Sizemore Gets Facts Wrong Again: Wartime Outsourcing Is as Old as the Nation

A dogged Blackwater critic in the media gets his facts wrong again - this time while reviewing a book about private military contractors. Bill Sizemore writes for the Virginian-Pilot, the main newspaper in the heavily military Norfolk, Virginia, area, and not far from Blackwater's headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina. Here's how Sizemore begins his article:

"WHATEVER ELSE the Iraq War may be remembered for, it has already achieved one unique distinction: It is America’s first outsourced war."

Sizemore is wrong. He doesn't know his American history. The nation's "first outsourced war" was its first war - the Revolutionary War. And the first American leader to do the outsourcing, according to military historian James L. Nelson, was General George Washington, as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army.

Nelson documents this amply in his new book, George Washington's Secret Navy (McGraw-Hill, 2008).

Others at the community and colonial levels took private sector initiatives to wage naval warfare, but Washington was the first leader chosen by the thirteen colonies who did so.

The first American naval enagement, on June 11-12, 1775, what Nelson calls "the first sea fight of the war," was carried out by private citizens in Machias, Maine, led by local businessman Jeremiah O'Brien. O'Brien captured the British warship HMS Margaretta. Some historians call the engagement the Battle of Machias. He outfitted a captured commercial vessel with the guns captured from the Margaretta, renamed the vessel Machias Liberty, and continued to raid British shipping as a privateer - with full authorization of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress(pp. 33-35). The US Navy has remembered O'Brien by naming five ships after him. The World War II Liberty Ship Jeremiah O'Brien remains afloat as a museum in San Francisco, California.

On June 12, 1775, the Rhode Island General Assembly resolved to build a small armed fleet, and it outsourced the job. The assembly resolved to "charter two suitable vessels, for the use of the colony, and fit out the same in the best manner to protect the trade of this colony."

Providence merchant John Brown leased his sloop, the Katy, as the first government-commanded warship of the American Revolution. Named as commander was a local former privateersman, Captain Abraham Whipple.

Rhode Island Deputy Governor Nicholas Cooke instructed Whipple that he was "employed by the Government for the Protection of the Trade of this Colony . . . to kill, Slay and Destroy, by all fitting Ways enterprizes and Means, whosoever, all and such Person and Persons, as Shall attempt or enterprize the Destruction, Invasion Detriment or Annoyance of the Inhabitants of this Colony." The main target: The frigate HMS Rose (pp. 58-59).

As the Commander-in-Chief of the new Continental Army, General George Washington sought to borrow one of Rhode Island's privately owned warships to be sent on a mission to capture British gunpowder stored in Bermuda, "for a price," according to Nelson (p. 59). Washington also employed the Katy as his first intelligence ship, instructing that Katy patrol the waters to intercept a British mail packet bound for New York (p. 60).

With little fighting to do on land, Washington brought the fight to the sea, to intercept British ships supplying Redcoat forces blockaded in Boston. Washington completely outsourced his navy. "Finding we had no great prospect of coming to close Quarters with the Ministerial Troops in Boston, I fitted out at the Continental Expence, several Privateers," Washington wrote in December, 1775 (p. 79).

Washington's first warship, Hannah, was a Marblehead schooner leased from a private businessman, John Glover. Says Nelson: "For the perfectly reasonable rate of 78 dollars a month, Glover was leasing his schooner to the army of the United Colonies and allowing her to be sent into harm's way. . . . Washington, at the cost of a dollar per ton per month, finally had a navy" (pp. 83-84). A second vessel, the schooner Two Brothers, was leased from businessman Thomas Stevens (p. 120). The schooner Triton, owned by merchant Daniel Adams, went to sea as the Harrison (p. 121). Another was the Endeavour, owned by Sion Martindale and renamed Washington (pp. 153-154).

Washington outsourced the boats that sent Col. Benedict Arnold on his bold Kennebec mission to invade Canada through Maine (p. 99).

