OT: Privatized War

[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.

[solops]

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.

[AMF]

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

Originally posted by solops:
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.

[Unknown_Enemy]

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.

[dogscoff]

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.

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.

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

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.

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.

---

Because there is accountibility in the military, or at least the illusion of it.

[solops]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Well... the military have been blowing up the wrong vehicles/ buildings and shooting the wrong people all the way through this war.

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 ]

[Yef]

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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.