Line Increasingly Blurred Between Soldiers and Civilian Contractors

"Titan does not send any linguist into Iraq that is not fully qualified in the language or dialectic the military is searching for," Williams said. "Just because an applicant may be a doctor or a businessman or have some other vocation doesn't mean he is or she isn't qualified to speak fluent English and Arabic and support the military."

The Army intelligence command said in a written response that Titan translators are hired only to do "verbatim" translation. In Iraq, however, many military officials depend on them for advice about the culture and it's not unusual for them to sit in on high-level strategy meetings at the battalion or brigade level, or even to help plan convoy routes and raids, according to interpreters and military officers in Iraq.

The push to expand the role of private companies in the armed forces began in earnest in 1999, the height of the dot-com boom, when it seemed that private industry's fast-paced innovation could move the military to the next level of warfare. Until then, defense contractors played mostly supporting roles. They worked as systems integrators, stitching together the various antiquated computer systems, and providing technical assistance. They also did menial labor at bases.

Retired Maj. Gen. Edward B. Atkeson, who was deputy chief of staff of intelligence for the Army's European operations, was part of a group of two- and three-star generals invited in 1999 to participate in a panel to discuss the future of military contracting. He said many agreed that it made sense to hire civilian contractors to take over training operations such as teaching soldiers how to drive certain vehicles and the writing of manuals. It also seemed equally clear that the power to order someone to pull the trigger and bomb a target should stay with the military.

But, Atkeson said, there was debate and disagreement about nearly every task in between. "I'm not sure there's a line," he said. "It's at the edge of a cloud and we've been fading into it and we're still trying to determine how far we want to go."

Civilian contracting accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when it became clear that the government lacked the language skills it needed to penetrate terrorist networks, according to congressional testimony. The result has been that in the sea of camouflage that represents the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq, it's often impossible to tell the soldiers from private contractors and to determine who is in charge.

Military police ride shotgun for KBR drivers who deliver supplies to bases. Armed guards from Blackwater shoot from rooftops to protect bases from attackers and also guard L. Paul Bremer, the occupation's civil administrator. Army officers work alongside contractors to rebuild schools and set up local councils.

At first glance, the only sign that differentiates contractors from soldiers is that instead of their last name emblazoned on the left breast pocket of the uniforms they wear, it says "US CONTRACTOR" or "DOD CIVILIAN."

Of course, private industry employees can earn salaries in the $100,000s and take paid leaves every six weeks and have hotel-like accommodations. Soldiers earn much less, work a year or longer without a break and must rest in sleeping bags in common areas that accommodate dozens.

But the work, soldiers and contractors both say, is often interchangeable.

As director of the Baghdad Police Academy, Mel Goudie, an official with the Coalition Provisional Authority that rules Iraq, supervised a training team that included military police and contractors. In Iraq's reconstruction, Goudie said soon after he took his job last fall, "the military role and the civilian-contractor role are exactly the same."

Staff writer Ellen McCarthy and researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.