The shadow war in Iraq

[ProSense]

Wow. I hate it when something so obvious smacks me in the face.

Asia Times Online

The shadow war in Iraq

While all of this is troubling, there is another disturbing fact that speaks volumes about the Democrats' lack of insight into the nature of this unpopular war - and most Americans will know next to nothing about it. Even if the president didn't intend to veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second-largest force in Iraq - and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military "contractors" who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war.

The 145,000 active-duty US forces are nearly matched by occupation personnel who currently come from such companies as Blackwater USA and the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which enjoy close personal and political ties with the Bush administration.

Until Congress reins in these massive corporate forces and the whopping federal funding that goes into their coffers, partially withdrawing US troops may only set the stage for the increased use of private military companies (and their rent-a-guns) which stand to profit from any kind of privatized future "surge" in Iraq.

Could they fight a "Shadow War" with these guys?

If the U.S. Military withdraws, who tells Haliburton et.al. to get the f**k out, and does it have any weight?

Can they ignore us? Can they run a parallel war? Are they running a parallel war?

We got some smart people here.... can anyone help me?

Dorgan, Kerry and Leahy: Iraq's Not For Sale

[Buzz Clik]

1. they wouldn't stay if they weren't funded.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Does this include all the kitchen riff-raff spooning up the rigatoni?

[Buzz Clik]

4. No. My understanding is that these are gun-toting combat troops.

Most are former soldiers and make roughly 10 times the salary as our GIs.

[leftofthedial]

3. congress will not end the illegal occupation of iraq

untill all parties have had their fill at the trough



congressional democrats are a marginal improvement over repukes, but keep in mind that just like repukes, they are on he side of our enemies in the class war that overarches all the issues (iraq, health care, economy, employment, immigration, etc.) we so much like to argue about. they represent the oligarchy and the oligarchy's corporate shills, not us.

[donkeyotay]

5. Interesting hypothetical

If the Congress de-funded the war, what's to stop the privatized military from staying and working for someone else? Maybe the oil companies will pay to defend their contracts, or maybe the Saudis will hire them. Theoretically, they could even oppose us. We unleashed that dog and have no actual control over it.

[Jcrowley]

6. We've Been Surging For Years: More troops in Iraq than reported

We've Been Surging For Years: More troops in Iraq than reported
The total comes to 300,000 to 360,000, more than twice the "official" figure.

by Don Monkerud

Global Research, April 27, 2007
tompaine.com - 2007-04-06


The U.S. uses a number of deceptions, definitional illusions and euphemisms, including counting only "combat forces" and "military personnel," to drastically undercount the number of U.S. forces involved in Iraq, which are at least twice the number as those quoted in the media. Even President Bush's January announcement of a "surge" of 21,500 U.S. troops, opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has now morphed into 30,000 troops with an additional "headquarters staff" of 3,000, although the currently reported total U.S. military in Iraq is 145,000.

The number of U.S. forces reported by the government, required to occupy a country slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, hides the true extent of vast U.S. resources invested in personnel, material and other costs. The real number is almost impossible to find in government released information even with a great amount of interpretation.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, a public policy organization that provides background information on defense and homeland security, keeping track of American forces has become "significantly more difficult as the military seeks to improve operational security and to deceive potential enemies and the media as to the extent of American operations." According to John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, there are a number of other reasons affecting the accurate counting of the number of military forces involved in Iraq. Large numbers of troops are activated with unspecified duties to unspecified areas; many small units from various locations are being mobilized from the army and national guard, which count units differently; and groups rotate in and out of Iraqi so quickly it's impossible for anyone but the Pentagon to calculated how many are there. The Pentagon tracks these numbers, but Pike says they aren't telling.

"We only try to nail the numbers down when we think Americans are getting ready to blow someone up," Pike says. "The Pentagon knows the numbers and we have certainly not done anything to highball it. Certainly, if there's a chance to release or hold numbers, they are parsimonious."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MON20070427&articleId=5503