NationStates Jolt Archive

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=102251&ran=202519&tref=po

Stepping into a potential political minefield, Blackwater USA is offering itself up as an army for hire to police the world's trouble spots.

Cofer Black, vice chairman of the Moyock, N.C.-based private military company, told an international conference in Amman, Jordan, this week that Blackwater stands ready to help keep or restore the peace anywhere it is needed.

Such a role would be a quantum leap for Blackwater and raises a host of policy questions.

Until now, the eight-year-old company has confined itself to training military and police personnel and providing security guards for government and private clients. Under Black's proposal, it would take on an overt combat role.

"We're low-cost and fast," Black was quoted as saying. "The issue is, who's going to let us play on their team?"

Not exactly new news but interesting all the less.

Do you think this would be a positive thing for the U.S. seeing as it is cheaper and supposedly there would be less public attention of interventions. Or do you think it would only cause more wars and force the gov't to go to war to keep funding up?

Why not? Might as well let people figure out their problems themselves rather than have to send our soldiers out to do it. Besides, we make a little money off of it through taxes as a side bonus.

There's always been mercenary companies. These guys just are advertising more. More power to them. Brings in the tax money.

a private mercenary army as a police force...

so ripe for disaster its not even remotely funny.

One question that leaps to mind is the status of any operatives killed or captured. Does the death of one of their operatives on the battlefield demand retribution from their national government? If captured are they subject to any conventions on prisoners of war?

a private mercenary army as a police force...

so ripe for disaster its not even remotely funny.

Maybe. But they'd probably be more reliable than most of the local police and military forces in the world's trouble spots, and we wouldn't have to worry about hidden agendas. It's the old advantage of mercenaries - they stay loyal to the people who pay them.

One question that leaps to mind is the status of any operatives killed or captured. Does the death of one of their operatives on the battlefield demand retribution from their national government? If captured are they subject to any conventions on prisoners of war?

The first, I don't know. I'm sure that the Gov't of citizenship of said individual would do little if they're killed as mercs. The second, as long as they're uniformed and wearing recognition, I believe so.

there's nothing new about mercenary companies. there's nothing good either. any country that thinks it's going to be a good idea to let a private company police their country is just asking for trouble.

One question that leaps to mind is the status of any operatives killed or captured. Does the death of one of their operatives on the battlefield demand retribution from their national government? If captured are they subject to any conventions on prisoners of war?

I would imagine they would be considered soldiers under the command of whatever country is employing them.

there's nothing new about mercenary companies. there's nothing good either. any country that thinks it's going to be a good idea to let a private company police their country is just asking for trouble.

Actually, traditionally mercenary forces have been higly loyal and highly effective.

I don't know where this antipathy towards mercs came from, but it isn't based in fact.

Oops, I was wrong:

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

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

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) 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 ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

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

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) 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.


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

there's nothing new about mercenary companies. there's nothing good either. any country that thinks it's going to be a good idea to let a private company police their country is just asking for trouble.

Why's that? They're mainly ex soldiers (I believe the founder is an ex navy seal) who are willing to do what they did as former soldiers and get paid big bucks to do it.

They get paid, we have more soldiers. Everyone wins.

Actually, traditionally mercenary forces have been higly loyal and highly effective.

I don't know where this antipathy towards mercs came from, but it isn't based in fact.

mercenaries don't have any good reason for bringing a conflict to an end, because when that happens the contract is over and there's no more money for them. pretty simple law of capitalist economics that.

there's also the slightly distasteful fact that they are willing to kill for money.

Maybe. But they'd probably be more reliable than most of the local police and military forces in the world's trouble spots, and we wouldn't have to worry about hidden agendas. It's the old advantage of mercenaries - they stay loyal to the people who pay them.

Reliability is not an issue though...and given that in most trouble spots there is no law and order...

No. I think I'd rather go the Blue Berret route to be honest.

Oops, I was wrong:

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

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

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) 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 ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

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

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) 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.


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

This is one of my points. Could you not see a situation where some of these guys were captured and strung up (morally wrong, technically legally right) causing such popular dismay that the US government would be compelled to intervene?

mercenaries don't have any good reason for bringing a conflict to an end, because when that happens the contract is over and there's no more money for them. pretty simple law of capitalist economics that.

