothing about, and thus aren't in a position to realize that info is bullshit. Your ignorance is being used.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:50AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:50AM (#745284)

      "In short, you're regurgitating info on a subject you know nothing about"

      -

      I was in Fallujah. You weren't. My post was accurate with respect to the wounds caused by the liquid metal rounds.

      We all know the 5.56 round tumbles. But the exit wounds caused by the 5.56 are small in comparison to the giant holes caused by the liquid metal rounds.

      Your comment about making rules the mercs would have to follow proves what a dumbass you are. In a war zone, there are no rules when the only reason you're
      there is to earn money. If you'd been in a war like I have, you fuckign hit-talking poseur, you'd know that.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:41AM (#745307)

        My post was accurate with respect to the wounds caused by the liquid metal rounds.

        But not accurate with respect to pretty much everything else.

        We all know the 5.56 round tumbles.

        Then why did you bring up 7.62 NATO instead, even though you knew it was irrelevant, and knew that no ammo the US military would have used could be accurately said to "make a hole in your body not much larger than the diameter of the round"?

        But hey, if you made up that bullshit your own self, instead of mistakenly placing your trust in someone who seems to know what they're talking about...
        I take back what I said about you being used, and I apologize for not calling you a liar or a moron instead.
        So which is it? You know the truth, and are lying your ass off?
        Or so stupid you managed to fight a war without learning anything about the laws of war, or the terminal ballistics of the various cartridges you and your buddies were using?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @02:08AM (9 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @02:08AM (#745315) Journal
        Ah, an argument from expertise fallacy. The obvious rebuttal is that there's no excuse for your ignorance then.

        Your comment about making rules the mercs would have to follow proves what a dumbass you are. In a war zone, there are no rules when the only reason you're there is to earn money. If you'd been in a war like I have, you fuckign hit-talking poseur, you'd know that.

        Which Geneva Convention is that in? /sarc

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday October 07 2018, @03:57AM (8 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 07 2018, @03:57AM (#745355) Journal

          No wonder such libertarians with their obvious rebuttals are so ignorant of law, and especially the ius gentium or law of peoples otherwise known as international law. When you think, as does Prince and/or DeVoss, that the market is the best solution to anything, then of course law is nothing but a cost of doing business that should be avoided or annulled. All businessmen, as khallow and Sulla both know, are inherently mercenaries and bandits, redlegs and mauraders. So here is the relevant convention. Silly khallow.

          The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects as amended on 21 December 2001(CCW) is usually referred to as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It is also known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention.

          The purpose of the Convention is to ban or restrict the use of specific types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to affect civilians indiscriminately. The structure of the CCW – a chapeau Convention and annexed Protocols – was adopted in this manner to ensure future flexibility. The Convention itself contains only general provisions. All prohibitions or restrictions on the use of specific weapons or weapon systems are the object of the Protocols annexed to the Convention.

          The original Convention with three annexed Protocols were adopted on 10 October 1980 and opened for signature for one year from 10 April 1981. A total of 50 States signed the Convention, which entered into force on 2 December 1983.

          Got that? The CCW [www.unog.ch], not Geneva. Do try to keep up on the conventions, and the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions. And some understanding of when international law comes into force, and why being a non-signatory does not, after a certain level of approval by all nations, release even mercenary scumbags like (formerly known as ) Blackwater from the jurisdiction of the laws of humanity. They might be coming for you, khallow, despite John Bolton's best efforts the make America into a Rogue Nation and Hive of scum and mercenaries.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:04AM (7 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:04AM (#745359) Journal
            The obvious rebuttal to that is "woosh".

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:11AM (6 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:11AM (#745362) Journal

              Ignorance does not "whoosh" make, khallow! Once again, you should know when your obvious rebuttals are just stalling, and admit you do not know what you are talking about. Otherwise you just display your ignorance to the world.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:37AM (5 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:37AM (#745373) Journal

                Ignorance does not "whoosh" make, khallow!

                Actually yes, it does. What you wrote had nothing to do with my post. It's typical aristarchus straw man beating.

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:52AM (4 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:52AM (#745377) Journal

                  Convention Against the use of Mercenaries:
                  http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm [un.org]
                  I usually recommend the Minnesota http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/ [umn.edu] Human Rights Library. Really, khallow, it does no good to actually read what you write, when 1. you know not of what you write, and 2. you consistently argue in bad faith.

                  Oh, by the way, Yale and Maryland are now suspect when it comes to the rule of law, so evaluate sources, people!

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:14AM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:14AM (#745399) Journal
                    And now a non sequitur since that was irrelevant to my previous two posts.

                    Let us note that the four "contractors" weren't mercenaries by the document you quoted, aristarchus.

