NationStates Jolt Archive

Private Military Firms, or PMFs, are a subject that is little known nor understood, yet I take great interest in it.
Private military firms are the modern day evolution of mercenaries: they fight for profit. Yet they differ from mercenaries in that they are not lone units. Instead, they work within a corporation that provides security needs in war zones to militaries, other corporations, or charitable interests.
They came to light briefly last March, when a mob in Fallujah savagely beat four such contractors to death, and hanged their burning bodies from a bridge. They indeed have a large presence, estimated at 20,000 contractors. During the invasion itself, they provided logistical support. Afterwards, they acted more as highly trained security guards. But they sometimes take combative roles. Blackwater Security, the largest of these firms, even has an armed helicopter that they use for combat support and convoy escort.
It is not just the US military, however, that uses them. For one, the UN uses them to secure convoys. Also, in Colombia, corporations love to use them to clear routes for roads, pipelines, or critical towns of guerillas, then hold that land. There, however, they have been in legal limbo. In 2002, a plane carrying three contractors was shot down in FARC held territory. They are still prisoners, and both the US government nor their corporate bosses has tried to aid them. The Colombian government is almost certainly unable to do it, either. This may be a foretaste of what to expect if a contractor is captured in Iraq.

I hope I gave you a little backround information on these little understood contractors. Any thoughs?

Private Military Firms, or PMFs, are a subject that is little known nor understood, yet I take great interest in it.
Private military firms are the modern day evolution of mercenaries: they fight for profit. Yet they differ from mercenaries in that they are not lone units. Instead, they work within a corporation that provides security needs in war zones to militaries, other corporations, or charitable interests.
They came to light briefly last March, when a mob in Fallujah savagely beat four such contractors to death, and hanged their burning bodies from a bridge. They indeed have a large presence, estimated at 20,000 contractors. During the invasion itself, they provided logistical support. Afterwards, they acted more as highly trained security guards. But they sometimes take combative roles. Blackwater Security, the largest of these firms, even has an armed helicopter that they use for combat support and convoy escort.
It is not just the US military, however, that uses them. For one, the UN uses them to secure convoys. Also, in Colombia, corporations love to use them to clear routes for roads, pipelines, or critical towns of guerillas, then hold that land. There, however, they have been in legal limbo. In 2002, a plane carrying three contractors was shot down in FARC held territory. They are still prisoners, and both the US government nor their corporate bosses has tried to aid them. The Colombian government is almost certainly unable to do it, either. This may be a foretaste of what to expect if a contractor is captured in Iraq.

I hope I gave you a little backround information on these little understood contractors. Any thoughs?

Private military firms are scary. The fact that the US has relied on them in Iraq is scarier.

PMFs working for the US will be viewed as an extension of the US - even though the US lacks direct control.

Also PMFs will often meet the definition of mercenaries under the Geneva Conventions -- which mean they are not entitled to the protections or immunities of the Conventions.

Private military firms are scary. The fact that the US has relied on them in Iraq is scarier.

PMFs working for the US will be viewed as an extension of the US - even though the US lacks direct control.

Also PMFs will often meet the definition of mercenaries under the Geneva Conventions -- which mean they are not entitled to the protections or immunities of the Conventions.
The thing is, however, that they are not just working for the US. The Australians also use them in the Soloman Islands, and Britain uses them in Sierra Leone. They can be wonderful for offering security to charitable groups as well (which they often do, either out of contract or good-will). They need regulation, not banning.

What was the name of that S African group in the 80's. The ones that were hired in Ivory Coast or was at another small country near there. Anyway they were disbanded after the bigger governments got sketchy. But anyway they were highly effective. Operating like the desert rats. They even had two mirages and a Soviet era hind helo. I saw a show on them. They kicked alot of ass for such a small group.

What was the name of that S African group in the 80's. The ones that were hired in Ivory Coast or was at another small country near there. Anyway they were disbanded after the bigger governments got sketchy. But anyway they were highly effective. Operating like the desert rats. They even had two mirages and a Soviet era hind helo. I saw a show on them. They kicked alot of ass for such a small group.
That sorta reminds me of another interest, actually. A group of British nobility tried to launch a coup in Equitorial Guinea last year, probably to protect oil interests. As that regime is one of the worst in Africa, they wouldn't be missed. However, they hired a PMF to hire local insurgents, and launch the coup. It failed spectacularly, famously resulting in the arrest of Mark Thatcher. But it shows that, in weaker states at least, PMFs are now a major force.

The regulation of international private military firms is utterly impossible in our current international framework. Look at the capability of the US to bring international military justice to non-state actors; they simply can not do it with anything resembling effectiveness.

Regulation is not possible right now, and as such, PMF represent an unregulated and difficult to control power in the world. Such unrestrained power has led to countless abuses in the past, present and will obviously do so in the future.

Mercenaries have been and always will be an exceedingly risky investment for all concerned. Cases of coups, misconduct, desertion, price gouging, etc are rampant. This modern mercenary is no different; almost impossible to prosecute, regulate, hold accountable, control. They are a very real threat to stability worldwide.

Their ability to work for positive goals is nice, but the truth is they do far more harm than good in this world.

Marrakech II, I believe your're thinking of Executive Outcomes' 1995 Sierra Leone intervention, they put up a damned good fight against the rebels with only 120 men, two Mi17 transporter gunship helicopters, an Mi24 helicopter gunship and an Andover casualty evacuation aircraft. They were replaced by 15,000 UN peacekeepers, who ended up being pulled out after a number of kidnappings and deaths. Sandline International was also involved, IIRC.

I understand quite a few of their guys are still kicking around. I read something about several "graduates" of EO working in Ivory Coast.

http://strategypage.com/the_war_in_iraq/tactics/200446.asp

An interesting article, with an ominous conclusion:

There is also fear that this large pool of experienced security troops could provide a large enough group that unscrupulous operators could put together traditional mercenary units for less legal enterprises (like propping up dictatorships or overthrowing legitimate governments in small countries.). When the war on terror eventually dies down, in a decade or so, there will be a lot of "commercial soldiers" cut loose. Some of them will be tempted to work for less savory employers. This could be interesting, and, at times, quite nasty.

Also of interest:
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/mercenaries.htm)

What was the name of that S African group in the 80's. The ones that were hired in Ivory Coast or was at another small country near there. Anyway they were disbanded after the bigger governments got sketchy. But anyway they were highly effective. Operating like the desert rats. They even had two mirages and a Soviet era hind helo. I saw a show on them. They kicked alot of ass for such a small group.

Executive Outcomes, in Sierra Leone?

Executive Outcomes, in Sierra Leone?

Both of you are right. That is what I was thinking. But the documentary talked of another one that actually had combat aircraft. They ran bombing sorties on arms depots and such. I will look for it and find out.

I am familiar with the concept of private military firms and I don't like them. They have not saved the U.S. money and have sometimes been a source of really awful scandals. I think they are really a form of corporate terrorism. I think they should be illegal. In fact if I ran things, I'd if necessary take them down militarily.

I am familiar with the concept of private military firms and I don't like them. They have not saved the U.S. money and have sometimes been a source of really awful scandals. I think they are really a form of corporate terrorism. I think they should be illegal. In fact if I ran things, I'd if necessary take them down militarily.

i thought blackwater was employed by contractors in iraq, not the military--am i wrong on this? i don't think the US gov't proper is paying them--why would are military need security guards?

I believe they are merc. and thus deserve the only legal treatment resarved for them in War Common Law, ummary Execution.

Here's a research paper on Private Military Firms\Companies (PMFs or PMCs--same deal).

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/symposia/2004/Smith,%20Richard-%20Paper.pdf

If you can't view PDF files, it's on Google or something. Just get Adobe Acrobat. There's a way to view it as HTML, but I'm too lazy to post the link from Google myself.

Anyway, that paper suggests that private militaries will eventually completely replace special-forces units.

To summarize...

