Mercs used in wars more and more...

Did you know that Mercenary companies of soldiers are slipping into more and more wars, in the First Gulf War, 1 our of 50 soldiers was a merc. Mercs are currently used in Iraq:
www.alternet.org...

Of course. Its political suicide to call for a draft...reinlistment is down but our corporations are "dying" to get that country and its resources stable and profitable

Merc have been used for centuries for un-popular wars. They get expensive real quick though.


Its a good thing Saudi ARabia, Isreal and Kuwait have opened their "war chests".


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse

I'm glad that their aren't that many "illegal" mercenary comp[anies. But illegal I mean:
Work for any country for any reason, even to start a war
Use dirty tactics, employ spies into enemy ranks, betrayal
Because if large units started working for Iraq, and they were as good as Blackwater standards, then the US would be in big trouble...

I cant really say I agree with where all the Mercs are comeing from but I guess there is no stoping in useing them. Also for a long time we have also alowed citizens of other countries to enlist in our military. I heard a few years back there there was curently 50,000 citizens of other countries serveing in our military.

Any of those could/'ve be/en spies...

I think that the widespread use mercenaries is an important sign of the times. Mercenaries are not new to this world and have existed in some form or another throughout history. The fact that mercenaries are in Iraq is not troublesome to me ,there've been mercs probably since the first war. however the extent they are being used is. The first thing i get out of this is to question whether we have a millitary that is large enough to do it's job. Should a nation outsource/privatize defense? Is the reliance on mercs a stopgap measure as the military "transforms" into a more agile and adaptable force or is it here to stay? Are we using mercenaries to skirt the Geneva conventions? ( I know the convetions have a law regarding mercs but don't know exactly what rules they play by) Most importantly does the use of mercs signal that the state is loosing it's monopoly on war-fighting?

I've been reading a bit about "4th Generation Warfare" lately and the proponent of the Generation warfare thesis ( can't remember his name but i found it through one of Hackworths sites) states that mercenaries will become even more prevelant as we move into fourth generation warfare as states become less able to deal with non-state ethnic and ideological adversaries.

The word mercenary is a dead term been dead for awhile except for hollywood. It's no longer merc's but 'contractors.' The average cost for a good contractor is about $10,00 a month.

I can only remember the term contractor being used since the mid-late nineties, now that I think of it pretty much since the internet age started. Never really heard much speak of mercenaries in the news in my life-time except for the odd National Geographic covering some brush war in africa or narco/militia/rebellion (aka columbia + central america). Last time i read SoF was in mid nineties when i was still in military and they were stilll calling em mercs.

$10,000 a month? Not too shabby, I can understand the financial incentive that would make a person risk thier lives for that. I don't doubt the courage, skill, dedication, or even patriotism of those that seek these jobs. I know one person who works for KBR and another that works for Wakkenhut and both were skilled soldiers who needed the money and had the uh.....for lack of a better word BALLS to do it. Were I not married hell it might even tempt me. I do wonder about what kind of premiums these guys pay on insurance in case of the worst happens( GI's get about half a mil in insurance for $20 or so a month), and what happens to em when injured.

Maybe I should just quickly lay out the pro's and con's of Mercenaries/Contractors as I see em.

Pro's

I imaging a well funded, well trained, highly motivated group of people freed of the Millitary Hierarchy and Beauracracy could be a force multiplier.

The above freedom would allow said group to react more quickly and change to circumstances than a standard military unit.

I'm sure there are more good reasons, but those are the main two for the moment, I'd love to here more Pro's.

Con's

I'm not sure how i feel having an armed force not subject to UCMJ operating in a foriegn occupied nation under my name (US citizen, Taxpayer).

I'm not sure what kind of oversight these contractors have. GAO etc.... how do we as taxpayers know we are getting our money's worth.

The geneva conventions issues i stated in an earlier post.

I'm aware that most if not all US nationals that are contracting are former members of the US millitary, I"ve read that many SF "Operators" have been temporarily released from active duty for lucrative contacting jobs. I don't have a huge issue with this but is it better for them to "Contract" or to keep em leading our less experienced soldiers in combat.

