Tango01 | 28 Jan 2015 11:19 p.m. PST |
…private armies. "The private military industry has surged since the end of the Cold War and is now a multibillion-dollar business. Today's military firms are sophisticated multinational corporations with subsidiaries around the world and quarterly profit reports for investors. These companies are bought and sold on Wall Street, and their stocks are listed on the London and New York exchanges. Their boards consist of Wall Street magnates and former generals, their corporate managers are seasoned Fortune 500 executives, and their ranks filled with ex-military and law-enforcement personnel recruited from around the world. They work for governments, the private sector, and humanitarian organizations. The industry even has its own trade associations: the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA) in Washington, D.C., the British Association of Private Security Companies in London, and the Private Security Company Association of Iraq. Despite the surfeit of coverage in recent years, the industry remains confusing, because it is notoriously impervious to outside investigators. Consequently, little is known about how and why these private military actors exist…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Pan Marek | 29 Jan 2015 11:11 a.m. PST |
….. one of the most disconcerting developments of recent years. We have learned nothing from history. |
Tango01 | 29 Jan 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 29 Jan 2015 12:03 p.m. PST |
PMC's are a key element in our Shadow War on Terror. They allow the CIA and the government to conduct operations abroad while maintaining plausible deniability. They also provide security for corporations and foreign dignitaries as soldiers-of-fortune, not to mention anti-piracy when the Somalis were taking hostages. I see them as a "necessary evil" in our dangerous world. |
Mako11 | 29 Jan 2015 12:47 p.m. PST |
It's no mystery, at least to me. They are there to protect people from bad guys, and gals, especially when traveling in dangerous parts of the world, overseas. You can't always wait for the police to show up. |
Pan Marek | 29 Jan 2015 2:01 p.m. PST |
Mercenaries owe their allegiance to money, and are, in the end, accountable to no one. God help us all when they decide they want to run things. |
Legion 4 | 29 Jan 2015 2:08 p.m. PST |
PMC's are a key element in our Shadow War on Terror. They allow the CIA and the government to conduct operations abroad while maintaining plausible deniability. They also provide security for corporations and foreign dignitaries as soldiers-of-fortune, not to mention anti-piracy when the Somalis were taking hostages. Yes, and it's been this way for sometime. They are trained experienced soldiers … I have no problem with this especially when it comes to the War on Terrorism … I see them as a "necessary evil" in our dangerous world.
They are necessary to combat evil like, Deash, AQ, the Tailban, etc., etc. … Pan Marek … one of the most disconcerting developments of recent years. We have learned nothing from history. Mercenaries owe their allegiance to money, and are, in the end, accountable to no one. God help us all when they decide they want to run things. You watch way too many movies and are over reacting. Just be glad that there are these types … They are generally much more effective then the kid off the block who has a few months training and goes off to war … If for no other reason they have combat experience … |
GNREP8 | 29 Jan 2015 2:19 p.m. PST |
They are there to protect people from bad guys, and gals, especially when traveling in dangerous parts of the world, overseas. ------------------- isn't that assuming that they are always on the good guys side – what about the growing numbers who are ex-Russian etc – not directly related but one of the problems on the crime side is the large no.s of ex FSB, KGB etc personnel who now work as security consultants to people involved in organised crime etc. Also I have to say that some of the stuff about the excesses of Blackwater etc don't make good reading – also the line between military and security work is murky – a lot of the worst behaviours highlighted by the Senate committee was done by contractors working as interrogators aka torturers |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 29 Jan 2015 2:32 p.m. PST |
Most of the literature out there on the subject of PMC's are critical with a liberal slant, so I can't blame them for maintaining their lack of transparency. But that's not to say they're not worth reading if you can separate the facts from the political chaff. For those interested I would recommend the following bestsellers: Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power |
Legion 4 | 29 Jan 2015 3:13 p.m. PST |
isn't that assuming that they are always on the good guys side – what about the growing numbers who are ex-Russian etc – not directly related but one of the problems on the crime side is the large no.s of ex FSB, KGB etc personnel who now work as security consultants to people involved in organised crime etc. Well then they would be "bad guys/criminals". Which means they will do illegal things regardless … |
Pan Marek | 29 Jan 2015 3:25 p.m. PST |
Legion: I do not know about other nations, but the USA has a large, well trained and very experienced military. No one is going to send a kid fresh out of AIT on anti-terror missions. And just so you folks know where I'm coming form- Its not "too many movies" , but rather 4 years active duty with the US Army. The military is accountable to the nation, and subject to discipline. It is exactly because the mercenaries are sub rosa that I dislike their being used in my nation's name. The arguments here suggest we should get rid of our national militaries because they cannot "protect us from the bad guys". |
Legion 4 | 29 Jan 2015 3:48 p.m. PST |
Legion: I do not know about other nations, but the USA has a large, well trained and very experienced military. No one is going to send a kid fresh out of AIT on anti-terror missions. And just so you folks know where I'm coming form- Its not "too many movies" , but rather 4 years active duty with the US Army. The military is accountable to the nation, and subject to discipline. It is exactly because the mercenaries are sub rosa that I dislike their being used in my nation's name. The arguments here suggest we should get rid of our national militaries because they cannot "protect us from the bad guys".