Not necessarily. Generally, they're going to get a lot more money if they win than if they keep fighting; more effective mercenaries get paid more, and they get to share in the spoils of war if their employer wins.

there's also the slightly distasteful fact that they are willing to kill for money.

Isn't that what any soldier is willing to do?

Isn't that what any soldier is willing to do?

Most soldiers serve (and, yes, kill) not for money but out of duty to their specific nation.

This is one of my points. Could you not see a situation where some of these guys were captured and strung up (morally wrong, technically legally right) causing such popular dismay that the US government would be compelled to intervene?

Intervene? no Find a reason to shut down the company? Yes

Most soldiers serve (and, yes, kill) not for money but out of duty to their specific nation.

But couldn't a mercenary do the same? There's no requirement that a mercenary serve the highest bidder; they can fight for causes they consider right rather than the best paying.

Not necessarily. Generally, they're going to get a lot more money if they win than if they keep fighting; more effective mercenaries get paid more, and they get to share in the spoils of war if their employer wins.



Isn't that what any soldier is willing to do?

i don't think anyone joins the military solely for the monetary gain, the pay isn't that great, not significantly better than civilian alternatives anyway. i mean, obviously there's those who join to save up for college or whatever, but that's often because it's either the only option or they have other reasons besides for joining, like patriotism. i find this distasteful too, but we aren't talking about regular soldiers so we'll let that go.

Intervene? no Find a reason to shut down the company? Yes

Is there curently any mechanism for regulating such a company? It may be very hard to do so seeing as by it's nature it would be operating in foreign territories.

Another question would be would the operatives be bpund by the rules of conduct for war? Would it be possible to charge a mercenary with a "war crime"?

But couldn't a mercenary do the same? There's no requirement that a mercenary serve the highest bidder; they can fight for causes they consider right rather than the best paying.

Very true but not consistent in the modern era. It would be my assunption that the vast majority of mercs fight simply for financial gain, unlike soldiers in a national army.

But couldn't a mercenary do the same? There's no requirement that a mercenary serve the highest bidder; they can fight for causes they consider right rather than the best paying.

Like The A-Team?

a private mercenary army as a police force...

so ripe for disaster its not even remotely funny.
Really? Because every major atrocity I can think of (like the Soviets raping their way across Germany, the Holocaust, gassing of the Kurds) has been committed by the government's own police/soldiers.

i don't think anyone joins the military solely for the monetary gain, the pay isn't that great, not significantly better than civilian alternatives anyway. i mean, obviously there's those who join to save up for college or whatever, but that's often because it's either the only option or they have other reasons besides for joining, like patriotism. i find this distasteful too, but we aren't talking about regular soldiers so we'll let that go.

Some soldiers join for the college money, so that could be construed as doing it for financial gain. Even so, we're automatically presuming that these mercenaries would be going to the highest bidder all the time; that company is totally free to restrict its services to causes it finds right.

For example, mercenaries combating the murderers and defending innocent people in Darfur would be pretty ethical in my book.

Like The A-Team?

Yay! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMjmyv1rNJ8&mode=related&search=

Like The A-Team?

Exactly. :D

We could send a film crew and make it in to reality TV!

Is there curently any mechanism for regulating such a company? It may be very hard to do so seeing as by it's nature it would be operating in foreign territories.

I'm sure there is somewhere. The easiest would be an audit.

Another question would be would the operatives be bpund by the rules of conduct for war? Would it be possible to charge a mercenary with a "war crime"?

From what I read, they wouldn't be bound by the international rules but they could still be brought up on crimes as they don't have a "right" to be there in the first place.

Very true but not consistent in the modern era. It would be my assunption that the vast majority of mercs fight simply for financial gain, unlike soldiers in a national army.

Yes, but even then that still doesn't mean anything in and of itself; a person who willingly fights for a country that is using its military to commit wrong acts is no better than a mercenary that does the same for money.

i don't think anyone joins the military solely for the monetary gain, the pay isn't that great, not significantly better than civilian alternatives anyway.
Yes, but the military takes on just about anyone fresh out of high school, and gives them some experience and something to put on job applications should they return to the civilian world.

Yes, but even then that still doesn't mean anything in and of itself; a person who willingly fights for a country that is using its military to commit wrong acts is no better than a mercenary that does the same for money.

But you are failing to take into account motivation here. People in national armies are motivated by what they believe to be right. They are, essentially, idealists. This may be an ideal that is at odds with the rest of the civilised world but it is an ideal nonetheless. Fighting for an ideal, any ideal, must surely be better than fighting for greed.

Some soldiers join for the college money, so that could be construed as doing it for financial gain. Even so, we're automatically presuming that these mercenaries would be going to the highest bidder all the time; that company is totally free to restrict its services to causes it finds right.
i'm not sure how likely that is though.
For example, mercenaries combating the murderers and defending innocent people in Darfur would be pretty ethical in my book.

what would be more ethical would be an AU or UN peacekeeping force. there is rarely clear cut ethics in conflicts, so choosing one side cuz you like their cause better is always necessarily going to be subjective. an AU or UN force would not be expected to choose sides, merely to attempt to keep the peace. besides, even if the owner of the company wanted to go with the side that was offering less but had a 'better' cause it doesn't mean their employees are going to have the same ethical standards.

Yes, but even then that still doesn't mean anything in and of itself; a person who willingly fights for a country that is using its military to commit wrong acts is no better than a mercenary that does the same for money.

Traditionally, also, mercs are less likely to commit atrocities. The only thing a merc has to sell are his reputation and his skills; if his rep goes into the gutter, no one will hire him.

But you are failing to take into account motivation here. People in national armies are motivated by what they believe to be right. They are, essentially, idealists. This may be an ideal that is at odds with the rest of the civilised world but it is an ideal nonetheless. Fighting for an ideal, any ideal, must surely be better than fighting for greed.

I don't really think so. A person who does something good for money is a lot better than a person who does evil due to personal commitment.

Yes, but the military takes on just about anyone fresh out of high school, and gives them some experience and something to put on job applications should they return to the civilian world.

of course, but that is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't really think so. A person who does something good for money is a lot better than a person who does evil due to personal commitment.

Sorry I have to disagree with you there. Terms such as good and evil are entirley subjective to the situation and time and the perspective in which they are looked at. To take a life to better your cause or country, according to many people, is a glorious notion. To me, to do simply because you are being paid to just seems a little grubby.

i'm not sure how likely that is though.

Well, if they gain a reputation for siding with the worst regimes, their parent company is going to find itself in legal trouble as well as lose business from places that might have hired them if they were more ethical. A mercenary's reputation is pretty important, especially if they want to get jobs with reliable customers.

what would be more ethical would be an AU or UN peacekeeping force. there is rarely clear cut ethics in conflicts, so choosing one side cuz you like their cause better is always necessarily going to be subjective. an AU or UN force would not be expected to choose sides, merely to attempt to keep the peace. besides, even if the owner of the company wanted to go with the side that was offering less but had a 'better' cause it doesn't mean their employees are going to have the same ethical standards.

Well, of course those forces would be better. The problem is, though, that neither of those groups is committing the kinds of troops needed to perform that kind of work; the member countries are either unwilling or unable to invest public money to defend those people, and it's been turning in to a major disaster.

And, of course, sometimes, keeping the peace doesn't work. The enemies that the UN or AU is protecting civilians against, especially if they are militants like in the Sudan, are far more likely to use that peace to prepare for war than they are to put down their weapons and cooperate.

And, lastly, if an employee disobeys their employer, they're going to be fired and left to fend for themselves.

Sorry I have to disagree with you there. Terms such as good and evil are entirley subjective to the situation and time and the perspective in which they are looked at. To take a life to better your cause or country, according to many people, is a glorious notion. To me, to do simply because you are being paid to just seems a little grubby.

Do you feel that way about the Legion d'Etranger? They're mercenaries. So are the Swiss Guards who provide security for the Vatican.

This is one of my points. Could you not see a situation where some of these guys were captured and strung up (morally wrong, technically legally right) causing such popular dismay that the US government would be compelled to intervene?
Already happened. I'm sure you remember those pictures of US 'civilians' burned and their corpses strung up on a bridge in Iraq (to the cheering of Iraqis)? Those were Blackwater mercs. While we were already IN Iraq of course, it led to the seiges of Fallujah.

I'd be more worried that since they answer only to the company, they are not bound by any rules of war or prohibitations on torchure.

The Legion are not mercenaries

Oops, I was wrong:

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

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

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) 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 ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

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

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) 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.


