In Iraq, contractor deaths near 650, legal fog thickens

[Barrett808]

In Iraq, contractor deaths near 650, legal fog thickens
By Bernd Debusmann, Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Oct 10 (Reuters) - The war in Iraq has killed at least 647 civilian contractors to date, according to official figures that provide a stark reminder of the huge role of civilians in supporting the U.S. military.

The contractor death toll is tracked by the U.S. Department of Labor on the basis of claims under an insurance policy, the Defense Base Act, that all U.S. government contractors and subcontractors working outside the United States must take out for their civilian employees.

In response to questions from Reuters, a Labor Department spokesman said there had been 647 claims for death benefits between March 1, 2003, and Sept. 30, 2006. The Defense Base Act covers both Americans and foreigners, and there is no breakdown of the nationalities of those killed. The Pentagon does not monitor civilian contractor casualties.

The death toll of civilians working alongside U.S. forces in Iraq compares with more than 2,700 military dead and, experts say, underscores the risks of outsourcing war to private military contractors.

Their number in Iraq is estimated at up to 100,000, from highly-trained former special forces soldiers to drivers, cooks, mechanics, plumbers, translators, electricians and laundry workers and other support personnel.

(more)

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N10275842&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-4

[Tin Man]

1. Thanks. Just yesterday, I was wondering how many contractors dead in Iraq

647 more Americans killed in *'s illegal war in Iraq - shameful that these figures don't get reported by the CM.

K&R

[stepnw1f]

2. What a Racket This War Has Been... It Is Undeniable

any Republican that tries to say otherwise deserve a beating. That or public humiliation.

[olddad56]

3. these are all jobs the military wound normally do.

This is an expensive way to keep the number of troops, and troops killed down. What part of $3 billion a week do the contractor's represent. Do you think that these contracts might be the reason the war was started and the reason it continues? No money to be made in ending a scam like this.

[Miss Chybil]

28. Yes, these people get paid a hell of a lot more than troops.

And what they make is a pittance compared to what their CEOs are making.

[saigon68]

4. A few more bite the dust GRAPHIC PHOTO

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. In effect, Bush has more than doubled the 911 deaths of USA citizens

.
.
.

with his insane crusade

And Usama (or whomever) didn't have to lift a finger

Bush sent his own citizens OVER THERE to be slaughtered . . .

[libodem]

6. you got it...whata numbnutz Queen George is!

[Doctor_J]

7. 100,000 merc's?

That's almost as many as the regular troops. :wtf: Is that how * is planning to staff the simultaneous occupations of Iran and NK?

[Vidar]

8. If they're mercenaries, I don't mourn them.

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. Yeah, That's Funny

I feel so little remorse for their deaths. Does that make me a bad guy? :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

10. "Contractors" my ass. Call them what they are: MERCENARIES.

"Contractors" remodel your kitchen;
Civilians who travel to another nation to
wage war on its citizens in return for
money are MERCENARIES.

And I do not mourn them. They are representative
of the WORST in human nature, and the world is
a better place without them.

[arewenotdemo]

11. agreed

[Tin Man]

13. I take it you support the death penalty

?

[Richard Steele]

14. You take it wrong. nm

[Tin Man]

15. That's odd. Please explain why...

Please explain why it's *not* OK to kill anyone who has been to jury trial and sentenced to death, while it's perfectly fine to kill someone without due process, as long as it happens in Iraq? Seems inconsistent.

[Richard Steele]

16. Because many people on "death row" in the USA are, in fact, INNOCENT.

The same cannot be said for _ANY_ mercenary.

[Tin Man]

17. Many American contractors in Iraq are, in fact, INNOCENT of being mercs.

The pervasive assumption here that all 647 dead contractors were mercs is entirely baseless. In reality, most of the American contractors in Iraq are regular joes like truck drivers, inventory clerks, and other logistics support personel. Are they too guilty of a deadly sin?

