The Talking Dog noticed something I noticed.

...[T]he deaths of the four "civilian contractors", including the famous Mr. Helvenston, who appeared to be working for a "security consultant" there for "training", lead to obvious questions. Is the United States of America not only employing mercenaries, but employing them in the largest numbers the world has ever seen? Obviously, a snarky guy like me would instantly jump to the conclusion that employing mercenaries is the ultimate win-win-win for the Bush Adminsitration: the numbers of troops deployed and hence killed in official counts is reduced (thereby keeping the high political cost from rising even higher than it already is), such mercenaries may be called upon to perform specialized "missions" that might be say, illegal for American military personnel to perform, and most importantly, a veritable fortune can and will be made by contractors, who will then show their appreciation by generous campaign contributions to one particular party and rather large gratuities to various numbered bank accounts located in some of the world's most exotic banking havens.

My comment on his site:

Are you and I the only ones to notice that private armies in foreign countries are mercenaries? Of course, that makes them even more voluntary than regular soldiers or national guards. Privatize the whole army! Naw, that'd probably reduce the costs and make foreign adventures even more attractive.

Having studied German for 10 years, I try to avoid long sentences like that third one there, though I still can't resist a subordinate clause. It makes me think too much about the Fair Use Doctrine in copyright law, in this case.

I'm afraid I'm abusing my status as a Confused Centrist on the war in Iraq.