Thanks to Mr. Scahill for the informative article regarding Clinton’s and Obama's positions on the use of private security personnel in Iraq. Perhaps he could clarify a point or two on US private contractors abroad. Assuming Iraq is a sovereign nation, how is it possible that US contractors can act with impunity there, that is to say, without risk of facing justice under Iraqi law? And similarly, if security personal work under contract for the State Dept., why isn’t it possible, for legal purposes, for them to be made employees of the State Dept. and subject to US laws affecting State Dept. personnel abroad? What is US law affecting State Dept. personnel? I shall appreciate anything Mr. Scahall can tell me regarding these issues.

Michael Cassady

Etna, CA

Is Scahill giving Obama crap for speculating what might be done about the mercenaries after the election? His sights are off.

What counts is how the mercenaries got there in the first place-- who set that no-win situation in place? Who allowed them to exist? Now that there are so many of them, it seems rather important who their masters are, doesn't it?

I read somewhere that their numbers equal that of the US forces already in Iraq. If so, why doesn't the MSM mention double the amount of US troops in the region?

Rowland Scherman

Orleans, MA

Let me first commend The Nation for running the second article I have read that does something I see nowhere else: actually looking at Senator Obama's record and policy recommendations. It is absolutely essential that Americans, particularly Americans on the left who somehow believe Senator Obama is the newest Eugene Debs (or Jesus, for that matter), begin thinking critically about this man who very well could be our next President. With the wide, gleaming eyes I see from the fans of Obama's rock stardom, I suggest they get real, real quick. This article is welcome.

I would also like to commend the author for noting that Senator Clinton has put forward legislation addressing this important issue. The author's implication that the only reason Clinton would do such a thing is because of his article, however, seems to be a stretch. One must give credit when credit is due, even when it's a woman senator taking leadership.

Senator Clinton will continue to take leadership on many important issues to the left, while Obama will continue to pay lip service. But one must watch oneself: when Obama's advisers are saying "if we had this war to do over again" while also telling everyone they were against the war "from the beginning," they're sending conflicting signals.

Thank you for your continued coverage of the election.

Justin Horner

Oakland, CA

These private security people are dangerous, and you don't want them in sensitive areas like Iraq. Concentrate your regular diplomatic security people in sensitive countries or use Marine guards. It is ridiculous having private security companies guarding a trained professional army. Private contractors, of any kind, are a menace, and have no business being on a battlefield. They are not worth the trouble they cause, and they drive up the cost of the war.

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

Obama is the only candidate saying that he will bring private contractors under the law--Clinton refuses the interview with Scahill, as if this does not say something.

Obama says that he cannot withdraw the contractors first, given the great dependence on them to protect US civilians, diplomats and soldiers. The withdrawal of private contractors and US personnel has to be coordinated. Scahill then seems to suggest that Obama has some secret plan to replace the US military presence in Iraq with an all-contractor army. Scahill does not show that Obama has proposed the increase in State Department funding needed to maintain an army of many tens of thousands of private contractors.

Obama has also said that he will not allow the establishment of permanent military bases. I don't think Clinton has said the same.

Of course Obama has said that he will maintain a residual force to protect US civilians and diplomats from snipers, car bombs and Al Qaeda. Does Scahill think Obama should not take steps to protect innocent American noncombatants? Or does he think the US should not be able to send diplomats and civilians to Iraq henceforth?

Scahill's insinuation that Obama has committed himself to a large long-term presence of troops on Iraqi soil comes down to his assertion that there are now over 10,000 trainers in Iraq. Scahill wrongly and without evidence claims Obama will retain all of them. But the New York Times already asked Obama about this, and he said that (1) the trainers will not be embedded in combat units and (2) they will only be used to train Iraqi personnel for anti terrorist acts against Al Qaeda rather than for general counterinsurgency. In other words, Obama has clearly said that he will radically narrow the US mission in Iraq (we should remember that, according to Patrick Cockburn, there are only a few hundred Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, so this indicates how radically Obama is narrowing the US mission). From this radical narrowing of the US mission follows a radical reduction in troops, contractors and trainers. And it therefore follows that Scahill's claim that Obama will keep more than residual forces in Iraq or nearby simply collapses.

I see no clear proof here at all that Obama is planning a large-scale permanent presence in Iraq--or Afghanistan, for that matter (but's that for another post).

There are damaging claims here against Obama, but they are unfounded.

A.L. Hartal

Walnut Creek, CA

Respectfully, your article does not give near enough credit to Obama's proposed legislation to ensure accountability. The House version--Rep. Price's MEJA Expansion Act--passed in October. Obama's version could also pass, and if it does, not only would it extend extraterritorial jurisdiction over all contractors working in conflict areas but also create FBI theatre investigative units. These units would ensure that the infrastructure and personnel are in place to respond to reports of criminal activity by contractors immediately. Further, the act includes a reporting requirement, so Congress can perform its proper oversight function.

Obama's proposal should pass--and if it does, it will go a long way to ensuring that no crimes by private contractors goes unpunished.

Rebecca Musarra

Belvidere, NJ

Yesterday, on these pages, I read a letter from the editor calling on Ralph Nader to drop out of the race. The crux of her argument centered on the claim that senators Clinton and Obama have been sufficiently pushed to the left and the need for a canidate like Ralph no longer exists. Indeed, he detracts from our liberal efforts.

This article by Mr. Scahill puts the lie to that claim. Coincedentally, it is also one of the first articles in many weeks that I've read in these pages that actually has substance. It doesnt mention race, gender or campaign strategy, only what Senator Obama plans to do if elected, and what he plans to do is closely aligned with the neo-liberal, neoconservative agenda and therefore, to my mind (and those of many other liberals), abhorrent. Those sort of forces mean that he does not really plan to bring the occupation to an end, only make it more palatable to our liberal tongues. Troop levels will go down, surely, but the project continues, and we liberals can comfortably drive to and from work, soccer practice and global-warming discussion groups glowingly numb inside the powerful sedative effects of President Barak Obama's hopeful words.

Bill Novak

Chester , MT

I would guess Senator Obama (or Senator Clinton) will have to be as wary of his/her left flank as McCain his right.

Would Mr. Scahill rather hear "read my lips, no more mercinaries?" No responsible candidate can ignore the unprecedented chaos any next President will face, after these calamitous two terms. If any of them made a promise or took an action such as Mr. Scahill demands I'd call him a liar or a fool. No one knows, at this moment, how bad things really are, or how much worse they'll be next January.

It won't be pretty, this undoing of the Bush Armageddon. I don't want to see anyone with a chance to succeed at it tie himself (or herself) into knots trying to fulfil purist fantasies.

Lord knows they'll have enough professional purists biting at their hamstrings between now and November.

Barry Blitstein

New York, NY