On October 13, 1775 - the day recognized as the founding of the United States Navy - the Continental Congress resolved to fit out warships, giving specifications that matched the Katy. In other words, George Washington had outsourced a navy as a stopgap until the Continental Congress would create what would become the United States Navy.

Katy would be renamed Providence as a Continental Navy warship, and ultimately placed under the command of John Paul Jones (p. 131). The Continental Congress funded the outsourcing of other private vessels as early US warships, including the schooner Speedwell, commissioned Hancock; Eliza, commissioned Franklin (p. 152); the Lee (p. 177); and Hawk, commissioned Warren after Dr. Joseph Warren, the slain hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill (p. 169).

All the sailors were hired hands, fishermen and other seafarers-turned-contract soldiers and outsourced as sailors. Washington didn't like sailors very well, once referring to them as "our Rascally privateers-men" (p. 201). Even though Washington personally leased the schooners Lee and Warren, and ordered the hiring of their crews on contract, "many people, including on occasion George Washington himself, referred to them as privateers," according to Nelson (p. 211).

To expand the revolution's ability to attack enemy fleets, the Massachusetts House of Representatives enacted the "Act for Authorizing Privateers and Creating Courts of Admiralty," which Nelson says "would set off a wave of privateering" (p. 211).

"Privateering fever," Nelson writes, "swept Massachusetts once that colony's General Court authorized citizens to fit out private men-of-war. Five privateers were commissioned during December [1775] in Salem, Gloucester and Newburyport. The speed with which these privately owned and operated vessels put to sea, when contrasted with the time and effort Washington expended to put a like number into service, spoke to the huge potential profit to be made from privateering" (p. 236).

In Boston, which Washington held under siege, British General William Howe wrote that Washington's privately-owned warships "will hurt us more effectually than any thing they can do by Land during our Stay at this Place" (p. 248).

Meanwhile, the Continental Congress Naval Committee resolved to outsource the construction of more warships. It did so by authorizing the direct purchase of four merchantmen in Philadelphia, and converting them into armed vessels. The Black Prince became the 32-gun Alfred; the Sally became the 28-gun Columbus. Both were ship-rigged. Two brigs joined the fleet: another Sally, remaned Cabot with 14 guns; and Defiance, renamed Andrew Doria. At this time, Rhode Island's 10-gun sloop Katy became the Continental Navy's Providence (p. 263).

Sometimes, privateers and Continental Navy ships worked together, according to Nelson (pp. 292-293, 293). The Continental Congress authorized privateering in March, 1776 (p. 316).

George Washington preferred outsourcing a navy to actually building one at government expense. Writes Nelson, "he felt - correctly as it turned out - that the frigates authorized by Congress represented a colossal waste of money and effort" (p. 317). "It was only with great difficulty that the thirteen frigates Congress ordered in March 1776 were constructed, and their contribution to the war effort amounted to almost nothing" (p. 318).

Outsourcing is a tradition we inherited from the British. As Nelson notes, "During the French and Indian War, the British Department of Treasury had developed a system by which London firms were contractged to supply the troops in America, and those firms in turn subcontracted to colonial firms. When that war ended, the system had continued as a means to supply the peacetime garrisons that remained on the American continent." (page 7)

That's a far cry from what Sizemore writes in the newspaper. Sizemore wants to make outsourcing look like something new and dangerous. George Washington would probably disagree with him.

Blackwater Chief Describes Mettle of His Security Men

Few critics of Blackwater have ever spent time with the company's security professionals who are constantly being maligned.

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince personally knows more than a thousand of the military and police veterans he has hired and trained to run diplomatic security operations for the State Department in war zones. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Prince introduces the public to one of them with a compelling personal story:

One of these brave people is Derrick Wright. In April 2007, a rocket tore through the Baghdad living quarters where Blackwater personnel were sleeping. Fortunately, no one was killed. But many were seriously injured, including Mr. Wright, a West Point graduate, Army Ranger and father of three. He suffered grave injuries when a portion of his skull was shattered in the attack.

Stabilized in the Green Zone, Mr. Wright was airlifted to a hospital in Europe where his prognosis was bleak. When Mr. Wright's wife arrived, she found her husband coming out of brain surgery and described him as a man who "had one foot in this world and one out." He has since shown remarkable progress after extensive physical therapy, a cranioplasty to repair damage to his skull, and many other procedures.

Derrick Wright and the other team members injured that day were not in Iraq to fight the war. Just like every Blackwater professional who makes the trip to Iraq, they were putting their lives at risk each day to protect U.S. Department of State officials and other civilians working in the country. Yet somehow that role and the part they play in this war have been grossly misunderstood.

While some of our critics seize upon inaccurate labels, I doubt they have ever known one of our contractors personally or been protected by them. Our teams are not cooking meals or moving supplies. They are taking bullets. They are military veterans who have chosen to serve their country once again. Very few people know someone who would voluntarily go into a war zone to protect a person he has never met. I know 1,000 of them, and I am proud that they are part of our team.

US has Thrown DoD Contractors 'Under the Bus,' IPOA says

The United States government has thrown its contractors in Iraq "under the bus" by caving into Iraqi demands that they be subject to the country's dysfunctional and corrupt judicial system.

That's what the main trade association of security contractors, the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), is saying about the new arrangement.

The main companies involved - Blackwater, Fluor Corp., KBR and DynCorp, wouldn't tell Bloomberg News what they think of the arrangement.

But IPOA President Doug Brooks says flat-out: "This agreement throws DoD contractors under the bus." And State Department contractors as well, one presumes.

Iraq's judicial and corrections systems are "way below" global standards, says Brooks.

According to Bloomberg, "The Defense Department and State Department briefed their private contractors today on a provision of the so-called status- of-forces accord that eliminates contractors' immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. While the agreement applies to U.S. military operations, the State Department told its contractors today that Iraq will make them subject to the same rules.

"The provision is part of an agreement that would govern U.S. military operations in Iraq after a United Nations Security Council resolution expires on Dec. 31. About 28,000 of the 163,500 people employed as Pentagon contractors in Iraq are U.S. citizens," and about 1,000 or so reportedly work for Blackwater as personal security detail professionals.

The deal is likely to increase financial and political costs for the incoming Obama administration. "This is going to create costs for contractors because every contractor will need additional insurance coverage'' to protect against the risk of prosecutions, a Virginia lawyer who has represented US private security contractors in Iraq tells Bloomberg. "There's an increased likelihood of civil litigation costs for companies in the U.S. every time an investigation is opened in Iraq.'"

The Pentagon doesn't seem worried. "I would imagine that no matter what the legal protections are for contractors" serving in Iraq, Iraq "will remain a profitable enough business that you will see a number of contractors willing to do this," a Pentagon spokesman says.

That means that DoD will have to build untold millions of dollars a year into its contractor budgeting to cover the costs of defense against prosecution, and the huge costs of litigation and any payouts awarded by courts.

CBO Fingers Waxman As Source of False Information

Congressman Henry Waxman's office is the source of the false information about how much Blackwater security contractors in Iraq are paid. That's not simply this blogger's view - it's a statement in a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on private contractors in Iraq. The Senate Budget Committee commissioned the report.

During October 2, 2007 hearings, the staff of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Waxman prepared a memorandum to committee members, stating that Blackwater security personnel in Iraq were costing $455,000 per person per year, "over six times more than the cost of an equivalent US soldier." Blackwater CEO Erik Prince sharply disputed the figure, which several congressmen - including and especially Waxman - repeated during the hearing and in subsequent interviews with the media.

Waxman made the statements as part of a favor he did for a trial lawyer who stands to make millions by discrediting and suing Blackwater. The liberal website ProPublica.org says Waxman's strategy is to discredit the company to "make it ineligible for future federal contracts."

The New York Times, Washington Post and other news outlets uncritically repeated the misleading figures, adding to the falsehood by stating that the figure was what the individual contractors were being paid. This blog reported on the falsehood on the day of the hearing. nearly a year ago.

