Blackwater contractors helped fight terrorists in Iraq

EXCERPT: "One former Blackwater guard recalled a meeting in Baghdad in 2004 in which Erik Prince addressed a group of Blackwater guards working with the C.I.A. At the meeting in an air hangar used by Blackwater, the guard said, Mr. Prince encouraged the Blackwater personnel “to do whatever it takes” to help the C.I.A. with the intensifying insurgency, the former guard recalled."

Blackwater contractors helped fight terrorists in Iraq. Good thing, right? To my dismay, this story is being reported as a scandal.

The situation in 2004-2006 Iraq was critical and worsening. The terrorists were escalating their campaign and trying their hardest to collapse the fragile, post-Saddam Iraq with massive death and destruction. Iraqi society was tearing apart and people were dying in the streets by the hundreds. With the insurgency in Iraq reaching its height, the highest imperative for our side was to do everything we could do in order to protect Iraq and the Iraqi people from the terrorists. The Blackwater contractors, already hired and on the ground, were at least as well prepared as their overwhelmed counterparts in the CIA and US military. As the NY Times article describes the Blackwater contractors, "many of them [were] former members of units of the Navy Seals or Army Delta Force".

Despite the exigent circumstances of 2004-2006 Iraq, Representative Rush D. Holt believes the use of Blackwater contractors was "a scandal" and "very troubling to a lot of people.”

I disagree with Representative Holt. Not using the best people who were available on the ground at that time under those circumstances in Iraq would have qualified as 'very troubling' and a 'scandal'. Those Blackwater contractors should be commended, instead of treated as criminals. They weren't hired to fight terrorists in Iraq, but in an emergency situation, the Blackwater contractors understood the importance of the mission and the dangers faced by their short-handed government comrades. They responded like soldiers and placed their lives in more danger by volunteering their abilities to help their comrades and serve the greater good for their nation and Iraq.

Blackwater helping to fight terrorists in 2004-2006 Iraq: right. Rep Holt: wrong.

Closer reading of Nobel speech: Obama redefined "just war" and justified Iraq intervention

Many columns and blog posts about President Obama's Nobel speech have mistaken this statement as his operating definition of "just war":

The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

In fact, the President considers that definition obsolete and used it as a jumping-off reference point to redefine "just war" for the 9/11 generation to include American-led liberal military interventions:

And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. . . . So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

Some pundits have also tried to find a rebuke of the Iraq intervention in the speech. However, in defining “just war” for the 9/11 generation, Obama actually raised all the justifications for the Iraq intervention, though conspicuously without citing Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The President’s message was plain: when non-military means fail to achieve the “imperatives of a just peace” — which is what happened for Saddam’s Iraq — then the “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace”. Compare the justifications for military intervention against Saddam's Iraq in President Clinton's 16DEC98 speech and President Bush's 07OCT02 speech, Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 AUMF), and UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) to President Obama's following criteria for "just" military intervention excerpted from his Nobel speech:

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.
...
Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
...
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver.
...
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons ...
...
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
...
For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict.
...
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

"[S]top a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region" and the last excerpted paragraph about "development rarely takes root without security" match our post-war efforts, most notably the COIN "Surge", to build the peace in Iraq after regime change — the jus post bellum of "just war" as distinct from jus ad bellum. I posted comments about Obama's speech and OIF on The Strategist blog (archived), which belongs to an anti-OIF poli sci guy from New Zealand.

Add: Compare President Obama's redefinition of "just war" with the law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which I explain here.