Pros:
-Private military corporations (PMCs) are more-efficient and self-regulated
-PMC's are cheaper due to the competition
-If the PMC's do something unethical, the military always has plausible deniability (zero responsibility).
-PMC's have faster reaction times, than regular Special-Ops' Forces
-Prisons, welfare, and education have been privatized. Peacekeeping might work just as well.

Cons:
-PMC's could be disloyal or unethical, if not properly regulated by the government
-The Geneva Convention would not apply to non-combatant PMC's (offering informational or logistical support, etc), because non-combatant mercenaries are not defined as mercenaries in the Geneva Convention.
-PMC's could initially drain Special Operations' Forces (SOFs) of their personnel, if used to augment current military forces. (Ex-SOFs can currently make three times as much money, in private companies.)

From history, mercenaries aren't the most reliable people to be trusted.

During the 4th Crusade, the Byzantine emperor used <Greek> mercenaries to defend him from the Crusaders who wanted to the city of Constantinople after he promised Gold and didn't deliver on it after talking his advisors. As soon as one Crusader dug his way into the city, the mercenaries all ran away. Needless to say, he lost the city.

What was the name of that S African group in the 80's. The ones that were hired in Ivory Coast or was at another small country near there. Anyway they were disbanded after the bigger governments got sketchy. But anyway they were highly effective. Operating like the desert rats. They even had two mirages and a Soviet era hind helo. I saw a show on them. They kicked alot of ass for such a small group.
Executive Outcomes.

Private Military Firms, or PMFs, are a subject that is little known nor understood, yet I take great interest in it.

I hope I gave you a little backround information on these little understood contractors. Any thoughs?
I have always had a great interest in private military organizations as well. As a matter of fact, I recently applied to join Blackwater Security. It's doubtful I could qualify as a field operative, largely because of age and disability, but I might still be able to qualify to train indigenous forces.

Also PMFs will often meet the definition of mercenaries under the Geneva Conventions -- which mean they are not entitled to the protections or immunities of the Conventions.

So would any non-native member of an insurgency. A "foreign fighter" could be shot on the spot after a brief court martial.

So would any non-native member of an insurgency. A "foreign fighter" could be shot on the spot after a brief court martial.

I think so, as well as PMF members.

I personally think anyone who would join one of those organization is both stupid and a traitor if they even go against there native country.

First many of those idiots get killed and get no recognition, secondly they spend there whole lives fighting and killing, and third they don't get paid any better than normal soldiers. So why would anybody join one of them over there countries military.

Bah, we've had private police firms for years. I'm not one bit concerned.

We've always had rent-a-cops, now we'll have rent-a-troops.

Mercenaries have been and always will be an exceedingly risky investment for all concerned. Cases of coups, misconduct, desertion, price gouging, etc are rampant. This modern mercenary is no different; almost impossible to prosecute, regulate, hold accountable, control. They are a very real threat to stability worldwide.

Their ability to work for positive goals is nice, but the truth is they do far more harm than good in this world.

:D You warning against mercs? It's not like your namesake did the same...

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you.

The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

http://home.c2i.net/espenjo/home/fyrsten/prince12.htm


Also PMFs will often meet the definition of mercenaries under the Geneva Conventions -- which mean they are not entitled to the protections or immunities of the Conventions.

So would any non-native member of an insurgency. A "foreign fighter" could be shot on the spot after a brief court martial.

I believe they are merc. and thus deserve the only legal treatment resarved for them in War Common Law, ummary Execution.

Not quite. From the treaty I posted above:

Article 1

For the purposes of the present Convention,

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence
aimed at :

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

Article 11

Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the offences set forth in the present Convention shall be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings fair treatment and all the rights and guarantees provided for in the law of the State in question. Applicable norms of international law should be taken into account.

Cat-Tribe is correct that they are not guarenteed full POW rights (although PMCs may or may not qualify, depending - a question I'll leave to the lawyers, which none of us are...). However, (s)ummary execution of prisoners (of war or otherwise) is not an applicable norm of international law.

Furthermore, Kofi Annan has been widely quoted as saying "when we had need of skilled soldiers to separate fighters from refugees in the Rwandan refugee camps in Goma, I even considered the possibility of engaging a private firm. But the world may not be ready to privatize peace"

http://www.international-relations.com/wbcm5-1/wbmercenaries.htm
http://www.sandline.com/comment/list/comment45.html

This suggests a possibility of future easing of international law re mercenaries.

In some cases (UN peacekeeping operations such as Annan refered to), PMCs might well be a good thing...

I have always had a great interest in private military organizations as well. As a matter of fact, I recently applied to join Blackwater Security. It's doubtful I could qualify as a field operative, largely because of age and disability, but I might still be able to qualify to train indigenous forces.

And in actuality, that is one of the most (if not the single most) common types of operations for PMCs.

And here's a link to a host of articles on PMCs:http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/reform/training.htm#pmc


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/reform/training.htm

I think so, as well as PMF members.

You forget - al-Qaeda has, to this date, killed prisoners without a trial in every case, whether they were members of the regular military or not.

It's their avowed policy. Period. So the fate of a PMF member working for the US is already known, and has little to do with legal niceties.

So why would anybody join one of them over there countries military.

$$$$

[QUOTE=Daistallia 2104Cat-Tribe is correct that they are not guarenteed full POW rights (although PMCs may or may not qualify, depending - a question I'll leave to the lawyers, which none of us are...). However, (s)ummary execution of prisoners (of war or otherwise) is not an applicable norm of international law.
[/QUOTE]

I guess that al-Qaeda didn't consult with Cat-Tribe.

The first American military prisoner (a SEAL named Neal Roberts) that they took (a man in official uniform in an official military) prisoner was disemboweled and beheaded within minutes of his capture.

I have a few things to say on this issue. For one, when it comes to efficiency, a regular army/ inteligence service is not always the best candidate for a job. For example, Spain lost over 30 inteligence officers in Iraq before quiting the war, due to poor training and no experience operating in a hostile environment. It was such a fiasco that it was a main reason for Spain leaving the war, along with some electoral propoganda after the train bombings.

If contractors are able to do the job, I say let them. You get all their expertise without having to develop costly agencies or training programs, plus you have the added benefit (in inteligence) of plausible deniability. If they abuse their power, fire them and put them on trial, as you would any criminal.

I have a few things to say on this issue. For one, when it comes to efficiency, a regular army/ inteligence service is not always the best candidate for a job. For example, Spain lost over 30 inteligence officers in Iraq before quiting the war, due to poor training and no experience operating in a hostile environment. It was such a fiasco that it was a main reason for Spain leaving the war, along with some electoral propoganda after the train bombings.

If contractors are able to do the job, I say let them. You get all their expertise without having to develop costly agencies or training programs, plus you have the added benefit (in inteligence) of plausible deniability. If they abuse their power, fire them and put them on trial, as you would any criminal.

Most American PMF contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are recent Special Forces soldiers. And they are well paid - because they were well trained, and we were fool enough to let them go before the war on terror started.

plus these people are free from the constraints of international politics.

plus these people are free from the constraints of international politics.
Not always.

not trying to argue or anything but can you explain a bit more

thx

not trying to argue or anything but can you explain a bit more

thx

Many US contractors are NOT used for secret missions and fantasy movie missions.

Most are used to train local police and soldiers. They most certainly are subject to local laws, politics, etc.

As long as Corperations control things that is good because they will have competion between the conpanies. Which is what capitalism is all about! :mp5: :sniper:


:gundge: = U.N. Force

:sniper: & :mp5: = PMF FORCE

PMFs... Like from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? Only that rocked.

As long as Corperations control things that is good because they will have competion between the conpanies. Which is what capitalism is all about! :mp5: :sniper:


:gundge: = U.N. Force

:sniper: & :mp5: = PMF FORCE

UN shoots acid. Nice.

I guess that al-Qaeda didn't consult with Cat-Tribe.

The first American military prisoner (a SEAL named Neal Roberts) that they took (a man in official uniform in an official military) prisoner was disemboweled and beheaded within minutes of his capture.

Not correct. He was on active duty, and as far as I can tell was killed in battle.

