State Department renews Blackwater’s Iraq contract ‘for at least another year.’
State Department renews Blackwater’s Iraq contract ‘for at least another year.’
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that private security contractor Blackwater “is not expected to face criminal charges” over an allegedly unprovoked shooting in September 2007 that killed up to 17 Iraqis, essentially “ensuring the company will keep its multimillion-dollar contract to protect U.S. diplomats.” Today, the New York Times reports that the State Department has renewed Blackwater’s contract “for at least another year.” The reason for the renewal? The State Department says it has no other options:
State Department officials said Friday that they did not believe they had any alternative to Blackwater, which supplies about 800 guards to the department to provide security for diplomats in Baghdad. Officials say only three companies in the world meet their requirements for protective services in Iraq, and the other two do not have the capability to take on Blackwater’s role in Baghdad. […]
“We cannot operate without private security firms in Iraq,” said Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management. “If the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
22 Responses to “State Department renews Blackwater’s Iraq contract ‘for at least another year.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Keeping Blackwater is one option. Leaving Iraq is another option. You’d think the smart people at the State Department could figure out all sorts of options.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pmNo alternative to Blackwater?
Wasn’t there a time, not long ago, that it was the Marines’ duty to guard embassies? Our military is no longer capable of protecting diplomats?
May 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm“If the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq.”
Sounds like a plan to me!
May 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pmLeaving Iraq now is a good choice.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pmBlackwater is only one of the many contractor of the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afegahnistan… They are WAR CRIMINALS. They deserve to be target in both countries for their atrocities. Occupiers are a legitimate target!
May 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pmChuck Feney Says:
“Our military is no longer capable of protecting diplomats?”
Chuck, it is not a question of protecting anyone. It is a question of religious equality. You see, the Terrists are rewarded with a number of virgins in Heaven if they are killed in battle. The Blackwater scumbags are promised a free rape of their female fellow employees to equal the incentive. It wouldn’t do to offer the Marines the same incentive because the women marines would cut the balls off of any young stud Marine that even harbored such a thought.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pmChuck Feney,
May 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pmEvery Embassey that I have visited across the world had a US Marine guard. That was in the 80’s and only involved Europe, Asia, the Americas, the Middle East and Africa. Some had two. Seems that two or fewer Marines are more effective then 80 or so Black Water types.
He says that like it’s a bad thing.
I can’t get Army Pvt. Corey L. Hicks , age 22, out of my mind.
He joined the Army less than a year ago, ready to fulfill a dream, Settle said.
If he can be trained in less than a year to fight and die for the Iraqis, there’s no reason why the Iraqis can’t learn to fight for themselves in 5 years.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pmState Department renews Blackwater’s Iraq contract ‘for at least another year.’
They could call it the “Extended Iraqi Life Expectancy Initiative”.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pmWhadda ya s’pect from the worst Sec. of State ever? And a loser in so many ways. And a war criminal too!!!
May 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pmMay 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
gooderservice Says: May 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Sure, there is. The reason they can’t learn that is because that would shorten the conflict and opportunity for contracts like this.
An ongoing war means more money for some entities. They spend our tax money (contracts) as much as they can and get paid for it (cost-plus), while avoiding taxes.
It’s also good for high oil prices.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:10 pm“destroyed five IED’s himself,” Settle said. “That means he saved up to 40 lives, since each one kills about four or five people.””
Heh, military math….
May 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pmThe U.S. military is being gelded for the benefit of corporate profits. The loyalty of the Blackwater and other corporate mercenaries is to the companies they work for, not the U.S. The U.S. treasury is being plundered for the benefit of the Corporate mercenaries and the U.S. is accumulating more debt to pay the mercenaries while the substance and effectiveness of the U.S. military is continually chipped away and reduced.
It’s a scam being perpetrated on U.S. citizens to say that Corporate mercenaries are the only security entity capable of protecting diplomats. If that’s the case it’s because the civilian leaders in lockstep with the purveyors of mercenaries have decided that it should be so. It doesn’t have to be that way and it shouldn’t be. It may be true right now that the mercs can do a better job than our own military but that represents a huge failure, not a success and it’s a glaring weakness, not a strength, that our own military isn’t capable of such important work.
“War” in Iraq = Corporate welfare.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:37 pmis this patrick f. kennedy who i think he is?
what did they feed him during rehab? who got to him?
a shame on the kennedy name there…
May 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pmBad business. For most.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:04 pmkaty Says:
is this patrick f. kennedy who i think he is?
what did they feed him during rehab? who got to him?
a shame on the kennedy name there…
May 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
May 10th, 2008 at 8:33 pmNot sure who you are talking about, but he is not one of the Kennedy clan.
Contractors my a__, a group of paid mercenaries, is what Blackwater has always been.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pmargh! thank you, merlin… i didn’t read close enough…
i was thinking of teddy’s son… … whew! … … and, “never mind”…
May 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pmYou know you could petition all the White House officials and cabinet members to pledge not to use Blackwater security escorts when travelling to Iraq in 2009, if you disagree with the assessment offered here that they are necessary.
Maybe you could also urge TP to run articles critical about the contracting of Blackwater and KBR under the next administration with the same vigour they have under this administration.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:20 amDeal ?
Alternative to Blackwater? Try Greystone.. different name, same scum:
http://www.greystone-ltd.com/
May 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pmSo, I’m curious — just exactly WHAT is the State Department DOING in Iraq anyway? It’s not like there’s a stable government there or people beating down the door to immigrate to the US. So, what ARE they doing??
May 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm