Road Kill

[Terri]

By Oliver North
March 30, 2007

On March 27 the solons of the U.S. Senate voted to assure defeat in Iraq by setting a "date certain" -- one year from now -- for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. As the 50-48 vote was being tallied, 15 British sailors and Royal Marines were being held hostage somewhere in Iran. While the barons of bombast were rushing to the microphones to crow about repudiating this president's failed strategy, U.S. aircraft from two carrier battle groups were screaming into the air over the Persian Gulf. And in a little-noticed footnote that same afternoon, the newswires from Baghdad reported that "a U.S. soldier and a civilian contractor had been killed inside the 'Green Zone' in Baghdad."

In keeping with tradition, the American soldier's next of kin will be notified by his service, his body will be escorted home on an "Angel Flight" and at his funeral, a military honor guard will solemnly present his family with a carefully folded American flag and a Purple Heart Medal on which the profile of George Washington appears. The U.S. civilian contractor, killed by the same "indirect fire" as the U.S. soldier, will be accorded none of these courtesies. She is simply a statistic: the 161st American civilian contractor killed in Iraq since 2003. When I called a friend in Iraq to ask about the circumstances, I was told, "Who cares about the civilian? We're just road kill."

More

[Bob Leach]

Disarming civilian contractors in the face of need for more troops - of any kind, is another
of the travesties which disabuse even the most loyal of Bush's ability to recover his Iraq program. Not that it can't be done. It's just that Bush has demonstrated amply that he can't do it.

Civilian military contractors in hostile territory function as quasi-military and should be recognized as such - that's a matter of matching organization to reality. If I was a contractor employee in the field and they disarmed me I would be on the first plane home - with or without my pay.

[rangerrebew]

L.A. County had over 1,000 homicides last year, so which place is more dangerous to be?

[Texanna]

Really, Ranger.

I have mixed feelings about this. First of all, I am saddened that any American is killed over there.

However, there is a difference between the presence of the soldiers and the presence of the civilians. One serves out of duty to country, the other out of duty to pocketbook. Soldiers have no choice once they sign those enlistment papers. Civilians do have a choice and they are well-compensated by their employers.

I think the presence of civilians in war zones is dangerous and possibly detrimental to the cause. Are our soldiers being distracted by the presence of civilians? Are any of them being killed or injured because they have to babysit American civilians? Are the civilians contributing to corruption or to the enemy? Should American civilians be allowed to carry arms in a foreign country during a time of war, when the citizens of that country are being disarmed?

Civilians are not on the same footing as the soldiers. Regardless of Mr. North's opinion, the civilians do not deserve nor warrant the same treatment as our United States military, simply because they are civilians. American taxpayers should not pay for their protection, their medical expenses or their burial. If the contractors don't like it, they have the right to jump on a (non-military) plane and come home.

[Charie]

From the way Ollie puts it, the soldiers benefit from the civilian contractors being there.

The civlian security people who are there watch out for the military, not vice versa.

Our military are there for fighting purposes. The civvies are there to provide them with everything they need to do that.

Using our military to haul water, food, supplies, etc. is not using them for the reason they were trained.

One more thing, all this time I was given to understand that Halliburton was the ONLY company over there raking in ill-gotten-gains over the bodies of our fallen soldiers.

Now I find out there are hundreds of companies. Hmmm, wonder why I didn't know that. Can you say MSM bias?