I take issue with the sweeping assumptions and broad brushes I sometimes see used at DU - IMO, reducing issues to binary viewpoints, where everything is either black or white, but never shades of gray - is a characteristic typical of close-minded people and disappointing to read here on DU.

And FWIW, I believe no one deserves to die. Everyone is neither pure light nor pure darkness - we are all shades of righteously imperfect gray. And in that light, I would say no human posesses the ethical imperative required to revoke another's life, nor should anyone assume that another's death is somehow more "justified" than their own ultimate fate.

[saigon68]

18. They are killing the Islamic man for cash

$2,000.00 a day

Therefore a Rose Petal Parade is in Order for them

[Tin Man]

19. Did you read anything I wrote before you jumped in ?

Because your response completely sidesteps the core of my analysis above.

And BTW, the graphic you posted does little to support your point - it shows Iraqis killing Americans, not vice-versa.

[saigon68]

23. Good for them the Mercenaries don't belong there

But Cheney is making a (killing) in $$$ of course

[Richard Steele]

21. Yes, they too are guilty. They are participating in a CRIME.

It's only the difference between first and second degree murder-
did they pull a trigger, or just willingly and with forethought
provide assistance to those who did?

Your "regular joes" have CHOSEN to participate in a CRIME.
A horrifically massive crime; a crime which has already caused
the DEATHS of several hundred thousand human beings.

Funny thing about shades of grey: Some of them are DISTINCTLY
darker than others.

[Tin Man]

22. So in your judgement, the sole punishment for murder is death?

That seems to be what you're saying. Have I interpreted you words accurately?

[Richard Steele]

24. Accurately? Nope, not even close... as you well know.

You have a blessed day now, y'hear?

[Tin Man]

25. Did you not write the following, above?

"It's only the difference between first and second degree murder-
did they pull a trigger, or just willingly and with forethought
provide assistance to those who did?"

Let's drop the hyperbole for a sec. Here's a real world example for you to pass judgement upon: A guy that lives a couple houses down my street is an EMT for one of the big hospital corporations here in the US. BigHospitalCorp was awarded a govt contract to support military hospitals in Iraq, and my neighbor decided to go for a stint. His presence indirectly supports the occupation of Iraq, that's true. But it's also true that his presence directly is saving lives, both American AND Iraqi. Is my neighbor a merc by your book? Is he an accomplice to murder? Does he deserve to die?

[Richard Steele]

26. And YOU think that paragraph says "death is the only penalty for murder" ?

Wow.

Just...wow.

[Tin Man]

29. Within the context of your earlier posts to this thread - yes.

Within that particular paragraph, you claim the 647 dead American contractors are/were guilty of some form of complicity in murder, while suggesting in earlier posts their deaths were indeed warranted. From this, you seem to be suggesting that death is universally suited as justice for murderers and their accessories.

Unless of course you mean to suggest that death is universally suited as justice for murderers and their accessories, as long as it's restricted to Americans in Iraq? Seems awfully arbitrary to me.

[Richard Steele]

31. As I clearly stated before:

Wow.

Just...fucking...WOW.

[Tin Man]

34. Wow. Just...fucking...WOW

...doesn't elaborate much on your assertions.

I'll stand by my position that death is never a form of justice. I'm surprised that anyone on DU would feel otherwise. Peace out.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. He went for the money

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he went to Iraq because he could make MUCH more money there.

If he doesn't know that what we're doing there is deeply wrong, then he's incredibly naive.

Everything is in shades of grey, but it sounds like this person took a calculated risk to go and support an immoral war of conquest for personal gain. This doesn't make this person a mercenary, but it certainly does make this person an opportunist.

He doesn't deserve to die, but he doesn't have a prosthetic leg to stand on should things go wrong.

Support personnel for murderers still face legal action as accomplices. This is as it should be, because they are. None of these "contractors" is coerced into going; it's voluntary.

