NationStates Jolt Archive

Should our nations use PMCs more or do you feel that PMCs should be outlawed? I don't know very much about PMCs, apart from that Blackwater is probably the largest in the US. What do you all think?

Very bad mistake that will not end well.

Should our nations use PMCs more or do you feel that PMCs should be outlawed? I don't know very much about PMCs, apart from that Blackwater is probably the largest in the US. What do you all think?

Private military contractors were quite useful back in the good old days, when they were called by what they are: mercenaries.

In this day and age, where we thankfully care about the value of human life, we can't afford to use private military contractors. It's hard enough to keep a full reign on our own government-organized militaries; we don't need to deal with the lack of total regulatory power we'd suffer from with PMCs.

So, in short: Ban 'em.

Hey, I'd like to be able to shoot any bloody wog that tailgates me, and be able to run round with lots of guns and armour blowing innocent civvies up without having to worry about trials or courts martial.

how do I join?

Problem is that you combine:
a) Poorly trained people with
b) A CEO who is only interested in profit (at any cost) and
c) A government that has minimal strategic control and
d) A government that refuses to accept responsibility
End result: Dead non-combatants, Dead friendlies, objectives not properly secured, rich CEO, costs the public more.

Yeah, let's not give the corperations their own armies, shall we? It won't end well..

The phrase 'unlawful combatants' springs to mind.

Private military contractors were quite useful back in the good old days, when they were called by what they are: mercenaries.

In this day and age, where we thankfully care about the value of human life, we can't afford to use private military contractors. It's hard enough to keep a full reign on our own government-organized militaries; we don't need to deal with the lack of total regulatory power we'd suffer from with PMCs.

So, in short: Ban 'em.

Even back in the "old days", mercenaries were not to be trusted.

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. 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.
http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince12.htm

Problem is that you combine:
a) Poorly trained people with
b) A CEO who is only interested in profit (at any cost) and
c) A government that has minimal strategic control and
d) A government that refuses to accept responsibility
End result: Dead non-combatants, Dead friendlies, objectives not properly secured, rich CEO, costs the public more.

As to poor training, the original training of many mercs is quite good. A lot of these guys come out of the SOFs. The problems come from the "PMC"s corporate culture, which practically encourages abuses. And it's not just US companies. Look at the Brit PMCs like Sandline and EO.

The phrase 'unlawful combatants' springs to mind.

Indeed. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm)

Let's cut the PC crap and call them what they are, mercenaries. So, mercenaries, good or bad?

* Mercenary armies extremely unreliable. Should the water get to hot, the company will find it hard to hire people, so will bail, and go and work for someone else.

* They are not fully under the control of the national military, nor do they have the same training or outlook as regular military troops. Thus they are harder to co-ordinate and deploy seamlessly alongside regular troops. This is as true historically as it is today.

* Mercenaries have a poor historical track record.

* Value of human life never has been, and never will be a factor in government decisions in wartime, beyond it's pure military dimension... dead soldiers can't fight. If the value of life had a greater value than a military objective, then there wouldn't be any war to begin with. I think in terms of government thinking, we can dismiss this issue.

My conclusions - I think the way the US in using mercenaries now is ill thought out. They have sufficient government military forces to utterly fail in Iraq with no need for additional help from mercenaries. I don't think any sensible, well thought out, defence policy could involve their use except as it was historically, when you'd otherwise face a pretty certain defeat.

Very very bad. Mercenaries (which is what they are) should not be used by the US government.

Do not want!

Problem is that you combine:
a) Poorly trained people with
b) A CEO who is only interested in profit (at any cost) and
c) A government that has minimal strategic control and
d) A government that refuses to accept responsibility
End result: Dead non-combatants, Dead friendlies, objectives not properly secured, rich CEO, costs the public more.
I don't know about A... quite a few are ex-soldiers trained by their respective militaries who are just following the money (having spent years being poorly paid by their country). However, the more intelligent soldiers tend to find a position where their life won't be at any risk.