I've heard of some companies that have had problems equiping and supporting thier contractors, and basically ripping us off.

The detachment from the military that i consider an asset is also an huge hindrance. What kind of fire support and reactionary forces do these guys have when the DOO DOO splatters on the windshield?

I'm not shocked or aghast that we are using mercenaries in this conflict. The profession has been around for a while, looks like it's having a bit of a renaisance,but we should definately keep a close eye on what roles they are taking,is it a proper use of treasure, and should it be a job of the Army/Marines or contracted out.

I think the Blackwater guys get $5000 a month for Iraq. And they'll be there from 6 months to a year. If you survive you could be looking at $60,000, which is a lot of money!!

news.bbc.co.uk...

Mercs are used mostly by govts to carry out tasks in areas were there involvement would be a problem.

Would be interesting to know which govt was involved in financing this real life Conspiriacy

Originally posted by weirdo
news.bbc.co.uk...

Mercs are used mostly by govts to carry out tasks in areas were there involvement would be a problem.

Would be interesting to know which govt was involved in financing this real life Conspiriacy

Here's a thought -
Which government ... or maybe which Corporation, (I understand that there may be a bit of an oil reserve thereabouts ...).

Originally posted by Nexus
I think the Blackwater guys get $5000 a month for Iraq. And they'll be there from 6 months to a year. If you survive you could be looking at $60,000, which is a lot of money!!

$60K a lot of money? You've got to be kidding me.

I would think merc's would do things below the radar, not subject to the UCMJ. At least I hope they would. Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.

Lets say your a fully trained soldier with state of the art equitment! You've been sent to guard an oil well in Iraq with a hundred other Mercs like you. Would you do it for $60,000?

If you look at most of the "Oil Kingdoms" (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, etc), you'll see that a sizeable part of their military is made up of foreign mercenaries, mainly from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt. They have the cash, but lack the manpower, so they enlist wholesale any mercenary coming from a Muslim country. These guys form the backbone of their military system, providing maintenance technicians, tank crews and G.I.s. It's an old tradition, going back to the times when Arabian rulers enlisted wholesale any Turkish mercenary they could find. By contrast, the mercenaries in US service are used either in "security" roles (guarding oil wells or airports, for example) or for training local forces (especially police) and they work in a different fashion: while the Saudi mercenaries are part of their military system, the US ones are external "contractors", meaning they have a certain degree of freedom from military laws and discipline. The article provided is quite interesting, particulary in the "pay section": it would be interesting to hear the soldiers' point of view. Let's say that a Chilean mercenary gets 4000 US dollars a month, plus food, lodging and insurance, to guard an oil well. It's a good wage for any standard, but when you look at their standard it's an awful lot of money to send home. A South African instructor gets 10000 US dollars a month (plus all the things aforementioned) for training Iraqi police officers. How much does a GI patrolling the streets of Mosul earns? I think it's considerably less than 4k, and he probably risks more than any mercenary guarding a fixed position. Moreover, he's subject to much stricter discipline and has more restrictive "rules of engagement". This is potentially a very, very dangerous situation for the US forces' morale, which is kept high only by the sense of duty and a good deal of professional pride. And then there's the old saying: "Point d'argent, point de Suisse".

Nexus,
Yes most defently so, any of them could be spies. But I would be more concerned about any of them being a sabotuer. That can very easiley be done with out prior planning. Since they are actually working with the equipment needed for such a thing.

Mercenaries are not used as widely as the media portray,until this gulf war and the terrorist threat there use was limited to either specialist companies that are run by ex govt ministers,politicions,spooks and part financed by govt or cowboy outfits in Africa,South America.
One of the most famous was a company set up by David Sterling and employied ex SAS,SBS,Paras,Gurkas.They have operated in countries where the British could not risk attention.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by weirdo]

Paras as in paratroopers? I've heard of the other ones before and they are very professional outfits...