Sure, a paramedic supporting corporate conquerers isn't as bad as a paid torturer for a private firm or a paid sniper, but he's definitely on the darker side of the grey scale.

If you're going to be the champion of relativism, don't force your opponents to make a cold binary choice of whether the person in question is deserving of death or not. This flies in the face of your professed belief in shades of grey, and there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

[Tin Man]

42. No doubt money helps, but what if he truly *believes* he's doing good?

Haven't we all done something at one time, or held some belief, that we later realized was wrong? We're all naive, every moment of our lives - we just never learn it until later. What I know could fill a book, but what I don't yet know could fill a library. It's the continuum of naivite and revelation.

My objection to this thread, was the belief of some posters that the 647 dead contractors were all mercenaries who deserved what they got: "And I do not mourn them. They are representative of the WORST in human nature, and the world is a better place without them". Well, that's an awfully binary viewpoint - evidently, every one of these people was without any redeeming qualities, and their deaths were appropriate.

Well, as I see it, that's a rather simplistic view, a false dichotomy, that doesn't apply well within a relativistic world. I chose to illustrate the same, by selecting a real-world example of someone in Iraq who does not conform to the poster's stereotypical assumptions and hyperbole, and make the poster apply his own binary standard to my example: is my neighbor "the WORST in human nature, and the world is a better place without (him)"... So, what's it gonna be Romans, thumbs-up or thumbs-down? Should he live or die? No, it wasn't hypocracy, it was illustration: the world can't be reduced into just black or white, good or evil, and every American in Iraq doesn't deserve to die.

[Zhade]

33. Yep. I can feel sorry for some soldiers.

No sympathy for mercenaries/war profiteers.

(Or 'contractors', if one is too cowardly to look at the truth of the matter.)

[NotGivingUp]

47. the person you're chatting with didn't kill them and he/she did not tell

someone else to kill them. they chose for themselves to to go over there, for money, to kill people...KNOWing, all the while, that there's a chance that THEY would get killed too. you're analogy makes NO sense.

[Tin Man]

50. You're assuming that every "contractor" carries a gun - that's not true

...read the article. The vast majority of contractors in Iraq are logistics type people - they drive the trucks, prepare the food, wash the clothes. They don't carry guns, and they didn't go to Iraq with the intention of killing people.

But they DO get killed, just like the guys carring the guns - because mortars, rockets, and IEDs don't distinguish between combattants and non-coms. So when people say it's OK for "contractors" to die, I think they don't realize that majority of contractors in Iraq are NOT mercs, but people that you might have met at your PTA meeting.

[sofa king]

40. Many are KBR truck drivers, not mercenaries.

The United States armed forces sold its logistical tail to Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR. KBR employs hundreds if not thousands of truck drivers to supply the combat units in Iraq. It's a lot harder to kill a mercenary than it is to ambush a truck convoy, which appears to happen weekly.

There's no shortage of volunteers because a one-year stint as a truck driver in Iraq pays nearly $100,000, tax free.

Halliburton actually gets insurance compensation for each employee killed in Iraq.

[Richard Steele]

51. Fair enough. Call them "Mercenaries and WAR PROFITEERS", then...

...as fellow DUer 'Zhade' already said below.

[sofa king]

52. I'm okay with that.

[Earth_First]

12. While I feel sympathies for the families left behind...

I find it hard to muster the sympathy towards a certain demographic whom were drawn to Iraq on the prospects of tax-free money as hired contractors. I am sure that there are certainly 'levels' of involvement that these contractors have in the actual conflict. The pipe-fitters, electricians and truck drivers are most likely in Iraq out of economic desperation back home, for them I can meet you half-way. However there is most certainly a sizable portion of these contractors who are hired security personnel, as evident in the news out of Iraq and Washington. These are the folks I have the trouble finding sympathy for.