Well even from an economic perspective, private contractors are a ripoff compared to regular soldiers, which is why Iraq is now more expensive than Vietnam despite American losses being much greater in that war.

When the foundation of a nation's military strength lies upon mercenaries, it's security as a sovereign entity lies entirely on its ability to outbid anyone with hostile intentions.

I remember seeing a little documentary on SBS a few weeks ago about the 'wild west' environment of private contractors in Iraq just after Saddam was overthrown. This one guy actually 'appropriated' Iraqi forklifts and then sold them back to the US occupation authorities for like two-times their actual worth.

Whoever does a job the best should get it. The problem is that it is rarely the mercenaries who do the job the best.

Mercenaries fight for money, and are under the banner of a private corporation who only sought profits.
They cost even more than ordinary soldiers, are not reliable and don't use the same engagment doctrins than true soldiers.

They tend to see the whole civilian population as an open feast ground.

Worse, plus you have a great number of mercenaries, plus they will be dangerous, plus you give power to their companies (and then, political influence ), plus you will need war to use them.

There's a very good reason why all the European nations have built national armies and stopped using mercs, centuries ago...

The way the USA use nowadays large numbers of mercs is going to end badly, if nothing is done.

Private armies are not so far away, you only need to put together private contractors with the guys building weapons...wait...isn't it already the case ?

Sometimes there are some jobs too "dirty" to be done directly by the hands of civilian army. In cases like that you will probably need to pay someone else to do it so your army's morale can stay in tact. It is important to keep the actual army from seeing the worst of the civilian slaughters so they can still believe that they are in there to help.

Yes they are expensive and not the most reliable, but sometimes they are still better at certain job.

War is cruel, and people who believe humanistic war is possible is living in a dream. The only way to avoid the murder and cruelty is to avoid being in wars entirely. Once a war broke out the only objective is to win, there's simply no room for anything less.

They are neither moral nor immoral, they are amoral. It is how they are used that determines whether they are moral or not.

They are neither moral nor immoral, they are amoral. It is how they are used that determines whether they are moral or not.If their use is always immoral and can only be immoral, then they are de facto immoral in themselves.
Not to mention they're people that look to make a buck from waging war. Which also lacks scruples. I can't see how it could be maintained they're morally neutral.

They are called cutthroats for a reason I guess.

Sometimes there are some jobs too "dirty" to be done directly by the hands of civilian army. In cases like that you will probably need to pay someone else to do it so your army's morale can stay in tact. It is important to keep the actual army from seeing the worst of the civilian slaughters so they can still believe that they are in there to help.

Yes they are expensive and not the most reliable, but sometimes they are still better at certain job.

War is cruel, and people who believe humanistic war is possible is living in a dream. The only way to avoid the murder and cruelty is to avoid being in wars entirely. Once a war broke out the only objective is to win, there's simply no room for anything less.
Nonsense.

A) There is no such thing as a "civilian army." "Army" and "civilian" are opposites. If you are in the army, then you're not a civilian. Also, in the US, the armed forces are already professional, so any argument that tries to claim the mercenaries are professional warriors and, therefore, better, is bogus as well.

B) If there are jobs "too 'dirty' to be done directly" by regular, professional armed forces of a nation, whose job it is to wage the bloody, brutal business of war, then those jobs are war crimes and should not be done by anyone at the orders of any government. So what you're saying, really, is that mercernaries are good for carrying out crimes at the orders of the US president. But I think we already knew that.

My own position: I agree with everyone else who have already explained exactly why using mercenaries is a BAD idea.

and can only be immoral

They can be whatever you want them to be. If a PMC is hired to liberate a town from a brutal faction that is killing children and raping women, would you consider that to be immoral?


Not to mention they're people that look to make a buck from waging war.

They do not wage war, they generally assist in combat situations.

it all depends, there could be a military emergency that makes them necessary. However, you'd expect civilians to start showing up if the country was in any real danger, and as war is usually waged you don't get extremely high casualties from a single battle, so there will usually be time to start replacing them.

generally assist
Read: 'waging'.

in combat situations.
Read: 'war'.

