Mercenaries? Good or bad?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-22 12:16am

Mercenaries. A legitimate answer for governments and international organizations seeking reliable, professional solutions on matters pertaining to security and crisis-management, or a dangerous, virtually unaccountable threat to national sovereignty and the controlled pursuit of modern war and self-determination? Considering the increasing privatization of military forces in combat theaters worldwide – from the jungles of Columbia to the oil fields of Iraq –, what do you think?

To get the conversation rolling, I think that a well-regulated mercenary industry under the watchful eye of a national government can be an asset to foreign policy. Assisting a recognized government – especially in the Third World – organize its fighting forces effective is certainly no crime, and mercenary interests represent no more a threat to self-determination or the successful exploitation of natural resources than more “mainstream” corporations, in any case. For many countries – Angola and Sierra Leone, to name a few –, well-managed companies like Executive Outcomes and Lifeguard were a last, best hope. In this case, the potential benefits outweigh the potential dangers.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-22 12:32am

Well, they have problems; they reserve the right to bolt if if they feel they're getting a bad deal, and they have done this historically, but if they're used properly for stuff like security, combat training like you mentioned, and relatively low-intensity combat, they can be productive. They should never be a complete supplement for regular military, they should be a complement.

There's also the fact that they can be terminated fairly easily. Not something you can do with regular military.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-22 01:42am

Joe wrote:Well, they have problems; they reserve the right to bolt if if they feel they're getting a bad deal, and they have done this historically, but if they're used properly for stuff like security, combat training like you mentioned, and relatively low-intensity combat, they can be productive. They should never be a complete supplement for regular military, they should be a complement.

Which to be honest isn't that far removed from some of the Western all-volunteer militaries. Perhaps not as bad but there are definitely issues in how the West conducts operations that follow that sort of pattern.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-22 01:49am

Its a pathetic gimmick for political purposes. It distracts from pulling in even more reserves and guards, but gives the Administration some half-ass plausible deniability. Most people don't realize what we're doing or what "consultants" really are.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-22 02:03am

This is no different from any other "in-house vs outsourcing" dilemma, except that the stakes are much higher. In a nutshell, outsourcing is less reliable, but can save you money and you can avoid what is known as "vicarious liability" as well as other red-tape complications.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-22 02:36am

Now, while mercs create obvious problems in decieving the public as listed above, that doesn't mean they have to be terrible.

Hired guns can be great for specific roles.

What I would not have them do is deal in a lot of police-action type roles and deal with civilians. The difference in public accountability for their actions is quite notable.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-22 03:26am

Its a pathetic gimmick for political purposes. It distracts from pulling in even more reserves and guards, but gives the Administration some half-ass plausible deniability. Most people don't realize what we're doing or what "consultants" really are.

Remember that most Private Military Companies – and certainly those large and visible enough to service Pentagon contracts, including Blackwater and Aegis – deploy only former combat troops, usually one-time Special Forces men, to boot.

If the government can find ingenious ways around having to tap our manpower pools, why not do it? All operators working for PMC’s in U.S. government employ are legally responsible to the United States military, and fall somewhere within the established chain of command. Hiring people with prior know-how who are willing to enter combat zones and provide security services is far from “pathetic” – in fact, it’s ingenious. Not only does the American public forego having to send its unwilling sons and daughters to fight, but the U.S. Army doesn’t need to exhaustively retrain as many bodies. As if that weren’t enough, most PMC’s come with their own standardized equipment. It isn’t as if the U.S. military is tapping the private sector completely out of left field, either. Even without combat-ready mercenaries, the armed forces still rely on thousands of civilian technicians seconded to support formations because it lacks the trained enlisted personnel.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-22 04:15am

Axis Kast wrote:Remember that most Private Military Companies – and certainly those large and visible enough to service Pentagon contracts, including Blackwater and Aegis – deploy only former combat troops, usually one-time Special Forces men, to boot.

Not necessarily former U.S. soldiers, though. And it doesn't change the public accountability issue.

And like I said, I support the honest and specific use of mercenaries for certain missions.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-22 12:17pm

I support the responsible use of mercenaries depending on the type. Former US special forces guys, fine. Retired South American "security" guards? Alarm bell are ringing.

And, of course, sticking mercenaries out in the middle of major combat operatons like what seems to be happening in Iraq is not a good thing.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-07-22 03:28pm

Mercenaries are one of the very few things Machiavelli and I agree on.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-22 09:20pm

Not necessarily former U.S. soldiers, though.

Which, in your opinion, means what, exactly?

Most Special Forces take their cues from Western organizations in the first place, so the operators servicing contracts for companies such as Blackwater or MPRI aren’t exactly wet behind the ears. As for their extra-national origins, all of the mercenaries are seconded to the regular military per their contracts, which makes them beholden to the strategies laid out in the Pentagon and thus effectively makes of them extensions of the American fighting machine.

