Let's talk about mercenaries. What are mercenaries? Does anybody still use mercenaries? Are mercenary companies the same as "private military companies" and "private contractors"? Does the use of mercenaries help the US military or ultimately hurt it? Let's hear your thoughts.
I'd consider Blackwater and those guys mercenaries. I personally don't think they help the US or the US military. these guys can operate outside of the Geneva convention and pretty much commit any crimes they choose, but are still looked at as American's by the enemy. They make so much more money, and have way better gear than our own volunteer military, which i'd assume has to cause tensions between the two. Our military are out there dying for their country and their beliefs. Whereas these blackwater guys are there for a paycheck. i'm not that educated on the subject, but that's my personal .02 anyway
Wow, for somebody "not educated on the subject", I would say you hit nail on the head in your initial statements about mercenaries. You are correct about the fact that Blackwater and other mercenary outfits were operating with impunity in Iraq ( that's now changed) that is they were immune from Iraqi and American prosecution for crimes committed in Iraq. In the beginning of the Iraq war, locals were assuming these guys driving around in "SUVs, wrap around glasses and armed to the teeth" were either CIA or Mossad agents. So yes, they were viewed as an additional "occupier" besides US soldiers. You are also right in the fact that these guys were making substantially more more money that uniformed soldiers. In fact this promise of higher pay draws potential special forces operators away from the military and to mercenary companies like Blackwater. I thought now is the time we need our Special Forces the most? In fact there were numerous commanders on the ground saying that the mercenaries were undermining their mission on the ground. I can go on and on about Blackwater in particular, the incident in Fallujah, the connection between the Christian right and Blackwater and whatnot. Thanks for the initial post AW. Let's see if we can get more intelligent dialog going here.
Yes we still use mercenaries. Aside from publicized groups, like "Blackwater", there are more covert "Jackals" and "Economic Hit Men" that work for transnational corporations. The economic hit men work sometimes in conjunction with the IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve groups when negotiating terms with mostly third world countries. If the recipient of American loans will spend that money on American corporations, and the EHM is able to convince the third-world dictator to be a US puppet, usually everything works out. If not, Jackals are sent in to assassinate the difficult leaders. Here is an exerpt from a book I am currently reading, This is what's keeping third world governments poor and corrupt. Corporate global expansion. If a leader ever tries to nationalize the industries and help out the local population, they are bribed or killed.
<embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6777372516104300363&hl=en&fs=true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed> The FFL tends to do things unlike any other army, they are mercenaries, its an army that fights for France that has no french citizens. Only immigrants, this is soley men fighting for profit, and was made to get criminals and immigrants out of France. Once you join there is no leaving, at all.
Haha, don't get me started on the IMF, WTO and the World Bank. Yeah when you mentioned "corporate hitmen" I thought you were referring to oil companies use of henchmen to assassinate local opposition in Africa. Right now I'm reading Democracy Now's report on the book. Thanks for the contribution.
My info on the Foreign Legion is limited. However I know that the French Gov. will send the FFL before French troops because the FFL is politically expendable when compared to French troops. I believe they use the FL in Guyana to protect some EU satellite launch pad.
It is by definition a mercenary army, none of the people in the FL are from France, filled with criminals and occupants do it soley for cash and thrill of warfare.
Should members of the military not consider themselves to be mercenaries? Sure, some of them are patriots doing what they feel they can to protect our country and that is probably a varying factor for most... but aren't most people in the Armed Forces for the financial benefits? It really is one of the best financial decisions a young person can make... especially one who's parents cannot afford college or other aid. Philosophy set aside, the entire Military should consider itself mercenaries for the corporate/banking elite. "Gangsters for Capitalism." Our Military operates solely to protect economic/political interests around the world. - Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
I see your angle on how the military can be viewed as mercenaries, however the pay of the average soldier who joined the military is tiny compared to an ex special forces soldier working for a corporation. Mercenaries are essentially only in it for the money and are usually from a foreign nation so I think there is a difference between a pure merc. and national military institutions. That's a good quote from Maj. Gen. Butler. In rings very true based on what I've seen. In more ways than one.
Free market forces work in wonderous and terrible ways. Just consider that the only reasons mercenaries and contractors only exist because of a demand. That's really all I have to say on the subject.
I guess if mercenaries only exist because of demand then mercenaries must be an intergral part of war itself. G. Washington even employed mercenaries during the Revolutionary War. Von Steuben was a valued military trainer for Washington.
Because something has been done in the past does not make it applicable to us. I think the point Sam is trying to make is that its astonishing that humanity is so bloodthirsty that there aren't enough people as is to sustain the level of bloodshed required, and thus have to hire more people and give them a paycheck to do it. And, if this is not what you were getting at Sam, my apologies -- this is, however, how I feel about it.
I actually don't even see a point in arguing about this, mostly due to Mr. Spade's post. Believe what you want, but everyone on the planet acts according to their own wishes. Even if you were to give a million dollars to one of the most charitable organizations around, it wasn't a "sacrifice". You obviously chose to donate that money because you value what that organization will do with that money more than what you would have done with the money. Now take that and apply it to the mercenary industry. To take it a step farther I would argue that the mercenaries are necessary. In today's world, even if you are caught committing some act of violence you will only be thrown in a "correctional facility" where you are "tortured" by receiving food, entertainment, and shelter that you did not pay for. These mercenaries are necessary to instill the fear in people that is necessary for them to uphold their end of whatever bargain they are currently engaged in. Violence is not a bad thing, it is only bad when it is used incorrectly. The initiation of agression would be considered wrong, but if you were to strike back at whatever party initiated the agression, it would be fine. Agression is not only defined by force or "violence" either. Lies, fradulent activities, etc. are also agressive.