Last full measure

I'm going to very carefully wade into this debate about the mercenaries who were brutally killed in Fallujah yesterday. Earlier tonight while I was writing up the book review for Sorrows Of Empire I came across my notes on mercenaries, a subject Johnson covers very well in his book. Now, aside from Tacitus' complete Orwellian spin on the whole "Mercenaries are Contractors issue" I'll give Tacitus points for defending the honor of the American men killed in Fallujah. They were American. They do deserve our thanks. Period.

However, I think Tacitus does us all a disservice in downplaying the word mercenary. Why? Well, words are important. By calling them contractors he avoids an important question about the role of mercenaries in war. Now, I'm not questioning their motives for being mercenaries like others that Tacitus criticizes. I don't want to be apart of that debate. Keep me out of it. Ok?

But the role of mercenaries in contemporary American policy brings up an important question. A question that must be asked.

So, before we blind ourselves with neo-Orwellian rhetoric let's say it: the people of the United States have no way of controlling the private armies of the Pentagon. However, we are at the mercy of their actions. They are ipso facto beyond public and Congressional oversight. And this troubles me.

What if the mercenaries killed yesterday were not Americans? Would the public have reacted differently? Are there other mercenaries in the employ of the U.S. government in other countries whose actions might have unforseen and negative consequences upon our foreign policy?

Do you see what I am getting at? If they are going to fight for the United States of America they need to wear the uniform. It's about accountability. Nothing more, nothing less.

UPDATE: For more on this issue this article in the New York Times is simply indispensable.