State Dept. Extended Blackwater's Air Arm in Iraq
The simple fact of the matter is that they're the best organization for the job.
Numerous allegations have been made against Blackwater (now Xe) and founder Eric Prince, ranging from excessive use of force, to smuggling weapons to attempting a crusade, with allegation more hysteric than the last. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that Xe is an entire range of companies, and does far more than just provide security contractors. Presidential performs a role that other contractors have not been able to perform to the same standards, freeing up military aviators to support the mission instead of ferrying VIPs. I can only imagine that this news is going to cause a knee-jerk response among the less-informed, but the simple fact of the matter is that the decision is a pragmatic one, to ensure that our diplomats are in the best of care.
State Department officials said Wednesday they have extended a contract with a subsidiary of the security firm once known as Blackwater USA despite the fact the North Carolina company is not allowed to work in the country. Three officials said the contract with Presidential Airways to provide air support for U.S. diplomats was temporarily extended because the firm chosen to replace it is not yet ready to take over. The contract was due to expire on Sept. 3 and be taken over a day later by Dyncorp International. Presidential is the air wing of Xe Services, of Moyock, N.C., which used to be known as Blackwater. The Iraqi government refused to grant the company an operating license earlier this year amid continued outrage over a 2007 lethal firefight involving some of its employees in Baghdad. One official said that providing helicopter air support for American diplomats in Iraq - transporting them and overflying their convoys - is a "complex challenge" and that "a slower transition to DynCorp taking over the task order is in the best interest of the government." "We unilaterally extended the current task order ... to ensure the continued security and safety of U.S. personnel in Iraq," the official said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:09 PM
Comments
1
Blackwater, now Xe, should tell the gov't to suck it and let them deal with this themselves. Why on earth would you allow your personell to be set up as the bad guy by the people that are paying you?
Posted by: Tim Mayhugh at September 02, 2009 02:44 PM (PnG/3)
2
My Dad worked for Dyncorp. Not a very well run company. It doesn't surprise me they cant take over on time.
Posted by: JP at September 03, 2009 03:53 AM (VxiFL)
3
As a veteran, I take umbrage that your suggestion that our soldiers and Marines are somehow lacking in theitr duties.
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 03, 2009 10:05 PM (Bx4FB)
4
David, our soldiers don't have the responsibility of protecting State Dept. employees, and I don't know that they ever have. How can they be lacking in duties they aren't even tasked to perform?
I think you're being a bit over-sensitive.
I think you're being a bit over-sensitive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 03, 2009 10:08 PM (WjpSC)
5
Pardon me, Bob, but our Marines guard our embassies.
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 03, 2009 10:18 PM (Bx4FB)
6
Marines guard embassy grounds and personnel on embassy grounds, yes. But out and about, the State Dept is supposed to provide their own security via the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Not up to the task for war zones, they've hired paramilitary contractors to handle security in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations as well.
Just the facts.
Not up to the task for war zones, they've hired paramilitary contractors to handle security in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations as well.
Just the facts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 03, 2009 10:25 PM (WjpSC)
7
our soldiers don't have the responsibility of protecting State Dept. employees,
My point is they do have that responsibility. To extend that responsibility outside of embassy grounds is not a great stretch.
And you were wrong.
Our men and women can and should protect our State Dept. people just as we would want them to protect any citizen, let alone a government representative, from harm.
Your argument suggests we can't do the job, and as a veteran and member of a military family, I do indeed take umbrage at that suggestion.
You are wrong, Bob.
My point is they do have that responsibility. To extend that responsibility outside of embassy grounds is not a great stretch.
And you were wrong.
Our men and women can and should protect our State Dept. people just as we would want them to protect any citizen, let alone a government representative, from harm.
Your argument suggests we can't do the job, and as a veteran and member of a military family, I do indeed take umbrage at that suggestion.
You are wrong, Bob.
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 03, 2009 10:33 PM (Bx4FB)
8
@CY: "The simple fact of the matter is that they're the best organization for the job. ..."
I ask people who hate anyone who's gotten a contract in Iraq, "OK, who would YOU have hired to do the job?"
It IS a simple matter of fact that companies hired in Iraq are among the ONLY ones that could do what's being asked of them.
I ask people who hate anyone who's gotten a contract in Iraq, "OK, who would YOU have hired to do the job?"
It IS a simple matter of fact that companies hired in Iraq are among the ONLY ones that could do what's being asked of them.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 06, 2009 01:20 PM (EeTHH)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0077 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0056 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.