Petty Officer 1st Class Neal C. Roberts USN, SEAL Team Two, Afghanistan
Petty Officer Roberts' unit was to conduct a clandestine insertion onto a 10,000-foot mountain peak to establish an overwatch position, for an indeterminate amount of time, protecting other U.S. forces participating in Operation Anaconda.

As his helicopter moved into position for the insertion, Petty Officer Roberts positioned himself on the helicopter ramp in order to expeditiously exit the helicopter, minimizing the threat to the aircraft and crew.

Without notice, his CH-47 helicopter received three rocket-propelled grenades exploding through the body of the aircraft. Hydraulic lines showered the metal ramp with slippery fluid as the aircraft lurched violently from the unexpected assault. Petty Officer Roberts was thrown from the ramp of the helicopter, falling onto the al Qaeda-infested mountain top just feet below.

He immediately maneuvered to make contact with rescue forces and establish a defensive position but, surrounded by overwhelming enemy force with superior firepower, Petty Officer Roberts died on the battlefield from fatal combat wounds. For 30 minutes before his death, this remarkable Navy SEAL, alone and vastly outnumbered, poured fire upon an overwhelming number of enemy.

For his courage and ultimate sacrifice, Petty Officer Roberts, who now cavorts in the depths with his fellow sea creatures, was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with "Combat V" and the Purple Heart Medal.

http://www.850koa.com/shows/newman-heroes.html

http://www.nightstalkers.com/enduring_freedom/memorial/po1_roberts/

I can imagine a PMF getting bought off by a major corporation to kill off competitors.

It happens once, then all of the other corportations develop their own PMF, and it becomes gang warfare with missiles and shit.

Not correct. He was on active duty, and as far as I can tell was killed in battle.

http://www.850koa.com/shows/newman-heroes.html

http://www.nightstalkers.com/enduring_freedom/memorial/po1_roberts/

Yes, he was on active duty. That's my point. al-Qaeda kills all prisoners in violation of international laws.

BTW., that's the citation. There are multiple sources that show that he was captured after running out of ammunition, and before he could die of his fatal wounds, was disemboweled and beheaded.

They captured it all on video - a Predator overhead captured the whole vignette for posterity.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031230675X/qid=1111516245/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8831800-1995147

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0425196097/qid=1111516269/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8831800-1995147

I can imagine a PMF getting bought off by a major corporation to kill off competitors.

It happens once, then all of the other corportations develop their own PMF, and it becomes gang warfare with missiles and shit.

Highly unlikely. Corporations basically have no reason to do so.

Highly unlikely. Corporations basically have no reason to do so.
What if the government suddenly decided to stop bending over and fellating big business?

Historically, political factions, not corporate ones, are the ones most likely to engage in gang warfare. Corporations only care about money; it's political ideals that lead people to kill their countrymen.

Yes, he was on active duty. That's my point. al-Qaeda kills all prisoners in violation of international laws.

If he was on active duty, then he wasn't working for a PMC. As a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, he wouldn't come under the classification of mercenary. Cat-Tribes and Zapovia were clearly refering to comabtants classified as mercenaries. So Roberts is moot vis-a-vis this discussion.

BTW., that's the citation. There are multiple sources that show that he was captured after running out of ammunition, and before he could die of his fatal wounds, was disemboweled and beheaded.

They captured it all on video - a Predator overhead captured the whole vignette for posterity.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031230675X/qid=1111516245/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8831800-1995147

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0425196097/qid=1111516269/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8831800-1995147

This is the only claim I can find that he was captured: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/640703/posts That's a Free Republic post, and the article linked from it doesn't work.

I found nothing relating to it on your links...

Not doubting the details, but as far as I can tell your claim isn't substantiated yet. Can you substantiate it? I would like to see it substantiated.

If he was on active duty, then he wasn't working for a PMC. As a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, he wouldn't come under the classification of mercenary. Cat-Tribes and Zapovia were clearly refering to comabtants classified as mercenaries. So Roberts is moot vis-a-vis this discussion.

This is the only claim I can find that he was captured: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/640703/posts That's a Free Republic post, and the article linked from it doesn't work.

I found nothing relating to it on your links...

Not doubting the details, but as far as I can tell your claim isn't substantiated yet. Can you substantiate it? I would like to see it substantiated.

I'm saying that he wouldn't be considered a mercenary by any modern military - it's just that those rules are "out the window" when it comes to al-Qaeda. They kill everyone, no exceptions. So he's not moot, because it's an example of their official policy.

Two books:
Winning the War, by John Alexander
and
Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda, by Sean Naylor

I'm saying that he wouldn't be considered a mercenary by any modern military - it's just that those rules are "out the window" when it comes to al-Qaeda. They kill everyone, no exceptions. So he's not moot, because it's an example of their official policy.

Well if you look back at the statements refered to, they didn't say it was legal for al Qaida to execute active duty servicemen, but that it was legal under the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989 (see my link above) to summarily execute mercenaries. Your case was not an example of a mercenary, thus was moot.

Two books:
Winning the War, by John Alexander
and
Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda, by Sean Naylor

Once again, there is no information at either site regarding this case.

Once again, there is no information at either site regarding this case.

Exactly, I'm telling you to buy two books. You know, before the Internet, we got our information from "books".

Exactly, I'm telling you to buy two books. You know, before the Internet, we got our information from "books".

Sorry, but if you're going to make a claim and post sites as evidence, you'll need to post sites that actually provide evidence. I'm not going out to buy a couple of books to provide evidence you can't seem to.

Sorry, but if you're going to make a claim and post sites as evidence, you'll need to post sites that actually provide evidence. I'm not going out to buy a couple of books to provide evidence you can't seem to.

Not everything that has evidence behind it is on the Internet. That's why we have books. I posted the links as a means of showing you where to buy the books, not as evidence.

Here's evidence that he was killed after capture, but this article has him being shot after capture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1951-2002May23&notFound=true

Based on forensic evidence subsequently gathered from the scene, officials with the U.S. Special Operations Command concluded that Roberts survived the short fall, likely activated an infrared strobe light and engaged the enemy with his M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon, a light machine gun known as a SAW.

"He was there moving around the objective for a period of time, at least half an hour," Hagenbeck said. An AC-130 gunship moved over the area and reported seeing what the crew believed to be Roberts surrounded by four to six enemy fighters. As a Predator drone arrived to provide a video picture, the strobe light went out.

Hagenbeck says the imagery taken by the drone appeared to show him being taken prisoner. "The image was fuzzy, but we believe it showed three al Qaeda had captured Roberts and were taking him away around to the south side of Ginger and disappearing into a tree line," Hagenbeck said. "That was 15 to 20 minutes before the first rescue team arrived."

The review by Special Operations Command concluded that Roberts was shot at close range. His SAW was found near his body with blood on it, along with other evidence that he had been able to fire some shots. Some ammunition remained in the gun, suggesting it had jammed.

We saw him on the Predator being dragged off by three al Qaeda men," said Maj. Gen. Frank Hagenbeck, referring to an unmanned reconnaissance plane mounted with a real-time video camera.

It was not immediately clear from pool accounts whether Roberts, a petty officer 1st class from Woodland, California, was already dead when the al Qaeda fighters dragged him off, or whether they killed him later.

The body of Roberts, who was based in Norfolk, Virginia, with a Navy SEAL unit, was later recovered by U.S. troops and was found to have died of a bullet wound.
http://www.pownetwork.org/afghanistan/r001.htm

No mention of disembowelment or beheading here.

When the body of the 32-year-old Navy SEAL was recovered several hours later, it was discovered he had been shot.

"All the evidence is that the al-Qaeda executed him," General Hagenbeck said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1857599.stm

Nor is ther any here.

Since that was your claim ("The first American military prisoner (a SEAL named Neal Roberts) that they took (a man in official uniform in an official military) prisoner was disemboweled and beheaded within minutes of his capture."), I'll ask you again to back it up.