In most cases I've heard, these individuals are operating outside of the jurisdiction of UCMJ, doing patrol and security work for diplomats and infrastructure WHILE HAVING U.S. MILITARY utilized as a second ring of security around these mercenaries. This is not only the mission of the soldiers who were illegally sent to Iraq, it takes soldiers away from situations which they could have been better utilized, attempting to stabilize regions in order to begin a troop reduction. However I digress, as that would be a solution to the situation; which is well beyond their control, and certainly not within the PNAC agenda.

In closing, if the families of these deceased are looking for compensation for the deaths of their loved ones, they ought to look no further than the Corporations which hired them outright to begin with: Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater USA, et. al. My tax dollars are already stretched razor thin to afford death benefits for individuals who went to Iraq as hired 'security contractors' read: mercenaries.

I'm sure some will not agree with me, however as early in the a.m. as it is, this is damn close to my opinion on the situation, and I'll stand by it with little to no revision.

[Coventina]

41. Thank you for this post. I do feel sorry for *some* of the contractors

We don't know all of their stories, and I am willing to give all of the non-security personnel the benefit of the doubt, for the most part.

Plus, we don't know how "contractor" is precisely defined. My husband works for a large US corporation that sometimes does business with the US military. Right before the US invasion of Iraq, he was supposed to be going to Kuwait to work on a US military project there. Some people in his group were actually sent to Iraq. Not as volunteers, but as employees of the company. Would they be considered as "contractors" if they had died there? I certainly wouldn't consider them "mercenaries".

As for the Blackwater goons who have CHOSEN to go there, for the express purpose of making huge amounts of cash, they are simply mercenaries, and I shed no tears for them.

[saigon68]

54. I FEEL SORRY FOR NONE OF THEM

When you beg to put your dick in a blender, and beg someone else to turn the switch

[shrike]

20. Halliburton should be brought up on murder charges

According to "Iraq for Sale," Halliburton sent a fuel convoy to Baghdad when the road was closed and the military had issued a Code Red: no civilians. The trucks were sent anyway. Nine drivers died. The survivors listened on the radio as the men screamed and burned to death.
Whatever you may think of "mercs," this film is a devastating indictment of a privatized war. Oh, and do you know what KBR earns for laundry service? $100 per bag. Yep, that's $100 for a bag of laundry that you could do for a few bucks at a laundromat. And the clothes came back grimy, according to one Staff Sgt. in the film.

[kineneb]

27. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Karma.

My sympathies to the families left behind. But a mercenary is a mercenary; whether they are called "contactor" or not. They have sold their souls and bodies for the almighty dollar.

Your tax dollars "at work"- supporting the mercenaries of Halliburton, KBR, etc. Welcome to PNAC World.

[saigon68]

30. Yup thats the name of That tune

[Zhade]

32. I hate how they avoid using the correct word: mercenaries.

War profiteers.

[Tin Man]

35. read much?

Right from the text of the OP:
"Their number in Iraq is estimated at up to 100,000, from highly-trained former special forces soldiers to drivers, cooks, mechanics, plumbers, translators, electricians and laundry workers and other support personnel."

Please tell me how a laundry worker is a mercenary. Plenty of American contractors killed in Iraq never touched a trigger, nor harbored any ill will towards Iraqis.

[Zhade]

36. I also listed "war profiteers".

NT!

[Nihil]

37. How many would be there without the illegal invasion though?

Do you really think that there would be 100,000 American laundry workers
(etc.) in Iraq now if not for Bush's little Murder Mystery Tour?

>> ... highly-trained former special forces soldiers
>> to drivers, cooks, mechanics, plumbers, translators,
>> electricians and laundry workers and other support personnel.

Most of these jobs used to be done by soldiers (and sailors and airmen).

Bush's policy of outsourcing everything has meant that the only
remaining jobs in the army still done by soldiers are "cannon fodder"
and "medic".

> Please tell me how a laundry worker is a mercenary. Plenty of American
> contractors killed in Iraq never touched a trigger, nor harbored any
> ill will towards Iraqis.