The CBO report, issued last month, points directly to the source of the falsehood. In footnote 22 of page 14 of the report, the CBO said that the critics' "figures appear to come from a memorandum to members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Additional Information About Blackwater USA (October 1, 2007), http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071001121609.pdf."

"Those figures, however, are not appropriate for comparing the cost-effectiveness of contracting the security function or performing it using military personnel," according to the CBO. The $455,000 a year figure comes from a daily billing rate of $1,222 a day. "The figure of $1,222 a day represents the contractor's billing rate, not the amount paid to the contractor's employees. The billing rate is greater than the employee's pay because it includes the contractor's indirect costs, overhead, and profit," the CBO said. This cannot be compared to what a U.S. soldier costs the taxpayer because of many other costs involved.

The CBO backs up Prince's contention at the 2007 hearing that the costs include equipping and supplying the security personnel, and paying for equipment damaged or destroyed by insurgents or the US military. That equipment includes several helicopters the company lost to hostile fire. It is not possible to insure helicopters in war zones; Blackwater pays for the losses out of its profit and overhead.

It is rare for the CBO - an independent, nonpartisan auxiliary of Congress - to point to congressmen or congressional staff as the sources of misleading information, so the observation in the report is particularly important.

Is Diplomatic Security Too Risky for Big Publicly Traded Companies?

In his August 14 interview on CNBC, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince says he's surprised that huge, publicly traded defense contracting giants are getting into the private security area because of the incredible risks involved. Prince says,

"We’re uniquely positioned because we have a large facility. No one’s made the investment in the assets that we have. Even our big competitors, the Lockheed Martins, the Northrop Grummans of the world, they are running hard to get into this space but I’m surprised their risk management boards let them do that. They’re one incident away of being filleted in the media like we were."

The trial lawyers are going to love this one!

Blackwater Often Misidentified In Iraq

"There’s 170-some security companies in Iraq," Blackwater founder Erik Prince told the Military Times. "Since... we’ve protected the most al Qaida-worthy targets, we would constantly get calls, even now, even today, we get calls that Blackwater guys were involved in a shooting or Blackwater guys were captured or killed here or there, and when we go and investigate, and they weren’t within 100 miles of that because we know where each of the vehicles are."

How does Blackwater know their men are rarely involved in these "Blackwater" incidents? "We track them with Blue Force Tracker so we know what they’re doing and what they’re not doing."

Prince explains:

Blackwater kind of became the Xerox or the Kleenex brand name for the industry, [so] that any armed Americans in a Suburban or an SUV were “Blackwater guys.” Well, no, we only have a total of 1,000 people in Iraq, and only 600 or so of those would be protective folks and the rest would be gate guards, logisticians, mechanics for the helicopters, air crews — that kind of thing.

Blackwater guards? Or some other contractor? It's not always easy to tell.

In the Line of Fire: A Contractor Tells His Story

Today the UAE's 7 Days news service carried an interview with a former private security contractor (PSC) in Iraq. The account he gives is quite a bit different from the recycled 'cowboy mercenary' stories you usually read in the blogosphere.

“With suicide bombers and snipers where do you draw the line?” he asked. “Their tactic is to drive alongside a convoy and detonate a bomb, so you’ve got to control which vehicles come close to the convoy and that’s not easy. Do you shoot first, risking civilian lives, and ask questions later - or wait for them to prove themselves to be terrorists, by which time they will have already killed you? It’s an awful situation to be in.”

And in many ways, it's getting worse: “In 2004, convoy protection was easy, as traffic was mainly military. But this time last year there were a lot of civilian vehicles which made it more difficult.”

There is a myriad of potential problems to consider; operational security - keeping your plans out of the hands of the enemy - is just one consideration: “With convoy protection, the number of people who know your routes and timings is minimized for safety - Iraq is a corrupt place - and the fewer people who know where you are going, the better.”