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

(a) Legionnaires are not recruited for any specific armed conflict.

(c) Legionnaires are (or at least wre) paid LESS than French army regulars.

(d) After one years service Legionnaires are offered the choice of "naturalisation" where they recieve a new identity and a French passport, making them a French national.

(e) The Legion is an integral part of the French Army

(f) If depolyed they would be deployed by the French government, not by themselves or a private company.

This has been done before. Executive Outcomes did the same thing and came under very intense pressure from all around the globe.


http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=102251&ran=202519&tref=po

Not exactly new news but interesting all the less.

Do you think this would be a positive thing for the U.S. seeing as it is cheaper and supposedly there would be less public attention of interventions. Or do you think it would only cause more wars and force the gov't to go to war to keep funding up?

I'd be more worried that since they answer only to the company, they are not bound by any rules of war or prohibitations on torchure.

Of course, if that were ever found out the company would receive severe legal punishment. What they need to do is draft an international convention for these guys so that all of this is covered under international law.

of course, but that is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.
No, its relevant because it is selfish and practical reason to join the make killing other people your career.

The Legion are not mercenaries



(a) Legionnaires are not recruited for any specific armed conflict.

(c) Legionnaires are (or at least wre) paid LESS than French army regulars.

(d) After one years service Legionnaires are offered the choice of "naturalisation" where they recieve a new identity and a French passport, making them a French national.

(e) The Legion is an integral part of the French Army

(f) If depolyed they would be deployed by the French government, not by themselves or a private company.

I believe you are wrong about (e). The Legion has a separate command structure.

But I accept the correction. But the Swiss Guards?

This has been done before. Executive Outcomes did the same thing and came under very intense pressure from all around the globe.

Yeah, but given that the nature of global conflict is changing towards widespread flare-ups, terrorism, and guerrilla war rather than large-scale conventional war between two organized armies, I would say they are likely to find a more receptive audience than in the past.

Mercenaries have much more flexibility and more rapid deployment than conventional forces, which makes them better suited to guerrilla warfare and counter-terrorism.

there's also the slightly distasteful fact that they are willing to kill for money.I have more respect for a man who kills for money instead of bullshit propaganda at least he knows what he is really doing instead of killing because he is a brain dead asshole who follows orders because he is blinded by bullshit patriotism.

Of course, if that were ever found out the company would receive severe legal punishment. What they need to do is draft an international convention for these guys so that all of this is covered under international law.
Who would punish them? Does the US have laws covering acts that take place in another country? US military is covered under the UCoJ of course and bring their laws with them, but these guys are private and unless someone is writting something, not covered at all.

Yeah, but given that the nature of global conflict is changing towards widespread flare-ups, terrorism, and guerrilla war rather than large-scale conventional war between two organized armies, I would say they are likely to find a more receptive audience than in the past.

Mercenaries have much more flexibility and more rapid deployment than conventional forces, which makes them better suited to guerrilla warfare and counter-terrorism.

True.

I believe you are wrong about (e). The Legion has a separate command structure.

But I accept the correction. But the Swiss Guards?

The command structure is only seperate to a degree, the Legion is still considered a formation of the French army.

I don't know much about the Swiss Guard, but I would assume that their role is primarily eremonial, therefore the questions being asked in this thread would not apply to them.

I believe you are wrong about (e). The Legion has a separate command structure.

But I accept the correction. But the Swiss Guards?

Technically, yes, Last of the Swiss Guard mercenary companies. In reality. Not really.

Well, if they gain a reputation for siding with the worst regimes, their parent company is going to find itself in legal trouble as well as lose business from places that might have hired them if they were more ethical. A mercenary's reputation is pretty important, especially if they want to get jobs with reliable customers.
this is true.
Well, of course those forces would be better. The problem is, though, that neither of those groups is committing the kinds of troops needed to perform that kind of work; the member countries are either unwilling or unable to invest public money to defend those people, and it's been turning in to a major disaster.

