NationStates Jolt Archive

the other day i scared my friends with a suggestion that privatising the military would be a good idea. they said it was the most right-wing thing they'd ever heard me say. so i tried to justify it, saying that if private armies were payed in accordance to how efficiently they waged war (minimal collateral damage, minimal friendly fire, quick execution of orders, etc.) then it would decrease the civilian death-tolls and the cost of warfare on the state.
my friends tried to tell me that the armies would fight eachother, or the state, or the people themselves, but i found this hard to believe as such wars would have no profit and wouldn't do anything for their reputation.
so if anyone can think of a good reason why this wouldn't be a good idea, please tell me, 'cos to be honest i actually scared myself.

Because the inefficient armies that slaughter civilians would end up being cheaper, and governments wouldn't care provided the job gets done...if they save a billion or two dollars along the way they'll be happy.

To some extent, a massive private army already exists in Iraq. They provide everything from site security to intelligence gathering. The dificulty is that they, not being under truly direct command and control of the government have been implicated in more of the worst abuses rather than doing a more humane job.

I think if you expect MORE accountability from corporate entities rather than having the direct accountability that the current military has, you are dreaming.

Because war is an undertaking in which the nation's populace should have a real stake, not merely a passing interest. We should have to ask ourselves: "Are the reasons for this war good enough to justify placing our own sons and daughters in jeopardy?"

In addition, the young men and women who currently serve in the military are, for the most part, deeply patriotic and care a great deal about the future of our nation; the manner in which they serve reflects that. The same could not necessarily be said of mercenaries.

Because said army goes to the highest bidder. That's why it's a bad idea.

the other day i scared my friends with a suggestion that privatising the military would be a good idea. they said it was the most right-wing thing they'd ever heard me say. so i tried to justify it, saying that if private armies were payed in accordance to how efficiently they waged war (minimal collateral damage, minimal friendly fire, quick execution of orders, etc.) then it would decrease the civilian death-tolls and the cost of warfare on the state.
my friends tried to tell me that the armies would fight eachother, or the state, or the people themselves, but i found this hard to believe as such wars would have no profit and wouldn't do anything for their reputation.
so if anyone can think of a good reason why this wouldn't be a good idea, please tell me, 'cos to be honest i actually scared myself.

Well, they would really be mercenaries and their motive would mainly be financial. Historically mercenaries can't be trusted to keep on one side and often turn on their employers.

the other day i scared my friends with a suggestion that privatising the military would be a good idea. they said it was the most right-wing thing they'd ever heard me say. so i tried to justify it, saying that if private armies were payed in accordance to how efficiently they waged war (minimal collateral damage, minimal friendly fire, quick execution of orders, etc.) then it would decrease the civilian death-tolls and the cost of warfare on the state.
my friends tried to tell me that the armies would fight eachother, or the state, or the people themselves, but i found this hard to believe as such wars would have no profit and wouldn't do anything for their reputation.
so if anyone can think of a good reason why this wouldn't be a good idea, please tell me, 'cos to be honest i actually scared myself.

This has already been done in Africa by an organization named "Executive Outcomes," a private company which conducted extensive operations in Angola and later Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea from 1989 - 1993. The organization was, by most unbiased accounts, extremely effective.

However, the reasons for not outsourcing military operations are as old as mercenaries themselves. Many historians attribute the mercinarization of the ancient Roman military as one of the primary reasons for the fall of the Roman empire.

IMHO, the primary reason for not outsourcing military operations is the lack of dedication to the nation which hires the mercenaries. History is rife with stories of mercenary forces which abandoned their "employer" for another, more well-heeld "employer." It is the dedication to their homeland which motivates the soldiers of most nations, at least initially. Take this away and pay mercenaries to defend you and almost anything can happen.

Because war is an undertaking in which the nation's populace should have a real stake, not merely a passing interest. We should have to ask ourselves: "Are the reasons for this war good enough to justify placing our own sons and daughters in jeopardy?"

In addition, the young men and women who currently serve in the military are, for the most part, deeply patriotic and care a great deal about the future of our nation; the manner in which they serve reflects that. The same could not necessarily be said of mercenaries.

Well said! :)

Private armies tend to be significantly more expensive than state ones. Just compare the salaries of the average allied soldier in Iraq, and his mercenary counterpart.

But if the reverse could be made to be the case, by some economic miracle, would you really entrust the defence of your nation to the lowest bidder, whose highest responsibility is to the shareholders?

It's a lose-lose whichever way you look at it.

EDIT: And suppose you're in the middle of a war and they pull out, branding it Not Economically Viable?

i think machivelli does a good job of showing why a paid mercenary army is worse than a normal one.

i think machivelli does a good job of showing why a paid mercenary army is worse than a normal one.

Been awhile since I read Machiavelli. Can't say I remember him talking about mercenaries, but it makes sense that he would.

the other day i scared my friends with a suggestion that privatising the military would be a good idea. they said it was the most right-wing thing they'd ever heard me say. so i tried to justify it, saying that if private armies were payed in accordance to how efficiently they waged war (minimal collateral damage, minimal friendly fire, quick execution of orders, etc.) then it would decrease the civilian death-tolls and the cost of warfare on the state.
my friends tried to tell me that the armies would fight eachother, or the state, or the people themselves, but i found this hard to believe as such wars would have no profit and wouldn't do anything for their reputation.
so if anyone can think of a good reason why this wouldn't be a good idea, please tell me, 'cos to be honest i actually scared myself.


from a purely economic perspective, you can't privatise an army, it is a positive externality and will therefor be under-produced. This of it this way, the reason why we need govt to build roads is because they take alot of money, and the returns are minimal... both roads and armies are positive externalities, they have to be controled at the govt level otherwise they would not get produced at the level they are needed.


also, according the wage differential theory, such an army would actually be underpaid because the preceved

Privatizing the military (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/contractors.html)

Privatizing the military (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/contractors.html)

LOL! Hits a tad close to the truth, eh?

LOL! Hits a tad close to the truth, eh?
Yep - Though I'm Libertarian, I'm not so Libert. as to go *that* far!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16671

a privitized army is a bad idea because the best army would be the most expensive one, and the government has to use the lowest bidder. Also, could you imagine having to solicit bids in an effort ro defend against an attack on the homeland? not a good idea. sorry.