I got you beat … 10&1/2 years on active duty in the US ARMY and 1 year in the ARMY Res. I was an Infantry Officer, '79-'90. Served in 4 INF Bns, worldwide + 1 year as an S2 in the Res. '91-'92 … but the USA has a large, well trained and very experienced military. This I may know as well or maybe better than you ? No one is going to send a kid fresh out of AIT on anti-terror missions. Of those 1000 82d ABN troops going to Iraq to re-train the Iraqis(again!). How many have never served in combat or have been in the ARMY less that 6 months ? You may say that is not an anti-terror mission. I'd say with all the islamic fanatics in area it may be just a matter of time before, Deash, AQ, etc. kills one or more of our or other Western countries' "Advisors". I'm pretty sure, Deash, AQ, etc. fall into the catagory of "terrorists". The military is accountable to the nation, and subject to discipline. I know I took the oath like you and gave the oath to others many times. It is exactly because the mercenaries are sub rosa that I dislike their being used in my nation's name Then you won't be too happy about CIA, and other Black Ops that are and have been going on. We are not fighting a conventional force. We are fighting religious fanatics that won't listen to reason. Just want all those who are not like them dead. I'm sure you have noticed. The arguments here suggest we should get rid of our national militaries because they cannot "protect us from the bad guys".
No I'm not saying that, but Black Ops has it place along with all the other tools to purge the world of radicalized fanatical islam … |
GNREP8 | 29 Jan 2015 4:44 p.m. PST |
Well then they would be "bad guys/criminals". Which means they will do illegal things regardless … --------------- problem is that the bay guys thing is subjective though. Whilst I agree for example with the right of the Ukrainian govt to recover its territory, I have qualms about it doing it with some people who appear to be neo-Nazis (rather like the way the Serbs used Arkans Tigers when the JNA proved less than keen to get stuck in during the war in Bosnia etc) and perhaps if I was in Donetsk as Russian speaking civilian then maybe Russian mercs/volunteers might be the ones protecting them from 'bad guys' (I verge on saying that when it comes to that struggle the volunteers on both sides are both as bad as each other and the people suffering are the civilians who are getting shelled by armies that don't care) |
Only Warlock | 29 Jan 2015 6:42 p.m. PST |
Legion 4 you are right on target. |
Deadone | 29 Jan 2015 6:52 p.m. PST |
PMC's are a key element in our Shadow War on Terror. They allow the CIA and the government to conduct operations abroad while maintaining plausible deniability. They also provide security for corporations and foreign dignitaries as soldiers-of-fortune, not to mention anti-piracy when the Somalis were taking hostages. I see them as a "necessary evil" in our dangerous world.
