Occupiers Spend Millions on Private Army of Security Men

Coalition of the Mercenaries

The Independent (UK)

An army of thousands of mercenaries has appeared in
Iraq’s major cities, many of them former British and
American soldiers hired by the occupying Anglo-American
authorities and by dozens of companies who fear for the
lives of their employees.

Many of the armed Britons are former SAS soldiers and
heavily armed South Africans are also working for the
occupation. "My people know how to use weapons and
they’re all SAS," said the British leader of one
security team in southern Baghdad. "But there are people
running around with guns now who are just cowboys. We
always conceal our weapons, but these guys think they’re
in a Hollywood film."

There are serious doubts even within the occupying power
about America’s choice to send Chilean mercenaries, many
trained during General Pinochet’s vicious dictatorship,
to guard Baghdad airport. Many South Africans are in
Iraq illegally—they are breaking new laws, passed by
the government in Pretoria, to control South Africa’s
booming export of mercenaries. Many have been arrested
on their return home because they are do not have the
licence now required by private soldiers.

Casualties among the mercenaries are not included in the
regular body count put out by the occupation
authorities, which may account for the persistent
suspicion among Iraqis that the US is underestimating
its figures of military dead and wounded. Some British
experts claim that private policing is now the UK’s
biggest export to Iraq—a growth fueled by the surge in
bomb attacks on coalition forces, aid agencies and UN
buildings since the official end of the war in May last
year.

Many companies operate from villas in middle-class areas
of Baghdad with no name on the door. Some security men
claim they can earn more than lbs80,000 a year; but
short-term, high-risk mercenary work can bring much
higher rewards. Security personnel working a seven-day
contract in cities like Fallujah, can make $1,000 a day.

Although they wear no uniform, some security men carry
personal identification on their flak jackets, along
with their rifles and pistols. Others refuse to identify
themselves even in hotels, drinking beer by the pool,
their weapons at their feet. In several hotels, guests
and staff have complained that security men have held
drunken parties and one manager was forced to instruct
mercenaries in his hotel that they must carry their guns
in a bag when they leave the premises. His demand was
ignored.

One British company director, David Claridge of the
security firm Janusian, has estimated that British firms
have earned up to lbs800m from their contracts in Iraq—
barely a year after the invasion of Iraq. One British-
run firm, Erinys, employs 14,000 Iraqis as watchmen and
security guards to protect the country’s oil fields and
pipelines.

The use of private security firms has led to some
resentment amongst the Department for International
Development’s aid workers—who fear it undermines the
trust of Iraqi civilians. "DFID staff would prefer not
to have this," said one source. "It’s much easier for
them to do their job without any visible security, but
the security risks are great down there."

One South African-owned firm, Meteoric Tactical
Solutions, has a lbs270,000 contract with DFID which, it
is understood, involves providing bodyguards and drivers
for its most senior official in Iraq and his small
personal staff.

Another British-owned company, ArmorGroup has an
lbs876,000 contract to supply 20 security guards for the
Foreign Office. That figure will rise by 50 per cent in
July. The firm also employs about 500 Gurkhas to guard
executives with the US firms Bechtel and Kellogg Brown &
Root.

Opposition MPs were shocked by the scale of the
Government’s use of private firms to guard British civil
servants, and claimed it was further evidence that the
British army was too small to cope. Menzies Campbell,
the Liberal Democrat’s foreign affairs spokesman, said:
"This suggests that British forces are unable to provide
adequate protection and raises the vexed question of
overstretch—particularly in light of the remarks by the
Chief of the Defence Staff, last week that Britain
couldn’t stage another operation on the scale of Iraq
for another five years."

Andrew Robathan, a Tory MP on the international
development select committee and former SAS officer,
said: "The Army doesn’t have the troops to provide
static guards on this scale. Surely it would have been
cheaper to have another battalion of troops providing
guards."

The UK’s largest private security firm in Iraq, Global
Risk Strategies, is helping the coalition provisional
authority and the Iraqi administration to draft new
regulations. It is expecting to increase its presence
from 1,000 to 1,200 staff this spring, and could reach
1,800 this year. However, aid charities are disturbed by
the sums being spent on security, since DFID has
diverted lbs278m from its mainstream aid budget for
Iraqi reconstruction. Dominic Nutt, of Christian Aid,
said: "This sticks in the craw. It’s right that DFID
protects its staff, but this is robbing Peter to pay
Paul."

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk03292004.html