NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the current trend with governments all around the globe is to privatise everything they can get their hands on.
That can be good, or it can be bad. My stance on the issue is that public enterprises aren't necessarily less efficient than private ones, and they often provide goods and services that wouldn't otherwise be provided.
An example of that would be here in Australia (big country, few people at the end of 1000km Phone Lines...) and our telecommunications monopoly Telstra. The market has been liberalised, and now the government wants to privatise it fully - problem is that service provision to the outback isn't guaranteed without regulation.

But I digress. The decision to privatise should be made on a case by case basis - and so I thought it might be good to look at whether National Defence could or should be privatised. The Government would give contracts to companies to provide military services, and firms would compete for them.
That is currently being done in Iraq to some extent, with private security firms doing a lot of the work the US Military would have to do otherwise.

Would this work on a large scale? Would it be desirable? I have no doubt that the US will try it at some point, with costs of the war on "terror" being so high and the budget deficit constantly in the headlines. But somehow I don't think it would be a good idea...

It's possible. An entire mercenary company kept a African nation safe (I forget which one, it was during the 80's, I think the group was the now defunct Executive Outcomes though I my be mistaken)...until the money ran out.

Would this work on a large scale? Would it be desirable?
No! And No!

It's possible. An entire mercenary company kept a African nation safe (I forget which one, it was during the 80's, I think the group was the now defunct Executive Outcomes though I my be mistaken)...until the money ran out.
It was Executive Outcomes, which forced rebels to the negotiating table in Sierra Leone and contributed to the Angolan government's success in forcing UNITA to accept the Lusaka Protocol in 1994. But, if memory serves me correctly, they didn't run out of money.

No! And No!

why's that? As a fiscal conservative, I'd like to here more about this idea, in regards to workability.

why's that? As a fiscal conservative, I'd like to here more about this idea, in regards to workability.
Mercenaries are usually considered to be a foreign soldiers fighting for a cause outside of their own country ( or countries ), primarily for pay. They have been used throughout most of recorded history to either supplement or replace indegenous forces of the nation hiring them.

The concept of the citizen soldier is firmly entrenched in US history, from the Revolutionary War to the present. IMHO, to replace him with foreign nationals who fight for pay only would be a disaster for the US.

why's that? As a fiscal conservative, I'd like to here more about this idea, in regards to workability.
Eut is just angry because he can’t admit that mercenaries could do just as good a job if not better than the public military that he was a part of.
Mercenaries are usually considered to be a foreign soldiers fighting for a cause outside of their own country ( or countries ), primarily for pay. They have been used throughout most of recorded history to either supplement or replace indegenous forces of the nation hiring them.

The concept of the citizen soldier is firmly entrenched in US history, from the Revolutionary War to the present. IMHO, to replace him with foreign nationals who fight for pay only would be a disaster for the US.
They wouldn’t have to be from outside the US. They could be private US firms.

Eut is just angry because he can’t admit that mercenaries could do just as good a job if not better than the public military that he was a part of.
LOL! Well, hardly! They probably could do a better job, in the short run. But would you trust the future welfare of your children to a group of men who are experts in war but who owe no allegiance but to the highest bidder? Hmmm?


They wouldn’t have to be from outside the US. They could be private US firms.
Same thing applies, perhaps even moreso. If I recall correctly, you have sometimges railed against impersonal, greedy corporations. Now you want to turn your children's future over to one of them? What's wrong with this picture?

"Now, mercenary and auxilliary forces are useless and dangerous; and any ruler who keeps his state dependant upon mercenaries will never have real peace or security, for they are disorganized, undisciplined, amitious and faithless. Brave before thier allies they are cowards before the enemy. They show no fear of God, no faith towards men. A prince who employs them will stave off ruin only so long as he can stave off action. In peace he will be despoiled by them; in war he will be despoiled by his enemies."

Machiavelli, The Prince "Chapter 12 - Concerning various kinds of troops, especially Mercenaries."

EDIT - WOOOT! 1000th post, biaches!!! Paaarrrtttyyyy!!! :D :fluffle: :p

Eut is just angry because he can’t admit that mercenaries could do just as good a job if not better than the public military that he was a part of.

I will agree to that because Eutrusca seems to be one of those people for privatisation of everything because it isn't the government's job to, you know, do the government's job.

LOL! Well, hardly! They probably could do a better job, in the short run. But would you trust the future welfare of your children to a group of men who are experts in war but who owe no allegiance but to the highest bidder? Hmmm?
No one can pay as much as the US.
Same thing applies, perhaps even moreso. If I recall correctly, you have sometimges railed against impersonal, greedy corporations. Now you want to turn your children's future over to one of them? What's wrong with this picture?
You recall incorrectly. The only thing I don’t like about corporations is that they are given personhood by the government. Besides that, I love em. Also, don’t take into account anything I said prior to the month of August 2005, ever.

LOL! Well, hardly! They probably could do a better job, in the short run. But would you trust the future welfare of your children to a group of men who are experts in war but who owe no allegiance but to the highest bidder? Hmmm?

How is that different from what the military does now?

"Now, mercenary and auxilliary forces are useless and dangerous; and any ruler who keeps his state dependant upon mercenaries will never have real peace or security, for they are disorganized, undisciplined, amitious and faithless. Brave before thier allies they are cowards before the enemy. They show no fear of God, no faith towards men. A prince who employs them will stave off ruin only so long as he can stave off action. In peace he will be despoiled by them; in war he will be despoiled by his enemies."

Machiavelli, The Prince "Chapter 12 - Concerning various kinds of troops, especially Mercenaries."

EDIT - WOOOT! 1000th post, biaches!!! Paaarrrtttyyyy!!! :D :fluffle: :p


I hate to break it to you, but an awful lot of Machiavelli's stuff concerning specific details of raising and wielding an army are just a tad... dated. I'm sure there's very good arguments to be made against using private security firms to safeguard a nation, and Machiavelli's core premise of having a self-sufficient military not dependant on the vagaries of supply and demand is sound, but mercenaries today are hardly a bunch of unwashed bandits who'll steal everything that isn't nailed down the moment you aren't looking.

Screw it, let'em use mercs, that way I won't feel a damn thing when the media starts going on about another U.S. soldier killed.

Just remember: with greater demand there will be less experienced mercs available and you wind up paying 3x more than you would for the same wet behind the ears FNG except you're in indirect command of him. Remember that mercs don't follow the same exact codes that regulars do.

I hate to break it to you, but an awful lot of Machiavelli's stuff concerning specific details of raising and wielding an army are just a tad... dated. I'm sure there's very good arguments to be made against using private security firms to safeguard a nation, and Machiavelli's core premise of having a self-sufficient military not dependant on the vagaries of supply and demand is sound, but mercenaries today are hardly a bunch of unwashed bandits who'll steal everything that isn't nailed down the moment you aren't looking.

Tactically, yes, his info is dated. But his stance on Mercenaries, Auxilliaries and Native forces is quite accurate. Merecenaries are by their very nature a bad, bad idea. Having no loyalty to their current master but his pursestrings, no guarantee of quality and generally made up of people willing to do anything to get ahead... they are a disaster waiting to happen.

In contrast, an army made of citizens is by nature far more loyal both to it's leaders and it's nation, and a nation can personally assure it's quality. Plus it should be cheaper in the long run. Good Mercenaries will never come cheap as they will be in demand, but soldiers fighting for an ideal are willing to do what amounts to one of the least desireable jobs on the planet for a lot less, because they believe in the cause.

And that's not even getting started on how unbelievably immoral turning War into a business is.

Question is though were the real change would be. The US Government (or most other governments for that matter) doesn't build its military hardware directly. It awards contracts to firms like Lockheed Martin etc.
They are locked in by a legally enforcable contract to produce so many F-22s, then they can do whatever they want. There are certain laws (or contractual clauses) I imagine as far as building F-22s for the Chinese is concerned - but other than that, Lockheed Martin isn't more loyal than "Lockheed Security Services Inc." would be, is it?

A good point is though that soldiers are bound to certain rules acknowledged (or not) by their countries. Mercenaries wouldn't be - there'd have to be internationally binding regulations made.

How is that different from what the military does now?
Precisely. Most on the military for the money and benefits. Patriotism is secondary if not inexistent.
A good point is though that soldiers are bound to certain rules acknowledged (or not) by their countries. Mercenaries wouldn't be - there'd have to be internationally binding regulations made.
Or not.

Or not.
And return war to its purest form? Barbaric killing on sight?

And return war to its purest form? Barbaric killing on sight?
I loathe international regulations. Sure each country could put restrictions on its military, but international ones would be ignored by the same people who would use lax regulations anyway.

I loathe international regulations.
Which shouldn't prevent you from looking rationally at the pros and cons and then make a decision.

Sure each country could put restrictions on its military,
And watch another country not do the same thing? It would be a race to the bottom.

but international ones would be ignored by the same people who would use lax regulations anyway.
That is a reasonable point - but that some may ignore them (and risk punishment, ie termination of business in the worst case) is not a reason to let everyone run wild, is it?

That is a reasonable point - but that some may ignore them (and risk punishment, ie termination of business in the worst case) is not a reason to let everyone run wild, is it?
Punishment from an international organization? What?

Punishment from an international organization? What?
Yep, the international organisation. The one we better not talk about in order to keep this thread on track...

Yep, the international organisation. The one we better not talk about in order to keep this thread on track...
Ok then.
It's the UN.

Privatizing defense, coupled with decentralization of control/ceding control back to the individual, is the only way to go.