Quote :

"another thing I found interesting is the fact that those 'American civilians' they showed years ago on TV that were killed, burned, and hung from a bridge in Iraq that the news played out to be attacks on civilians, were infact soldiers from Blackwater."

you didn't know that?

5/24/2007 9:01:12 AM

Most people don't know that.

5/24/2007 10:03:30 AM

the Roman Empire hired mercenaries when its citizens became too wealthy and complacent to join the military

5/24/2007 10:28:02 AM

I'll address my own personal feelings on the subject first:

The philosophy and structure of how we as a nation have operated our military forces at times of war and peace has worked very well for us in the length of our history. Because of this, I tend to favor the "ain't broke, don't fix it" concept.

Parallel to that is my opinion of mercenaries. When it comes to a mercenary force, the will to fight comes from a different motivation, money. Depending on the conflict and situation, that may not always be enough. Fighting out of loyalty to ones country and fighting for money tend to produce different results.

Plus, you're now talking about the government spending more money on mercenaries than they are on the soldiers they already have. Why not spend that money on more US soldiers?

The mercenary proposition is a slippery slope, riddled with problems like accountability, effectiveness, loyalty, and security.

One of the purposes of government is to provide security, not to find someone else who will do it for more money.

Now to address some responses in this thread:

Quote :

"synapse: Oh i don't know, how the fact that our military was (and is) completely overextended."

Agreed, but hiring mercenaries isn't the only or the best solution. Its the easy fix, and that isn't always the right choice.

Quote :

"Mindstorm: Private contracted security groups can be hung out to dry and it will reflect more upon the contracted group rather than the government. The government can always just claim that the group was hired only to carry out, say, standard security patrols in a city, and not operate death squads or something like that. Then they can launch a full investigation and look like the good guys, while setting up another security group to go out and do the same thing."

This may work once or twice, but after a while, you're going to run out of mercenary groups willing to work for your government, and then you're right back to the problem of how to fix the troop shortage. Only now you can't even hire mercenaries. Plus you're creating armed groups of trained, well paid soldiers who now have something against your government. This sounds bad all around.

nastoute: Good for you for posting from The Prince. It's relevant as hell to this discussion. Just wish you could find a shorter summary so more people here would read it.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Accountability and oversight huh? Aren't you one of the people here that keeps going on about how the Abu Garib incident is an example of corruption running through the entire chain? What good is oversight if your overseers are just as corrupt?"

Corruption of our own leadership/military is an entirely different problem that needs its own set of fixes. We can't overhaul the whole system, and these things can't be done easily during peacetime. I could argue that fixing this type of corruption would be in impossible in a time of active military engagement. It would disrupt too much of the overall operation of the military. We might have to wait until we reach more of a finite resolution with Iraq/Afghanistan to make any changes.

But changes do need to be made, and desperately.

Quote :

"Flyin Ryan: When does our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force need supplementing? And what do the Reserves and the National Guard do?"

The NGs purpose is spelled out already. They are here to guard the nation. They were never meant to go abroad and fight foreign threats.

The Reserves is really what needs the beefing up. They are the group that is intended to supplement the Regulars. If we want to provide more support to our troops, we need to focus on increasing Reserve enrollment.

As to when the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force need supplementing:
The Air Force: Hardly ever anymore. I'm pretty sure this is the branch of the military that continually meets its recruiting goals.
The Navy: Again, not hurting for bodies. In a land/air engagement, the safest place to be is on a boat.
Army & Marines: Right now, asap. The forces deployed overseas in the Middle East still do not have the numbers to effectively control the ground. Occupying two decent sized countries effectively takes LOTS of troops. We just don't have enough committed.

Quote :

"Golovko: Can't begin to imagine how many soldiers lives that would save. not to mention how much more effective the military would be."

The rules of engagement are really in place to protect international political interests, not soldiers. Plus this isn't total war, it's a popularity contest: How much can we make the native people like us. So the rules of engagement are more important in this scenerio than usual.

You don't win hearts and minds with brutality.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Protection of contractors and reconstruction firms is also useful. Our army is designed for fighting very specific types of fights, and are ill suited for what amounts to security guard work for the various reconstruction projects. Why waste valuble soldiers when you can hire a mercenary to do the same thing, and not have to pay for their medical bills afterwards."

This is really one of the few good practical applications for a mercenary organizations I can think of right now. But the government shouldn't be paying the bill, that should be the company. Which will probably be passed on to whoever is paying the company to come in and do the construction, which is probably the government... and we just go back and forth. *Sigh*

Quote :

"SSS: I dated a guy who worked there. He was not allowed to talk about much of what went on there, but from what I was able to see, this is a shady operation."

Mercenaries can always be counted on to look out for their own best interests. Its an organization founded around greed for money. They're there to take care of themselves and in the end, that's it. It doesn't surprise me to hear you say you got the impression they were shady.

Quote :

"Skack: We pay them enough money so that the company can make a profit and the soldier for hire makes a six figure income while our own troops barely make enough for their families to live modestly?"

Mmm, nothing says loving like war profiteering. Its still a very 'in' thing for Americans, or didn't you know?

hooksaw: Ike hit the nail on the head. The military-industrial complex is at the top of the list of organizations who should be allowed zero influence on the political process.

Lol, imagine if carried a gun around with you everywhere, and all day long your gun talked to you, "Ooo, shoot him. No, shoot her, she's looking at you funny. You paid a lot of money for me, so you pretty much need to use me at some point. Hey, I think you should buy me a brother, you know, just in case you lose me or run out of bullets. Oh, and about bullets, lets go get some more, cause I think I could use the extra. Psh, I know, I got you to buy those two cases last week, but when is that ever enough?!"

--==--

damn.. didn't know I had this much to say about mercenaries and the US.



sorry all for the dissertation

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 11:08 AM. Reason : stupid smiley face system]

5/24/2007 11:06:45 AM

Quote :

"The rules of engagement are really in place to protect international political interests, not soldiers. Plus this isn't total war, it's a popularity contest: How much can we make the native people like us. So the rules of engagement are more important in this scenerio than usual. You don't win hearts and minds with brutality."

oh i hear what you are saying loud and clear, and I agree. However, winning hearts and minds is not on the agenda in Iraq for some reason. It would seem logical that that is what needs to be done. But logic does not govern over the united states atm.

5/24/2007 11:08:50 AM

Quote :

"Golovko: oh i hear what you are saying loud and clear, and I agree. However, winning hearts and minds is not on the agenda in Iraq for some reason. It would seem logical that that is what needs to be done. But logic does not govern over the united states atm."

Well, when we can't even effectively do our primary job (secure the nation and the people we are supposedly there to liberate), it becomes kinda difficult to address item B, item C, etc.

5/24/2007 11:20:35 AM

Quote :

"This is really one of the few good practical applications for a mercenary organizations I can think of right now. But the government shouldn't be paying the bill, that should be the company. Which will probably be passed on to whoever is paying the company to come in and do the construction, which is probably the government... and we just go back and forth. *Sigh*"

Well, one bennefit of the government contracting that directly is dealing with just one firm, as opposed to 20 different firms when security doesn't do something right. They answer to you directly, rather than the company that contracted them.

Quote :

"Plus, you're now talking about the government spending more money on mercenaries than they are on the soldiers they already have. Why not spend that money on more US soldiers? "

There's a very easy answer to this. Long term costs. Mercenaries can be hired just for the conflict at hand, and then sent away when it's all over with not another cent or thought spent on them. The regular army on the other hand, has medical costs, housing costs, uniform and equipment costs, medical costs for the family, infrastructure costs etc etc etc. And really, other than a dishonerable discharge or a medical discharge, when was the last time you heard of the arm laying someone off?

If a mercenary goes to Iraq and gets his leg shot off, the government doesn't have to pay for their post combat medical treatment. There's no way the government could get away with that with regular army.

As I said, mercenaries have their uses, and they have always been used throughout history, it's nothing particularly new or unusual.

5/24/2007 1:30:29 PM

Quote :

"There's a very easy answer to this. Long term costs. Mercenaries can be hired just for the conflict at hand, and then sent away when it's all over with not another cent or thought spent on them. The regular army on the other hand, has medical costs, housing costs, uniform and equipment costs, medical costs for the family, infrastructure costs etc etc etc. And really, other than a dishonerable discharge or a medical discharge, when was the last time you heard of the arm laying someone off?"

Long term costs? That's pretty vague. How do I as a taxpayer know that the price we pay for a mercenary doesn't have all these costs rolled into the price tag? How do you know?

5/24/2007 1:34:55 PM

Quote :

" Well, when we can't even effectively do our primary job (secure the nation and the people we are supposedly there to liberate), it becomes kinda difficult to address item B, item C, etc."

winning their hearts and minds falls hand in hand with the primary objective of securing the nation of Iraq. Thats why they will never achieve the primary objective.

5/24/2007 2:05:48 PM

Quote :

"Long term costs? That's pretty vague. How do I as a taxpayer know that the price we pay for a mercenary doesn't have all these costs rolled into the price tag? How do you know?"

The same way you know that the cost you pay for a contractor to install the plumbing for your office building doesn't have the roll in the same long term costs of having a plumber as part of your work force. Or are you suggesting that the costs we pay for Blackwater people is equal to the costs of hiring, equipping, promoting, caring for and eventually giving a pension to, the same number of regular soldiers?

5/24/2007 5:02:31 PM

you still can't take an 18 year old kid and train him the way mercenaries have been trained for the same cost

5/24/2007 6:16:20 PM

Those mercanaries have all been trained by the US military.

5/24/2007 6:26:55 PM

^ was gonna point this out earlier, but didn't get around to it. It bothers me also that my tax dollars go to train this guy to be a cold hearted killer, then, even more of my tax dollars than should be necessary go to pay him...wait, more of my tax dollars go to pay some privateer company to employ him after I have paid to train him.

Quote :

"Or are you suggesting that the costs we pay for Blackwater people is equal to the costs of hiring, equipping, promoting, caring for and eventually giving a pension to, the same number of regular soldiers?"

Sure, why not. Blackwater is in it for profit and I presume they are paying to insure their people, or perhaps have pension plans, or perhaps are paying them enough that they can insure themselves, etc. So they roll all those costs into the bill to Uncle Sam. Perhaps those aren't costs incurred by Blackwater, and they leave it up to their mercenaries to handle that themselves.

I am asking, does anyone here know the true cost, or are you going to keep taking shots in the dark and inventing the reality you think might exist to fit your world view that you already have.

5/24/2007 6:57:58 PM

its my understanding that Mercenaries pretty much all have military background before they became mercenaries. Instead of working at wallyworld after they're discharged, they put their skills to good use and keep doing what they're good at but for way more money.

5/24/2007 7:35:11 PM

Quote :

"was gonna point this out earlier, but didn't get around to it. It bothers me also that my tax dollars go to train this guy to be a cold hearted killer, then, even more of my tax dollars than should be necessary go to pay him...wait, more of my tax dollars go to pay some privateer company to employ him after I have paid to train him."

they were already trained by our tax money


I'm not much on private armies working for the govt, but... it is cheaper to pay these guys (for their ability level) than it is to train some 18 hs kid fresh into service to that level

it takes years of training to get to the level that some of these cats are on

many of these guys also worked as LEOs before the war and their dept paid for most of their blackwater training

5/24/2007 7:53:50 PM

If most if not all of these guys are ex-military, aren't they already covered by the US Govt as veterans?

Ie: We're already paying to take care of them, since they've already been in the service. So arguing it costs us significantly less to use mercenary groups like Blackwater doesn't seem to make as much sense. Now all you are looking at is food and housing.

5/25/2007 7:11:41 AM

you have to retire to get most veterans bennies. thats 20 years of service.

most mercenaries are not retired military.

and whether they are retired or not, is moot. if you retire from govt. service you get your benefits no matter where (or if) you go work in the civilian arena.

you cant take away someones pension because they go work somewhere you find distasteful.

5/25/2007 1:19:33 PM

Couldn't there be a role for Blackwater though on the international stage? For example, providing security for NGO's in regions where no nation is willing to step in and provide law and order? Or perhaps for the United Nations to help provide training and basic security when no nation is willing to provide the skilled soldiers and police needed to guard camps or secure unstable regions? I think it'll depend situation to situation, but it's an important point.

Distasteful in some situations but seriously, those Fijian peacekeepers can only do so much.

5/25/2007 2:05:05 PM

Mississippi moon, wont you keep on shining on me

5/25/2007 2:12:37 PM

man, i was seriously gonna post the same thing, but i cant access YouTube at work to find a Doobie Bros. video to go with it.

5/25/2007 3:55:08 PM

Rainbow Six anyone?

5/25/2007 3:57:39 PM

Quote :

"providing security for NGO's"

i'm sure they would be quite ready to provide security for whoever wants to pay them.

but most NGOs in volatile (3rd world) regions are likely to be humanitarian. and i doubt they have the funds (or desire) for some hardcore military-style security.

5/25/2007 3:59:11 PM

Quote :

"This may work once or twice, but after a while, you're going to run out of mercenary groups willing to work for your government, and then you're right back to the problem of how to fix the troop shortage. Only now you can't even hire mercenaries. Plus you're creating armed groups of trained, well paid soldiers who now have something against your government. This sounds bad all around."

Yeah but the mercs aren't going to give a shit. The government can just slide them more money on the side as a "thanks for taking the fall, here's some money for new surplus helicopters" sort of deal. The mercs and the government could just pick some assholes to throw under the bus and continue doing business like usual, only on a bit of a quieter level (wouldn't want to attract MORE attention to your shady efforts).

The government definitely doesn't have to do that many shady corrupt things in a decade that they would be swapping out mercenary organizations every year, either. Just every now and then, something sketchy could come up, and if the coverup doesn't work they can do a show trial. Of course this is assuming all the people involved are tolerant of corruption, which is probably not true. Still, it's a possibility that isn't there with the federal military (the option to blame somebody else), and it gives the government more flexibility when they want to send "special" types of political messages to their enemies. I'm not saying the government is going to go around paying people to do something and then putting them in jail for doing it, just that, if they work it right, they could do that periodically to carry out whatever missions they see fit.

5/25/2007 4:19:30 PM

Their HQ is about 35 miles from where I live (Portsmouth, VA).

And my wife is interested in me joining them when I'm done in the Navy (four years from now).

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 9:04 PM. Reason : editing]

6/4/2007 9:01:39 PM