Read: 'waging'.


Read: 'war'.

To 'wage war' implies instigation, that's what governments and factions do, PMC's are merely tools.

To 'wage war' implies instigation, that's what governments and factions do, PMC's are merely tools.

Nods, I was going to go the tool angle too. I can see merc's not being a problem as long as they are well regulated and generally small in numbers by comparison to your regular forces, say 5-10%, whatever works.

does everyone realize that private contractors also include the dreaded elite laundrette battalions? though also (by an odd situation) the French Foreign Legion?

really they are a useful little tool especially when you need long-term bodyguards and to avoid PR disasters

To 'wage war' implies instigation, that's what governments and factions do, PMC's are merely tools.

For a mercenary, war is business, and if business is bad, they're out of work.

To 'wage war' implies instigation.
Soldiers wage war, yet often instigate nothing but their direct battles.

With the professionalisation of many armies (That is, the abolishment of the draft in favour of career soldiers), there isn't much of a difference between mercenaries and national armies. Which is of course why mercenaries have recently become a force much in demand with western - specifically, the US - armies, whereas they were previously 'Restricted' to 2nd- and 3rd world conflicts. They're basically the same thing, except they're paid for on demand, rather than permanently.

I doubt that there will be many - if any - contractors that'll be able to stay afloat - financing a military force on vaguely western standards based entirely on running a military as a business... Isn't going to work. However, I can see them as popping up again and again, effectively on a need-to basis.

In all honesty, I can't see too much of a difference between mercenaries and regular armies. Certainly, the former are less reliable (Which is why they tend to be used for post-war security/ occupation duty, rather than to smack tank divisions), but in terms of, say, respecting the Geneva convention... Can't really see a difference.

It's not a matter of 'Good or Bad'. It's a matter of 'What's cheaper?' And when it's cheaper to hire a bunch of mercs to keep the streets clean when such is actually necessary, than to keep an equivalent force up for years or even decades without there being any immediate need, then they have their uses.

Problematic? Not really. While they get a lot of headlines, in reality, their behaviour doesn't appear to be significantly worse than that of professional armies. And personally, I find that using the nutjobs as mercenaries, and keeping sensible people at home to actually, say, be responsible for creating one's GDP as opposed to wasting in the form of drafting everyone it is fairly sensible.

The French Foreign Legion is not a mercenary unit.
They don't fight for money, they have the same rules and mission that every unit in French Army, they are just shock troops.

I'm not even speaking about the fact there was always large number of French citizens amongst their ranks.

About the fact that mercs could do what normal soldiers can't, I'm not specially on your side...
Doing war crime doesn't always give you victory...to be kind...
And much, if your own soldiers aren't ready to wage a war and if you have to ressort to mercenaries to do this, you are just digging your own tomb.

What would happen the day someone could pay up those mercs better than you ?

Well, if your population isn't able to sustain enough troops to do a war, perhaps it's mean that they don't have to wage it ?

On this subject I really agree with Heinlein when he said that a country who can't rely on his own population for doing a war shall not do any war at all, even to defend itself.

Worse, using mercs to do " street cleanings " is the best way to have all effort of holding a land totally ineffective on the long run, because it would obviously turn every civilian against you.

Soldiers wage war, yet often instigate nothing but their direct battles.

They take their orders from HQ, individual soldiers are in the same way tools.

For a mercenary, war is business, and if business is bad, they're out of work.

So?
.
.

I'm probably going to join one soon, as I have no other career options.

I'm not sure if I'm going to get into this discussion, but I do have information if anyone want's to take a look at it. I had to read it for a class, but sadly I can't remember much from it (I'll re-read it).

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301faessay84211/p-w-singer/outsourcing-war.html

PMC's did a great job in ...Sierra Leone? Some other African civil war. In many African wars, from what I've gathered, mercenaries did better than UN troops, or other African troops- for less money than what the UN spent.

