Thanks man.

Offering as fair a look is important I think.

Cost vs Mission Efficiency: a difficult thing to balance.

When defense spending is already as high as it is, does saving money with Blackwater make sense? With better restrictions is it a good idea?

It's irrefutable that they do their job well, I guess we just need to make sure that they do their job right.

I like how discussions on this site are usually very level-headed.

Word.

Thanks Lee

Thanks Mike.

Thanks Jackie. Like you said, I think it's important to understand that this issue cannot be clearly defined as good or bad.

There are aspects of their work which really do contribute to the effort and like Prince said, "No one under our care has been killed or injured."

But then, there's other stuff, that's not so good...

totally agreed.

Thanks guys.

i also agree. most videos like this are so one-sided and sensational. where you seemed a little biased however was in your choice of doomsday music. :)

Thanks and yeah, I hear ya. I guess the one thing that I am biased about is military privatization being a scary thing, regardless of Bush, Blackwater, Erik Prince, or even it being right or wrong.

Corporatizing war might justify doomsday music, hah.

Jeremy Scahill? I think he was in the video.

Yeah by Jeremy Scahill, I've read that and another called "Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terrorism".

Scahill is in this video at 2:35.

Thanks Paul.

Ha, thanks Karen. Glad you liked it.

Thanks Billy.

Yeah man, it's a really interesting topic. Thanks.

Amen.

I like when people talk.

Thanks Poolie.

Ha, thanks.

he is very much the opposite.

Thanks James, I'd be interested to know how you feel about all this?

Thanks Alex.

Ha, that it is. Thanks.

Thanks Nabil.

A news station with this approach to content would be really intresting.

Is "they" the company, the government, or the viewer?

Thanks for watching.

Thanks Sean.

szlevi,

Thanks for the comment. So this is what I think:

Military privation and the use of PMC's is one of few issues that I always make sure I'm read up on. After reading your comment, I must say that my thoughts are not as clear cut as yours. Let's first take the lowest common denominator, something we both probably believe: there needs to be more regulation and accountability. These guys need to fit into some judicial system to make sure that justice is served where justice is due. Like anything though, I hate making generalizations. While Blackwater is the biggest name, they clearly are not the only ones there. With 100,000 contractors in the middle-east, I think it's hardly fair to say they're "trigger-happy idiots". There are definitely stories that substantiate the contrary. Obviously some companies have better reputations than others and I'm not saying that wrong isn't being done over there. However, there are companies that legitimately apply for a contract and once selected, with poise and professionalism provide security to those who are paying for it. This is all just a justification for what's happening right now, but my views about the future are much different. Will the term "security" change and evolve into more preemptive definition? Probably. Will PMC's gain an even shadier amount of judicial protection? Probably. Will security details slowly evolve into actual mercenary units? Probably. Should the financing be under more scrutiny? Hell yes. Do I think the government should create and manage it's own High Risk Security Groups? Definitely. While I am concerned about what PMC's are today, my major concern is what they'll be tomorrow.

So in response to "Rememeber: a journalist/documentarist HAS to speak up when something is clearly wrong, it's one of the beauty of doing this." This piece was an exploration of the issue through media that is publicly available, which in and of itself is a bit ironic. I'm trying to create an unbiased viewpoint with heavily biased content for the viewer to gleam the basic information, want to seek out more, and then formulate as educated an opinion as possible. I felt it'd be wrong to push "good" or "bad", when I myself can't even cut the issue up that clearly. In making this video, I took segments that I thought were important for coming up with an opinion. I personally don't get along with content that has a heavy slant, whether I agree with it or not. Even if it's not the intention of the maker, I like work that presents information to me in a way where I can (or at least have the illusion of) creating my own opinion. But hey, maybe that's what a good documentary is, the invisible coercion of the maker.

Also, I read Scahill's, "Blackwater" but I preferred Robert Young Pelton's, "Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror".

Yeah, this issue is even more interesting from the perspective of a veteran. Thanks for watching.

Thanks man, I'm glad you checked it out.

Hey Kernon,

Thanks for the comment. I just wanted to make clear what my intentions were. The music, while definitely used for dramatic effect, was not supposed to slant the issue of PMC use. I wanted that to serve as a "creepy" accompaniment to the fact that the people who are deciding to use them don't even know who they're accountable to. I think that issue is more universally agreed upon. If PMC's are going to be used, they need to fit into some sort of active judicial system.

Music is used twice and with a clear intent. I wanted to differentiate between my indifference of their use and my fear of zero-accountability.

Now, I totally could be wrong but after viewing the entire video I think it remains neutral.

I do agree that I don't need to state that I'm attempting to be neutral in the video's description, so that's something I'm going to change now.

If you decide to watch it through the whole thing, you'll see at the end I use music again. The difference with the end is that the music plays through two clips: one condemns and one supports.

At the end of the day, is it REALLY possible to create a totally unbiased piece? Probably not. The simple act of me cutting this and deciding what's important to show you is a biased processed.

So to recap: I definitely used the music to push an emotion, but I wasn't using to slant my primary point.

Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate it.

- JD

Hey Matt,

I'm sorry that this is how the piece made you feel. Though I haven't said it in any other comments, the funny thing is that I am actually a supporter of the use of PMC's. If it feels like the piece is condemning any sort of militaristic opinion, I'd have to say it's because of my overcompensation to try and provide an equal look at the issue.

The point of this piece is to use appropriate media. It's a challenge to try and create an UNBIASED piece with BIASED material, including both liberal and conservative slants. Would I prefer to go to the middle east and talk to the people who are actually there? Of course I would, but that's not something I can do right now.

I'm the type of person that looks at the individual and not the entity. In many cases PMC contractors are just guys looking to support their families and because of their 5 -10 years of service and extremely specific skill set that is not very compatible in a lot of other career fields, security work is the ticket to financial stability.

While having not served, I'm from a military family and I've been able to see what kind of commitment it takes to walk into that environment. So believe me, I wouldn't dare speak against military service because I know what it can do to a family. Regardless of whether or not we should be in Iraq in the first place, I know our servicemen and women are doing good things out there.

- JD

I'm right there with you man, thanks for taking the time to write me back.