They are damning indictment on our own society's own weaknesses and our own legal systems which cripple government and military action. In order to bypass the spineless public, spectacle driven media and overzealous lawyers, governments have to subcontract these missions. I'd rather proper troops with a proper mandate and proper government accountability (even if it's secret) conduct this than mercernaries, militias or paramilitaries. Oh and the other insult to add to injury, PMCs drained our formal militaries of capable soldiers who gladly shift to PMC work for a bigger pay check.
|
Deadone | 29 Jan 2015 7:07 p.m. PST |
The arguments here suggest we should get rid of our national militaries because they cannot "protect us from the bad guys". That is exactly the reason I think PMCs have become so popular. Useless politicians are too scared to use national militaries in an effective way. When the military is deployed, they are usually hamstrung by overly stringent Rules of Engagement and by unrealistic goals and for the most part are used as garrison troops stuck in bases. And the CIA doesn't necessarily have the US' best interst at heart. Laos and Vietnam are great examples of CIA undermining US interests. And recently the CIA was busted spying on the US Senate, obstructing the Senate and basically preventing a Senate intelligence committee from doing it's job. TMP link reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-usa-cia-interrogations-idUSBREA2A0XY20140311"link The CIA's main interest is in promoting the CIA's power. And 9-11 gave them the opportunity they were craving since their loss of power following end of Cold War. PMCs are part of that power. Though to be fair State Department's been using mercs for a while now in War on Drugs – US supplied aircraft technically operated by Dyncorp and flown by ex-US military pilots. |
Howler | 29 Jan 2015 8:13 p.m. PST |
Legion is right on target and never misses his target. Always look forward to reading his views and wish I could express them as well as he does. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jan 2015 9:28 a.m. PST |
Warlock and Lost Wolf, Thank you for your generous comments. |
Legion 4 | 30 Jan 2015 9:29 a.m. PST |
problem is that the bay guys thing is subjective though. Not when they are shooting at you … it becomes much less subjective … But I understand your points G … Just not may agree with all. Cheers ! |
Legion 4 | 30 Jan 2015 9:37 a.m. PST |
Deadone, as always you make so good points … and some I agree with. But in a hot zone, I'm more concerned with results than politics, etc. … Again I see most things from a Grunt's POV, like when I was a PL in the 101 in Panama, etc. … I'd rather proper troops with a proper mandate and proper government accountability (even if it's secret) conduct this than mercernaries, militias or paramilitaries.
That happens all the time, "proper" troops and Mercs secretly going in harms way. Like I said, I don't really care either way. As long as they are well trained, experiened, capable, effective, etc. … And the are on my/our side … |
COL Scott ret | 30 Jan 2015 11:21 a.m. PST |
Mercenaries are not a new thing, those who think so are ill informed or perhaps even wearing blinders purposefully to avoid an unpleasent truth. Having served my nation for 30+ years I would also prefer a well trained, well equiped, well led, highly motivated, volunteer force that is used by intelligent and well meaning politicians who use that tool skillfully and purposefully as it is needed but only when it is needed. Real Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen are willing do their job to defend our Constitution but they don't hunger for war either we live with the results like no one else. Because of that I am always willing to have reliable allies, even if for pay, stand with me on the front line. I am willing to accept that the friend of my friend is my friend and the enemy of my enemy is also my friend (though I will keep an eye on them). So if Mercenaries are doing some of what our national leaders are not willing to do I agree that they have through history often been a necessary evil, and still are. I also realize that some will be bad as well, in my sights I do not care if the enemy does it for national fervor or greed they are still my enemy (you know the friend of my enemy…etc). |
Legion 4 | 30 Jan 2015 11:46 a.m. PST |
|
Weasel | 30 Jan 2015 12:16 p.m. PST |
I am trying to follow along here so bear with me. We have a military that's really expensive and I pay for it with tax dollars. Despite being really expensive, that military can't actually do all the military stuff we need doing, so we also have to pay for a SECOND military, also paid through tax dollars. I just want to make sure I am following along here and understanding ya'll. At this rate, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the bad guys to stop being bad guys?
