As I said to MMarsh elsewhere, Inferno, from what do you base your characterization of the people who work for PMCs?

DelBoy, I have long been an advocate of mandatory national service. I would go so far as to make it a prerequisite for voting or anyone wishing to become a citizen of another nation. Doesn't mean military but some form of national service either military or civil but a two year stint after secondary school and before anyone could attend university. With no way out of it. EVERYONE serves in some capacity or other.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

As I said to MMarsh elsewhere, Inferno, from what do you base your characterization of the people who work for PMCs?

i have had no direct contact with Merc's, but i know of some NZDF personnel that i trained with that have joined their ranks, and also tales told by mates who have returned from A-stan. hell...i know of a large contingent of fijian soldiers on the books of one of the companies....and as evidenced by their recent coup....they're nothing more than thugs


ok...probably a gross over generalisation...but the point that im getting at for every ex-special forces operators at blackwater (and the ilk), they are vastly outnumbered by lesser trained "fodder" required by the company so they win the contracts.


but hey, share the wisdom....im more than interested

Originally Posted by Del Boy

How does the forum feel about that?

I'm mixed. Had you asked me BEFORE the Bush Administration I would have been totally against a conscription.

However there are two things I greatly dislike.

1. First of all is this presidential power that allows a president to use military force without a formal declaration war from Congress. This was started by Kennedy it was a very bad precedent then, its even worse now. It has caused us no end of problems.

2. The increased willingness of extremist politicans to use the military as a expendable tool of Foreign deplomacy, and not of National Defense. A volunteer military doesn't impact civilians as much as a conscripted one does because the military is much smaller in size. If however the military included a sizable amount of the population the politicians would be much more hesitant to venture on military adventures, especially if the Conscription was on a no-exemptions allowed basis, like Charlie Rengle wanted to pass.

I would very much like to see how the Chickenhawks in Washington react when its their own children that are on the frontlines of the wars they continually push, and not somebody else's. Its easy to go to war when its someone else taking all the risks.

I just know a few soldiers who now work for them and a few that work for a couple different labels. I have quite a different impression and it doesn't jive with the media portrayal of the companies.

But if you remove them, the PMCs, who will fill the void they now occupy? They didn't create the jobs they fill, budget cuts and volunteer service did. For every action there is a reaction and the proliferation of PMCs is a reaction to voids in the market. Jobs that can't/won't be done by expensive highly trained operatives who are underpaid and underappreciated. Who will run security details when your combat forces are needed elsewhere and your MPs are stretched to the breaking point trying to provide some semblance of law and order and recruiting numbers are getting harder and harder to hit because young men and women are opting for occupations other than the military.

Its not feasible to spend a half million dollars and two years to train a soldier and then have him guard Hillary Clinton when she decides to visit a warzone... or have that soldier escort trucks down a highway wearing a bullseye size large on his chest... or have him guard prisoners. The numbers are too thin and the cost too high.

It is more economical both fiscally (pork barrel budgets) and politically (since so many people are opposed to mandatory service) to hire private contractors to do these and other jobs and use your soldiers to do the jobs they volunteered to do.

yeah but here's the thing...the Military IS spending the money to train these guys....then they jump ship for the big cash money.

i think the current boon for the merc company's is more due to a desire to keep the numbers of troops deployed in the sandbox low to keep the noise from the media down to a dull roar.

and that is a double edge sword.

would the merc companies be there in suc force if enough troops had been deployed in the first place? who knows.

Originally Posted by Infern0

yeah but here's the thing...the Military IS spending the money to train these guys....then they jump ship for the big cash money.

Hence the underpaid, underappreciated part that leads them to leave. But bear this in mind, Blackwater et al have no retirement plan, no VA, no GI Bill, these men give that up to cash in now. Pay them what they are worth on the open market and they won't leave... of course there goes the budget for Ospreys and TMDS.

As for their market niche in the first place, its still supply and demand, free market and all that. You would have to beef up the standing Army in order to eliminate the gap the PMCs are filling. Even in full force there are gaps that only the PMCs are capable of filling right now. Not enough young men and women are joining as is so if you want to eliminate the gap you have to go to mandatory service in order to achieve the numbers needed.