Mercenaries in general are fine. Use them to do dirty work, or supplement regular forces. Just base the whole of your strength on mercenaries.

Depends, but are usually bad.

Nonsense.

A) There is no such thing as a "civilian army." "Army" and "civilian" are opposites. If you are in the army, then you're not a civilian. Also, in the US, the armed forces are already professional, so any argument that tries to claim the mercenaries are professional warriors and, therefore, better, is bogus as well.

B) If there are jobs "too 'dirty' to be done directly" by regular, professional armed forces of a nation, whose job it is to wage the bloody, brutal business of war, then those jobs are war crimes and should not be done by anyone at the orders of any government. So what you're saying, really, is that mercernaries are good for carrying out crimes at the orders of the US president. But I think we already knew that.

My own position: I agree with everyone else who have already explained exactly why using mercenaries is a BAD idea.

You seem to misinterpret the whole idea of civilian army as a whole. It is not rather or not they are well train or not, it is the fact that a non drafted army are there because of their desire to protect their country.

Since you know point B, then you know how it hurts the morales of our own troops when asking them to commit inhumane crimes not relevant to protecting our country. Morales has always been a factor in warfare and that would not change no matter how professional an army is. I made myself clear that the solo purpose of the mercenaries are to commit crimes, not because they are better in any way. The only thing I see in your argument is how you get emotional about it and how much you want a humane war, which isn't going to happen because war in nature is never going to be humane.

Any war that seems humane is nothing but propaganda. You will find it on your newspaper or the TV, but never in an actual battlefield.

The real question shouldn't be, how many options to winning do we want to omit in order to fight a humane war. But rather the fact that, if a war isn't worth doing everything possible to win, then perhaps we really don't belong there to begin with.

Perhaps it's a good time for us to support withdrawing our troops instead.

What has my country become? We invade other countries and hire mercenaries. I don't like this one bit. Our police are becoming extremely militarized and the National Guard is being given police duty.

I'm probably going to join one soon, as I have no other career options.

Well, good for you. I mean that. Mercs make lots of money.

I'm probably going to join one soon, as I have no other career options.

They only thing that may pay better than a Merc is as a Columbian Drug lord or Russian Mafia soldier. Beter survival chances in Iraq tho.

They only thing that may pay better than a Merc is as a Columbian Drug lord or Russian Mafia soldier. Beter survival chances in Iraq tho.

Less chance of being killed for a tiny mistake in those jobs.

So?
.
.

So in a sense, they are not all that different from say, the military industrial complex. War in itself as an industry. Inflate threats, convince, or bribe people, have them go to war, create a need for your product, in this case, military hardware and services.

No business doesn't ever try to drum up more.

Less chance of being killed for a tiny mistake in those jobs.

Or in the case of Blackwater, a huge mistake involving the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Or in the case of Blackwater, a huge mistake involving the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

I meant that it is better to be a PMC than a drug lord or mafia soldier.

I meant that it is better to be a PMC than a drug lord or mafia soldier.

Exactly the point.

Make a mistake as a drug lord? Blam-blam-blam-Say-Hello-To-My-Little-Friend-Goodbye.

Make a mistake as a mafia soldier? Sleep with the fishes.

Shoot up an entire Iraqi civilian populace as a PMC? Sit through a brief media condemnation, then business as usual or a bonus to go with that.

Exactly the point.

Make a mistake as a drug lord? Blam-blam-blam-Say-Hello-To-My-Little-Friend-Goodbye.

Make a mistake as a mafia soldier? Sleep with the fishes.

Shoot up an entire Iraqi civilian populace as a PMC? Sit through a brief media condemnation, then business as usual or a bonus to go with that.

And if you get nigthmares, binge drinking can saolve that in a jiffy.

I'm not sure if I'm going to get into this discussion, but I do have information if anyone want's to take a look at it. I had to read it for a class, but sadly I can't remember much from it (I'll re-read it).

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301faessay84211/p-w-singer/outsourcing-war.html

Thank you, that was a very interesting article. Generally I think it repeated many of the arguments already made in this thread as to oversight, legal reponsibility/status etc...