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 30 Jan 2015 12:27 p.m. PST |
That's pretty much it, Weasel. The second military isn't officially the US military so they're not bound by the constitution or other restrictions that prevent the first military from being used timely and effectively. Plus, they're not under as much public scrutiny since they're shrouded in secrecy. |
OSchmidt | 30 Jan 2015 12:45 p.m. PST |
When you want to play tag with the terrorists in the timber you need such people. But you do that only when you're squeamish about making peace the way the Nazis did in Warsaw and Rotterdam, us in Dresden and Hiroshima, and the Russians did on any old day of the year. |
latto6plus2 | 30 Jan 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
Oh got you now, you're saying "mercenaries" but you're meaning "deathsquads". Way to take the moral high ground lads! |
cwlinsj | 30 Jan 2015 2:13 p.m. PST |
I have an acquaintance who is a military contractor. Reason? He mustered out of the military and in his mid-30's, found that he can't find a good paying job. He loves his son, but can't pay for his care, medical, housing, etc. Only solution for him? Sign on as a contractor for postings in parts of the world that many of you guys read about but would never want to go to. Only way for him to make good money and get medical coverage. Right now, he's serving a stint somewhere at sea on anti-piracy duty. Thinking that they do it to kill? -Go right on riding that high-horse as you slip on down to the Walmart and buy yourselves some cheap clothes brought over on those ships he's protecting. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 30 Jan 2015 4:01 p.m. PST |
Exactly. PMC's tend to get a bad rap because they operate 'outside the law' so to speak, but they're also exposed to more risks because they're disavowed by the government and not protected the very laws they operate outside of. Like I (and Col. Scott) said, a 'necessary evil.' |
Sean Kotch | 30 Jan 2015 4:13 p.m. PST |
Most contracting work is really boring manning a static post type of thing. PMCs have proven to desirable to our government because you can hire and fire personnel faster and cheaper than training up volunteers. And then the government doesn't have the cost of maintaining soldiers if for some weird reason peace spontaneously breaks out. |
latto6plus2 | 30 Jan 2015 5:11 p.m. PST |
My Arse! "Outside the law, more risk" . You fantasists can watch all the A Team reruns you like but you're off your collective heads trying to glamourise these people, when all's said and done they shoot other people for money – no patriotism, no cause, no accountability. And no necessary evil either; as Sean points out its simple economics of the basest kind. |
GNREP8 | 30 Jan 2015 5:29 p.m. PST |
You fantasists can watch all the A Team reruns you like but you're off your collective heads trying to glamourise these people, when all's said and done they shoot other people for money – no patriotism, no cause, no accountability. ---------------------- I think thats a bit of a caricature too – no-one is glamourising them – as pointed out the vast majority are doing CP work, static guards or anti-piracy security. As for why they do it – well ultimately most professional soldiers do the job for money and cos they like being a soldier, rather than a cause (thats why they are despised by Guardian readers etc as paid killers). Its a false dichotomy of course anyway, as bar the odd wannabe, 99.99% are former soldiers – so morally one minute they are 'heroes' worthy of charity fun runs and Christmas records and then they are people who shoot people for money and beyond the pale – if one wants to argue the morality of violence, I'm not sure that doing it for a cause makes it any more moral than for money. Finally in a way this is just the turn of the wheel of history – in the Middle Ages and until the Nap Wars, most soldiers were mercenaries esp at the officer level, moving their career from army to army in a manner similar to a modern professional footballer. Btw the vast majority of death squads have usually turned out to be staffed by serving soldiers and more so policemen (lots of whom have been soldiers and then left for the normally better money of being a cop). I've worked overseas as a law enforcement trainer/consultant (badged as an official of that country in one case) on contracts approved by the British govt but where as such the reason for me being there is the adventure and money. There are loads of former police etc types doing this kind of thing for the EU, UN or individual govts all over the world – the bodies that win the contracts are often companies like Crown Agents that used to be govt depts then got privatised. Are these people mercenaries too? |
Lion in the Stars | 30 Jan 2015 5:34 p.m. PST |
I am trying to follow along here so bear with me. We have a military that's really expensive and I pay for it with tax dollars. Despite being really expensive, that military can't actually do all the military stuff we need doing, so we also have to pay for a SECOND military, also paid through tax dollars. I just want to make sure I am following along here and understanding ya'll.
