OT: Privatized War
 

are these not interesting times? I remember a few weeks ago, I had read that the four civilians killed and mutilated in Fallujah may have been mercenaries, as one of of them was wearing dog tags.

Then I read in a South African news paper that one of them was confirmed to have been a US "Security Contractor" that we had down there a few years back, assassinating people involved with the appartheid conflict. Cant remember which side of it we had him supporting though, but word has it that he was a rather brutal fellow.

And now I come accross this interesting litte read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

20,000 mercenaries? Increasing to 30,000 as we withdraw conventional forces? Do a google search for Blackwater Security and take a look at their hireing requirements! I knew that we used "private contractors" but I didnt know that it happened on this scale!

Anyway, Im sure you folks have several thoughts on the matter. I think that I will refrain from voicing an opinion one way or the other, but I am interested in seeing what you all have to say.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

When you train very hard year after year to be somesort of special operations badass, there's not much you are qualified to do when you leave the service. Some become mercenaries, others join U.N. peacekeepers or NGO's (I honestly don't know what that is) There are even some who re-enlist in the French Foreign Legion. Mercenaries do have their place and are often times better equipped and better trained then the regular armed service counterparts. I say sure go ahead and use 'em. But they better pick something better to drive than a Land Cruiser.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

It's a very interesting situation, because it doesn't seem that the media makes a distinction between a civilian and a mercenary. Here in America, we don't handle civilian deaths very well. But would we be as shocked and outraged if we learned that the civilian casualty was in fact an armed peacekeeper who was armed and went knowingly into harm's way, for money?

Please note that I am not saying that there have not been innocent civilians killed in Iraq, on either side, but I personally make a distinction between security forces and private citizens.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

NGO = non-governmental organization, I think.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Yeah, even though we all know their mercenaries now the media still says "civilian contractors". I also wonder why those Japanese civilians were there. Do I need to put quotes around civilian? Were they just being stupid? Were they putting pee pee in our Cokes?

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Well, the Japanese do an awful lot of NGO stuff - aid work, mostly. And, given that they have few if any "security" type consultants in Japan, I suspect they're just the run of the mill aid worker types.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Well, I found this little quote surprising:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A battalion? That's quite a bit of firepower. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining the market demand for several battalion-sized private "security" forces (i.e., mercs). Somehow seems a bit too much like something I'd d/l from Baen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[edit]I meant I have trouble seeing the demand that led many someones to say to themselves, "Self, you have much goods laid up for many years. Life will be boring now, so why don't you go recruit a bunch of old SpecOps personnel who still wanna fight and start your own mercenary battalion!"

[ May 03, 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Wouldn't they be "governed," albeit perhaps less strictly, by the ROE for the theater? I'm just thinking that it'd be awfully weird if they were allowed to go into theater and weren't briefed on the ROE in place, since that is a theater level decision and they'd be responsbile to/hired by the Combatant Commander, no?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

The question isn't whether they are aware of the standing ROE for the theater or not. The question is to whom are they responsible if they violate it. Since they don't fall under the military chain of command, how do you punish them if they commit illegal acts? Who has jusrisdiction? The CPA? The local authorities?

We've seen this week even soldiers under military command can do some really monumentally stupid things. We really need to be sure everyone there exercising authority is subject to some responsibility.

As far as the private security firms becoming the core of a future Iraqi military, I am pretty sure that would be highly illegal. Their preseance now is a bit of a gray area. They don't fit the legal definition of mercenary according to the UN because they are not a third party but actually citizens of the US and, at least theoretically, under the control of the US. If they transition under the direct authority of the Iraqi government, then they become Mercenaries in name as well as deed. Unless they all become citizens of Iraq first.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From everything that I have heard, they seem to be supervising themselves. Very spooky stuff. For instance, and obviously I'm only going off of what I hear from the news reports, in the prison scandal, there is reportedly a case of a civilian contractor raping a male Iraqi prisoner. The military has no jurisdiction over this man, and has recommended that he be fired by the company he works for. Now, I'm not sure what else can happen to him, maybe the Iraqi government can arrest him? I don't know, but I think eventually, one of these forces is going to attack the wrong building, or shoot up the wrong car, or some other horrible situation will arise. I just can't see a good outcome to that, and our military would be wise to stay as far from that as possible.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Privatized war is one of the symptoms of the Beginning of the End for any republic or democracy.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

I contend that the current war does not serve the general public interest, unless you believe in the trickle-down effect. It serves the interest of a handfull of large and powerfull corporations - oil companies, import/exporters, construction firms, and military contracters.

