Blackwater on Youtube

[welsh]

Shadow army?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

Blackwater in action?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9DeuAnTF0&NR=1[/youtube]

Ok, is this a good thing or bad thing?
Mercenaries in New Orleans?

 

[welsh]

One more-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJUEULWEP9c&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

 

[Makagulfazel]

Ok, is this a good thing or bad thing?
Mercenaries in New Orleans?

Fuck no, it's not good.
If Greed didn't exist in this world, this private company would be fine. Unfortunately, as it stands, corruption and greed run rampant through every single level of society.
This company isn't releasing information regarding its expenditures, casualties, injuries, etc. Why? Not only because they don't have to, but also because they don't want to. Why? Because they know there are some things in their information that they don't want people to see.
Basically, a lot of shady shit is going on, but it's too bad 80% of the people in America are already too busy being concerned with trivial shit like Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton.

People in New Orleans got disarmed of their rightfully owned handguns. WTF? Meh, people piss me off, namely the ones that vote against our constitutional rights. /endrant

 

[welsh]

Little history lesson here-

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/caferro.pdf

 

[Makagulfazel]

Little history lesson here-

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/caferro.pdf

I'm not going to read the whole thing(I'm a lazy bastard - I skimmed), but this is a good example of why mercenaries are a big no-no. I have read/heard about mercenary corruption before and it worries me that people are alright with putting unmonitored power into these peoples hands.

"Mercenary raids were, like the plagues and famines of the era, unavoidable disasters destined to run their course and exact a severe price."

So, let's pay mercenaries to destroy our enemies. Okay.
They come back asking for more money because they're out of work now. Umm... Okay.
The come back again, asking for even more money. WTF, dude?
You start a war with the people you paid in the first place to win a war for you. Shit.
You either win or lose.
If you win, you are crippled by the attack. Yay, all that for nothing.
If you lose, well, enjoy becoming a different nation.

History will repeat itself if we aren't careful enough. Fuck it, though. Did you hear that Nicole Richie just went to prison?

 

[fedaykin]

Pretty disturbing shit. I didn't know they actually have mercenaries in Iraq.

Imagine a future where whole corporations are paid by governments to wage war. Creepy.

 

[Sorrow]

I don't know why, but I suddenly thought about Cyberpunk...
Waging wars should be left to government armies.

Also, I think that even if hiring mercenaries wouldn't be dangerous, it's still immoral - Geneva convention doesn't give them rights of a soldier - i.e. they can be executed as common criminals when captured by an enemy.

 

[Ah-Teen]

So.... when a small country thats being invaded and has no chance of defending itself without outside help, is the US going to continue being the world's police force(via the UN)? I thought THAT was a bad thing.

While I don't think they should have autonomy I don't think they are a bad thing. I'm still not giving up my rifle around them.

I believe they are a tool, if used wisely there isn't a problem. Used like a bush you start putting yourself and other in danger.

 

[Sander]

Oh, give me a break. Mercenaries, if properly used, are no different from a usual military. Except for the better pay.

Any mercenary company *under good contracts* will perform the same duties a military does. It's a simple request/demand. As long as they obey international laws and the national laws of the country they were hired by, I do not see the problem.

 

[SuAside]

list of number of soldiers KIA:
nr1 USA
nr2 PMC's (private military contractors)
nr3 ALL the allied forces put together (british, japanese, polish, whatever)

PMCs don't come home in crates with flags on them and hence don't cause any trouble for Bush. public opinion doesn't care much about those.

no PMC has ever been tried for a crime in Iraq. each time something happens, they simply get shipped home without trial or punishment. that while americans claim they have to adhere to the uniform code of military justice.

my biggest problem with it is that they're virtually lawless and that they actually cost more than regular army. (in this case at least)

other than that, mercs can be handy and are sometimes even NECESSARY.
you have to remember, not all mercs are as portrayed here. not all are assholes.

blackwater aint even that bad really. Aegis is far worse. they've failed their last 3 high profile contracts and even nearly toppled the British government in a scandal. yet, today the US of A pays them 300 million USD for their services in Iraq...


PS: the largest private army in the era between the worldwars and like 1975, was the security forces of the belgian Union Minière (now Umicore). for security of their mining operations around the world, both legal and shady.

 

[welsh]

Oh, give me a break. Mercenaries, if properly used, are no different from a usual military. Except for the better pay.

Any mercenary company *under good contracts* will perform the same duties a military does. It's a simple request/demand. As long as they obey international laws and the national laws of the country they were hired by, I do not see the problem.

Actually no, that's not true.

You are building on an idealistic assumption that ignores economic realities.

For example- you neglect that agents (mercenaries) and principles (those that hire them) have different preferences in their agreement.

See here- On Markets for Mercenaries- an interesting bit of economic history-
http://www.personal.psu.edu/~dxl31/research/presentations/mercenary.html

You also neglect that mercenaries, like all economic actors, are subject to influences outside the contract. (Changes in world demand, price of labor, costs of capital, etc).

And you are neglecting issues of responsibility and accountability.
(Governments overcome collective action problems of markets- but mercenary companies are not subject to the same oversight or constraints as militaries. Its for this reason that one occassionally sees a mercenary outfit try to seize power, or why unpopular but capital rich countries can hire mercenaries to repress popular opposition to rule).

And you neglecting issues of power between agent and principle-
If Bush administration helped create Blackwater, what kind of power does Blackwater and other PMCs (new incaranations of the military-industrial complex- have over the state?)

You are even neglecting the types of principles that hire agents- do you really want companies to hire mercenaries? Consider Executive Outcomes (mercenary company) as one subsidiary of a much larger company-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16671

Now that might not matter if you are a rich country (although it seems to matter in the US considering that some of the money that goes to Blackwater to wage war comes back as lobby money for politicians- and this is a good thing?) but consider a small, weak, but popular company that might not like what a mineral resource extraction company is doing?

 

[quietfanatic]

I saw a report on contractors recently, with the government soldiers feeling very sore that they were being paid a relative pittance. I was reminded of the trailer for Metal Gear Solid 4. PMC personnel could outnumber conventional Coalition troops pretty easily if they don't already I guess.

One of the contractors, an Aussie, not these Blackwater guys, was saying that they did have heavy regulation, although he didn't mention if there is any actual enforcement or supervision. That isn't to say that regulations make sense or if rules are actually followed by the US army. In a report this week some G.I.'s shot a man dead from behind, effectively in the back, merely because he refused to stop when instructed. Not encouraging. One of the soldiers was stating that he wished the politicians were in his position, understandably very difficult.

 

[welsh]

Here's another problem.

A special forces soldier spends 10 -20 years of his life as career military. What does he do when he gets out? What are his talents besides going to war?

THen you get some SF guy who has been in it for 1/2 of the time
The government has spent an ungodly amount of money training him. But he can leave the service and get 3x the salary going private.

So government money is wasted and we loose a group of trained people who have gone private and have lost valuable forces.

This is not a problem?

 

[Sander]

Here's another problem.

A special forces soldier spends 10 -20 years of his life as career military. What does he do when he gets out? What are his talents besides going to war?

THen you get some SF guy who has been in it for 1/2 of the time
The government has spent an ungodly amount of money training him. But he can leave the service and get 3x the salary going private.

So government money is wasted and we loose a group of trained people who have gone private and have lost valuable forces.

This is not a problem?

No. This just shows that the military is underpaid. If a private company can make profits while still paying their people that amount of money, either the military grossly underpays their soldiers, or mercenary companies get paid way too much by that very same government. The problem in either case does not lie with the mercenary companies.


The problems you mentioned before with mercenaries stem largely from a different treatment of mercenaries and a full military. The fact that mercenaries that act as a representative of a government are not treated the same as an actual military is not a problem with the mercenaries, but with the governments that employ them. Giving them room and not punishing their mishaps indeed does play into them and allows them to grab a lot of power. That's where the problem lies, really. With these mishaps, the companies should have been way out of opportunities a long time ago.

 

[Ah-Teen]

PMCs don't come home in crates with flags on them and hence don't cause any trouble for Bush. public opinion doesn't care much about those.

Seems like bush has gotten lots of bad publicity for using PMCs so heavily regardless of knowing how many of them have died.

that while americans claim they have to adhere to the uniform code of military justice.
.

No they don't actually, they are civilian "security" and are supposed to follow civilian laws. But still if no one is watching them then laws are just paper.

my biggest problem with it is that they're virtually lawless and that they actually cost more than regular army. (in this case at least)
.

So your saying we should pay our regular army rather then hire mercenaries ? Why in the hell would you do that? Aren't they all volunteers fighting for freedom!?
Last I checked most people who join the us army are there for the money. Ether for collage money or just the money. Hence all the new add campaigns pointing toward bonuses for joining and bonuses for getting people join, and bonuses for this, bonuses for that, bonuses for the other. PMCs still pay better.

 

[SuAside]

Seems like bush has gotten lots of bad publicity for using PMCs so heavily regardless of knowing how many of them have died.

hasn't caused him any problems yet has it? the british government nearly fell over a mercenary debacle once, but the USA simply doesn't care.

No they don't actually, they are civilian "security" and are supposed to follow civilian laws. But still if no one is watching them then laws are just paper.

wrong. the PMC's are excluded from local civilian law. the local Iraqi government has no legal authority over them and are unable to prosecute.

it is the american military that has the power to do so. but they dont (not a single PMC has been brought to court. so either they're all freaking holier than the pope, or they're simply not being brought to justice). they simply ship them back home if they do something the media wouldn't like.

So your saying we should pay our regular army rather then hire mercenaries ? Why in the hell would you do that? Aren't they all volunteers fighting for freedom!?

you do that so half of the most skilled men of your army you spent years training dont run off to Blackwater and consorts to get paid two to three times more, for the same risks and more freedom.

Last I checked most people who join the us army are there for the money. Ether for collage money or just the money. Hence all the new add campaigns pointing toward bonuses for joining and bonuses for getting people join, and bonuses for this, bonuses for that, bonuses for the other. PMCs still pay better.

if your soldiers are truly just in it for the money, i pity your nation.

my country has a small but professional army. no one is in it for the money... it simply doesn't pay too well, regardless of your skill.

but at least we're not running off into wars (but do a shitload of peacekeeping, reliefwork and rescue operations), so people are pleased to serve their country.

 

[Loxley]

No they don't actually, they are civilian "security" and are supposed to follow civilian laws. But still if no one is watching them then laws are just paper.

wrong. the PMC's are excluded from local civilian law. the local Iraqi government has no legal authority over them and are unable to prosecute.

it is the american military that has the power to do so. but they dont (not a single PMC has been brought to court. so either they're all freaking holier than the pope, or they're simply not being brought to justice). they simply ship them back home if they do something the media wouldn't like.
.

I have also heard that the duty of punishing the PMC's fall on the country in which they fight. Atleast that is as I understood it from the last book I read from the Iraq conflict. "My war. Killing time in iraq" by colby buzzel. I wonder where you got your information from.

He said that the local populace was terrified of the PMC's because there was no laws controlling them. He also said they were driving around in suvs with no extra kind of armor of any sort. Basically they were payed well, but they suffered a greater risk. That was in 2004 however, i dunno how it is in iraq now.

 

[SuAside]

I have also heard that the duty of punishing the PMC's fall on the country in which they fight. Atleast that is as I understood it from the last book I read from the Iraq conflict. "My war. Killing time in iraq" by colby buzzel. I wonder where you got your information from.

if your book is from 2004, then it is correct on that point. however, the new iraqi constitution was approved on 15 October 2005. which changed the matter entirely (and hence protecting PMC's from judicial action by local authorities).

He said that the local populace was terrified of the PMC's because there was no laws controlling them.

there are & were laws, but they are left unenforced.

He also said they were driving around in suvs with no extra kind of armor of any sort. Basically they were payed well, but they suffered a greater risk. That was in 2004 however, i dunno how it is in iraq now.

that wholely depends on the company they work for.

the 'better' companies do drive around in armored SUV's, but more and more companies are simply buying armor plating and rigging it to their own unarmored SUV's (internally ofc). hence cutting over half the costs.

but it is true some companies dont provide armored cars at all. which is simply playing with their people's lives... cars DO NOT stop bullets. (unlike you often see in cop movies)
they provide concealment, not protection.

it is a fact that companies employing non-western mercs are usually VERY sloppy with armored cars. i'd wager over 90% of non-western mercs are driven around in non-armored cars. (former Ghurkas are a good example)

 

[Ah-Teen]

Seems like bush has gotten lots of bad publicity for using PMCs so heavily regardless of knowing how many of them have died.

hasn't caused him any problems yet has it? the british government nearly fell over a mercenary debacle once, but the USA simply doesn't care.

Nothing like toppling the government but I believe it has hurt credibility and reputation of those who help fund it(bush is already in the hole so where just waiting for 08). But I will admit that most of the US just doesn't care enough and just lets the government get away with too much.

So your saying we should pay our regular army rather then hire mercenaries ? Why in the hell would you do that? Aren't they all volunteers fighting for freedom!?

you do that so half of the most skilled men of your army you spent years training dont run off to Blackwater and consorts to get paid two to three times more, for the same risks and more freedom.

Sarcasm, sounds great in your head but on paper it doesn't translate well.

Last I checked most people who join the us army are there for the money. Ether for collage money or just the money. Hence all the new add campaigns pointing toward bonuses for joining and bonuses for getting people join, and bonuses for this, bonuses for that, bonuses for the other. PMCs still pay better.

if your soldiers are truly just in it for the money, i pity your nation.

my country has a small but professional army. no one is in it for the money... it simply doesn't pay too well, regardless of your skill.

but at least we're not running off into wars (but do a shitload of peacekeeping, reliefwork and rescue operations), so people are pleased to serve their country.

My sarcasm, sounds great in mind but on paper it doesn't translate well. Those two paragraphs should only be read together.

Don't take what I said wrong. I haven't met a soldier who wasn't proud to serve his country, but money is often motivator for young men to join a decidedly dangerous profession. I would join the army as a way to get money for collage, that doesn't mean I'm only there for the money.

We have a large and technologically equipped military... that in the past has had it's soldiers scoffed at by the Germans in ww1 and ww2, and the Vietnam war for their unprofessional work. I think the military is still training people like they have a draft going. Quantity over quality and letting our technological and production superiority try to make up the difference. I look at armies like Germany and UK, and their fewer soldiers are often have superior training standards.

 

[welsh]

Sander-

I think you are making some serious mistakes here. Again, review the article-
http://www.personal.psu.edu/~dxl31/research/presentations/mercenary.html

You are blaming governments for trying to avoid constraints on government action? That's why democracy works when it does- because government is constrained. When a government (or a company) can hire a military to do its bidding, then there are essential institutional characteristics that exist with a national army that you won't find with a PMC.

Consider that national armies come in two forms- conscripts or professional. In both cases those militaries are constrained by law and by the relalationship between society and the state, and the constraints on the state from using violence.

With conscript armies you generally have greater constraint on the state than a professional. THe US military is now a professional. It's sad if they get killed in Iraq, but that's their job.

Conscripts wouldn't be in the army unless forced through coercion to be there. They would rather be doing something else.

But PMC's are largely seperate entities altogether. They go where they are paid, and, as the other article points out, if the costs of war are more than they are being paid, they can renegotiate or quit.

If a professional national soldier is an employee of the state, the PMC is a sub-contractor.

Read the article.