"Mr.
Karzai is right, and American officers are best positioned to know it. The use
of mercenaries most often hampers the success of a military mission. … when an
army has orders to win a war, they want to end it. The only interest of
mercenaries and other bounty hunters is that a war continue - and for as long
as possible."
Afghanistan's private security industry, which guards everything from Western embassies to NATO convoys, will be scrapped within four months under new plans from Hamid Karzai.
The timing chosen by Afghan President
Hamid Karzai to announce a ban on mercenaries in his country can only plunge
Washington into serious embarrassment. But Mr. Karzai has not announced a
deadline for the dissolution of 52 private military contractors operating in
Afghanistan. In making the announcement, he drew on a number of conclusions. First,
the fact that "people don't trust" mercenaries. Then, that
"their existence is contrary to the national interests of Afghanistan."
Finally, he stresses that Afghans working for these companies would be of more
use in the government security forces.
[Editor's Note:
After this article was published, President Karzai did indeed announce a deadline for mercenaries to leave: four months].
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
This is not the first time
that the Afghan authorities, like their counterparts in Baghdad, have
complained about mercenaries. What country allied with Washington, even if it accepts
the presence of international troops on its soil, would be cheerfully-invaded
by men not controlled by a political power, commanded by no military and answering
to no justice, civil or military, in the case of the commission of a crime?
There was a time during their
election campaign, when U.S. Democrats vowed to revisit the privatization of
war pursued by the Bush administration. Barack Obama and his entourage were
among the most convinced of the negative aspect of mercenaries. Hillary Clinton
was then one of the two elected Senators to call for legislation on a total ban
on private military activities.
Since taking office, the sole
initiative of the Obama team has consisted of terminating the contract between
the CIA and Blackwater (the largest private military contractor in the world),
instead entrusting its mercenaries of the latter for a secret program of
assassinations.
As for the rest, Blackwater
and other companies continue to receive billions of dollars from the U.S.
government for security and logistics operations, or intelligence in
Afghanistan, Iraq and other hotspots on the planet. CIA director Leon Panetta
reiterated in June that he "needed" Blackwater to ensure the security
of CIA bases and its agents in war zones.
Other factors work against a
ban on mercenaries, notably the fact that the political will of Mr. Obama to
withdraw American forces from Iraq, and in the end, Afghanistan, will obviously
not bring day-to-day security needs to an end.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Nonetheless, Mr. Karzai is
right, and American officers are best positioned to know it. The use of
mercenaries most often hampers the success of a military mission. From a moral
standpoint, the use of lethal force cannot be left to "private"
agents operating outside the law. And from a political point of view, one must
know what the objective is: when an army has orders to win a war, they want to
end it. The only interest of mercenaries and other bounty hunters is that a war
continue - and for as long as possible.