Oh, no, the US military is quite able to do the job. If the politicians who are in charge actually let it do the job without both hands tied behind it's back (ie, without the ROEs that make it impossible to fire back without clearing it with the commanding General personally). If you don't have the political will to do what is necessary to actually achieve your publicized objectives, of course the military is going to appear unable to do the military things. At this rate, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the bad guys to stop being bad guys? We could probably do that with the Afghans. Set up an open bounty on anyone trying to start outside of the tribal areas. The Pathans in particular are well-known for riding herd on their own if paid enough (this is generally a rather large chunk of change, however). The others, though? Yeah, that doesn't work so well. They're more ideologically driven, and more or less unwilling to accept anything other than weapons from the Great Satan. when all's said and done they shoot other people for money So does every other regular military trooper around the world. After all, they ARE paid while they're in the military. What is the usual US National Guard ad? Pay for college. I'm not denying that there are some psychopaths that become mercenaries to kill people. I've met a couple. But even among the PMCs, outright psychopaths are rare. Psychopaths are a danger to their teammates. I've also met guys who became mercenaries because they had no other marketable skills once they left the military and needed to put a roof over their family's head and food on the table. Hell, I was almost one of those guys, but I didn't have the skill-set any reputable PMC wanted (too much admin, not enough door-kicking). |
Legion 4 | 31 Jan 2015 9:40 a.m. PST |
At this rate, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the bad guys to stop being bad guys? I don't think Daesh, AQ, the Taliban, etc., take cash, check or credit card … The second military isn't officially the US military so they're not bound by the constitution or other restrictions that prevent the first military from being used timely and effectively. Plus, they're not under as much public scrutiny since they're shrouded in secrecy. That is one of the things that can make them effective. Remember what Sun Tzu said about war and deception. you're saying "mercenaries" but you're meaning "deathsquads". Semantics when it comes to combating Deash, AQ, etc. … IMO, you couldn't have enough "Death Squads" when taking on Deash, AQ, et al … all's said and done they shoot other people for money Semantics … [as you know] I was in the ARMY for over a decade … in the Infantry … We were not there to do otherwise … and I even got paid … As Lion said also So does every other regular military trooper around the world. After all, they ARE paid while they're in the military. What is the usual US National Guard ad? Pay for college. |
Legion 4 | 31 Jan 2015 9:52 a.m. PST |
---------------------- I think thats a bit of a caricature too – no-one is glamourising them – as pointed out the vast majority are doing CP work, static guards or anti-piracy security. As for why they do it – well ultimately most professional soldiers do the job for money and cos they like being a soldier, rather than a cause (thats why they are despised by Guardian readers etc as paid killers). Its a false dichotomy of course anyway, as bar the odd wannabe, 99.99% are former soldiers – so morally one minute they are 'heroes' worthy of charity fun runs and Christmas records and then they are people who shoot people for money and beyond the pale – if one wants to argue the morality of violence, I'm not sure that doing it for a cause makes it any more moral than for money. Finally in a way this is just the turn of the wheel of history – in the Middle Ages and until the Nap Wars, most soldiers were mercenaries esp at the officer level, moving their career from army to army in a manner similar to a modern professional footballer. Btw the vast majority of death squads have usually turned out to be staffed by serving soldiers and more so policemen (lots of whom have been soldiers and then left for the normally better money of being a cop). I've worked overseas as a law enforcement trainer/consultant (badged as an official of that country in one case) on contracts approved by the British govt but where as such the reason for me being there is the adventure and money. There are loads of former police etc types doing this kind of thing for the EU, UN or individual govts all over the world – the bodies that win the contracts are often companies like Crown Agents that used to be govt depts then got privatised. Are these people mercenaries too?
All very good points G ! |
Weasel | 31 Jan 2015 10:46 a.m. PST |
Heck, plenty of petty-taliban wannabe's have been paid off in Afghanistan. Everyone is an ideologue until you show up with a big bag of local currency. If the problem is that our current military can't carry out a task because of political restrictions then it seems the solution is:
1: Change said political restrictions, what with being a democracy and all. 2: Accept that those restrictions represent the will of the democratic nation. The option of "bypass democratically determined limitations on military force by pouring money into something" doesn't seem to be a great idea whatsoever.
edit: And you guys might want to ponder your delivery a bit.
