Most of the journalists who use the term "mercenary" in reference to Blackwater are either being deliberately inflammatory (and knowingly misleading their readers), or simply are not informed about the definition of the term.
Either way, mis-use of the word reflects negatively on their reporting and on their editors.
First of all, Blackwater's diplomatic protection services in Iraq are defensive in nature. Their guards do not hunt down insurgents. They do not go on offensive combat operations. They defend American diplomats and others as directed by the State Department. Their job is to fire back at suspected attackers in order to save the lives of the diplomats and other officials. Theirs is a simple bodyguard function. Bodyguards are not mercenaries.
Second, Blackwater's diplomatic protection services do not fit the legal definition of "mercenary." They are bodyguards fully funded and authorized by the US Congress and hired by the US Department of State under its Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Blackwater's protection services also do not fit the definition of "mercenary" under international law. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts gives six characteristics that define "mercenary," as Protocol I, Article 47.2 shows:
A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Blackwater security guards are not "specially recruited" to "fight in an armed conflict;" they do not take direct part in hostilities as their role is as guards, not soldiers; their motivation is not "essentially the desire for private gain," as despite the high pay with no benefits, the main motivation for most guards is to help the United States; and all Blackwater personnel guarding the State Department are nationals and residents of the US, a party to the conflict (support staff are multinational). So they do not meet the Geneva Conventions' six standards to be considered mercenary.
Third, from an editorial viewpoint, "mercenary" as applied to Blackwater is an improper term because the usage is wrong according to the dictionary. Mercenary implies that the individuals are venal, working only for money, and not motivated by a sense of service or other reason. Used in the press, the word unjustly and incorrectly questions the motives of the individuals.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines mercenary as: "one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service."
The Random House Dictionary defines mercenary as: "working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal," "hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc." (adjective), and "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army" and "any hireling" (noun). A "hireling" is defined as "a person who works only for pay, esp. in a menial or boring job, with little or no concern for the value of the work" (noun), and "serving for pay only," "venal; mercenary" (adjective).
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines a mercenary as: "a soldier who fights for any country or group that pays them" [sic]; the given adjective is defined as "interested only in the amount of money that can be obtained from a situation."
Use of the term "mercenary" in reference to Blackwater is pejorative and inaccurate. Pejorative or uninformed use of the term only brings discredit on the journalists and news organizations using them.
We will keep a running count of journalists and news organizations who use the word incorrectly.