The laundry worker is a mercenary because he (or she) is taking their
30 pieces of silver to support the illegal occupation of a sovereign
country. It doesn't matter if they "touch a trigger" or not, they are
still supporting the occupiers and, by doing so, they have been (and are
still) actively harming Iraqis. If they were not there, the invaders
would not be able to function (i.e. not even as little as they are
currently doing).

Unlike the first batch of soldiers, these people had the choice whether
to participate and support the invasion or not. They chose Bush's way,
in no small part because they share Bush's motivation: greed.

The way you talk, you'd think that these people were working for the
Iraqis rather than for the US and the US administration. They are taking
resources *away* from the Iraqi civilians, being paid top-whack by the
American taxpayer and being defended by the US army.

They are mercenaries.

[Tin Man]

39. That's an awfully slippery slope you're headed down

"The laundry worker is a mercenary because he (or she) is taking their
30 pieces of silver to support the illegal occupation of a sovereign
country. It doesn't matter if they "touch a trigger" or not, they are
still supporting the occupiers and, by doing so, they have been (and are
still) actively harming Iraqis."

Applying that logic more completely means that any US soldier, sailor, airman, marine is also guilty, because after all, they receive a salary and participate in the occupation, whether present in Iraq or in a support role elsewhere. And by extension, any civilian working for the Department of Defense, or DoD contractor, and anyone who bakes the bread or provides the water that feeds any of these people is also implicated, because they too receive payment for a role that supports the occupiers.

And that closes the loop on some of my thoughts in #17 above - it's a slippery slope when people attempt to categorize the elements of the world into either "black or white", "good or evil" type dichotomies, because nothing/no-one truly meets those standards. The world isn't binary, it's analog; and if you're claiming a laundry worker, or an EMT, people who harbor no ill will for Iraq - are mercenaries - it's because the criteria you've established is arbitrarily binary (those who profit from the occupation vs. those that don't). If that's your fulcrum, we're ALL complicit, we're ALL guilty, we're ALL mercs.

[Solon]

45. Military forces go where ORDERED, they cannot be mercenaries...

they are paid whether wars are fought or not. Also, they do not have a choice after joining the Military, as to where to go or what to do.

As for us, well, I don't profit from the war, I pay for it instead, if anything I'm complicit in a war crime, then again, I also have no choice in the matter(taxes aren't optional), whereas Mercs and unarmed contractors not only have a choice, they also make it rather overt, compared to chickenhawks who support the war and do nothing, these contractors, regardless of what they do there, would be considered war criminals in many instances.

[Nihil]

53. Only a "slippery slope" if you take arguments to ridiculous extremes

Meanwhile, in the real world ...

> Applying that logic more completely means that any US soldier, sailor,
> airman, marine is also guilty, because after all, they receive a
> salary and participate in the occupation, whether present in Iraq
> or in a support role elsewhere.

If the US soldier joined up after the invasion - i.e., in full knowledge
of being sent as part of the occupying force - then yes, they are also
guilty. They are also stupid as they are getting paid peanuts to protect
Bush's oil and Blackwell mercs.

If the US soldier was in before the invasion then they are not guilty
as they have no control on their future deployment once they've signed
on the line. (That's why I feel sorry for the National Guardsmen sent
to combat zones ... that isn't the job they signed up for.)

> And by extension, any civilian working for the Department of Defense,
> or DoD contractor, and anyone who bakes the bread or provides the
> water that feeds any of these people is also implicated, because they
> too receive payment for a role that supports the occupiers.

Now you are just being silly. "Ad extremis" and all that.
If the US civilian is working in the Green Zone (in any context) then
there is no question but that they are war profiteers and a very good
argument that they are mercenaries. A US civilian doing the same job
in the US is hardly the same case.