On one hand people are saying "PMC's are totally just soldiers like you and I". Then the very next posts say that we need them to do unsavoury tasks that the US military isn't allowed to get involved in". You lot clear up your message, then we'll discuss what we're spending our money on. Deal? |
GNREP8 | 31 Jan 2015 12:24 p.m. PST |
And you guys might want to ponder your delivery a bit. On one hand people are saying "PMC's are totally just soldiers like you and I". Then the very next posts say that we need them to do unsavoury tasks that the US military isn't allowed to get involved in". You lot clear up your message, then we'll discuss what we're spending our money on. Deal? ----------- I don't think it is a matter of delivery – its one of different roles – thats not the same as the people. I work with people who are ex Royal Marines and plenty of Marines have left the Corps to work on anti-piracy (indeed the govt organisation I worked for employed private PMCs to be their QRF). They don't become different people when they change camo for blue polo shirts and chinos and gilets. Maybe to a degree its a national thing – I always thought that the deployment of Hessians in the AWI was completely fine and within the parameters of European warfare but it seemed to not go down well over there. Equally we still have Gurkha soldiers but woe betide the person that would call them mercenaries. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 31 Jan 2015 2:00 p.m. PST |
Equally we still have Gurkha soldiers but woe betide the person that would call them mercenaries. You can say the same about the Legion for France. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 31 Jan 2015 2:06 p.m. PST |
1: Change said political restrictions, what with being a democracy and all. People will never go for it because they don't want a military that's not under strict civilian control and public scrutiny, and hence 'unaccountable' to the people. 2: Accept that those restrictions represent the will of the democratic nation. What? And let the terrorists win? The fact is most Americans don't mind PMC's doing the dirty work and staying ignorant of the unsavory tasks they have to do in the War on Terror for the sake of their own consciences. These people do what they have to do so we can safely sleep at night, as Legion 4 would say. |
Legion 4 | 31 Jan 2015 2:48 p.m. PST |
Heck, plenty of petty-taliban wannabe's have been paid off in Afghanistan.
But there are many more who can't be bought off. I'm pretty sure Deash and AQ types will take your money and kill you anyway. These people do what they have to do so we can safely sleep at night, as Legion 4 would say.
Indeed … save for a few nobody really cares who and how the forces of Deash, AQ, etc. are toasted. Just so it's done in very large numbers and sooner than later. |
Deadone | 01 Feb 2015 3:18 p.m. PST |
You people realise that these PMCs will work for a lot more than just the US government? Will you bne supportive of them when they start working for corporations or Arab states ala UAE or anyone else that's the highest bidder? In fact it's already been happening – Africa was awash with Eastern European and South African mercs doing everything from guarding pipelines to flying combat aircraft (including mercenary owned and flown Mi-25 Hinds) and shipping companies are now hiring PMCs for security. So what happens when say UAE or some corporation hires some PMCs to get rid of nasties ala pro-democracy supporters or people who don't want to sell their land to an oil company?
That's the difference between a GI and a PMC – the GI works for the US government and is accountable. The PMC works for themselves. |
Deadone | 01 Feb 2015 3:18 p.m. PST |
You people realise that these PMCs will work for a lot more than just the US government? Will you bne supportive of them when they start working for corporations or Arab states ala UAE or anyone else that's the highest bidder? In fact it's already been happening – Africa was awash with Eastern European and South African mercs doing everything from guarding pipelines to flying combat aircraft (including mercenary owned and flown Mi-25 Hinds) and shipping companies are now hiring PMCs for security. So what happens when say UAE or some corporation hires some PMCs to get rid of nasties ala pro-democracy supporters or farmers who don't want to sell their land to an oil company?