And it doesn't change the public accountability issue.

It certainly does. All of the mercenaries are held to the same standards as the regular military. If an operator commits a crime, he is under the same jurisdiction as a U.S. combat soldier.

And, of course, sticking mercenaries out in the middle of major combat operatons like what seems to be happening in Iraq is not a good thing.

It’s the nature of the fighting there. Mercenaries don’t serve, by definition, as front-line troops, but do see combat nevertheless as convoy escorts and sector guards.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-07-23 03:00am

Axis Kast wrote:
And it doesn't change the public accountability issue.
It certainly does. All of the mercenaries are held to the same standards as the regular military. If an operator commits a crime, he is under the same jurisdiction as a U.S. combat soldier.

If this is true, then why are the mercenary contractors who committed abuses at Abu Ghraib being court-martialed and thrown in jail? As I recall, the poathetic excuse for not doing anything about them was that they were supposedly civilian contractors and therefore not covered by US military justice. Furthermore, it took a lot of pressure and only after a lot of foot-dragging was it conceded that these people can be prosecuted under the US justice system at all. So in light of existing evidence, this claim of yours is bullshit.

If things were indeed as you suggest they are (or should be) and these regulations zealously enforced, I don't see that much of a problem with mercenaries, but reality is different.

Edi

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-07-23 04:49am

Rogue 9 wrote:Mercenaries are one of the very few things Machiavelli and I agree on.

Machiavelli's mercenaries are different to today's mercenaries.

His were nothing more than hired thugs, and IIRC were prone to fleeing battles (which had a direct affect on his country's history).

Nowadays they're the personification of the professional soldier (although I'm sure some are still thugs) sans the patriotism.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-07-23 05:13am

Edi wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:
And it doesn't change the public accountability issue.
It certainly does. All of the mercenaries are held to the same standards as the regular military. If an operator commits a crime, he is under the same jurisdiction as a U.S. combat soldier.
If this is true, then why are the mercenary contractors <snip>

Should be "...why aren't the mercenary...."

Edi

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-23 12:21pm

Not to mention Italian condiettere only ever fought against other condiettere (or, ocassionally, the French), and thus had developed the art of retreating, pointless manevering, and generally not getting killed into a science, all while sucking their employers dry.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-07-23 09:25pm

I don't know alot about mercenaries, but isn't it sorta a bad idea to have private companies with standing armies and tanks and shit?

Alot of the old issues with mercenaries are still good; they are still not motivated by anything beyond money, so there's no ideological control like there is with regular forces. But I guess in an international context, its not like they can just raze a village and get away with it. Unless you're reading the Losers.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-07-23 10:49pm

I don't know alot about mercenaries, but isn't it sorta a bad idea to have private companies with standing armies and tanks and shit?

What private company is going to have anywhere close to the military budget of a first world country? I suppose they could try to invade New Zealand or something, but the truth is mercs in this day and age are going to be on good behaviour or find themselves blacklisted and likely locked away in the Hague or worse.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-07-24 12:25am

tharkûn wrote:What private company is going to have anywhere close to the military budget of a first world country? I suppose they could try to invade New Zealand or something, but the truth is mercs in this day and age are going to be on good behaviour or find themselves blacklisted and likely locked away in the Hague or worse.

I'm not talking about a military threat. Corporations with armies just seems like one of those not-so-good ideas. I'm not suggesting they could go about blowing shit up in the short term, but what does it say about the world when nations begin to rely on mercenaries? I don't have any specific critisms.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2004-07-24 12:53am

Neither do I, but the idea of a corporation with military-grade firepower at their disposal or the capability to hire such support doesn't sit well with me. Even government use of mercs doesn't sit well either, it just tells me that the country hiring either can't or won't commit their own personnel to whatever the hired guns are being sent to take care of (and if the government won't commit to said action, one should wonder if it is worth the effort in the first place).

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-24 12:30pm

If this is true, then why are the mercenary contractors who committed abuses at Abu Ghraib being court-martialed and thrown in jail? As I recall, the poathetic excuse for not doing anything about them was that they were supposedly civilian contractors and therefore not covered by US military justice. Furthermore, it took a lot of pressure and only after a lot of foot-dragging was it conceded that these people can be prosecuted under the US justice system at all. So in light of existing evidence, this claim of yours is bullshit.

If things were indeed as you suggest they are (or should be) and these regulations zealously enforced, I don't see that much of a problem with mercenaries, but reality is different.

Interesting. This I did not know.

However, I’m still interested to know their punishments in a civilian court. Are they receiving minimum prison sentences and slaps on the wrist, or are the penalties significant, in accordance with the crimes committed? If it is the later case, then one can quibble about the need for more serious restrictions on how mercenaries are dealt with in court, but the overall issue of accountability is more or less resolved.

