Getting frustrated with the coverage. BW and other security co's are in Iraq because the US is pumping reconstruction, governance, and aid funds there. These civilian workers (and embassy personnel) need protection and there's not enough troops anywhere to provide that protection while also fighting a war. There has never been this kind of aid attempted DURING conflict, it is typically post-conflict.
So instead of looking at why are contractors doing military jobs, we might ask why were and are funds being pumped into the country while conflict is ongoing? Many NGOs used security for their first time in Iraq (Save the Children, etc.) And a US Embassy would be closed in this level of conflict any where else in the world.
Secondly, there are a fair number of security co's that follow the rule of law and move on a low profile basis trying to blend with the populace rather than shoot their way out. Do not tar all the companies taking great risk to protect workers with the same brush as BW or Dyncorp.
BW and Dyncorp in particular have had a horrendous reputation since early days in Iraq. All civilians operating in this theater have complained endlessly to no avail.
This takes us to the final point that has been recognized - State Department accountability. I don't believe that Dip Security or State has adequate knowledge of security operating in environments at this high a threat level and they know even less about contract management. This is where the problem resides.
Of course companies like Blackwater antagonize everyone and make the situation worse, but they don't answer to anyone. Build the contract management and security management skills, maybe take a few lessons from the Brits and their exemplary security providers.