> ... if you're claiming a laundry worker, or an EMT, people who
> harbor no ill will for Iraq - are mercenaries - it's because the
> criteria you've established is arbitrarily binary (those who profit
> from the occupation vs. those that don't).

"People who harbor no ill will for Iraq"?
How about "people who want money regardless of the impact"?

Maybe "people who know full well that by going into a war-zone they
may be maimed or killed but do it anyway because the pay is good"?

I'm supposed to be sympathetic to them?

[hedgehog]

43. Coercion is a funny word.

Some people blame the contractors for being there because they weren't coerced. I have no sympathy for mercenaries, but consider a blue collar worker who sees a chance to finally break out of a continuous cycle of debt by spending a year in Iraq. Pay off a mortgage, send the kids to college, maybe set aside a little for retirement? For many, the choice is go to Iraq or continue to live from pay check to pay check and at the risk of losing everything if you get sick or have an accident. True, no one was pulling out these guys' fingernails to make them go, but tempting them with the offer of a light at the end of the tunnel comes awfully close to coercion.

[Solon]

44. Tempted with more cash isn't an excuse, they could deal drugs as well...

or be a courier for the Mafia, any number of non-violent jobs that are morally ambigious. But if some Mafia driver ends up dying in a bomb blast from another family, should we really feel sorry for the guy?

[hedgehog]

46. My point is that for some people, the possibility of getting out from

under falls into a slightly different category than "tempting". A lot of our troops are in the same situation - they joined up because it was the only job around or the only way they were going to college and now they're out shooting at people and being blown up in return.

[Solon]

48. Your comparing apples and oranges...

first, the Military is NOT a place where you can get rich, most soldiers earn little more than Minimum Wage, if that, though most meals, etc. are already paid for. More people join the military in PEACETIME, for the jobs, training, or a sense of duty, than they do in wartime, and those in wartime usually only do it for the 3rd reason.

This is far removed from a Blackwater security guy, who earns 6 figures a year volunteering for a PARTICULAR WAR. A soldier in the U.S. Military, who joined up in 1999 for college money, cannot pick and choose which conflict they will fight in, hell, in most cases, they can't even get OUT of the military in this situation. These contractors, on the other hand, are civilians, they are free to quit at anytime, and, considering the money, it IS tempting, they earn more than most middle class people in this nation, hell, many are making a HELL of a lot of money, hundreds of times more than U.S. Soldiers.

[Tin Man]

49. why does it even matter how much money someone makes?

Is a merc not a merc if he killed people for free? How does the exchange of money make anyone more or less guilty of wrongdoing?

And as for the distinction between soldiers and contractors - it's not true that, unlike contractors, soldiers don't have any choice in the matter - they CAN refuse to serve. Of course, as a result, they get a dishonorable discharge and might do a couple years at Levenworth - but a few soldiers have done exactly that because they believed the war is wrong.

And one last thought: are we guilty of criminal behavior when we don't understand that what we're doing is wrong? What if the laundry guy truly believes he's helping fight the terra-ists that caused 911 and protecting his family from future harm? Is he more or less guilty than a soldier who knows the war is wrong, but stays on, and kills and maims "the enemy" anyway?

Anyhow, my point is that there are degrees of guilt and innocence - and the distinction has a lot to do with the intent of the individual. I just don't believe that soldiers are automatically free from guilt, while contractors are automatically damned, simply because of their job titles.

[Nihil]

55. Correct. A merc is not a merc if he kills people for free.

He is merely a psychopathic murderer.

If he can satisfy his desire to kill (selectively or otherwise) and
manage to be paid large amounts of money by the US taxpayer at the
same time, he is a mercenary.

A soldier who signed on the line in peacetime (mind you, that was a
good few years ago now) is not in the same category as someone who
has seen the situation and *still* decided to join up.

> What if the laundry guy truly believes he's helping fight the
> terra-ists that caused 911 and protecting his family from future harm?

He's just plain stupid so f*ck him.