Things aren’t looking good for Blackwater. The company is on the hot seat over the actions of one of its Personal Security Details, which is accused of killing some seventeen civilians in Baghdad on September 17 for no good reason.
Blackwater claims that its personnel acted appropriately in self-defense, but that claim is getting harder to sustain in light of this New York Times article, which recounts interviews with three Kurds who witnessed the whole incident. The Times reports: “The three witnesses, Kurds on a rooftop overlooking the scene, said they had observed no gunfire that could have provoked the shooting by Blackwater guards.”
The accounts of these Kurds carry more weight than do many of the other statements made in recent weeks condemning Blackwater. As the Times notes:
The Kurdish witnesses are important because they had the advantage of an unobstructed view and because, collectively, they observed the shooting at Nisour Square from start to finish, free from the terror and confusion that might have clouded accounts of witnesses at street level. Moreover, because they are pro-American, their accounts have a credibility not always extended to Iraqi Arabs, who have been more hostile to the American presence.
Of course, we should not jump to any conclusions before the FBI completes its investigation. And even if Blackwater employees acted inappropriately, they would hardly be the first contractors or soldiers guilty of killing civilians in this conflict. In fact, the military is investigating claims that a recent airstrike killed nine children and six women about 75 miles north of Baghdad. (See this article for details.) Such “collateral damage” is inevitable in this kind of conflict fought against a vicious foe that does not wear uniforms and that often uses civilians as human shields. That doesn’t justify possible misconduct on the part of either soldiers or contractors, but it does at least provide context that too often seems missing from news accounts.
Don’t get me wrong. Contractors need to be held accountable for wrong-doing, which they have not been to date. But I am troubled by the willingness of so many to demonize all contractors without suggesting a good alternative. As this Wall Street Journal story notes, say what you will about Blackwater, its services will be hard to replace. With about 1,000 personnel and a number of armored vehicles and armed helicopters, Blackwater is the primary provider of protective services for State Department personnel in the most dangerous parts of the country, including Baghdad. Two other contractors work in safer areas—DynCorp in northern Iraq and Triple Canopy in the south. Either one would be hard-pressed to replace Blackwater tomorrow. The U.S. military could do it, but doesn’t want to, because it needs every soldier it can get on the frontlines.
Throwing all contractors out of the country isn’t terribly practical; even getting rid of Blackwater alone would be tough. A better alternative—as I suggested in this op-ed—is to create more accountability, by putting mercenaries under the direct purview of military commanders. According to the New York Times, that is precisely the direction in which Secretary of Defense Bob Gates wants to go.
