MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “These Guns for Hire,” by Ted Koppel (column, May 22):

Mr. Koppel asks, “If there are personnel shortages in the military (and with units in their second and third rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan, there are), then what’s wrong with having civilian contractors?”

I’ll tell you what’s wrong. If we cannot, as a democratic nation, muster the forces necessary to fight a war, then it is clear that we should not be fighting that war.

By not enlisting, and by making the idea of a draft “controversial,” the people of the United States have spoken.

Dave George
Alameda, Calif., May 22, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Ted Koppel’s examination of private companies that perform military functions for the United States does not consider how this outsourcing may be fueling serious human rights abuses.

As Amnesty International has reported, in Iraq and Afghanistan this increasing outsourcing of war has created a virtual rules-free zone for private military companies. Contractors have been linked to shootings of civilians and to sexual abuse and torture of detainees.

It’s difficult to assess the extent of the problem, because the system of awarding, overseeing and enforcing contracts is shrouded in secrecy and there has not been mandatory reporting or investigation of crimes committed by civilian contractors.

The Justice Department has not so far prosecuted the cases referred to it, so victims in Iraq and Afghanistan have had no access to justice. To extend this system without fixing its problems would just compound the abuses and reward the perpetrators.

Mila Rosenthal
Director, Business and
Human Rights Program
Amnesty International USA
New York, May 23, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Ted Koppel writes, “The United States may not be about to subcontract out the actual fighting in the war on terrorism, but the growing role of security companies on behalf of a wide range of corporate interests is a harbinger of things to come.”

Does Mr. Koppel assume that mercenaries are the inevitable next generation in warfare? Before we sanction corporate warfare, we need to ask ourselves if this is what America is all about.

Privatization of warfare should not be considered inevitable. For centuries, good people of the world have engaged in a struggle to find a way in which all cultures can coexist peacefully. Let us not undo all this good work and go backward to the Middle Ages.

Irene Stockman
Forest Hills, Queens, May 22, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

The type of mercenary force Ted Koppel discusses that “might relieve us of an array of current political pressures” is a frightening prospect. Private contractors have acted with impunity in Iraq — some of them are alleged to have been involved with the torture at Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Koppel writes of mercenaries deploying in Nigeria to defend the interests of the oil companies, which “could have the merit of stabilizing oil prices, thereby serving the American national interest.”

Oil companies in Nigeria have already employed brutal forces that attacked villagers in the Niger Delta. Adding more mercenaries to this mix would only cause more bloodshed.

Companies like Blackwater USA are currently engaged in a major rebranding campaign aimed at shaking their mercenary image and have been awarded lucrative contracts — not just in Iraq, but in New Orleans as well.

These mercenaries seemingly have unlimited support from the Bush administration. They do not need free publicity for their dubious cause from prominent journalists like Mr. Koppel.

Jeremy Scahill
New York, May 22, 2006
The writer, a fellow at the Nation Institute, studies private security companies.

• 

To the Editor:

One thing is very clear: the use of security contractors is not going away. And, as Ted Koppel mentions, reconciling profit and interest is critical.

The way to ensure that the use of contractors produces real savings and that their use will not be counterproductive is to adopt a much more public decision-making process, with a more active role for Congress.

This means closer regulation, mandatory audit trails, regular reporting and greater public access to nonsensitive records.

The time is right for Congress to take one step by forming its own subcommittee on the issue, possibly in one of the armed services committees. If the United States government truly can’t go to war without private contractors, then there should be oversight of those contractors, just as there is for the ground, naval and air forces.

David Isenberg
Washington, May 22, 2006
The writer is a senior analyst, British American Security Information Council.

• 

To the Editor:

Ted Koppel ponders the value of having outside contractors supplement the volunteer military that is finding volunteers harder to come by.

If the Pentagon were to take the money spent on contractors and use it instead to increase pay levels across the military and provide better support for those who serve, would it put a dent in the recruiting shortfall? Would it reduce the number of soldiers who leave the military after their tours of duty only to get paid more to do the same work for a contractor?

One of the virtues of a volunteer military is that basic laws of supply and demand can help determine whether or not the population really supports a war at the price the government is willing to pay for it.

Jeremy M. Posner
New York, May 22, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

If we as citizens are unwilling to volunteer to defend and protect our nation, the alternative of hiring mercenaries is unacceptable.

We must restore pride in our country and the policies it pursues so that it will again be a calling aspired to by our young. To relegate an obligation of citizenship and patriotism to hired guns is heartbreaking.

Ted Koppel seems to assume that corporations will go where they want and that since we are powerless to control this, we should let them defend themselves. We should not allow this.

Nancy Hughes
San Francisco, May 22, 2006