So in the end the fiscal and political economics rule the day since fat cats don't want to give up their cash cows and the common people don't feel that their freedoms are something they should have to personally sacrifice for in order to maintain.

And as for the legallity of these companies...

The 1949 Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) does not recognize the difference between defense contractors and PMCs; it defines a category called supply contractors. If the supply contractor has been issued with a valid identity card from the armed forces which they accompany, they are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture (GCIII Article 4.1.4). If, however, the contractor engages in combat, he/she can be classified as a mercenary by the captors under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) Article 47.c, unless falling under an exemption to this clause in Article 47. If captured contractors are found to be mercenaries, they are unlawful combatants and lose the right to prisoner of war status. Protocol I was not ratified by the United States because, among other issues, it does not require "freedom Fighters" to obey the convention in order to be granted its protections.

http://www.imyspaceproxy.com/index.p...hbnk%3D&hl=3ef

Originally Posted by bulldogg

As I said to MMarsh elsewhere, Inferno, from what do you base your characterization of the people who work for PMCs?

DelBoy, I have long been an advocate of mandatory national service. I would go so far as to make it a prerequisite for voting or anyone wishing to become a citizen of another nation. Doesn't mean military but some form of national service either military or civil but a two year stint after secondary school and before anyone could attend university. With no way out of it. EVERYONE serves in some capacity or other.

Bulldogg

Nobody is questioning the PMC personal integrity. I am sure most are stand up guys, and no I don't blame for taking the job I might have done the same, especially considering the money involved.

What I am saying is I don't trust the very nature of the business they are in. Where do I base that characterization? From several centuries of the history of warfare. Even in the days of ancient antiquity the use of Mercenaries have been historically a very risky affair.

The problem is always the same. Mercenaires may really like their employer, but ultimately they are only really loyal to their paycheck. It doesn't matter if they are German Mercenaries that fought for Roman Empire or if its Blackwater USA. They will go where the money is. -Thats the nature of the Business.

A second problem is that Mercs are more concerned with personal survival than regular troops.
A soldier will fight and die for an Ideal. But to a Merc, money is generally meaningless if you are dead. All Mercs accept the chance they might be killed in combat, but they are not going to obey orders that would likely result in their death. Even if they get fired, they can always go to another company.

Do you have any idea how many battles have been lost due to Mercs switching loyalities before an engagement? We have already have a case of Blackwater ops betraying the US Government by illegally selling weapons (that most likely that went to the insurgency).

You just cannot trust people like that, And I certainly don't want to have people like that watching my back, I'd much rather have a fellow under-paid, under-appreciated, federal employee in my foxhole.

That case is alleged... I'll wait till the smoke has cleared and the poop sifters have finished reading trailsigns. As for the very nature of the business, I'd argue its human nature and in a perfect world, well... perchance to dream of a world where humans overcome their lowest common denominators and we can all skip into the sunset holding hands and sipping pink lemonade... they will always exist. As long as humans do, there will be conflict and as long as there is conflict men will fight for money. As for them switching sides, human nature being what it is, sure its possible, in small numbers, but the majority would never turn on their brothers in arms.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

That case is alleged... I'll wait till the smoke has cleared and the poop sifters have finished reading trailsigns. As for the very nature of the business, I'd argue its human nature and in a perfect world, well... perchance to dream of a world where humans overcome their lowest common denominators and we can all skip into the sunset holding hands and sipping pink lemonade... they will always exist. As long as humans do, there will be conflict and as long as there is conflict men will fight for money. As for them switching sides, human nature being what it is, sure its possible, in small numbers, but the majority would never turn on their brothers in arms.

Except that not all of the people at Blackwater are American. Blackwater hires ex-military from around the world. And while I would agree its only a remote chance that they would turn against fellow US Soldiers, they are much more likely to do something against the interests of its current employer (the US Government) if it suits their interest.

For example: If Hugo Chavez was paying some obscene amount for US mercs so that they would participate in the invasion of a neighboring country do you think it wouldn't be at least tempting?

I believe the Merc's need to be removed from United States soil, and the United States Military along with the Department of State needs to sever all ties. Furthermore, I personally believe they are all outlaws and should be treated as such.

As for the Press Corps on the Ground, there is no need to offer them protection, as the United States Military has its own Reporters, so, any other Private Press Company sending people should be on their own as for Protective Services.