Iraq is no playground and the contractors, of all people, are keenly aware of this. In spite of the difficult situations insurgents try to place them in, these contractors are still a force for good: “Security guards have been getting very bad press... but if it were not for privates [PSCs], the situation in Iraq would be ten-times worse.”

In Geneva, Red Cross Legal Adviser Affirms Place for PSCs

Cordula Droege, legal adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, recently gave some comments about the role of private security contractors (PSCs) on the international scene. Her remarks, posted on the ICRC website, underlined the legitimacy of this business sector and the legal framework in which it operates.

Journalists and even experts often claim that there is a gap in the law when it comes to PSCs, she said. For the ICRC, on the other hand, it is clear that in situations of armed conflict there is a body of law that applies, namely IHL [international humanitarian law], which regulates both the activities of PSC staff and the responsibilities of the States that hire them. The law also places obligations on the governments of countries where these companies are registered or incorporated, and where they operate. In case of breaches of IHL, the legal responsibility of PSC staff and of the States that hire them is quite clear.

She pointed out that these laws exist to protect the contractors themselves as well as those around them.

We shouldn’t forget that the law is also there to protect the personnel of these companies, under certain conditions. The protection they are entitled to will vary, according to the type of activity they are carrying out.

Rice, Gates, Petraeus "quite satisfied" with PSCs

The Associated Press reports that in joint Congressional testimony Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates expressed their confidence in the work that private security contractors (PSCs) are doing in Iraq. Gates said General David Petraeus, Commanding General of Multi-National Force Iraq, was "quite satisfied with the arrangement that exists today" between PSCs and the government. Rice agreed. "I do think we've come to a good modus vivendi."

Use of Force by PSCs Extremely Rare

United Press International reports that the use of force by private security contractors (PSCs) is extremely rare, according to congressional testimony by Jack Bell (pictured), the deputy under secretary of defense for logistics and material readiness.

"He said that between August 2004 and February 2008, 'a period of rampant insurgency and sectarian violence in Iraq,' there were 19,268 contractor convoys run for the U.S. military. There were 1,441 attacks against them. But in only 151 cases -- less than 1 percent of convoys overall, and just over 10 percent of those that were attacked -- was the discharge of firearms by [PSC] personnel reported. And in some of these 151 incidents, only warning shots or disabling shots aimed at vehicles were involved."

UPI points out that these figures are for PSCs operating with the Pentagon and does not include those under State Department contract; "nonetheless, these figures and documents challenge the popular conception of PMCs as out-of-control 'cowboys.'"

Top US Diplomat Defends Blackwater

In his comments to Congress on Friday, Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Iraq (pictured with Gen. David Petraeus), defended private security contractors (PSCs) like Blackwater, calling them "absolutely essential" to the functioning of the US embassy, the AP reports.

Crocker is one of the most highly regarded senior diplomats in the entire foreign service.

"The challenges of getting the nation's business done in Iraq are pretty substantial," he said. "We have to function in conditions that would in most places have us pretty much in a stand-down. But this is the nation's most critical work, and it has to go on, and security contractors like Blackwater are absolutely essential to this effort."

Crocker's comments confirm that this blog and others have already said: Hillary Clinton's plan to remove all PSCs from Iraq and Afghanistan would result in the deaths of countless diplomats and VIPs. We'd like to be charitable and think she's just naive, but having been to Iraq and enjoyed PSC protection, she knows better. She's just rather put political gain above the lives of our diplomats.

PSCs Praised for Dangerous Work

The Buffalo News recently ran an editorial explaining the particular dangers encountered by private security contractors. Here are some of the highlights from the piece:

These security guards by no means operate as the men in uniform do. Soldiers work under the protection of tanks, helicopters and their fellow soldiers, and soldiers can aggressively attack someone who is a potential threat to their safety, [Douglas] Brooks, [president of the International Peace Operations Association] said.