Since that was your claim ("The first American military prisoner (a SEAL named Neal Roberts) that they took (a man in official uniform in an official military) prisoner was disemboweled and beheaded within minutes of his capture."), I'll ask you again to back it up.

And I said, you'll have to buy the books. Backed up.

Not everything that has evidence behind it is on the Internet. That's why we have books. I posted the links as a means of showing you where to buy the books, not as evidence.

Sorry, but that's not what you said above:
BTW., that's the citation. There are multiple sources that show that he was captured after running out of ammunition, and before he could die of his fatal wounds, was disemboweled and beheaded.

They captured it all on video - a Predator overhead captured the whole vignette for posterity.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...8831800-1995147

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...8831800-1995147

If you claim multiple sources and post sites, people generally expect those sites to be sources.

Here's evidence that he was killed after capture, but this article has him being shot after capture <snip>

As you'll see from my post above, this, and other reports contradict your previous statements.

As you'll see from my post above, this, and other reports contradict your previous statements.

Probably because you don't know what I know - that Sean Naylor has a better reputation for what the story was on that mountain than any reporter who works for the Washington Post.

Sean is the author of Not A Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda.

Note the word "Untold". He had far more access to far more information - including the video of Robert's death.

Note that he didn't post his book for free on the Internet. You have to buy information if it's valuable.

And I said, you'll have to buy the books. Backed up.

Sorry, but nothing I can find at hand backs you up, but instead contradicts you.

Feel free to provide a citation from the books stating he was beheaded and disemboweled. (That I'll count as a source, not a link to Amazon.)

Probably because you don't know what I know - that Sean Naylor has a better reputation for what the story was on that mountain than any reporter who works for the Washington Post.

Sean is the author of Not A Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda.

Note the word "Untold". He had far more access to far more information - including the video of Robert's death.

Note that he didn't post his book for free on the Internet. You have to buy information if it's valuable.

Again, cite the book (proper cite please, ;)). I'll take your word for it.

(In the meantime good night - almost 5 am here. I have to get my beauty rest. :))

I have always had a great interest in private military organizations as well. As a matter of fact, I recently applied to join Blackwater Security. It's doubtful I could qualify as a field operative, largely because of age and disability, but I might still be able to qualify to train indigenous forces.
I'm glad you are. I hold nothing against them. I also feel that, when used properly, they are a very good thing. But of course, they can fall into the wrong hands. Privateers come to mind. They were seen as a cheap way to build a navy, but then they turned to pirating in peace time.

The regulation of international private military firms is utterly impossible in our current international framework. Look at the capability of the US to bring international military justice to non-state actors; they simply can not do it with anything resembling effectiveness.

Regulation is not possible right now, and as such, PMF represent an unregulated and difficult to control power in the world. Such unrestrained power has led to countless abuses in the past, present and will obviously do so in the future.

Mercenaries have been and always will be an exceedingly risky investment for all concerned. Cases of coups, misconduct, desertion, price gouging, etc are rampant. This modern mercenary is no different; almost impossible to prosecute, regulate, hold accountable, control. They are a very real threat to stability worldwide.

Their ability to work for positive goals is nice, but the truth is they do far more harm than good in this world.
I argue that they can be. For one, they operate only in failed or rapidly failing states, as that is usually where they are present. For another, several countries have extraterritorial laws. While these laws are hard to enforce at all times, they are highly symbolic. The world's wealthy nations should agree on a framework of prosecuting their citizens in PMFs who operate beyond the regular conduct of war. This may be more easily enforcible in Iraq. If a contractor is outta line, and we know about it, then the US military just sends him on a plane back to the US, and try him there. Of course, I find it fair for them to be tried in the civilian judicial system. As they are not exactly the military, it is legally impossible to court marshall them.

bump

bump

I feel like I should point out that the greatest civilization in the history of the world (IMO) fell due to (among other things) hiring mercenary forces to replace/compensate for their famed legionnaires.

(For those wondering, Rome was the greatest civilization ever, IMO)

I argue that they can be. For one, they operate only in failed or rapidly failing states, as that is usually where they are present. For another, several countries have extraterritorial laws. While these laws are hard to enforce at all times, they are highly symbolic. The world's wealthy nations should agree on a framework of prosecuting their citizens in PMFs who operate beyond the regular conduct of war. This may be more easily enforcible in Iraq. If a contractor is outta line, and we know about it, then the US military just sends him on a plane back to the US, and try him there. Of course, I find it fair for them to be tried in the civilian judicial system. As they are not exactly the military, it is legally impossible to court marshall them.

So your argument is, what better place to used unregulated military force than a chaotic failed state? Must I draw you a diagram to show just how bad an idea that is? That's throwing gas onto an open flame!

Our regulation of PMFs at present is, as you say yourself, largle symbolic. Our Iraq contractors have repeatedly been caught in scandal after scandal, our PMFs in Afganistan have fared little better. So much for symbols. Their track record is ALREADY abysmal; why expand their services? I fail to understand why you would call for more mercenaries when the ones we have have illustrated very clearly that they cannot be trusted.

Please explain why an already failed military experiment should be continued, considering the history of failure in mercenary bands, their current abuses, and the international framework that exists today. There is simply no suggestion in any of these factors that mercenaries will suddenly be anything other than a dangerous wild card.

You suggest that they SHOULD be regulated. Well, that's nice. They AREN'T. And all previous attempts to regulate them have had extremely mixed success. Then you say that we should try military criminals in civilian courts; already blurring the line between civilian and illegal combatant, you wish to blur it further? I denounce such a suggestion as pure folly.

The military capabilites of mercenaries and their ability to train other forces has occasionally proven fruitful; because of that I can understand a certain romance associated with them. However, sound policy remains that mercenaries should be shunned by any and every nation. They simply are too dangerous, any benifits they might give you are more than made up for by the their behavior.

:D You warning against mercs? It's not like your namesake did the same...

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you.

The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.


Indeed, I share my namesake's distaste for mercenaries. I share his opinions on their effectiveness and how it matters little in the end, their capacity for treachery, and his overall opinion of them.

However I reached my opinion independently. His assessments are correct; but one need not take his word for it. A brief glance or a careful study of mercenaries in the 20th and 21st centuries; both will show you that Mercenaries are more harmful than good.

Yet we still see people arguing for their use. I cannot for the life of me fathom why. I can imagine a world where mercenaries COULD be used in a well-regulated framework, but it represents a dystopian future in my mind. Unless the nationstate as a conceptual unit fails, there is no need for private military force.

So your argument is, what better place to used unregulated military force than a chaotic failed state? Must I draw you a diagram to show just how bad an idea that is? That's throwing gas onto an open flame!

Our regulation of PMFs at present is, as you say yourself, largle symbolic. Our Iraq contractors have repeatedly been caught in scandal after scandal, our PMFs in Afganistan have fared little better. So much for symbols. Their track record is ALREADY abysmal; why expand their services? I fail to understand why you would call for more mercenaries when the ones we have have illustrated very clearly that they cannot be trusted.

Please explain why an already failed military experiment should be continued, considering the history of failure in mercenary bands, their current abuses, and the international framework that exists today. There is simply no suggestion in any of these factors that mercenaries will suddenly be anything other than a dangerous wild card.

You suggest that they SHOULD be regulated. Well, that's nice. They AREN'T. And all previous attempts to regulate them have had extremely mixed success. Then you say that we should try military criminals in civilian courts; already blurring the line between civilian and illegal combatant, you wish to blur it further? I denounce such a suggestion as pure folly.

The military capabilites of mercenaries and their ability to train other forces has occasionally proven fruitful; because of that I can understand a certain romance associated with them. However, sound policy remains that mercenaries should be shunned by any and every nation. They simply are too dangerous, any benifits they might give you are more than made up for by the their behavior.

What you illustrate is what I fail to see s abysmal. Abusing POWs is, IMO, too protected. In fact, if you ask me, the entire Geneva Convention is a peace of paper. It is better for the world if that thing were deratified by every nation.
As for training forces: they can, but they will loose money. Today, part of the outcry is that governments train their operatives in the military for free. That implies that training at these PMFs is minimal. Now these companies are different from past mercenaries because they operate in a capitalist, profit-driven system. If the military trains them, why train them over again? In fact, shareholders have often sued companies for not maximizing profits. The market has checks and balances not afforded to past mercenaries.
Edit:
From a military or political standpoint, you give me no reason to believe that PMFs are a bad thing.

bump

Private military firms are scary. The fact that the US has relied on them in Iraq is scarier.

PMFs working for the US will be viewed as an extension of the US - even though the US lacks direct control.

Also PMFs will often meet the definition of mercenaries under the Geneva Conventions -- which mean they are not entitled to the protections or immunities of the Conventions.
Damn the Geneva Convention, we need unrestricted war, we must be allowed to torture prisoners of war and should be able to use what ever tactics and troops we wish.

Beside the Geneva Convention is outdated we need a new one, and Bush is gonna give us one. Along with many new states, HAIL PRESIDENT BUSH, HAIL THE UCS (United Contenental States).

:D I remember Salishe having a fit over those Blackwater mercs who got toasted in Falludscha last year. :D

:D I remember Salishe having a fit over those Blackwater mercs who got toasted in Falludscha last year. :D
Well, at least we know that they were doing their job. Too bad they couldn't hold off the mob. They could've probably done it, as they did have the firepower.

Well, at least we know that they were doing their job. Too bad they couldn't hold off the mob. They could've probably done it, as they did have the firepower.
At least they got a tan before leaving.:D

At least they got a tan before leaving.:D
Not likely. The dust in the regiion is very heavy, and it obscures several sun rays. They may have had darker skin, but not a tan. Don't forget that they were also wearing heavy equipment outside their compound.

Not likely. The dust in the regiion is very heavy, and it obscures several sun rays. They may have had darker skin, but not a tan. Don't forget that they were also wearing heavy equipment outside their compound.
What part of: they got toasted didn't you understand? :D

There may be a means to regulate PMF's, if the proper structure were put into place. David Drake outlined one way in Hammer's Slammers that seems to be a rather good way to do it. The institution of a "Review and Bonding Comission" with authority over the trade, overseen by participant governments.
Basically, put all the PMC's under a structure where they have to have a "License" to operate, and are responsible for a Bond (that's a Cash-substitute used in banking). Violation of the Laws of War (Geneva Conventions) gets your bond yanked (no pay for the job, possible blacklisting. Bad for business, you know...)
and set it up so that the Principle Shareholder or other owners of the corporation are legally liable for the actions of their employees under the laws of the country in which the outfit is headquartered.

It's not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination, but it would create a level of accountability in situations where PMC's are being used as troops, and it would hit them where it counts-in the pocketbook, which is a good way to keep them honest.
Of course, to make it really work well, you would need reciprocal contract protections, this is where the "bond" comes in-by banking the PMC's pay in a bond overseen by the licensing organization, the temptation to simply not-pay-for-services is removed-because the money or other methods of payment are in the hands of a third party who will deliver it should the PMC's hold up their end of the contract.

Those two things would prevent either the robbing of the paymaster, or defaulting of the job, and it would also prevent use-without-payment or abandonment of contract.

None of this was available when Niccolo Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince', and to be fair, Merc outfits in 15th Century Italy were one step above brigands.

What part of: they got toasted didn't you understand? :D
You mean they had champagne? It must be expensive, but with their salary, they must've been able to afford it. Must've been one of their birthdays that they were toasting to.
Also, how the heck did they get the crystal for the champagne in? I mean, the process of shipping in Iraq is not suitable for fragile objects.

There may be a means to regulate PMF's, if the proper structure were put into place. David Drake outlined one way in Hammer's Slammers that seems to be a rather good way to do it. The institution of a "Review and Bonding Comission" with authority over the trade, overseen by participant governments.
Basically, put all the PMC's under a structure where they have to have a "License" to operate, and are responsible for a Bond (that's a Cash-substitute used in banking). Violation of the Laws of War (Geneva Conventions) gets your bond yanked (no pay for the job, possible blacklisting. Bad for business, you know...)
and set it up so that the Principle Shareholder or other owners of the corporation are legally liable for the actions of their employees under the laws of the country in which the outfit is headquartered.

It's not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination, but it would create a level of accountability in situations where PMC's are being used as troops, and it would hit them where it counts-in the pocketbook, which is a good way to keep them honest.
Of course, to make it really work well, you would need reciprocal contract protections, this is where the "bond" comes in-by banking the PMC's pay in a bond overseen by the licensing organization, the temptation to simply not-pay-for-services is removed-because the money or other methods of payment are in the hands of a third party who will deliver it should the PMC's hold up their end of the contract.

Those two things would prevent either the robbing of the paymaster, or defaulting of the job, and it would also prevent use-without-payment or abandonment of contract.

None of this was available when Niccolo Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince', and to be fair, Merc outfits in 15th Century Italy were one step above brigands.

Nice idea. It may work, considering that many PMFs are headquartered in nations that are well developed. In Machiavelli's time, many states were feudal and anarchic, and were a playground for anyone with a weapon.

None of this was available when Niccolo Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince', and to be fair, Merc outfits in 15th Century Italy were one step above brigands.
Their wardrobes got alot cheerfuller in the 17th century.

You mean they had champagne? It must be expensive, but with their salary, they must've been able to afford it. Must've been one of their birthdays that they were toasting to.
Also, how the heck did they get the crystal for the champagne in? I mean, the process of shipping in Iraq is not suitable for fragile objects.
:D I doubt they will be celebrating any birthdays. Ever again. :D

:D I doubt they will be celebrating any birthdays. Ever again. :D
They will in heaven. Angels are fun to celebrate with, and they have rivers of champagne. Maybe the type that they grow on Chateau Petruss.

They will in heaven. Angels are fun to celebrate with, and they have rivers of champagne. Maybe the type that they grow on Chateau Petruss.
:D :D :D
Good thing I'm not the religouse type or I might be offended at the thought that hired killers would somehow buy their way into heaven.

:D :D :D
Good thing I'm not the religouse type or I might be offended at the thought that hired killers would somehow buy their way into heaven.
SOLDIERS ARE NOT KILLERS! THEY WERE WORKING FOR A NOBLE CAUSE! And if you ask me, the insurgents they are fighting deserve to die. All of them.

SOLDIERS ARE NOT KILLERS! THEY WERE WORKING FOR A NOBLE CAUSE! And if you ask me, the insurgents they are fighting deserve to die. All of them.
They are not soldiers. They are mercs. American at that. They are hired killers. And as the agressors they all deserve a nice cool grave.

They are not soldiers. They are mercs. American at that. They are hired killers. And as the agressors they all deserve a nice cool grave.
Too bad you are thankless. You will thank us in twenty years, when this brings stability to the region (and the world). Of course, being German, you seem to have no gratitude for the US role in wiping out the fascist disease so that you would grow up in freedom.

Too bad you are thankless. You will thank us in twenty years, when this brings stability to the region (and the world). Of course, being German, you seem to have no gratitude for the US role in wiping out the fascist disease so that you would grow up in freedom.
Wiping out the disease? The US and you are still around are you? Unless you aren't, the disease is still around. And of course with you beeing a cripple you hardly ever did anything to even be remotely gratefull for.

Wiping out the disease? The US and you are still around are you? Unless you aren't, the disease is still around. And of course with you beeing a cripple you hardly ever did anything to even be remotely gratefull for.
Yes, I am a cripple. But I'm talking about the powers that be in Washington, and the troops. I just support their ideaology, albeit with a more radical view and a lighter inclination to socialism.

OMG...think of it, like FarCry, where the guy has a whole merc army guarding his Islands...but instead of some mad genetitist it will be Bill Gates, with his marauding army of cyber geeks who will bully and destroy the opposition...:O

Oh noes we must stop him!!!!

a lighter inclination to socialism.
Coming from you. Thats almost funny.:D
You who wants to let his grandparents starve in the streets if they were not smart enough to save enough money for their old age. :rolleyes:

OMG...think of it, like FarCry, where the guy has a whole merc army guarding his Islands...but instead of some mad genetitist it will be Bill Gates, with his marauding army of cyber geeks who will bully and destroy the opposition...:O

Oh noes we must stop him!!!!
Or the classic merc game of all times: Jagged Alliance.

Coming from you. Thats almost funny.:D
You who wants to let his grandparents starve in the streets if they were not smart enough to save enough money for their old age. :rolleyes:
Here's a tip: get a job.
Now don't get off topic again. I may be a cripple, but by God I am a damn good cripple. Let's see you in a walker.

Here's a tip: get a job.
Now don't get off topic again. I may be a cripple, but by God I am a damn good cripple. Let's see you in a walker.
Here's a clue. I have one. And what would I need a walker for?

Here's a clue. I have one. And what would I need a walker for?
I don't know. The way you are posting, you do seem to have the brain of a stroke victim.

I don't know. The way you are posting, you do seem to have the brain of a stroke victim.
Aah. Because I am not full of worship for Europes US enemies?

Aah. Because I am not full of worship for Europes US enemies?
Hell, why not?

Hell, why not?
Because the US, and you, are our enemies. You don't go worshipping your enemies.

Cadillac-Gage has actually read Hammer's Slammers! He is now upgraded from mediocrity to excellence in my book!

Because the US, and you, are our enemies. You don't go worshipping your enemies.
Okay, where do you live? I'll come over, and you can kill me. Or better yet, we can meet in a third country.

Okay, where do you live? I'll come over, and you can kill me. Or better yet, we can meet in a third country.
The Netherlands. You know, hitting cripples realy isn't my thing. But for you I would make an exception. Feel flattered.

The Netherlands. You know, hitting cripples realy isn't my thing. But for you I would make an exception. Feel flattered.
Why, thank you. I'm blushing.

...This thread seems to be no longer on topic. But on the off chance someone remembers why we started talking on this thread; Mercenaries have been involved in a great deal more scandals than just Prisoner Abuse. They've been repeatedly caught price gouging the American government, bid-fixing contracts on multiple occasions, and taking improper care of inventory (ie letting things slip onto the black market). All this in the space of 2 years.

Have you not seen any of the many news reports on KBR, Haliburton, and other less well known PMFs in Iraq? They've been very naughty indeed over there, and this is to say nothing of their abysmal conduct records at the prisons.

Just how deep have you looked into these firms? Their FAQ pages on their websites? Because what you talk about sounds pretty much like a press release. Nothing of their actual performance, nothing about the many scandals, nothing about the ongoing investigations.

Here you can find some guns for hire.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/pmc-list.htm

Have you not seen any of the many news reports on KBR, Haliburton, and other less well known PMFs in Iraq? They've been very naughty indeed over there, and this is to say nothing of their abysmal conduct records at the prisons.

KBR supplies truck drivers and the like. Not primary military combatants like Blackwater and Custer Battles do. Neither does Halliburton (which was, until recently, the parent company of KBR). And the ones that do military combatant work rarely are involved in prisons or interrogation. Most of these companies provide people in very specialized niches.

Titan Corporation and Computer Sciences Corporation (now the parent of DynCorp) also provide police trainers and a few military combatants and bodyguards.

...This thread seems to be no longer on topic. But on the off chance someone remembers why we started talking on this thread; Mercenaries have been involved in a great deal more scandals than just Prisoner Abuse. They've been repeatedly caught price gouging the American government, bid-fixing contracts on multiple occasions, and taking improper care of inventory (ie letting things slip onto the black market). All this in the space of 2 years.

Have you not seen any of the many news reports on KBR, Haliburton, and other less well known PMFs in Iraq? They've been very naughty indeed over there, and this is to say nothing of their abysmal conduct records at the prisons.

Just how deep have you looked into these firms? Their FAQ pages on their websites? Because what you talk about sounds pretty much like a press release. Nothing of their actual performance, nothing about the many scandals, nothing about the ongoing investigations.
Quite the cynical one, aren't you?
About the price gouging, that needs to be investigated. However, being that governments are their largest customer, they are easily in a position to negotiate prices. As for the charities and corporations that use them, they will have to do more homework on this issue. But please remember that not all contractors are PMFs. Civilians do a far better job than the military at anything that is not combat related.
And no, I have seen none of their websites. In fact, Blackwater security is the only one I know of. Most of my information comes from Foreign Affairs magazine. It suggests updating antimercenary laws, and using an international effort to make sure that they augment legitamite players, and not be used by terrorists.

Mercenaries have a legitimate role in modern warfare.
Warfare, it should be noted, involves two sides killing each other, os although I would like to debate the ethics of paying people to kill other people, it seems slightly absurd when the backdrop is people killing people because of whatever stupid reason the government (or Church) can come up with.
What is their role? For first-world powers (see USA, France) they provide officially denaible troops to use in foreign missions, e.g. training the army of a govt. the first-world power cannot overtly support, or "questioning" suspects in ways that official government troops cannot.
For smaller countries, they provide a reliable security force, often more reliable than the official army (see Sierra Leone, among others).
As for terrorists, are you kidding me? Why would they pay for soldiers when they can recruit some kids, indoctrinate them with religious propoganda, and give them bomb vests? Terrorists don't use PMF's because it is impractical.
*note: I think the "official" designation is PMC, for Private Military Company

Mercenaries have a legitimate role in modern warfare.
Warfare, it should be noted, involves two sides killing each other, os although I would like to debate the ethics of paying people to kill other people, it seems slightly absurd when the backdrop is people killing people because of whatever stupid reason the government (or Church) can come up with.
What is their role? For first-world powers (see USA, France) they provide officially denaible troops to use in foreign missions, e.g. training the army of a govt. the first-world power cannot overtly support, or "questioning" suspects in ways that official government troops cannot.
For smaller countries, they provide a reliable security force, often more reliable than the official army (see Sierra Leone, among others).
As for terrorists, are you kidding me? Why would they pay for soldiers when they can recruit some kids, indoctrinate them with religious propoganda, and give them bomb vests? Terrorists don't use PMF's because it is impractical.
*note: I think the "official" designation is PMC, for Private Military Company
Thanks. And I'll make one other point: unlike Niccolo and his ideaological brethren like to claim, mercenaries are no threat to democracy. For one, democracy is inherently pro business, and PMCs are unable to overthrow them without damaging their long term interests. For another, they can't operate in developed countries without being arrested. And finally, nearly all companies in the world today are bounded by ethics. While individuals may not follow them, there has never been an entire corporation that hasn't. I'm sure PMCs will develope an ethical code, too. They are still too young of a sector to have a well established one.
And sorry about the misdesignation.

Thanks. And I'll make one other point: unlike Niccolo and his ideaological brethren like to claim, mercenaries are no threat to democracy. For one, democracy is inherently pro business, and PMCs are unable to overthrow them without damaging their long term interests. For another, they can't operate in developed countries without being arrested. And finally, nearly all companies in the world today are bounded by ethics. While individuals may not follow them, there has never been an entire corporation that hasn't. I'm sure PMCs will develope an ethical code, too. They are still too young of a sector to have a well established one.
And sorry about the misdesignation.

Precisely.

Precisely.
Thank you.

The Netherlands. You know, hitting cripples realy isn't my thing. But for you I would make an exception. Feel flattered.
I'm a "cripple." Come hit me! Mwahahahahaha! :D

They are not soldiers. They are mercs. American at that. They are hired killers. And as the agressors they all deserve a nice cool grave.
Unfortunately, it's those who decide to mess with the best who happen to die like the rest. :D

I'm a "cripple." Come hit me! Mwahahahahaha! :D
Not unless your New Anthrus.

Unfortunately, it's those who decide to mess with the best who happen to die like the rest. :D
:D Well, the "best" in this case ended up head down from a bridge. :D

:D Well, the "best" in this case ended up head down from a bridge. :D
As may you. :D

As may you. :D
And you too. :)

And you too. :)
Most unlikely, my friend. I've survived things you can't even begin to imagine. It's what I do best. :)

Most unlikely, my friend. I've survived things you can't even begin to imagine. It's what I do best. :)
You sure do. You lived through a tornado yesterday, too. Are you the energizer bunny?

Because the US, and you, are our enemies. You don't go worshipping your enemies.

You have a very...interesting... perspective. I presume then, that you fervently wish for the return of the DDR (Deutsch Democratik Republik), and Stalinism to your land? I'm sure there are Russians who feel a similar longing for the days of the NKVD and the Stasi. Or perhaps you have a longing for the days when the Scheutzstaffel was removing "Undesirables" for "Processing" and a Grosser Reich, eh?

or, perhaps not. Maybe you want Dhimmi status in a new Caliphate, and life under Sharia law, what with Imams and Mullahs telling you what to think... In comparison with any of the three above options, the U.S. are pussycats. The simple fact that Germany can act against American interests without the M-1s slamming through the streets of Berlin, and without SF troops taking your government out ala' Prague Spring ought to tell you something of the differences between what you've been told, and what is.

Put it another way: If we were really your enemies, do you think we would let you continue to be a major player? Germany does not own Nuclear weapons, and a lot of your neighbours still recall the gentle hand of the Third Reich a bit too well to be entirely comfortable with the idea of German power. They also recall the rather less-than-pleasant experience of Comintern domination.

If there is Enmity, sir, it is entirely on your side of the pond.

bump

bump

You have a very...interesting... perspective. I presume then, that you fervently wish for the return of the DDR (Deutsch Democratik Republik), and Stalinism to your land? I'm sure there are Russians who feel a similar longing for the days of the NKVD and the Stasi. Or perhaps you have a longing for the days when the Scheutzstaffel was removing "Undesirables" for "Processing" and a Grosser Reich, eh?
It's Schutzstaffel. And I'm more of a monarchist. Austria-Hungary and such.

or, perhaps not. Maybe you want Dhimmi status in a new Caliphate, and life under Sharia law, what with Imams and Mullahs telling you what to think...
Hmmm...yeah. Cause we don't have that problem while our US enemies are there do we? Germany had some muslim terrorist attacks because of their presence.
In comparison with any of the three above options, the U.S. are pussycats. The simple fact that Germany can act against American interests without the M-1s slamming through the streets of Berlin, and without SF troops taking your government out ala' Prague Spring ought to tell you something of the differences between what you've been told, and what is.
You mean like when the chimp was in Mainz and US snipers where standing by to open fire at everyone who even dared stepping out of their homes?

Put it another way: If we were really your enemies, do you think we would let you continue to be a major player? Germany does not own Nuclear weapons, and a lot of your neighbours still recall the gentle hand of the Third Reich a bit too well to be entirely comfortable with the idea of German power. They also recall the rather less-than-pleasant experience of Comintern domination.

If there is Enmity, sir, it is entirely on your side of the pond.
To put it another way. Your occupation forces cost the German taxpayer up to 3 billion a year. Something most people are not aware of since the puppet government doesn't mention it. You are the enemies as well as thieves.

It's Schutzstaffel. And I'm more of a monarchist. Austria-Hungary and such.


Hmmm...yeah. Cause we don't have that problem while our US enemies are there do we? Germany had some muslim terrorist attacks because of their presence.

You mean like when the chimp was in Mainz and US snipers where standing by to open fire at everyone who even dared stepping out of their homes?


To put it another way. Your occupation forces cost the German taxpayer up to 3 billion a year. Something most people are not aware of since the puppet government doesn't mention it. You are the enemies as well as thieves.
If you feel so strongly about it, here's a tip: leave.

If you feel so strongly about it, here's a tip: leave.
Uuum..no. I'm not the one out of place here. The hostile forces are.

Uuum..no. I'm not the one out of place here. The hostile forces are.
Your country let them in.

Your country let them in.

Oh yes but he's an opressed revolutionary :rolleyes:

Oh yes but he's an opressed revolutionary :rolleyes:
Let him go to Berlin!

bump

And a little questiion to Niccolo Medici: Most every government with a decent military goes to the private sector to make its weapons, communications systems, etc. Does this fall into your book as mercenary activity?

bump

And a little questiion to Niccolo Medici: Most every government with a decent military goes to the private sector to make its weapons, communications systems, etc. Does this fall into your book as mercenary activity?

Why should it? Mercenaries are paid to fight for you. Weapon development and creation is very different; no one is fighting your battles for you.

I guess what you are looking for is how far my opinion on non-state actors goes. I'll say this then.

Its possible that the military industrial base will fall into the same vices of corruption and overcharging as mercenaries so often do. In fact, the Pentagon budget is actually no longer held to audits by congress anymore; hasn't been for over 10 years. There's simply too much opaque activity going on in our defense contracts these days. This boded ill for our nation back when it started, reminding many of former president Ike's famous admonishment against letting the military industrial complex gain undue influence over government.

The very weapons that companies build help shape policy; weapons like the star wars programs and missle shields are driven more by industry insiders than battlefield needs. They served strategic interests more than tactical. This kind of top down military planning CAN be benificial, but can also lead to misuse of state funds for slush projects. Slush projects that included famous arms-selling scandals.

So my statement is thus: the corruption of power is very possible in such companies, and I do belive it exists. However I believe that such corruption has not yet endangered our nation's vital interests. The innovations that private technology firms can bring still outweighs the problems that corruption has generated.

I believe that Mercenaries however weaken one of the few areas that the US is still vigorously strong in- the manpower and skills of the common soldiers. To reduce the emphasis on our soldier's being well trained and elite by syphoning off skilled jobs to mercenaries we risk losing those skills forever or creating dependance on others where their was previously only stength.

Contracting out such skills will further weaken our military. Contracting out weapons development still increases our strength.

Why should it? Mercenaries are paid to fight for you. Weapon development and creation is very different; no one is fighting your battles for you.

I guess what you are looking for is how far my opinion on non-state actors goes. I'll say this then.

Its possible that the military industrial base will fall into the same vices of corruption and overcharging as mercenaries so often do. In fact, the Pentagon budget is actually no longer held to audits by congress anymore; hasn't been for over 10 years. There's simply too much opaque activity going on in our defense contracts these days. This boded ill for our nation back when it started, reminding many of former president Ike's famous admonishment against letting the military industrial complex gain undue influence over government.

The very weapons that companies build help shape policy; weapons like the star wars programs and missle shields are driven more by industry insiders than battlefield needs. They served strategic interests more than tactical. This kind of top down military planning CAN be benificial, but can also lead to misuse of state funds for slush projects. Slush projects that included famous arms-selling scandals.

So my statement is thus: the corruption of power is very possible in such companies, and I do belive it exists. However I believe that such corruption has not yet endangered our nation's vital interests. The innovations that private technology firms can bring still outweighs the problems that corruption has generated.

I believe that Mercenaries however weaken one of the few areas that the US is still vigorously strong in- the manpower and skills of the common soldiers. To reduce the emphasis on our soldier's being well trained and elite by syphoning off skilled jobs to mercenaries we risk losing those skills forever or creating dependance on others where their was previously only stength.

Contracting out such skills will further weaken our military. Contracting out weapons development still increases our strength.

A little lengthy, but I see your position clearly.
Anyhow, you were citing the missile shield program as industry driven. It may not be needed in the battlefield now, though it may be vital later on. However, if we have a monopoly on a missile shield, several nations would love it if they were included in this, making it a great diplomatic tool. It may even rival the atomic bomb in its diplomatic power. Do you agree with this?

bump

Your country let them in.
Hardly.

Hardly.
Sure they did. The fascists let them in with open arms. Germany has yet to atone for its collective crimes.

Sure they did. The fascists let them in with open arms. Germany has yet to atone for its collective crimes.
As will America. 911 was just a taster of the good things coming your way.

As will America. 911 was just a taster of the good things coming your way.
Let 'em come. They will rot away in Gitmo. The pity is that we have spare capacity there. It should be at least three times capacity to ensure that their lives are squalid, filthy, and undesirable.
However, you do admit that Germany hasn't atoned for its past, or at least that's how I read your statement.

