After a day of all out war in Baghdad, the story leads with: US-led forces were fighting gunbattles in the heart of Baghdad today in an effort to crush militant hideouts, a day after President George Bush told the US Congress failure in Iraq was not an option.
But further into the story we have more reason to argue that private contractors should be recognised along with military personnel:
Security sources said a small private security helicopter that came down just across the
Three others aboard the aircraft, which had been guarding a diplomatic convoy on the ground, may have been shot on landing, they said. A fifth person on a second helicopter was also shot dead.
Gunmen opened fire on the motorcade of
Associated Press reported that five Americans were killed in the crash, citing an unnamed
However you add it up, these non military personnel are carrying out military type operations in a conflict zone. They are subject to the same dangers as their military counterparts confirming that the real estimate of personnel is closer to 250,000. Those numbers set the framework Congress should be making decisions on; those numbers and the attempt to hide them.
2 comments:
A related post at The impolitic.
I once read (watched?) a coverage from NO, when someone heart a Blackwater security guard talk about his salary. It was enormagantulan, but I don't remember the correct number.
Thanks for that link rom.
On the other issue, I'm less concerned about why they are there - the money - than the fact that they are simply not counted into the effective deployment, private or otherwise.
Post a Comment