Mercinaries/Soldiers of Fortune - Page 3

View Poll Results :Mercs.
Yes they are cheap and effective 6 33.33%
Depends 9 50.00%
No, you shouldnt go to war for money 3 16.67%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

March 5th, 2012  
Originally Posted by The Pilgrim
PMCs threaten state sovereignty because they threaten the state’s monopoly on "the use of force". In the German Parliament, the conservative faction submitted a proposal in 2004 which stated that the privatization of the military “could lead to a fundamental shift” between a nation’s armed forces and its government as “the state’s monopoly on force could be called into question or even possibly eradicated.” By bringing PMCs into the picture, it creates a “hollowing out of the state,” where the military itself can become weakened due to its reliance upon private organizations to do things such as gather intelligence.
That sounds more like wagging the dog for a feel-good send-up, than anything real. This is due to the fact that, for a 1st World country to willingly allow a PMC to grow to the point where it can outgun its own military, said country will have long before surrendered effective control of its own sovereignty.

To put it another way, giving a loose collection of mercenaries more power to inflict violence over a state's apparatus than the state retains itself, makes that state a "failed state", almost by definition.
March 6th, 2012  

To put it another way, giving a loose collection of mercenaries more power to inflict violence over a state's apparatus than the state retains itself, makes that state a "failed state", almost by definition.[/QUOTE]

Well put.
March 6th, 2012  
I don't see the problem.

For they most part the provide a cost effect solution for specific niches, like site, asset, or personal security and training. Which allows militaries to focus on their core objectives rather than providing security for private or government entities within the conflict zone.

Most of what people think of when the issue of mercenaries is brought up are private security companies protecting privately owned assets in a high threat environment. As far as I am aware there are not many "proper" mercs out there anymore. As in a company that you can hire fully operational units of professional soldiers for commercial purposes. I can think of a few events in Africa that involved those types of operations (Serra Leone and an unsuccessful coup orchestrated by outside powers on a small island off the west coast of Africa that I cant remember the name of but was done by the same south African outfit as Sierra Leone) but I dont know if those types of outfits are still out there.

The true mercenary groups have the uses but are a bit iffy. Security and training groups that get labeled mercs are legit in my mind
March 25th, 2012  
Mercs have their place in military operations. CIA uses them to fight the Dirty Little Wars in crappy remote areas.

But they won't call them that.

They are publicly called 'Volunteer Militias' or maybe 'Contractors'.

Yes, I know there are distinctions between contractors and mercs. But I'm talking about the public guise they might use to allow deniability.
March 26th, 2012  
I feel like mercs can be a solution to some problems that military groups run into.
March 26th, 2012  
The ultimate problem with PMCs is that they diffuse responsibility. Questions about who monitors, regulates, and punishes employees or companies that go astray are still to be fully answered. We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country. Contractors are not quite civilians, yet they are still outside the military chain of command. International anti-mercenary agreements do not quite fit modern PMCs. The nature of the countries in which contractors do business is such that courts are weak, so trials there are largely a non-starter.

When a soldier is wounded or killed in combat, his or her family, neighbors and community feel the weight of the war and ask themselves, Is it worth it? In a democracy, it is important for citizens to share the burden related to military action abroad, feel the impact and make the judgment about whether it's worthwhile.

People whose services are bought should not handle sensitive information, as their loyalties might be bought as well. Hired personnel should not create policy in the stead of elected representatives, as this is undemocratic and potentially dangerous.

Cronyism appears to be rampant as well. Ex-military and secret services men frequently assume lucrative posts at PMCs: Erik Prince, Blackwater’s founder, was a Navy SEAL; Binns ended his career as a Major General in the British Army; Cofer Black, the chairman of Total Intelligence Solutions, was once head of counterterrorism at the CIA. Former soldiers and analysts can make two to ten times more in the private sector than in the service. This raises suspicions about the efficacy of the oversight system; presumably, few would want to irritate a contractor for whom he or she wishes to work after retirement, on a generous government pension to boot.