Are mercenaries a good idea?

[Special K]

DRSmith - FWIW, in the previous thread, I was talking about engineering contractors like Nicolas Berg. I know there are other types of contractors there too.

However, regardless of the type of "contractor" they are, my original point about beheadings still stands.

I don't have a problem with the government hiring private contractors, who are usually former members of the special forces, to perform certain missions. While they may cost a hell of a lot more to employ than your average grunt, they are highly trained and the federal government doesn't have to pay them during peacetime.

Obviously, I have a problem with private contractors acting unethically or in violation of the law (e.g., fraud and killing innocents). However, I don't think those problems are the inevitable result of hiring private contractors to perform various missions.

You said it better than me. This is about exactly where I stand on this whole subject.

[twa]

Chicken Fried seemed to be referring to the State Dept. types. "Blackwater is not a military force".

They are not combat troops,but they preform many security and support roles for the military.

As well as some things we can't mention for the intelligence agencies.

[Perky72]

By the way, isn't relying on a private forces unreliable on it's face? Instead of my desire to phase them out, what if some of the top companies went out of business? Defaulted on their contracts? Or a host country like Iraq kicks them all out? That has to be an assumed risk of making such contracters a required part of operations, which wouldn't exist with a full US military force.

[twa]

By the way, isn't relying on a private forces unreliable on it's face? .

Not really...we also depend heavily on private forces for transport and supply.

It is impractical to try to maintain the levels needed for the number of conflicts we now are involved in.....and ya can't ramp up newbies as quick as needed.

We could of course do less,but where's the fun in that?

added

Iraq and others like what the PMC's provide them(yes they hire them too),don't let the outcry over incidents fool ya.

[Chicken Fried]

Use the money to fill these roles with US military. If we're incapable of doing that then I'd suggest relocating and retraining existing forces by removing some of the 800+ overseas bases.

At the VERY least any security contractors need to be subject to a much better justice system, and I'd prefer they be ultimately under command of US commanders, capable of being disciplined under it. No barely-regulated, barely-investigated, barely-prosecuted cowboy BS like Blackwater.

We don't have enough bodies. At least highly trained bodies. There are only so many qualified to become special forces in the first place. You don't want to let guys in just so you have more people to work with.

[Chicken Fried]

This is sort of off topic, but just remember that because they are involved with protection, they are still in extreme danger. Look at the article below. These contractors were killed by a grenade, dragged behind a truck, then hung in a public display on a bridge. Despite their high salaries, whatever you believe on the issue, remember that they are in harm's way every day. The insurgents want to kill them just as badly as official American soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/

[Perky72]

This is sort of off topic, but just remember that because they are involved with protection, they are still in extreme danger. Look at the article below. These contractors were killed by a grenade, dragged behind a truck, then hung in a public display on a bridge. Despite their high salaries, whatever you believe on the issue, remember that they are in harm's way every day. The insurgents want to kill them just as badly as official American soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/

Yes, they're in danger. But some think they put themselves and regular US military in danger through their misconduct:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136.html

"These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force," said Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for security in and around Baghdad. "They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."

No tally of such incidents has been made public, and Aegis, a British security company that helps manage contractors in Baghdad and maintains an operations center in the capital's fortified Green Zone, declined to answer questions. In the rare instances when police reports are filed, the U.S. military is often blamed for the actions of private companies, according to Adnan Asadi, the deputy interior minister responsible for overseeing security companies.

"People always say the Army did it, and even our police don't always know the difference," he said.

The shootings became so frequent in Baghdad this summer that Horst started keeping his own count in a white spiral notebook he uses to record daily events. Between May and July, he said, he tracked at least a dozen shootings of civilians by contractors, in which six Iraqis were killed and three wounded. The bloodiest case came on May 12 in the neighborhood of New Baghdad. A contractor opened fire on an approaching car, which then veered into a crowd. Two days after the incident, American soldiers patrolling the same block were attacked with a roadside bomb.

On May 14, in another part of the city, private security guards working for the U.S. Embassy shot and killed at least one Iraqi civilian while transporting diplomats from the Green Zone, according to an embassy official who spoke on condition he not be named. Two security contractors were dismissed from their jobs over the incident.

Maybe the General is misapplying some correlation and thinking it's causation. Maybe he's deflecting reasons for hating the US military onto reasons for hating the mercs. But maybe he has a valid point.

To the Fallujah incident, and slightly off-topic as well, prior to it I'd watched the USA show "Combat Missions" whose contestants included Scott Helvenston, one of those later killed in Fallujah. He was extremely unprofessional and arrogant. I'm sorry he died, but his personality at least on the show is what I think of as "cowboy" attitude amongst my stereotypical vision of a bad sort of merc (or soldier).

The alleged quotes of Blackwater's Prince contribute to that vision, and though they're former special forces I don't consider the Blackwater conduct in Iraq to have been professional, or to have reflected well on the American military. Even if they aren't technically combat forces they certainly involved themselves in enough dubious shootings (and subject to lousy US prosecution) to be kicked out of the country by the Iraqi government. And I imagine anti-Americans, including young folk who wouldn't otherwise become anti-American, don't see any distinction between them and our actual military, as far as incidents and misconduct go. Nor should they really, we're paying for mercs to do this.

[twa]

Maybe the General simply doesn't like armed groups that are not under his authority...can't say I blame him,friggin State dept thinks they run things.

Perhaps he can take it up with his boss which had no problem with the extra security they provided when he was in theater.

[DRSmith]

By the way, isn't relying on a private forces unreliable on it's face? Instead of my desire to phase them out, what if some of the top companies went out of business? Defaulted on their contracts? Or a host country like Iraq kicks them all out? That has to be an assumed risk of making such contracters a required part of operations, which wouldn't exist with a full US military force.

The Iraqis are already kicking them out of the country.

Does anyone else see a problem with the governemnt paying to train these people and then having to pay them contractor prices for services they would not be able to render were it not for the training the tax payers paid for already?

[twa]

The Iraqis are already kicking them out of the country.

Does anyone else see a problem with the governemnt paying to train these people and then having to pay them contractor prices for services they would not be able to render were it not for the training the tax payers paid for already?

The Iraqi's are kicking out a a select few,what 250 out of 130,000 is what percentage?

The govt does not have to employ them,I certainly do not understand your reasoning there.

If the govt wants skilled and trained military they certainly must train them in exchange for enlistment.

Or hire mercs from other countries:silly:

Why don't you just get to your real problem which is our use of military force?

[Chicken Fried]

Yes, they're in danger. But some think they put themselves and regular US military in danger through their misconduct:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136.html

Maybe the General is misapplying some correlation and thinking it's causation. Maybe he's deflecting reasons for hating the US military onto reasons for hating the mercs. But maybe he has a valid point.

To the Fallujah incident, and slightly off-topic as well, prior to it I'd watched the USA show "Combat Missions" whose contestants included Scott Helvenston, one of those later killed in Fallujah. He was extremely unprofessional and arrogant. I'm sorry he died, but his personality at least on the show is what I think of as "cowboy" attitude amongst my stereotypical vision of a bad sort of merc (or soldier).

The alleged quotes of Blackwater's Prince contribute to that vision, and though they're former special forces I don't consider the Blackwater conduct in Iraq to have been professional, or to have reflected well on the American military. Even if they aren't technically combat forces they certainly involved themselves in enough dubious shootings (and subject to lousy US prosecution) to be kicked out of the country by the Iraqi government. And I imagine anti-Americans, including young folk who wouldn't otherwise become anti-American, don't see any distinction between them and our actual military, as far as incidents and misconduct go. Nor should they really, we're paying for mercs to do this.

I think the mercenary incidents of civilian deaths get a lot of publicity because they have the "cowboy" stereotpye, so it's as if they're expected to do something stupid. The regular military has their fair share of civilian deaths, but they don't get the same publicity. Like I said earlier, you have to understand their situation because civilian deaths happen no matter how much you want to avoid them. It's just a fact. Basically, I'd say that PMCs and regular military have similar civilian casualties, but the news wants to publicize the PMC incidents because it's more controversial.

By the way, I haven't heard of one VIP killed. I may be wrong on that, but it seems like the PMCs do their job well, and that's protecting high profile figures.

[DRSmith]

The Iraqi's are kicking out a a select few,what 250 out of 130,000 is what percentage?

The govt does not have to employ them,I certainly do not understand your reasoning there.

If the govt wants skilled and trained military they certainly must train them in exchange for enlistment.

Or hire mercs from other countries:silly:

Why don't you just get to your real problem which is our use of military force?

No the problem I have is there is a difference between a soldier and a merc. If you are out there for something you honestly and truely believe in it will guide you in all you do. If you are out there for blood lust or money you will do what ever it takes sastisfy your need for revenge or whatever it takes for the money.

[DRSmith]

I think the mercenary incidents of civilian deaths get a lot of publicity because they have the "cowboy" stereotpye, so it's as if they're expected to do something stupid. The regular military has their fair share of civilian deaths, but they don't get the same publicity. Like I said earlier, you have to understand their situation because civilian deaths happen no matter how much you want to avoid them. It's just a fact. Basically, I'd say that PMCs and regular military have similar civilian casualties, but the news wants to publicize the PMC incidents because it's more controversial.

By the way, I haven't heard of one VIP killed. I may be wrong on that, but it seems like the PMCs do their job well, and that's protecting high profile figures.

The thing is for me in the last little while I am wondering what sort of person is attracted to life, reading about the number of females raped in the army, just here in Canada over the last week a general and colonel have both been charged one with buggering a male soldier and the other with 2 rapes and 2 murders.

