Blackballing Blackwater: Rush to Judgment?

On September 16, 2007, Blackwater responded to an attack on its convoy in Nisour Square, Baghdad. The aftershocks of Blackwater's self-defense measures resulted in an Iraqi investigation which claimed that Blackwater was at fault for the death of 17 Iraqi civilians. Moreover, there have been "anonymous military officials" who claimed that they found no traces of enemy fire in and around Nisour square which could have justified Blackwater's self-defense procedures. In the midst of all the controversy, several facts regarding Blackwater's history, alternate possibilities and an ongoing FBI investigation must be brought to the forefront before we strike hard and fast to ostracize who are predominantly, decorated military veterans who have converted to defense contractors in support of our nation's needs.

The Iraqi investigation

In any examination of the news regarding Blackwater, one will quickly find themselves led to an Iraqi panel's conclusion that Blackwater owes the families of each of the Iraqi civilians a pricey sum of eight million dollars for their alleged wrong-doing. One of the first questions to ask regarding this "apparent investigation" by the Iraqis, revolves around the Iraqi witnesses themselves.

The panel likely concluded that Blackwater was at fault based upon the broad integrity and the honesty of the Iraqi police force and their ethical ways.

Pardon the sarcasm, but this is the same law enforcement entity that consistently finds itself as the recipient of corruption, the harbinger of inside plots against the Iraqi government and agents of Muqtada al-Sadr.

Perhaps this "Iraqi panel" expanded their investigation to include more breadth by talking to individual Iraqi civilians who were in and around Nasour square. Let's look at the average Iraqi's options when confronted with the following question by a keen panel investigator:

"Did you see the Blackwater security guards get fired on by any insurgents or did they shoot randomly with no regard for human life?

This question certainly would require an Iraqi to think long and hard about the answer. On one hand, he or she could point out that the Blackwater convoy was approached by several foreboding vehicles with potential VBIED (Vehicle Borne Explosive Device) and was menacingly shot at by insurgents, or they could safely criticize the Americans without fear of their family getting kidnapped or tortured.

In all due deference to the Iraqis, many of us might do the same in their position. However this may be true, it's a fallacy to think fear and influence doesn't rule any observations made by Iraqis.

So-called anonymous military officials

It's well known, that military personnel often sacrifice their right to free speech because of the environment they work in, and possible harsh ramifications if their superiors hear their true voice. As a result, hearing the term "anonymous military officials" by several media outlets and news organizations should not seem odd to the casual reader. What should strike one as odd, are statements and claims by these officials that Blackwater was at fault for the shootings because no shell casings were found at the scene of the incident.

Since when does the US military have their forensic crime scene experts from the Army Criminal Investigations Division (CID), Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) or Airforce Office of Special Investigations (OSI) on call in the Iraqi Green Zone, capable of an extensive crime scene evaluation with troops on the ground only days after the alleged shootings? One would be hard pressed to make such an event happen, whether one was a four-star general or otherwise. These alleged media sources need to be scrutinized because the current Iraqi and "anonymous military" personnel are finding little ground to base a conclusion, especially in light of the FBI's ongoing task and the State Department's security consultants who are trying to come to a conclusion regarding the facts of the matter.

Contractors versus military: an early rush to judgment?

Although it's true that contractors make substantially more than their military counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should be noted that Blackwater's contractors are highly trained former Special Forces, Navy Seals, Force Recon and Airforce personnel. The training they received is largely from the US government and the hands-on instruction-gathered, has already been paid for by the government well into the six-figure number. When Blackwater volunteers to protect diplomats in Iraq there does exist some animosity from regular troops who are making a fraction of their salary.

The simple truth of the matter is that these contractors were special when they were in the service and still possess many of the same skills that are extremely hard to bargain for in today's national security marketplace. Accordingly, the military is not beyond envy or rivalries, like any other organization and the above rush to judgment by "anonymous military officials" may be a result of a senior officer's lack of control over Blackwater's State Department bodyguards.

The best answer?

We need to wait the results of the FBI's investigation and the State Department's findings. The facts do not betray the truth that Blackwater has never let a diplomat die on their watch. In fact the State Department has been remarkably quiet as to this fact. Secondly, even with the ban of Blackwater as a company, there is a finite pool of individuals to select from, so the likelihood of these same individuals being shifted to another contractor or sub-contracted to Triple Canopy or Dyncorp will change little to the equation, that America does not have enough uniquely skilled personnel in the military to make up for our nation's needs in these special contractors. America needs to face the truth: political partisanship will prevent a draft, but it will surely not underscore the need for contractors.