“The private security contractors work under regulations that prevent them from being the aggressor. They can only take aggressive action to protect themselves or the people they’re guarding,” Brooks said. “If they come under attack, they can call for help from the military, but that help doesn’t always arrive right away.”

According to Michael Skora, an Army veteran who worked closely with [abducted contractor Jonathon] Cote in both the Army and Crescent Security, he and Cote faced sniper attacks and “dozens” of encounters with improvised explosive devices that blew up near convoys that the two former soldiers were escorting, Skora said. “It was as bad or worse than anything we saw in the Army.”

In Brooks’ view, the private contractors don’t get nearly enough credit for the jobs they do and the extreme dangers they face while working in Iraq. Peter W. Singer, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, agreed. Singer has done extensive research on the subject…. “There has been much discussion of how the US recently passed the 4,000 death mark,” Singer told The Buffalo News. “The fact is, we already passed that long ago, if you count contractors…. And yet, they aren’t counted in official tolls, and largely not known by the media and the public.”

Clinton, Obama Spar over PSCs

The Democratic primary has become a race to the bottom as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama try to outdo each other in condemnation of America's private security contractors. The only thing keeping the candidates close to honest is each other.

Bloomberg reports that in a speech at George Washington University, Clinton reiterated her commitment to pull all private security contractors out of Iraq - a plan that would lead to the deaths of most, of not all, American diplomats, as this blog has already pointed out. In a rival speech in Monaca, Pennsylvania, however, Obama noted that Clinton is a "latecomer" this issue, simply blowing in the wind as it suits her political interests.

Sadly, Obama's insights seemed to end there. He went on to claim that "we have to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater, because I don't believe they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger." This, when he said a short while ago that he would not rule out employing such contractors in Iraq. Would he really do so if they simply "run amok"?

The junior senator from Illinois laid down this maxim for his Iraq policy: "I have been consistently saying that we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." If that means employing some of the most well-trained, dedicated, patriotic Americans in the service of the Iraq mission, we applaud the senator's endorsement of Blackwater.

During her speech, Mrs. Clinton "recalled flying into Bosnia under sniper fire to visit US troops" when her husband was president. If anything, Clinton's comments underlined the important role of private security contractors, though she'd never admit it. When she visited Iraq, under Blackwater protection, she suffered no harm whatsoever.

(For the record, in the same George Washington University speech, Mrs. Clinton said she would work with terrorist-sponsoring Syria and Iran, were she to be elected president.)

United Press International Calls Out Journalists

David Isenberg of United Press International, in an article on private security contractors, provides this insightful analysis of most journalistic coverage of the topic:

Articles about private military or security contractors have a depressing tendency to be formulaic. They are predictably mistrustful of business, suspicious of people carrying guns and disdainful of what is, for all practical purposes, a blue-collar profession.

Consider for example the frequently cited belief that private security contractors are unsupervised, out-of-control gunslingers who act with impunity. This was particularly in vogue after the killing of Iraqi civilians and police in Baghdad by Blackwater contractors last September.

If nothing else, that incident provided a great deal of evidence to suggest that the reality is, to say the least, more nuanced. Industry sources were able to show anyone who was interested the numerous rules, regulations, in-house codes of conduct, military rules of engagement, and national and international laws they operate under.

Lieberman Highlights Blackwater Need

In his prepared statement to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he chairs, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) explained the important role played by the private sector in our nation's security.

Throughout our history, the American military has relied on the private sector in what has been called a “great arsenal of democracy” to provide weapons and supplies for our fighting forces.

Underscoring the inability of the government to meet its own needs, Lieberman told the committee:

Our present military is just not large enough to fulfill the need for the protection of American personnel, convoys, key facilities, and reconstruction projects. So, the use of private security contractors has become necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His praise of many of the nation's private security contractors (PSCs) was glowing:

PSC employees have in fact performed effectively, honorably, and in many instances, heroically. Many of the private security employees are ex-service members. They are patriots deeply dedicated to the U.S. mission and ready every day to risk their lives – and sometimes lose them – protecting American personnel and America’s cause.