Comments on: Merc Chopper Shot Down (Updated)

By: J.D.

J.D. — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:36:47 +0000

I flew with Mr. Laguna several times out in Iraq. He was a safe pilot and good pilot. I was never scared flying with him, he really knew the UH-60. I now work for a contractor out here in Iraq, going on 3 years now. We do more stuff for the military in a week than the military could do in a year. There is no effort in retention with the military. The funny thing is that the military appreciates us! I would love to wear the uniform again but you know what, they don't pay anything. Money makes the world go round. If you don't pay your soldiers then you have no army. Screw all you guys that think we are just overpaid merc's. Most everyone on my team is either retired military or ETSed because they actually want to get paid for being shot at. Take a hard look at yourselves, the pricks writing all the shit talk were probably in the rear with the gear. Get a life. Who cares if the government is funding merc's, you're on a need to know basis and you don't need to know. Just go to sleep soundly in your homes while we do what the government wants us to do. All contractors take thier direction from the government, we don't make up stuff to do out here. Think outside the box people. Would you like the government to stop building super secret spy planes that contractors put together and sell our government so the government can protect the U.S.? Oh, I get it, that's different huh! Go %$^& yourselves! Long live the contractor and what he does for our government. Go write your congressman you scoundrals.

By: sam

sam — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:03:44 +0000

“Doug is a nice guy. But I’ll put my money on Axe as the more objective observer.“
You’re kidding right?!?!?!

By: OleHank

OleHank — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:32:17 +0000

Ken, I'm trying real hard here and I still can't tell the difference between a "contractor" and a "gun for hire." The quality of the men, their former career and their specific employer are not at issue, as far as I can tell, but rather the purpose they fulfill. Security/protection is a traditional role for mercenaries, whatever they are named. Care to clarify? Otherwise let's just call a spade a spade.

By: RTLM

RTLM — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:57:18 +0000

You have a casual callousness about you that is telling. I’d say Bush made an appeal tonight for more such men.
“Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.“
I think you should reconsider.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:43:01 +0000

>It makes ME sick that we’re fighting a war with a high percentage of contractors that have nearly
>full autonomy and no oversight.
You should be happy that we now have contractors instead of draft. I also imagine you are also sick of insurgents not having such ROE, not wearing any uniforms, and indiscriminately attacking civilians. Contractors are convenient for use. They are not punished by martial law, and shouldn’t. If they were to be punished, it should be by local laws. They are civilians, even they are armed, and have any armored vehicles. They work for the government, but not an organization that belongs to the government. If contractors were to be punished by martial law, why not insurgents, especially those hired or paid by Iran, if any? Contractors are convenient in terms of their environment. They don’t wear uniforms, and that is an advantage to ambush blending in the crowds of civilians against insurgents, if they have permission. They may patrol the streets in civilian uniforms in a covert manner to counter IED attacks, and any gunmen appearing in streets. They add on to numbers of troops, at least a substitute for missions which contractors may do. Contractors are convenient also in political terms. Contractors might have more freedom on quizing detained insurgents, using more aggressive methods to gain valuable information. They are not counted as military casualties, which the media is always aware of. If the media has not been interested in military casualties counting military deaths and screaming for each new, maybe the value of contractors would have been less valuable. In that term, the media also has responsibility for being indifferent of counting casualties of contractors, and scandals other than the military alone. As long as contractors have more flexibility than the military, and as long as the media contribute to demoralizing the public as in Vietnam war, I believe contractors are needed to give the government more options and chance of victory for the war.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:24:46 +0000

If you’re doing “contract” work for the good of all, then why take the private contract route and get paid more? Why not just reenlist in the Armed forces?
Here’s a definition of Mercenary from Princeton University:
a person hired to fight for another country than their own. If you were fighting for the USA, I’d expect to see you in military uniform saluting and following orders.
It makes ME sick that we’re fighting a war with a high percentage of contractors that have nearly full autonomy and no oversight.

By: campbell

campbell — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:58:44 +0000

David.….just a note in your defense: I saw no indication whatsoever of condemnation of civilian contractors/mercenaries in your article.
One other thing, for you and whoever else: since we are advancing the “so-called “surge”.….are we not then, INSURGENTS?
It is getting hard to tell the difference. Please help us all out and come up with better THEM vs US labeling. ;P

By: David

David — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:44:04 +0000

Since when were mercenaries a bad thing?

By: Ken Wortman

Ken Wortman — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:12:04 +0000

You make me sick and it is evident you have no clue about the difference between a mercenary and a US contractor. further you have no understanding of the quality of men who are serving on these contracts to protect Department of State offical. These men for the most part served in the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have chosen to further serve their governmemt in a civilian contractor status to ensure the US mission in Iraq and Afghanistan are successful. These are not guns for hire as you and other journalist use to describe men who help the United States acheive it’s goals abroad.
It is easy to sit in the United States and condem those who go into harms way, if that is what it takes to make you feel like a man so be it. I am a retired soldier and have been working in Iraq since 2003 as a contractor. I have helped Iraqis, soldiers, civilians and even journalist through the years and until a person serves and suffers they will never understand.
I can only extend my heartfelt regards for the families of the civilians who died today in Baghdad. Each of those men were retired or former special operations soldiers who left families behind and made the ultimate sacrifice serving their country.