And, of course, sometimes, keeping the peace doesn't work. The enemies that the UN or AU is protecting civilians against, especially if they are militants like in the Sudan, are far more likely to use that peace to prepare for war than they are to put down their weapons and cooperate. so in the case of sudan, who should be employing these mercenaries? the sudanese state has collaborated with the janjaweed militia, supplying arms and participating in joint attacks. the opposition hardly has the funds or saleable resources to employ a mercenary army to help them. and those caught in the cross-fire who maybe don't support either side have no organisational basis with which to pool whatever resources they might have. unless you suggest some charity should employ these mercenaries (which would probably count as an invasion) i see no way in which a mercenary force could be employed in sudan.[/QUOTE]

And, lastly, if an employee disobeys their employer, they're going to be fired and left to fend for themselves.
nothing stopping them then selling their services to the highest bidder in the conflict. or joining a different company with a different ideological background.

Who would punish them? Does the US have laws covering acts that take place in another country? US military is covered under the UCoJ of course and bring their laws with them, but these guys are private and unless someone is writting something, not covered at all.

The US can initiate legal proceedings against a company that breaks the law, and I have no doubt any mercenary contract is going to require pretty extensive paperwork.

Even so, specific legislation is desperately needed since I have no doubt this is going to become more and more common in the future.

mercenaries don't have any good reason for bringing a conflict to an end, because when that happens the contract is over and there's no more money for them. pretty simple law of capitalist economics that.

there's also the slightly distasteful fact that they are willing to kill for money.



You do realize all soldiers "kill for money" we do get a monthly pay check....mercs just get paid more for it then soldiers. Plus the Mercs would be signing on for a set contract .....that is say 24 months, so if they end the conflict in 8 they still work and get paid for the next 16 even if it is peaceful work they are doing. so your arguments do not hold water.

this is true.
so in the case of sudan, who should be employing these mercenaries? the sudanese state has collaborated with the janjaweed militia, supplying arms and participating in joint attacks. the opposition hardly has the funds or saleable resources to employ a mercenary army to help them. and those caught in the cross-fire who maybe don't support either side have no organisational basis with which to pool whatever resources they might have. unless you suggest some charity should employ these mercenaries (which would probably count as an invasion) i see no way in which a mercenary force could be employed in sudan.

The UN or AU could hire them if they were allowed to do so.

nothing stopping them then selling their services to the highest bidder in the conflict. or joining a different company with a different ideological background.

They'd still be responsible to Blackwater, and chances are if they gain a reputation for switching sides during a conflict, they're not going to be rehired any time soon. Their prospective employers want their money to be reliably spent, and no nation on Earth's going to hire someone who betrays their employers.

The command structure is only seperate to a degree, the Legion is still considered a formation of the French army.

I don't know much about the Swiss Guard, but I would assume that their role is primarily eremonial, therefore the questions being asked in this thread would not apply to them.

The Swiss Guard have some ceremonial functions, and that's when you see them decked out in back-and-breast armour and funny helmets, and carrying pikes. But you also occasionally see black-uniformed people walking around with smg's and radios around the Vatican, not to mention people like the Pope's bodyguards. They're Swiss Guards too, and they're continuing to do the job they've been paid to do for centuries - serve as the security and military force of the Vatican.

They're pure and simple mercenaries. Oh, they're on a security contract rather than a war contract, but they are still mercenaries.

The Swiss Guard have some ceremonial functions, and that's when you see them decked out in back-and-breast armour and funny helmets, and carrying pikes. But you also occasionally see black-uniformed people walking around with smg's and radios around the Vatican, not to mention people like the Pope's bodyguards. They're Swiss Guards too, and they're continuing to do the job they've been paid to do for centuries - serve as the security and military force of the Vatican.

They're pure and simple mercenaries. Oh, they're on a security contract rather than a war contract, but they are still mercenaries.

Thanks for the info. But I suppose it might be difficult to raise an armed force from the population of the Vatican.

I have more respect for a man who kills for money instead of bullshit propaganda at least he knows what he is really doing instead of killing because he is a brain dead asshole who follows orders because he is blinded by bullshit patriotism.

if you'd read the whole thread you'd notice that i have no respect for this either.

The US can initiate legal proceedings against a company that breaks the law, and I have no doubt any mercenary contract is going to require pretty extensive paperwork.
Under what laws? IIRC, the only two laws against actions outside of US territory we have is if someone was or is a member of the NAZI party or sexually abuses children. The whole point of rendition flights or GITMO is that it gets the person out of the US and away from the legal reach of US laws.

If Congress passes something, that would work, but they can't pass a law afterwards and then go back and try to get them.

The UN or AU could hire them if they were allowed to do so. Well the Sudanese government has already said that any intervention by the UN would be regarded as a foreign invasion. and if the countries of the AU are unwilling to commit resources sufficient to send regular forces into Darfur how is the AU to employ mercenaries at an even greater cost?

They'd still be responsible to Blackwater, and chances are if they gain a reputation for switching sides during a conflict, they're not going to be rehired any time soon. Their prospective employers want their money to be reliably spent, and no nation on Earth's going to hire someone who betrays their employers.

alright, you've persuaded me on the loyalty issue. however, i don't see any ethical difference between a hired assassin and a mercenary. the former is illegal, i'm suprised that the latter is not.

alright, you've persuaded me on the loyalty issue. however, i don't see any ethical difference between a hired assassin and a mercenary. the former is illegal, i'm suprised that the latter is not.

Well with blackwater's current role, they are preserving life not taking it. Right now their job is to protect their clients. If they are attacked then they defend themselves but that is the only time that they fight. I really don't much that is morally wrong with that. Someone was going to die whether they were there or not. They just make sure that it's the assassins, not their clients that die.

Well the Sudanese government has already said that any intervention by the UN would be regarded as a foreign invasion. and if the countries of the AU are unwilling to commit resources sufficient to send regular forces into Darfur how is the AU to employ mercenaries at an even greater cost?

Of course, if the UN were savvy enough they could find ways to intervene using mercenaries without directly intervening; the legality of this is in question, but it is a possibility.

Also, since it's a corporation, Blackwater could negotiate a payment plan between their company and the government that is employing them; for example, they might take up the cost of paying the mercenaries and then have the AU nations begin repaying them once the contract expires or the conflict is sufficiently resolved.

That would enable the AU to commit fully equipped and trained high-quality troops without facing the costs of directly supporting them; also, since they are Blackwater employees, the company will be responsible for equipping and training them, saving the AU even more money.

alright, you've persuaded me on the loyalty issue. however, i don't see any ethical difference between a hired assassin and a mercenary. the former is illegal, i'm suprised that the latter is not.

Assassins target individual political figures, while mercenaries fight against designated combatants; that's probably the main difference. Now, a mercenary that was hired specifically because they targeted political figures would be a hired assassin.

Mabye we should conduct the surge with mercs. Bush gets his strategy and the U.S. can try out a new foreign policy.

Maybe. But they'd probably be more reliable than most of the local police and military forces in the world's trouble spots, and we wouldn't have to worry about hidden agendas. It's the old advantage of mercenaries - they stay loyal to the people who pay them.

Until someone pays them a great deal more.

Until someone pays them a great deal more.

It looks like blackwater is much more principled than the stereotypical merc. It's run by an ex-seal who is through and through American.

It looks like blackwater is much more principled than the stereotypical merc. It's run by an ex-seal who is through and through American.

just out of interest, how does that qualify him as a man of principle?

Until someone pays them a great deal more.

Mercenaries who do that don't get rehired. The amount of money you'd make from doing that is nothing compared to the damage done to your reputation, which would probably disqualify you from being hired to do another job again.

Mercenaries who do that don't get rehired.

That's why I said a great deal more. Think retirement levels. Of course that means whoever's doing the paying is both really rich and has a very keen interest in having the mercs out of the way.

just out of interest, how does that qualify him as a man of principle?

Their training imbues them with an extremely strong sense of loyalty and honor.

just out of interest, how does that qualify him as a man of principle?

He's not going to use his company to hurt american interests. When you've sacraficed as much for your country as he has you tend not to back away from that sacrafice.

Of course, if the UN were savvy enough they could find ways to intervene using mercenaries without directly intervening; the legality of this is in question, but it is a possibility.

Also, since it's a corporation, Blackwater could negotiate a payment plan between their company and the government that is employing them; for example, they might take up the cost of paying the mercenaries and then have the AU nations begin repaying them once the contract expires or the conflict is sufficiently resolved.

That would enable the AU to commit fully equipped and trained high-quality troops without facing the costs of directly supporting them; also, since they are Blackwater employees, the company will be responsible for equipping and training them, saving the AU even more money.
this is getting highly speculative now and i'm not even going to pretend to understand how such a contract would be attractive for any company, so i'll just let this bit rest.

Assassins target individual political figures, while mercenaries fight against designated combatants; that's probably the main difference.

well in a war situation i'd have thought that a political figure of the opposition was a legitimate target because stopping their activity would be a sensible move in the same way that stopping the activity of a large number of enemy combatants would be a sensible move. if politicians who declare war cannot be held to be designated combatants then they bear no responsibility (which is wrong obviously). anyway, the US president holds a military title as commander in chief of the armed forces so even if he doesn't wear a uniform and has never fired a shot he is still an enemy combatant. but that's just semantics, pedantics and technicalities so i'll stop there, not to mention somewhat tangental to the discussion.

Their training imbues them with an extremely strong sense of loyalty and honor.
and a doctor's training supposedly imbues them with a strong sense of honour and value for human life, doesn't always hold.
He's not going to use his company to hurt american interests. When you've sacraficed as much for your country as he has you tend not to back away from that sacrafice.

only americans care about american interests.

this is getting highly speculative now and i'm not even going to pretend to understand how such a contract would be attractive for any company, so i'll just let this bit rest.

Well, yeah. Even Blackwater's decision to provide mercenaries is speculative at this point.

well in a war situation i'd have thought that a political figure of the opposition was a legitimate target because stopping their activity would be a sensible move in the same way that stopping the activity of a large number of enemy combatants would be a sensible move. if politicians who declare war cannot be held to be designated combatants then they bear no responsibility (which is wrong obviously). anyway, the US president holds a military title as commander in chief of the armed forces so even if he doesn't wear a uniform and has never fired a shot he is still an enemy combatant. but that's just semantics, pedantics and technicalities so i'll stop there, not to mention somewhat tangental to the discussion.

I was saying more along the lines of hiring a mercenary to kill an official presumably during peacetime; I always figured that the definition of assassination referred to killing foreign officials during peacetime, whereas it didn't apply in the same context to targeting them during wartime.

and a doctor's training supposedly imbues them with a strong sense of honour and value for human life, doesn't always hold.

Which is why we still have systems and laws to punish people who violate that code of honor.

It's the old advantage of mercenaries - they stay loyal to the people who pay them.
exactly. Which means we can trust them until the other side offers them more.
Not the best way to solve a conflict.

Well, yeah. Even Blackwater's decision to provide mercenaries is speculative at this point.



I was saying more along the lines of hiring a mercenary to kill an official presumably during peacetime; I always figured that the definition of assassination referred to killing foreign officials during peacetime, whereas it didn't apply in the same context to targeting them during wartime.

Whether it is in wartime or not, it is still technically assassination. So a merc hired for the purpose of putting a bullet in GW's head, for instance (not the most likely scenario, but the first politician of a country at war who came to mind) would still be a hired assassin.

exactly. Which means we can trust them until the other side offers them more.
Not the best way to solve a conflict.

It's happened - but it's so vanishingly rare as to be considered a historical anomaly.

The main thing to remember is that Mercenaries are professionals. Violating a contract is unprofessional, unethical (and yes, like any other profession mercenary work has it's own ethics) and immoral. Not to mention the obvious drawbacks of A) you'll never work for anyone ever again, and B) should the people you betrayed happen to win, they will hunt you to the ends of the earth and execute you. Oh, and C) the people who paid you to defect might well just kill you as too dangerous to be allowed to live ("mad dogs"), as happened to one group of Italian Condottieri who accepted a bribe to desert.

Today, you probably wouldn't even get to keep the money - the lawsuits would drive you bankrupt in short order. So where's the allure?

Maybe. But they'd probably be more reliable than most of the local police and military forces in the world's trouble spots, and we wouldn't have to worry about hidden agendas. It's the old advantage of mercenaries - they stay loyal to the people who pay them.

They arent as loyal as you think. Not nearly as much as a regular army, not as much as a conscripted army either.

Also, mercenaries arent protected by the Geneva conventions, which means if they become prisoners, they have absolutely no rights or protection from any country.

Mercenaries will exist as long as war does. If I'm not mistaken, they predate our modern institutions of national armies.

As long as they can be brought up on war crimes charges should they commit them, I suppose I don't really mind. And, despite several posters' assurences to the contrary, this is the real world, it's war, there will be those who commit atrocities.

Also, the government should never do anything to help them if they get killed on the job when not in our government's employment. That would draw us into things unnecessarily. Oh, and they should be referred to as "mercenaries" or "private soldiers" not "civilians," because the latter is misleading.

mercenaries don't have any good reason for bringing a conflict to an end, because when that happens the contract is over and there's no more money for them. pretty simple law of capitalist economics that.

there's also the slightly distasteful fact that they are willing to kill for money.

One would think the fact they cease to get shot at would be motivation.

They arent as loyal as you think. Not nearly as much as a regular army, not as much as a conscripted army either.

Also, mercenaries arent protected by the Geneva conventions, which means if they become prisoners, they have absolutely no rights or protection from any country.

Care to cite any sources?

Really? Because every major atrocity I can think of (like the Soviets raping their way across Germany, the Holocaust, gassing of the Kurds) has been committed by the government's own police/soldiers.

Really...what a silly thing to posit. Did I mention atrocities? No. I said things would go ever so pear shaped. Badly wrong. Then again there are plenty of examples of mercs committing crimes ranging from rape to murder to robbery (as there are of government soldiers).

By the way...why do you not have a post count?

Oops, I was wrong:

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

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

( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

( c ) 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 ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

( f ) 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.


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm

So they avoid the legal definiton by operating on the same payscale as the locals.

This has been done before. Executive Outcomes did the same thing and came under very intense pressure from all around the globe.

And Sandline...

Really...what a silly thing to posit. Did I mention atrocities? No. I said things would go ever so pear shaped. Badly wrong. Then again there are plenty of examples of mercs committing crimes ranging from rape to murder to robbery (as there are of government soldiers).

By the way...why do you not have a post count?

Alright so they both commit atrocities. Now to the purpose of the thread, would it be good for the U.S. to rely more on mercenary companies such as blackwater to conduct overseas operations? Keep in mind that companies like blackwater are made up of former gov't forces and are usually better trained than national forces.

actually there was a right-wing populist party here that sugested to use private security agents to patrol in dangerous areas during the night. although i don't remember why they wouldn't just ask for more police.

Alright so they both commit atrocities. Now to the purpose of the thread, would it be good for the U.S. to rely more on mercenary companies such as blackwater to conduct overseas operations? Keep in mind that companies like blackwater are made up of former gov't forces and are usually better trained than national forces.

Of course not. My god...look at the mess the US has made of its police action in Iraq...

Blackwater...just the fact you are praising them shows you know fuck all about them.

The bottomline is $$$ and if that means blackwater operatives get shit kit...then they get shit kit. Or under maintained kit. Which pretty means...shit kit.

To use mercs as CA/Police is totally crazy. I cannot believe that this is a serious idea. Suggestion...fine...and easily shot down...the logistics, Law, Jurisprudence etc...

Let me ask you a question.

Rwanda...how would you see a merc force dealing with that...or Darfur...please...the floor is yours....

Of course not. My god...look at the mess the US has made of its police action in Iraq...

Blackwater...just the fact you are praising them shows you know fuck all about them.

The bottomline is $$$ and if that means blackwater operatives get shit kit...then they get shit kit. Or under maintained kit. Which pretty means...shit kit.

To use mercs as CA/Police is totally crazy. I cannot believe that this is a serious idea. Suggestion...fine...and easily shot down...the logistics, Law, Jurisprudence etc...

Let me ask you a question.

Rwanda...how would you see a merc force dealing with that...or Darfur...please...the floor is yours....

Probably the same exact way that any other force would deal with it. Using mercs for police i agree is crazy. There just isn't a need. I disagree with your opinion on blackwater though. While some have been known to be undermanned which would make sense seeing as many clients hire by the merc, they do have good equipment, living quarters and food.

A few blackwater guys were executed in iraq last week when their heli was taken down, and there was no "outcry to get revenge"

Most people believe that if they want to make the big bucks fighting war for profit, they deserve what they get.

Probably the same exact way that any other force would deal with it. Using mercs for police i agree is crazy. There just isn't a need. I disagree with your opinion on blackwater though. While some have been known to be undermanned which would make sense seeing as many clients hire by the merc, they do have good equipment, living quarters and food.

Well at least we agree on something....

Well at least we agree on something....

Can you cite anything saying that blackwater gives its employees shit to work with?

Here is a good start for you....

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/blackwater_shot_down

Let us know when you find more info cheers!