If those companies do well, it might stimulate certain other sectors of the economy, but is it really worth the investment for the rest of us? Why dont they foot the bill themselves?

Standard Oil and Lockheed Martin can afford their own 'security contractors,' and they have the most to gain. why not let them fight their own wars?

As can be seen now, plenty of private citizens are willing to sign up for work in these 'security companies' if the price is right. the down side, is that the taxpayer still foots a large portion of the bill. The security companies can pay a higher salary because they dont have to foot the training bill. it costs about 1 million to train each soldier, and the contractors recruit from pre-trained ex-military. so we pay to train them, then they go work for someone else.

perhaps military service should come with a non-compete agreement (like in private sector employment) prohibiting a soldier from defecting to another militant company for some number of years after his military career ends, or until he has served some minimum length of service.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

In one report they said that some "security specialists" can make $10k to $20k per month in Iraq. That's hard to walk away from.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Puke, I can never quite tell when you are being serious or simply sarcastic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Many of the abuses not yet made public may have been committed by these 'private contractors' as well. That means there is no clear legal jurisdiction for many of these crimes. Not only will this be a scandal for the US, it's probably going to lead to a new UN treaty about the use of 'private contractors' in war.

[ May 04, 2004, 21:51: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

You're right. Prior example, well documented: In Serbia, a number of contractors for Dyncorp were running private brothels with enslaved serbian underage women. Someone blew the whistle on them, I think, after many months. What could be done? Nothing. They weren't responsible to anyone but the company, and so...they got fired. I think that's it, since the crimes were committed abroad they couldn't really be prosecuted for them...I'll google it to get more info, but IIRC that's what happened...remarkably similar to the grey area here...(er, there) in Iraq...

EDIT: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/163052.html

Or just Google "Dyncorp serbia scandal" et al

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[ May 04, 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: alarikf ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, they shouldn't have been there. But they are there, and it sounds like the US military isn't backing them up.

Wether you agree with them being there or not, now that their there, the US military has a responsibility to them. And a responsibility to make sure they follow the ROE.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry, maybe it was just posting somewhere between 12:00 and 1:00 at night, but it sounded like at least half where Iraqi citicens.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:14: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Narf,

My point is that the military has a lot to lose by backing these guys up. If these contractors were under strict military control, then I would have no problem with them getting military support, but without it, I don't see how it's possible.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are kidding, right?

Look, a lot of people serve in the military for a bunch of years, and when they get off the horse they find out that they have to work for minimum wage, or join a security company. If your non-compete thingy is created you are condemning a lot of veterans that have done a valuable service for your country to starve. Additionaly, it would demoralize the core of professional soldiers in active service because they will now what's in store for them.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

i decline to comment on wither or not i was kidding, but it does not need to be like you describe.

one of the largest challenges that the military faces is with retaining troops, and convincing soldiers to re-enlist. they invest in the initial training, but then dont get to reap the benefit of that investment.

now im not saying that people should be condenmed to unemployment after leaving the military, that would shutdown the largest sources of employees in our private armies. im just saying that maybe there should be some precautions in place.

maybe soldiers should be allowed to take jobs at private firms after serving two tours. maybe three, i dont know where the break even point is for the ROI. if its two, maybe they should be under a non-compete for four years (typical tour length) after their first tour is up, if they dont re-enlist.

and they could always TAKE a job at a private firm after their first tour is over, but they would be legally responsible to pay penalties. just like in the private sector.

The same thing exists in many police departments. Officers that pass the accademy often sign contracts that they wont take jobs with other police departments in other cities within X number of years of their graduation - because training is expensive and the department that trained them wants to see that return on investment.

and it wouldnt be for all security related jobs, just for professional mercinary work. perhaps the distinction would be that they can work domestically, but they cant work abroad for a "security company"

of course, this might cause a problem with soldiers changing their citizenship after their term of service, so the our guys go work for british mercinary companies and their guys come to ours.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

If the people of a republic or democracy are not willing to pay for a war in their own blood then it is either not worth doing or that people no longer has the will to be free.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Many people (not neccesarily myself) would say both those conditions apply to the US today.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Accusations of torture. Accusations of prisonners assassination. Stress due to guerilla tactic.