I don't know alot about mercenaries, but isn't it sorta a bad idea to have private companies with standing armies and tanks and shit?

Professional military companies – i.e., the only companies that governments will rely on because of their size, resources, and respectability as legitimate business interests – can be made eminently controllable. Most skirt the margins of bankruptcy already (witness Executive Outcomes and Sandline, Int’l), and have been forced to branch out into consulting and information management or consultation services in order to make ends meet. The United Nations, incidentally, is one of the world’s most prolific sources of mercenary contracts.

How does one make mercenaries controllable? Place payment in a temporary fund, pending services. If the government were to freeze or alter contracts because of abuses or default, the companies would be out of business. They cannot operate, service, or finance significant amounts of equipment in the first place, so cutting their financial lifelines would be fatal.

Alot of the old issues with mercenaries are still good; they are still not motivated by anything beyond money, so there's no ideological control like there is with regular forces. But I guess in an international context, its not like they can just raze a village and get away with it. Unless you're reading the Losers.[/quoe]

Debatable. All mercenaries work for money, but many respectable firms – i.e. those big enough and public enough to win gov’t contracts – avoid politically “questionable” activities. In Sierra Leone, Executive Outcomes actually shed operators who stayed on to work even after Freetown was obliged to ask the company itself to move on.

I'm not talking about a military threat. Corporations with armies just seems like one of those not-so-good ideas. I'm not suggesting they could go about blowing shit up in the short term, but what does it say about the world when nations begin to rely on mercenaries? I don't have any specific critisms.
It’s already happening. Mercenaries used by the U.S. gov’t don’t just fill boots we’d have a hard time filling by relying on active or volunteer formations anyway, but also technical and advisory roles we actually lack the personnel to staff out of existing force pools. The private sector attracts these kinds of needed professionals much more regularly than the Army – and it’s a time-consuming and expensive process to train them anyway.

Neither do I, but the idea of a corporation with military-grade firepower at their disposal or the capability to hire such support doesn't sit well with me. Even government use of mercs doesn't sit well either, it just tells me that the country hiring either can't or won't commit their own personnel to whatever the hired guns are being sent to take care of (and if the government won't commit to said action, one should wonder if it is worth the effort in the first place).

Many countries use private guns because they can’t rely on their own populations – such as in Africa, for example. Some countries use them because they are traditional – i.e. Gurkhas and the French Foreign Legion. Others because they are expendable – PHOENIX relied in part on expatriates in Indochina intent on winning the war to regain control of their assets, which they knew wouldn’t occur if the North won.

Not to mention that, when it can be afforded, most nations will jump for the regular military over mercenaries anyway. Normally, they are more loyal, more controllable without special actions being taken, and better-armed anyway. Mercenaries are a second-string option when the military can’t handle something.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-07-24 12:40pm

What's wrong with mercs anyway? They can play a very useful role in training and building up local security forces, and augment private security around stragetic commercial targets.....

Just imagine, instead of US A teams training local militias on counter-terrorism, you just hire a "consulting" company to do it instead. Gives a lot of governments who will be edgy about "hosting" US troops leeway.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-07-24 06:48pm

From my point of view... I don't like it. Perhaps it just a kneejerk thing though. From Bootcamp until EAS, I was told Mercs can't be trusted for shit.

Unless it's to pick up the money.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-07-26 02:58am

As Machiavelli said, a country should be wary of mercenaries in their loyalty to fight for your cause.

Though as it has been pointed out, a lot of the mercs we're hiring WERE former US soldiers.

Secondly, with the current need for manpower, I'm not sure where else we can look outside of the draft.

Thirdly, what does that make the US military itself? A training ground for soldiers to prove themselves and to move on to high paying contract jobs? Already, at the outset of the second Gulf War, people have already been comparing the US army to a mercenary army, and I wonder how much truth there is to that. I wonder what the percentage of those that join the military for the lack of other options, to those who join as a career, or those join for "pure" patriotism or similar.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-26 07:19am

Although I like Warren Zevon, and Sam Pechinpah, I will have to agree with nicolo machevelli...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-07-26 07:28am

Vohu Manah wrote:Neither do I, but the idea of a corporation with military-grade firepower at their disposal or the capability to hire such support doesn't sit well with me. Even government use of mercs doesn't sit well either, it just tells me that the country hiring either can't or won't commit their own personnel to whatever the hired guns are being sent to take care of (and if the government won't commit to said action, one should wonder if it is worth the effort in the first place).

Ever heard of the East India Company?

All-powerful corporations ruling the world are farfetched, but there's no question that companies have literally owned countries before--India, for example--and the requisite army and navy to control them.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS