PMC (Private Military Contractors) or are they?




 
--
 
April 8th, 2007  
CanadianCombat
 
 

Topic: PMC (Private Military Contractors) or are they?


Just a quick point I want to bring to the table here. I have been doing some research on a few topics lately, PMC'S (Private Military Contractors), Mercenaries, and Civilian Military/Security workers. I just recently watched two documentaries on these subjects "Shadow Company" (I highly recommend this one) and "Iraq For Sale". Both of these videos seemed to view PMC's as modern day Mercenaries, whether this is a good thing I don't know. Most people view mercs as money hungry warmongers fighting without a cause, but if we look at the way mercs helped stabilize Sierra Leone in 1995 and later help form democratic elections in the country,but as soon as they left all hell broke loose again. But then we have problems in Iraq with gun toting PMC's shooting up what ever seems worth their while. So to me it doesn't really seem like they are all money hungry warmongers fighting without a cause and doing horrible things (for the most part). So my questions to you readers and forum scanners is What are your views on PMC's, Mercs and other private military Organizations? Do you think they are a bad thing or good? Do you think that they should be given rights within the Geneva Convention like regular soldiers? Are they helpful to most causes or a negative feature in a war? and finally How do the regular soldiers feel about them?
April 8th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
In my opinion they should not be granted the protections of the Geneva Convention, as they are not Soldiers, they are Mercenaries and outlawed by Conventions.

I believe they are only in it for the money, because if they loved their Nation they would fight at the rate paid the Military.
April 8th, 2007  
Warwick
 
There are some real cowboy operators out there. Seems to be a growth industry especially as the world seems to be in such a chaotic state.
--
April 8th, 2007  
Guardsman_Ca
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator
In my opinion they should not be granted the protections of the Geneva Convention, as they are not Soldiers, they are Mercenaries and outlawed by Conventions.
I not sure but I think Soldier of Fortune magazine had an article on mercs and it said that they were not covered by the Geneva Convention or the Articles of War.
April 8th, 2007  
Redleg
 
 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Quote:
Art 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.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e0052b079

There you have it
Not many rights there and I personaly agree that it should stay that way as well.

Here's some more reading on the subject as well:

44/34. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use,
Financing and Training of Mercenaries

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm
April 9th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
So they are more likely to fight to the death rather than be captured.

Not that capture was ever an option considering the inhumanity of our current foes.
April 9th, 2007  
therise21
 
Being a mercenary may not be the most morally upright thing to do. However, if a former soldier wishes to use the skill set that he has acquired to "cash in", regardless the risk, that is their choice. If there wasnt a need for these private contractors, there wouldnt be so many of them.
April 9th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I personaly agree that it should stay that way as well.
You and me both Captain.
April 9th, 2007  
CanadianCombat
 
 
Can you guys answer some of the other questions.
April 10th, 2007  
sunb!
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianCombat
Most people view mercs as money hungry warmongers fighting without a cause, but if we look at the way mercs helped stabilize Sierra Leone in 1995 and later help form democratic elections in the country,but as soon as they left all hell broke loose again.
Sierra Leone was covered by Combat & Survival magazine for nearly ten years ago where they put the spotlight on the usage of mercenaries in the conflict. The glorification of the life as mercenary overshadowed the fact most of the mercenaries were South African and former soldiers / security personell of the apartheid regime.
 


Similar Topics
Great Military Leaders vs Military Education
Military Goes Online To Stem Troop Suicide
Where The U.S. Military Is The Family Business
"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel
Military Role In U.S. Embassies Creates Strains, Report Says