OT: Privatized War

[geoschmo]

Puke, I can never quite tell when you are being serious or simply sarcastic.

[Baron Munchausen]

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 ]

[AMF]

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

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Many of the abuses not yet made public may have been committed by these 'private contrators' 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, 19:07: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by sachmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

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.

---

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.

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.

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 ]

[sachmo]

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.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Puke:

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.

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.

[Puke]

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.