First I thought Irak could become a new Liban. But now, I am thinking "algeria war". And that's no good.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well... the military have been blowing up the wrong vehicles/ buildings and shooting the wrong people all the way through this war. I don't see why it would be any more scandalous when private contractors do it.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well... the military have been blowing up the wrong vehicles/ buildings and shooting the wrong people all the way through this war. I don't see why it would be any more scandalous when private contractors do it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because there is accountibility in the military, or at least the illusion of it.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And in every other war in history. Today, we hear about it and, occasionally, try to correct it.

[ May 05, 2004, 17:50: Message edited by: solops ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You can't correct anything after it happens. You can try to prevent this kind of incidents, but honest mistakes are happening all the time.
You can modify and strictly enforce the ROE, punish infractors, Psy evaluate your servicemen periodically, but in the end sh@t happens, and there is nothing you can do about it. When the bullets start flying all the thinking stops, the training kicks in, and soldiers will shoot by reflexes anything that is threatening.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The mercenaries where sent in there by the US. If the merceneries are under attack, the US should back them up. I'm talking about a combat situation, not allegations of torture. In such a case, the US should have the power to enforce the ROE.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you should keep in mind that on the long run is either the private armies of the security companies or the reinstaiment of the draft, and I don't think the draft will do any good. The current profesional army its a gazillion times better than the drafted army the US had in the recent past.
Drafted armies are only good for fighting massive industrial wars like WW2, or for small countries that fight only defensive wars, but for a superpower that needs to proyect his power way beyond his borders, a dedicated profesional army its a must.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">British and South Afrikaan security companies hired ex-military men from any nationality. And so does the French. The security business is here to stay.
You should look at it from the bright side. No long ago mercs where hired on a paid-per-job basis, And I don't have to tell you how messy that was, while nowadays at least they work for legally stablished companies that pay taxes. Today there is someone to whom you can say "look what your employees are doing!".

[ May 05, 2004, 12:10: Message edited by: Yef ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You can't correct anything after it happens. You can try to prevent this kind of incidents, but honest mistakes are happening all the time.
You can modify and strictly enforce the ROE, punish infractors, Psy evaluate your servicemen periodically, but in the end sh@t happens, and there is nothing you can do about it. When the bullets start flying all the thinking stops, the training kicks in, and soldiers will shoot by reflexes anything that is threatening. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">heh, yeah. like when we bombed that chinese embasy from three directions at once, all at the same time. that wasnt just combat stress, that was a colossal screw-up. oh sure, id like to think that it was a calculated stab at the chinese because we were having diplomatic problems with them at the time - but the truth is that people are too stupid and uncoordinated to have any real conspiracies.

thats right, there are no conspiracies or secret power elite - conspiracy theories are just shallow attempts at explaining why people do colossaly stupid things.

but regarding private armies, there has to be some way of setting it up so that its profitable for the mercenary company, profitable for the soldier, and not a giant waste of money for the government. im all for private armies, i just dont think that the military should be flushing away one million per soldier that does not re-enlist. maybe if the mercenary company paid for the training.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The mercenaries where sent in there by the US. If the merceneries are under attack, the US should back them up. I'm talking about a combat situation, not allegations of torture. In such a case, the US should have the power to enforce the ROE. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do you not think that know that the military will be there to pull their bacon out of the fire may cause the contractors to take chances they might not take otherwise? Also, we've heard how the military is understrength and overextended as it is...what happens when they have to go off-mission to save a bunch of yahoos who went somewhere that they didn't belong?

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

This might just be slightly off topic... may be not... but the Last few days... there has been a cordinated media attack on the USA and with its conflicts in the middle east. This , Prisioner treatment, the helicopter attacks , I may have missed some of the other ones... But very cordinated.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The mercenaries where sent in there by the US. If the merceneries are under attack, the US should back them up. I'm talking about a combat situation, not allegations of torture. In such a case, the US should have the power to enforce the ROE. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do you not think that know that the military will be there to pull their bacon out of the fire may cause the contractors to take chances they might not take otherwise? Also, we've heard how the military is understrength and overextended as it is...what happens when they have to go off-mission to save a bunch of yahoos who went somewhere that they didn't belong? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your assuming that the mercenaries will wan't to go charging off into a hot zone for no apparent reason. Most of these guys are ex-military. That means training and disipline. Besides the fact that people, military or not, are not suicidal. And the ones in the article where not charging off like yahoos. They where >defending< the positions they had been hired to defend!