[twa]

No the problem I have is there is a difference between a soldier and a merc. If you are out there for something you honestly and truely believe in it will guide you in all you do. If you are out there for blood lust or money you will do what ever it takes sastisfy your need for revenge or whatever it takes for the money.

You believe our troops all honestly and truly believe in all the wars we fight?

At least the PMC's are there by choice.

Blood lust is not high on a normal PMC's list and they would be quite happy not to even be in a firefight....while collecting money

[SWFLSkins]

I say "nay"

If you're going to put a foreign prostitute on company payroll, especially in a place like Iraq, at least make it one of the hotter Middle Eastern ladies, and not a Filipino prostitute.

Not that I'm racist against Filipinos. I actually have a friend who is Filipino.

I just don't think they make very good prostitutes.

Seek help Mick, the above is scary in it's truest form but it does raise one question....

Is this the new meaning to Mid-East Piece.

[Chicken Fried]

No the problem I have is there is a difference between a soldier and a merc. If you are out there for something you honestly and truely believe in it will guide you in all you do. If you are out there for blood lust or money you will do what ever it takes sastisfy your need for revenge or whatever it takes for the money.

Like I said before, when our troops get in their first firefight, all their ideals like patriotism and fighting to preserve freedom and rights for Americans goes down the drain. The only thing they care about is the guy to their left and right. That's what they fight for. I'd imagine it's similar for PMCs.

[DRSmith]

You believe our troops all honestly and truly believe in all the wars we fight?

At least the PMC's are there by choice.

Blood lust is not high on a normal PMC's list and they would be quite happy not to even be in a firefight....while collecting money

No I think many enlist in order to go to school and hope they do not get called up, and when they do they do not like it.

Many signed up after 9/11 wanting revenge.

The PMC's are there for the money and are willing to kill for a chance to spend. I wonder if the other guys who run companies like Prince give as heavily to a political party as he does.

[Capt Rich Fla]

Asian Hookers! Wohoooo!

[Chicken Fried]

No I think many enlist in order to go to school and hope they do not get called up, and when they do they do not like it.

Many signed up after 9/11 wanting revenge.

The PMC's are there for the money and are willing to kill for a chance to spend. I wonder if the other guys who run companies like Prince give as heavily to a political party as he does.

I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones crusading against stereotypes. How can you possible say that all PMC employees are in it for the money. For one, most of them are not there in a combat capacity. They are engineers, suppliers, etc. They're just civilians, but they get compensated very well for it...as they should. The few who are there with rifles and are riding in armored vehicles are former special operations personnel. I, for one, couldn't give a flying **** what they're there for. They already put their life on the line for us back in the actual military, and they get treated like scum for it. They deserve to get as much money out of this as they can.

And to imply that these men are crazed lunatics just wanting to kill as many living things as possible that cross their path is disrespectful. You may not like it, but they're in danger of being killed every day. I don't care why they're there. That's their business. The fact is, they do their job, and they do it damn well. They don't kill many more civilians than the actual military does by proportion. As you've seen, if they do happen to act irresponsibly, they get fired.

[Chicken Fried]

And what's with blaming him for being a conservative? It just so happens that the vast majority of our armed forces is conservative. It comes with the territory.

[Darth Tater]

Not sure what is meant by good idea.

[DRSmith]

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chair of the committee, met with reporters yesterday to give a sneak preview. According to a statement released last night by Levin, the investigation revealed “failures in U.S. government oversight” that allowed employees of Blackwater — sorry, Paravant (Levin said he saw “no meaningful distinction between the two”) — to go buck wild in Afghanistan.

Paravant employees were supposed to be helping train Afghan security forces. But according to the committee investigation, Paravant employees were also indulging in extracurricular activities like joyriding with automatic weapons, and treating an Afghan National Police arsenal like their own personal weapons stash.

The company first garnered headlines after two former Paravant contractors were arrested on murder charges in the shootings of two Afghans in a May 2009 traffic accident in Kabul. They were charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/blackwater-in-kabul-or-eric-cartman-gets-an-ak-47/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

[DRSmith]

I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones crusading against stereotypes. How can you possible say that all PMC employees are in it for the money. For one, most of them are not there in a combat capacity. They are engineers, suppliers, etc. They're just civilians, but they get compensated very well for it...as they should. The few who are there with rifles and are riding in armored vehicles are former special operations personnel. I, for one, couldn't give a flying **** what they're there for. They already put their life on the line for us back in the actual military, and they get treated like scum for it. They deserve to get as much money out of this as they can.

And to imply that these men are crazed lunatics just wanting to kill as many living things as possible that cross their path is disrespectful. You may not like it, but they're in danger of being killed every day. I don't care why they're there. That's their business. The fact is, they do their job, and they do it damn well. They don't kill many more civilians than the actual military does by proportion. As you've seen, if they do happen to act irresponsibly, they get fired.

If it was in the best interest of the US why not use the US military instead of starting wars, taking tax payer money to pay private citizens to do jobs in other countries ignoring the US?