That's the difference between a GI and a PMC – the GI works for the US government and is accountable. The PMC works for themselves. |
Legion 4 | 01 Feb 2015 5:22 p.m. PST |
You people realise that these PMCs will work for a lot more than just the US government? Yes, I do … As I said, as long as they are killing Deash, AQ, et al. … I'm fine with it … |
Deadone | 01 Feb 2015 5:29 p.m. PST |
Yes, I do … As I said, as long as they are killing Deash, AQ, et al. … I'm fine with it … And what about when they're whacking some Americans that were shoving their nose in some corporation's business. Or even if they're whacking some people on behalf of Russia or China? That's the things with mercenaries. And if the CIA defunds a group, whose to say who these people are going to work for? |
gregmita2 | 01 Feb 2015 11:26 p.m. PST |
Finally in a way this is just the turn of the wheel of history – in the Middle Ages and until the Nap Wars, most soldiers were mercenaries esp at the officer level, moving their career from army to army in a manner similar to a modern professional footballer That's the money quote there. The age of conscription and the Cold War were the aberration. That was when large numbers of young men in uniform were available for cheap or free to governments, or when governments were willing to pay for large armies. When that's no longer the case, contractors are a much cheaper option in a number of ways. The alternative to private contractors is spending a *lot* more on official militaries. |
Legion 4 | 02 Feb 2015 8:20 a.m. PST |
And what about when they're whacking some Americans that were shoving their nose in some corporation's business.Or even if they're whacking some people on behalf of Russia or China? That's the things with mercenaries. And if the CIA defunds a group, whose to say who these people are going to work for?
You see to many movies and TV shows … That is all I can say. But again everybody is welcomed to their opinions, yes ? |
Deadone | 02 Feb 2015 2:55 p.m. PST |
You see to many movies and TV shows … That is all I can say. But again everybody is welcomed to their opinions, yes ? Actually this is what is already happening. As stated South African and Eastern European mercs have been heavily involved in all manner of operations in Africa, Middle East etc. For example Shell Oil's operation in Nigeria in 1990s included complicity in human rights abuses including using Nigerian troops as mercenaries to provide security and deter protestors by shooting at them. There was also connections to British mercernaries. Papua New Guinea had engaged Sandline to neutralise the insurgents in Bougainville so they could reopen a copper mine run by mining giant Rio Tinto. This resulted in a scandal which so the PNG government collapse. Sandline was British and run by a Falklands Island Vet, Tim Spicer, who then started up Aegis Defence Services. Aegis was called the second biggest military in Iraq at one stage and was involved in numerous human rights abuses Dyncorp's been involved in a few scandals themselves ranging from human rights abuses to sex slaves to fraud.
So you can keep kidding yourself the mercernaries are good guys.
|
Deadone | 02 Feb 2015 3:00 p.m. PST |
I'm not denying that there are some psychopaths that become mercenaries to kill people. I've met a couple. But even among the PMCs, outright psychopaths are rare. Psychopaths are a danger to their teammates.I've also met guys who became mercenaries because they had no other marketable skills once they left the military and needed to put a roof over their family's head and food on the table. Hell, I was almost one of those guys, but I didn't have the skill-set any reputable PMC wanted (too much admin, not enough door-kicking).
There's things called accountability and transparency and they are key cornerstones of democracy. Mercernaries don't fit into this. Neither do most things that have happened in terms of security agencies being given blank cheques to do as they please (be it Guantanamo Bay, PMCs, drone strikes based on demographics or CIA spying on Senate). But then destroying our own democratic system seems to be ok if we have body counts in wars we aren't really commited to winning.
|
Legion 4 | 02 Feb 2015 3:04 p.m. PST |
So you can keep kidding yourself the mercernaries are good guys. Mercs, like the FFL and US/UK PMC working for their own counties ? (be it Guantanamo Bay, PMCs, drone strikes based on demographics or CIA spying on Senate). Some of those I agree with, some not so much … everybody is allowed an opinion, yes ? |
Deadone | 02 Feb 2015 4:09 p.m. PST |
US/UK PMC working for their own counties A. They don't always work for their own countries (e.g. Aegis Defence Services) 2. Even when they work for their own countries, they are generally not well controlled by these countries and tend to do as they please. And yes, we're all entitled to opinions. |
GNREP8 | 02 Feb 2015 4:10 p.m. PST |
included complicity in human rights abuses including using Nigerian troops as mercenaries to provide security and deter protestors by shooting at them. -------------- slightly confused how soldiers in their own country can be mercenaries – they were hired out outside of normal duty to work as private security? – otherwise if its just a case of soldiers being used to protect business interest then plenty of states have used their militaries to do that. And I suspect that the Nigerian military's human rights record is none too great whether working as state employees or moonlighting. |