Second, whether Blackwater, et. al., is more important than the complete failure (again) of the MSM to uphold standards of objectivity, honesty and due diligence is merely your own subjective opinion based on your own evaluation of relative importance of each issue. Assertion and opinion do not equal fact. Support your assertions with facts and I think you’ll have more success generating the discussion you seem to want.

Third, as for your point about the relative cost of Blackwater v. military protection – I’m not sure that your information is correct. Mark Corallo writes about Blackwater from his perspective (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY3OWUyNGU0OGNkMjc1MTU5OGI0ZDQ1YzJiYjQzNjM=). Although one could be excused for being skeptical of his facts, since he was a lawyer for Blackwater. However, this is not the first time that I’ve been presented with the information that Blackwater is actually the most cost effective way of providing security for the diplomats. At the very least, both sides should agree that the argument of the relative cost of Blackwater is not settled until more hard information is marshalled in support of its side.

In addition, irrespective of the relative cost issue, at the present moment the military lacks the capacity to provide additional forces in support of the security of dipolomats. In order to provide this additional security, the military would require an overall endstrength increase, with an attendant lag in deployment to theater (due recruiting and training), and with an even larger U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Also, the sovereignty of Iraq is a difficult and complex issue. Its really more of a case of “more or less” rather than a binary situation of “yes or no.” There are some spheres in which the Iraqi government has the capacity to excercise full sovereignty, and does so. There are other spheres, in terms of national security and law enforcement, in which the fledgling democratic Iraqi state has only limited capacity. In some cases that capacity is 100% but limited to certain localities. In other cases, it is less than 100% in a locality or a wider region. Because of this, a continued military presence in Iraq is essential to both our interests and the interests of the Iraqi state. Under the current arrangement, the Iraqi state gives up some of its sovereignty (in terms of being able to exert absolute control over foreign troops in Iraq) in order to gain de facto control of those regions/areas it would otherwise lack the capacity to exert direct control over. The current arrangement is built on the realities of the situation. We prevent state failure and deny sanctuary for violent transnational actors, while the Iraqi state transistions from a weak state to a fully normal nation (how long that will take would be a guess on my part).
What does this have to do with security contractors in Iraq? The security contractors are a unique subset of this soveriegnty issue: the Iraqi government asks for Blackwater to be removed, but at the current time neither we nor the Iraqis have adequate capacity to provide alternative means for the security of our diplomats. Hence, in order to satisfy the Iraqis we would be forced to uncovered and endanger our diplomats who would surely be (and have already been) targeted by the enemy. This is a perfect case that highlights the “more or less” nature of Iraqi sovereignty. As for world opinion and showing the world things… we should worry about achieving our stated objectives first rather than pandering to world opinion (by handing over too much, too soon – BTW, we’ve tried that and learned the hard way) at the potential cost of even more lives (both Iraqi and American).

Finally, as for the protection of the “apparent murderer:” you seem to presume guilt by using the term “apparent” rather than “alleged.” In any case, our system presumes innocence first. Since you are non-specific about whom you’re talking, I’m going to make an assumption that you’re talking about the Christmas shooting. From the hearsay, the incident sounds bad, but again we should let the courts establish the facts before we pass final judgement.
As for the procedures for extracting the Blackwater employee, this is pretty standard DOS procedure for Diplomats and Marine Security Guards in foreign countries who become involved in incidents overseas (whether guilty of some crime or not). The procedure is an excercise of diplomatic immunity and is meant to protect the sovereignty of a nation to exercise justice with respect to its diplomats. The military generally has Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) with countries where we have bases. These agreements outline under what cicumstances a particular nation has jurisdiction and the ability to prosecute American military personnel. In this case (Blackwater), since Blackwater works for DOS, I’m assuming they are invoking diplomatic immunity and withdrawing compromised personnel from the country. I would not be surprised to learn that this was a negotiated contractual protection for Blackwater employees, although I don’t know… so I’m open to new information on this one.

Sorry for the length of the post…

Semper Fi

They remind us of their place and our place every chance they can–and with maximum sanctiony.

sanctimony

Let’s see 4 years & how many successful missions & you can only find 1 talking point to promote your agenda against the ‘evil’ corporation – & it involoves an off-duty employee.

This is the discussion we should be having. Is Blackwater doing a good job or not? Should we keep them in Iraq or not? MM’s issues over a possibly inaccurate press report is a minor issue by comparison. Thanks to PMain for seeing that.

I think it’s time for Blackwater to leave Iraq. They are a far more expensive way to protect people than regular US soldiers. The Iraqi government has officially asked them to leave — keeping them shows the world that the Iraqi government is not sovereign. They have a reputation for excessive and unprovoked use of force that seems (from all reports but their own) to be well deserved. They protected an apparent murderer by illegally transporting him out of the country.

Semper Fi

http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=10-30-07&storyID=28321

They all speak like they are mentally ill and chemically unbalanced.

We are at war. It’s time to end the party.

Further, bar the commerical press from all theaters of war. So few are willing to go into killing zones anyway. Let the Yon’s and others who have proven themselves as *journalists*, and not as determinants of battlefield outcomes in the media, remain.

Tighten it up further by prosecuting Soros’ funding of MoveOn.org and seditious acts against the military. There are grounds for doing so and it should be done.

Try Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Jack Murtha for treasonous acts against the military.

If our Commander-in-Chief was not so busy selling the domestic side of our Nation down the river with *them* perhaps he would clean house against our domestic enemies.

Also, prosecute the Clintonista holdovers in the Department of Justice who prosecuted Rick Convertino for doing his job and putting al Qaeda bad guys in prison.

It’s time to end the partisanship that is selling out our Country.

I’m sure they are still sitting in their corner officers at all levels of the MSM scratching their head and wondering why their ratings, circulation, etc. are crashing through the floor, while outlets like Fox, the Blogosphere, etc. are skyrocketing.

#32

lgm has left the building. People like that don’t argue because they can’t ~ facts get in the way, so people like lgm just type something stupid and emotional then leave.