                    A mercenary is any person who:

                    (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

                    (b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

                    (c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

                    (d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

                    (e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

                    2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

                    (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:

                    (i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

                    (ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

                    (b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

                    (c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

                    (d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

                    (e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

                    Notice the bolded parts. To qualify as a mercenary, for the purpose of this treaty, one has to be recruited for the purpose of directly fighting in a conflict, not merely being armed in a war zone.

                    I'm tired of this dumbshit stuff you do, aristarchus. You didn't think a bit before dumping that link. It was completely irrelevant in at least two ways.

                    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 07 2018, @09:22AM (2 children)

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 07 2018, @09:22AM (#745426) Journal

                      Sounds like something a merc would say. "Security Contractor"! "Auxillary Forces". "Training and advising". Yeah, right. Bad faith, khallow, the obvious rebuttal is mercenary bad faith.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:22PM (1 child)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:22PM (#745463) Journal
                        Well, you could always look instead of just saying stupid things? Every story has the contractors in question escorting a convoy, allegedly of food. It has some degree of military value since it's supplies for the US side, but the guys weren't there to fight in the war.

                        And training and advising of the current story is a legitimate, non-mercenary role for private enterprise by the very link you deigned to provide.

                        • (Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday October 08 2018, @08:01AM

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday October 08 2018, @08:01AM (#745859) Journal

                          legitimate, non-mercenary role for private enterprise

                          Oxymoron, khallow, a "sharp idiot" literally from the Greek, but "contradiction in terms" will suffice. The problem with mercenaries is that the look like soldiers, the problem is they act like private enterprise. Which means, conversely, the problem with Mercantilists is not that that look like private entrepreneurs, but that they are already mercenary, about everything, from blood tests to cancer drugs, to sex and copyrights, education and war. The problem with the "Merchants of Death" is the merchant part, not the dying bit.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:51PM (4 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:51PM (#745480)

      One of the things to come out of the investigation of Fallujah: Erik Prince views himself and his company as modern day Christian crusaders out to kill every Muslim they can [economist.com]. That not only is bad from the "genocide is wrong" department, it's also bad from the strategic and operational goals that US commanders have: Having those kinds of loose cannons around only helps the propaganda efforts of the Taliban and ISIS and other unpleasant people.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 07 2018, @05:13PM (3 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday October 07 2018, @05:13PM (#745556) Homepage

        And yet Erik's headquarters are in Dubai. You'd think they'd be opposed to having an open Crusader living in their midst.

        I believe that this is seriously being considered because nobody (other than illegal Mexicans looking for easy citizenship) is going to enlist until we get the real stories of events like 9/11 and Vegas, and also due to the fact that thanks to the internet everybody knows modern hot-wars are bullshit. The American population will have zero tolerance for a draft and they will openly revolt, maybe moreso than in the Vietnam days.

        Modern wars are mostly fought economically and culturally, with some occasional proxy clashes like Syria and Yemen. The Chicoms really did a number on our culture by exerting soft-money influence toward our entire educational system. The real story with election influence was not Russia, but China, and you bet your ass the Chicoms are handling Dianne ("Fifth-Columnist") Feinstein and all of the other Democrat psychos all the way up to Hillary herself.

        Trump can fix this. He can drain the swamp and rebuild the public's trust in government, so that Americans will once again be proud to volunteer to serve in the military.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:05PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @06:05PM (#745565)

          I see you are back and crazier than ever.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday October 07 2018, @10:41PM (1 child)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday October 07 2018, @10:41PM (#745663)

            Come on now A/C, that rant is hilarious. Ethanol-fueled is back baby, and funnier than ever.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday October 07 2018, @11:25PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @11:25PM (#745694) Journal

              It would be funny if it wasn't playing the latest tune emanating from the White House [twitter.com] playing the 'loyalty to Trump' chorus. The only way Trump can stand long enough is to create crises he can blame others for them. See, it isn't Trump's fault the Chinese retaliated with taxes in the trade war, they are doing it to bring down the great American leader.

              Put this together with the 'Presidential alert' - Tweeter does not carry the 'legitimacy' mark and it's too noisy for spreading 'legit fear'.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:51AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:51AM (#745286) Journal

    What is a horrible wound ? ... blows a hole in you the size of a pot roast, with ONE shot. Visualize that wound and imagine what you'd think if one of your buddies suffered such a wound.

    Like visualizing the damage caused by the 5.56x45 mm NATO [youtube.com], shot by M4/M16s (muzzle v: 910 m/s), bullets that are prone to yawing and fragmentation [wikipedia.org]?

    The point is - speaking about the terminal ballistics is not as a clear cut picture issue as one may believe. Where guns vs humans are involved it never is [businessinsider.com]; not even in the contexts of guns vs watermelons [youtube.com]

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford