| By now, you've probably heard about the former Blackwater guards indicted for allegedly massacring 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007. Regardless of who's at fault, it was a terribly unfortunate incident when it happened. So with these five accused former military guys, I'll hold off on judging the situation. If they're innocent, I hope they're exonerated. If they're found guilty, I hope they spend a long time in jail. I wasn't there and I haven't talked to anyone who was, so I'm just not going to comment on it.
That said, I've just come from a website which, according to the blog Blackfive, has been constructed by the men's "defense team." It's called Raven23.com, and it's designed to provide positive publicity for the accused former guards. It's also one of the most disingenuous, inappropriate things I've seen in a good while.
Take a look at the homepage:
See all the references to Blackwater Worldwide? Me neither. All I see are the five seals of America's Armed Forces and an image of the Marine Corps War Memorial. Instead of this:
We see this:
Delving further into the site, we find the page with the bios and photos of the five indicted Blackwater guards. These are the photos on the page:
See all those signature Blackwater goatees, baseball caps, and side arms? Me neither. I'm only seeing the photos of three marines and two soldiers. So instead of this:
We see this:
    
Now, I have a problem here. And last night, I talked to half a dozen other Army and Marine Corps Iraq veterans who feel the same way as I do. Here's the problem: No one from the Army or Marine Corps has been accused of massacring 14 Iraqi civilians in this case. That would be employees or former employees of Blackwater Worldwide--but not the military. And there needs to be a distinction made.
What we have here is a move to elicit sympathy for the accused guards by painting them as patriotic soldiers and marines who were only doing their duties in Iraq. We see their initial entry photos, deliberately intended to make them seem younger than they are, even though they're now much older. Even the father of one of the accused said he "can't believe prosecutors are going after such decorated military veterans." In fact, every aspect of the portrayal makes it look as though soldiers and marines are going on trial here. But they're not. Rather, these indictments were handed down to five highly-paid contractors who were working for Blackwater Worldwide on behalf of the U.S. State Department. But they were in no way associated with the U.S. military.
And that's the part that really bugs me. Because here's the deal as I see it: You don't get to go over to Iraq for Blackwater, kill 14 civilians--justifiably or not--and then come back and play it off as if you were just doing your duty as a soldier or marine. Because you weren't. You were there for the money.
And being there for the money is okay. But when these guys made the conscious decision to leave the military for the higher pay offered by Blackwater, they forfeited the right to use the military as a defense for their conduct in Iraq. That's the deal. They were once on the "team," but they each--for whatever reason--left to become contractors instead. And that makes them no longer qualified to claim or to use the symbols of the United States military in defense of actions undertaken in a combat zone.
These guys chose to fight in Iraq for a private company that offered them more money and looser grooming standards. They left the more disciplined world of the Army or the Corps. And that's what they wanted. That's fine. They just need to accept responsibility for the decision.
And they can start by leaving the military and its symbols out of this. If working for Blackwater is such an honorable endeavor, then they should have no problem providing images of themselves operating in Iraq in the service of the State Department. Instead of the Marine Corps War Memorial, we should see an image of the Blackwater bear paw.
The problem here is that if these guys are found guilty, because of the way their defense has rolled them out to the public, it's going to reflect on the military. And that's not acceptable. Because the military had nothing to do with this massacre. |