And your missing the point. The US employs them. The US sent them. The US military should give them backup. It's their responcibility.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

narf,

I'm not sure what percentage of them have been hired by the government, and what percentage has been hired by private corporations to secure their economic interests in Iraq. I have no problem with the military protecting it's own, but when we go down the line to the Blackwaters and Titans of the world, there is a distinction.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

the main thrust of one of the articles that I read was that the military WAS NOT backing them up. they were hired mostly by the military or the CIA, sometimes by private companies, and they were not getting military backup.

so the security companies were banding together to pool their resources and back each other up. collectively, it was described as the largest private army in the world.

Tesco: even in the US there seems to be coorinated anti-war effort from the media, which is funny because the media has been mostly pro-establishment and pro-war. maybe they're in someones pocket (well, they're definitly in someones pocket..) or maybe this is just the kind of news thats selling big right now. basically the only thing you will see on the news is what they think will make you want to watch more. would you like a coke with that?

why cant people just admit its all about land and money? i dont know why everyone pretends not to like land and money; i sure like land and money. i just wish that it would contribute directly to my standard of living. i'm all for someone else dieing for my standard of living, as long as they are paid enough to make it worth their while - which is why private armies are such a grand idea.

i guess its not so great for the poor bastards giving up the land and money, but thats evolution at work: to the victor go the spoils. Vie Victis. When its someone with a bigger stick coming after me, you wont hear me complaining at the unfairness of the world - thats just the way things go.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">By US press ?
Seems quite far reaching for me. So far, it is a US-US affair.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's Vae Victis. Not vie.
Then you're obviously the sort who would use Arnald Amalric's command when asked to sort innocents from heretics : "Kill them all, God will look after His own."

Animals behave the way you describe.
But from you that's not unusual.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

Humans are no more than animals, afterall...

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

oh bah, sticks and stones. if we are name calling now then your folly sir, is hubris. humans are no more than animals, and animals no more than the sum of their constituant parts.

since the vast majority of mater is empty space, i submit that by extension you are nothing.

now cry havoc, and unleash the creationist activists!

edit: curst fyron beat me to it.

[ May 07, 2004, 21:00: Message edited by: Puke ]

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like your response better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

If humans are nothing more than animals, why do I care what happens to antelope?

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

why do wolves care what happens to their children? you are a mass of chemical reactions which have conspired to produce a set of memories leading to a single point in time. nothing more, and nothing less. what you percieve as 'caring' is nothing more than the consequence of a series of subatomic interactions.

oh, and while im being a jackass, i should disclaim that i have nothing but respect for Unknown Enemy, he is a far greater man than i, his spelling is better, as his command of Latin.

Now ENOUGH of this tom-foolery, and back to the discussion of the ethics and sociological consequences (good or bad) of using mercenaries or private armies. Debers (the dimond company, if i didnt spell it right) has had a standing army for years. We have used real military forces in banana-republic secnarios for the express benefit of private companies and individuals.

where do we draw the line? which side of the line are you on? I know where I am, but I am still not telling you wither or not Im joiking about it.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

I think mercenaries should just pretend that they are fighting each other, then they could charge their clients a lot more money and everyone would get rich. Then, at the end, they could just stick out their tongues and shout "Fight your own bloody wars!" and run off to Mexico or Jamacia or Italy and soak up some rays and have some nice food and buy some gifts for their relatives. Then maybe their clients would ask, "What were we fighting for, anyway?" and then peace would come to man. Or they would start fighting again when they remembered, and the whole cycle would begin agin.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's very conveinent and easy for you to say this because you live in a country where, at least for the most part, there are laws to prevent just exactly that from happening. I suspect that if someone really came to your house with a big stick and told you to leave we'd actually hear quite a bit of complaining from you.

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

He was talking more along the lines of an invasion by another power, not just some random schmuck coming up to him...

Re: OT: Privatized War
 

i live in the San Francisco tenderloin, theres nothing BUT random schmucks here. transvestites and crackheads are dangerous individuals, and rather dangerous in Groups.

My point is not that i wont put up a fight - which i will - but that i wont bemoan how unfair the world is after i lose.

now thats not to say that i dont endorse retribution, either. if someone broke my knee one morning, im not above shooting them in the back the next night.

I fully expect that cultures whom dont like our presence will cary on guerella actions against our occupation forces. I just dont like listening to people piss and moan about how unjust the world is that some folks are being oppressed.