It did also make the worrying point that increased use of PMF undermines the military, both in terms of taking over their jobs but also by poaching highly trained and experienced soldiers with promises of better pay. It does worry me that the increased use of PMF may lead us to a Cyberpunk-esq situation whereby our armed forces are entierly, or predominently made up of PMF contractors. This gives a significant amount of power to Corporate entities who, unlike the government, are not accountable to either the populace or the wide variety of international conventions regarding the conduct of war.

This gives a significant amount of power to Corporate entities who, unlike the government, are not accountable to either the populace or the wide variety of international conventions regarding the conduct of war.

I do wonder about that. If Blackwater used chemical and biological weapons while under US contract, whom has signed conventions against their use, will the US be culpable?

It would be most interesting, I think, if that were to happen, the US denies responsibility and Russia followed suit, but not with chemical or biological weapons, but fractional orbit bombardment weapons carrying nuclear warheads.

I do wonder about that. If Blackwater used chemical and biological weapons while under US contract, whom has signed conventions against their use, will the US be culpable?


Technically no, I don't think they would be, at least not if the US can successfully claim that they gave no direct order to their use. There may be criminal proceedings however I'd suspect, but against the company, not the US

Certainly PMFs are not subject to the Geneva convention (either way, they're not protected by it either).

Technically no, I don't think they would be, at least not if the US can successfully claim that they gave no direct order to their use. There may be criminal proceedings however I'd suspect, but against the company, not the US

Certainly PMFs are not subject to the Geneva convention (either way, they're not protected by it either).

Pfft, as if the US has even bothered punishing the Blackwater mercenaries that even the US military court found the time to put them on trial.

Pfft, as if the US has even bothered punishing the Blackwater mercenaries that even the US military court found the time to put them on trial.

True, true. Though the use of chemical/biological weapons, if found out, may put enough international pressure on the US that they'd at least have a show trial and find a scapegoat.

Or maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic

True, true. Though the use of chemical/biological weapons, if found out, may put enough international pressure on the US that they'd at least have a show trial and find a scapegoat.

Or maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic

I think the US government's investigation would center around who the hell was producing any type of chemical weapon for a private corporation. It's not that complex of a process to make certain chemical/biological compounds (mustard gas, strains of deadly viruses) with the proper tools, but certainly whatever corporation was involved in that production would be indicted at a federal or international level, along with those who ordered the use of those materials.

Alternatively, the government would kill everyone involved and destroy the chemical weapons in an attempt to cover it up.

I dunno, how's about "Peru - Good or Bad?"

Mercenaries have always been a part of warfare, especially when your homeland isn't all that threatened, and will doubtless remain so.

I think the US government's investigation would center around who the hell was producing any type of chemical weapon for a private corporation. It's not that complex of a process to make certain chemical/biological compounds (mustard gas, strains of deadly viruses) with the proper tools, but certainly whatever corporation was involved in that production would be indicted at a federal or international level, along with those who ordered the use of those materials.

Alternatively, the government would kill everyone involved and destroy the chemical weapons in an attempt to cover it up.

The former is unlikely to happen unless they want to admit being a party to the whole affair. And we know what any nationstate is like, especially superpowers drunk on self-righteousness, when it comes to their reprehensible acts.

I think Contractors in places like the Strait of Malacca are acceptable.

They don't belong in Iraq.

Hey, I'd like to be able to shoot any bloody wog that tailgates me, and be able to run round with lots of guns and armour blowing innocent civvies up without having to worry about trials or courts martial.

how do I join?

http://www.tmg-security.com/

Something like that.

I'm highly ambivalent about the whole thing. When used for the sorts of things TMG are used for (convoy security, I pass them on the road just about every day) it makes sense as you're really just there to stop the trucks from being stolen and waiting to get blown up and contractors can do that just as well as soldiers (although their armoured F350s are much more blowuppable than military vehicles) while freeing up troops to go to bigger and better things.