Let 'em come. They will rot away in Gitmo. The pity is that we have spare capacity there. It should be at least three times capacity to ensure that their lives are squalid, filthy, and undesirable.
However, you do admit that Germany hasn't atoned for its past, or at least that's how I read your statement.
You should know better then making assumptions like that. You are the best example as to why Americans are the enemy of the world.

You should know better then making assumptions like that. You are the best example as to why Americans are the enemy of the world.
We are the enemies of the world. A world so collective, so toltalitarian that millions die as a hollow shell, never having any future. The Netherlands today is not quite like that. But people like you are eager for the days of fascism, don't you?

We are the enemies of the world.
At least you don't deny it.
A world so collective, so toltalitarian that millions die as a hollow shell, never having any future.
Yeah, I wonder who made that possible. Oh yeah. The US. No country in the world helped train so many terrorists and helped so many dictators into power then the Americans.
The Netherlands today is not quite like that. But people like you are eager for the days of fascism, don't you?
Look who's talking. Mr facism himself.

Yeah, I wonder who made that possible. Oh yeah. The US. No country in the world helped train so many terrorists and helped so many dictators into power then the Americans.

That was the Cold War. Even then, however, the US didn't use those dictators once we got what we wanted. The US then actively got rid of them. Trujillo fell, and so did Pinochet, Lop Nur, etc.
Besides, look around your continent. Don't think everyone there is pure or holy, either. The UK and Netherlands loved Suharto, and the UK even supported some disgusting regimes in SE Asia. France still loves some dictators down in West Africa.
Then again, your revisiionist history would hold that Hitler came to power because of the US.

That was the Cold War. Even then, however, the US didn't use those dictators once we got what we wanted. The US then actively got rid of them. Trujillo fell, and so did Pinochet, Lop Nur, etc.
After they butchered tens of thousands for Washington.


Besides, look around your continent. Don't think everyone there is pure or holy, either. The UK and Netherlands loved Suharto, and the UK even supported some disgusting regimes in SE Asia. France still loves some dictators down in West Africa.
The US still loves dictators like Musharaf. And it was they that loved Suharto.
They helped install him.
Then again, your revisiionist history would hold that Hitler came to power because of the US.
They were pretty helpfull. He couldn't have run the camps like he did without US logistical aid. The camp tatoos were an idea by IBM.

After they butchered tens of thousands for Washington.
And Moscow. And London. And Beijing. It was all a game.

The US still loves dictators like Musharaf. And it was they that loved Suharto.
They helped install him.

So the British hated Suharto?
They were pretty helpfull. He couldn't have run the camps like he did without US logistical aid. The camp tatoos were an idea by IBM.
So, in essence, the role was negligible, carried out mostly by private individualsl.

And Moscow. And London. And Beijing. It was all a game.
Yeahyeah. Just try and put your blame on others. How typical American.


So the British hated Suharto?
Did the British back him on his road to power? No the US did.

So, in essence, the role was negligible, carried out mostly by private individualsl.
Yeah. Negligible. 6 million times negligible . And Bush's granddaddy made a ton of money with it.

Yeahyeah. Just try and put your blame on others. How typical American.



Did the British back him on his road to power? No the US did.


Yeah. Negligible. 6 million times negligible . And Bush's granddaddy made a ton of money with it.
I'm proud of my heritage. To bad you aren't.

I have always wanted to own a company of mercenaries.

I'm proud of my heritage.
Geez. What a schocker. I would have never guessed.
To bad you aren't.
Oh but I am.

I have always wanted to own a company of mercenaries.
Your dream can become reality. If you can afford to hire them.

Your dream can become reality. If you can afford to hire them.

No I do not want to higher them. If I am dumb enough I would join the French Foreign Legion, get experience and money. Then join a PMF, work my way up...

Geez. What a schocker. I would have never guessed.

I can't go on without flaming.

No I do not want to higher them. If I am dumb enough I would join the French Foreign Legion, get experience and money. Then join a PMF, work my way up...
Experience you would get. Money however. The Legion isn't known for it's high salaries. And their not mercenaries.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/legion/pay.asp

A little lengthy, but I see your position clearly.
Anyhow, you were citing the missile shield program as industry driven. It may not be needed in the battlefield now, though it may be vital later on. However, if we have a monopoly on a missile shield, several nations would love it if they were included in this, making it a great diplomatic tool. It may even rival the atomic bomb in its diplomatic power. Do you agree with this?

Yes it is entirely possible that the missile shield will be a useful strategic influence for US policy even if it is never used. Its one more step in the M.A.D. balance of power that has guided our nuclear policy. Used wisely, the political jockeying around such a shield could gain us realitively painless consessions from allies and antagonistic states alike.

From a purely military perspective though, its either an rather long-term research project, a blind bet against the odds, or a fool's errand. The money spent on the shield could be very useful to the rest of the military. So careful consideration should be given to the costs and benifits of building, testing, adopting and deploying such a shield for political barganing purposes.

So in this sense, an industry driven, top-down desicion can benifit the army as a whole, or the nation it protects even without it having any positive effects on the army directly. Carefully chosen projects could lead to significant gains; carelessly chosen projects will burn money wastefully.

From a purely military perspective though, its either an rather long-term research project, a blind bet against the odds, or a fool's errand. The money spent on the shield could be very useful to the rest of the military. So careful consideration should be given to the costs and benifits of building, testing, adopting and deploying such a shield for political barganing purposes.


Several points to consider:

Rather than make a shield that protects against ALL possible forms of missile attack, the program was revised in the 1990s to only provide limited theater defense (defense of a localized geographic region against regional missile forces).

In this, the program has already succeeded with two separate missile systems - the PAC-3 (which was proven in combat), and the SM-3 (which was extremely successful in tests and is operational). The missile system we hear so much about, the Ground Based Interceptor, has had its individual subsystems proven, but its software integration is having problems.

So we have two out of three systems operational, one proven in combat against multiple simultaneous launches of ballistic missiles.

The fourth system, the Airborne Laser, has been proven in its capability to hit ballistic missile targets on low power. Recent tests have shown that the laser is 400 percent more powerful than designed. The critics of this last system have finally shut their mouths, as it looks to be deployed operationally later this year.

It is likely that the system with trouble, the Ground Based Interceptor, will be successful as well. Add to this the successful tests of the SBIRS-Low and SBIRS-High satellites, which can tell the difference between decoys and real warheads, and transmit the information to any of the above systems, and it will not be possible to possess a small number of nuclear missiles and expect to hit any US targets. It will be necessary to find some other means of delivery.

The scientists who said back in the 1980s that a laser would never work - that a missile could not hit a missile - now have egg on their faces.

Several points to consider -snip-

Perhaps so, I have not seen the latest developments and conclusions from testing yet. I suspect true integration into our theater forces could take some time to develop. But the results are at least promising for the future.

Your point is valid, sometimes innovation can lead to unexpected (or expected by only a few) boons to our defensive potential. Precisely why such technology should be considered when drafting budgets. We all can agree I assume, that the bottom line must still be watched though.

Sometimes a product can cost a few billion more than it ever should have; or the right weapon is made for the wrong reasons in the wrong way. As you noted, these examples have been tained by a certain amount of contraversy and rather than proof of consistent benifits from such programs, perhaps they should instead be viewed as unexpected military bonuses in a political move. Pleasant, but not to be counted upon.

Rather that put all the eggs into one technological basket, they seem to have run smaller, multiple, separate programs that had completely different missiles, etc. In the hopes that one or more would pay off.

They seem to be doing the same thing with robotic aircraft, and ground robots. Multiple, small, separate projects. The wave of the US future is robot-intensive combat - with as few humans present in the other country as possible.

They are already paying off - the ones to follow will be even better.

Good points from both sides, though there are probably military uses now that I think of it. It will help defend from missiles from China or the Middle East. And fifty years down the road, the world may look different. We may have unforseen uses for it.