The Washington Post notes a contradiction between General Patreus’ testimony and actions taken by his commanders in New Halliburton:
A week ago today, Gen. David H. Petraeus started his rounds on Capitol Hill, reporting that security in Iraq was improving to the point that a small number of troops could begin coming home by year’s end.
But 10 days ago, his commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq because half the soldiers who had been working in the warehouses were needed for patrols, combat and protection of U.S. forces.
I see a precedence occurring here: Respond to the Cries of the American public, media and congressional pressure to lower troop levels by replacing them with Mercenaries.
That’s right! We’re not supposed to use that word; private security companies don’t like it - it gives them a bad image, or something…
But since the dictionary says:
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.
I can only assume a corporation willing to work in a foreign nation as part of an outside army (albeit from the same nation, but NOT enlisted in that nation’s armed forces), willing to provide tactical and logistical assistance to a national military, can indeed be defined as a Corps of Mercenaries.
So while the quagmire continues and public support wanes, the Administration is orchestrating a bait-and-switch by replacing one set of soldiers for another. All they have to worry about is how to funnel the cost of their Shadow Army into the defense budget. Shouldn’t be too difficult.