OT: Privatized War

narf poit chez BOOM · #1 May 5th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Puke · #2 May 6th, 2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yef:

quote:
Originally posted by solops:
And in every other war in history. Today, we hear about it and, occasionally, try to correct it.

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.

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.

sachmo · #3 May 6th, 2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

quote:
Originally posted by 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.

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.

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?

tesco samoa · #4 May 6th, 2004, 09:01 PM

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.

narf poit chez BOOM · #5 May 6th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo:

quote:
Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

quote:
Originally posted by 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.

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.
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?

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.

sachmo · #6 May 6th, 2004, 11:42 PM

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.

Puke · #7 May 7th, 2004, 06:04 AM

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.