Slimmed-down Army 'will rely on foreign mercenaries' to fight for Britain in future wars

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by paraphi

 

You are using examples of foreign military aid, or foreigners integrated into the military.

That is a far cry from Private Military Companies (aka Highest Bidder Mercenaries) given access to the heart of the military. It's not even for "aid", it is to be relied on in the future as they say. Also it doesn't stop at "logistics" as the above poster suggests, that is clearly bullspeak.

They're dangerous because they only answer to their CEO, who answers to the money and power he gets. It is essentially corporate fiefdom. Just as Blackwater, and how they moved a good majority of their assets to the middle-east, Qatar, to train foreign military in the desert. They also have very little care in moral oversight, and will trot the globe's worst warzones seeking new recruits from even the most corrupt armies, cartels and the like. They do this for maximum brutality and effectiveness.

edit on 7-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

You need wings just to stay above the BS in this thread.

The Dailymail article speak of reducing active military size, increasing the number of reservists, and using more PMC's for logistical needs. They did not state at what frequency they will use PMC's or when. They certainly made no mention of going beyond logistics. How is that Bullspeak?

Your Blackwater statement is clearly uninformed. Paul Bremmer gave PMC's free range in Iraq, the PMC's were not held to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. So yes Blackwater and the like were given no oversight intentionally by the US government. However Blackwater is not in Qatar. Eric Prince sold his controlling interest in Blackwater. Prince then went to Qatar to begin training an army for the government of Qatar. Blackwater and Prince himself have found themselves in serious legal hotwater in recent years. Prince was essentially forced out of Blackwater because of his willy-nilly running of the company. He is also in a huge heap of trouble for going to Qatar and raising an army. The US does not like it's people going overseas and raising armies without their permission.

It appears that some people have some sick morbid desire to have their government turn on them through some sort of armed takeover and are willing to interpret anything they see into this fantasy. It is just fear mongering.

reply to post by NoRemorse762


You 100% proved my point in regards to the volatility of PMC's. I did not personally suggest the PMC's were going to "take over their host population" (Britain in this case) as others have suggested. I, personally, said it was incredibly dangerous, and if I might add.. Naive.

You went on to play this game of "corporate ping-pong" of shifting the blame back and forth between Prince and the US as if it even matters. What matters is my initial point that PMC's (Blackwater "Xe" as the prime modern example) are essentially rotten to the core, because as you said.. they are not held to the UCMJ (US) yet they do the bidding of the host government. They *ONLY* care about how lucrative the contract is, and how well it will benefit their enterprise.

What's wrong with that? Well, gee.. every single thing. As you said, they can just high-tail it and go for the next highest bidder.. in this case, raising foreign armies in the middle-east. Shucks.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by EvanB

 

I'd almost expect America to be more passive and laconic about down-sizing and foreign troops than the British.

The backbone, stiff-upper lip, and sterling resolve was what UK was known for.

Don't tell me it's gone?

I'm not sure that the same won't happen in America. From what I've read, it's part of the manifesto for each of the remaining presidential candidates to 'bring the troops home'. Hard to justify the budget if they aren't going off to fight anywhere.

Foreign troops is really an extension of NATO isn't it? And as someone has mentioned, private contractors would be considered for logistical purposes rather than front line warfare.

reply to post by SyphonX

Very few, if any, large corporations run themselves by moral convictions. You are right, it's the bottom line. They would not make any money if their decisions were based on morality. This we can agree on.

You are correct that not giving security contractors oversight is a very very bad thing. In Iraq it bred insurgency and ultimately cost coalition and local indigenous lives.

I just don't think what the dailymail is talking about justifies the fears being presented in this thread. The UK is not going to arm unqualified people with weapons for any reason. The article spoke specifically of unit realignment and logistics. Not about arming a private army to do god knows what. They are talking about doing what I stated in my first post here. Using contractors for cooks and truck drivers, not soldiers. It's up to the citizens of the UK to make sure their MP's know that there are limits to what PMC's should be able to do. Learn from the US's mistake as far as using security forces that are not held liable to any standards.

This is what happens when you don't place any rules on these guys and have an partially illiterate population. Most PMC vehicles I have seen had a "keep back 300ft" sign on the back, unless they were rolling low profile. Then again hanging a trunk monkey out the back of your truck is not low profile. The guys in the video are just sick.
www.youtube.com...

or they could be having trouble recruiting / retaining people who will commit murder for corporate profit ...

alot of people these days not believing the propaganda western governments feed them about the so - called " war on terror " ..
making it harder for them to find willing cannon fodder to perpetuate the murder for profit of western governments ...

reply to post by NoRemorse762


Of course they are not going to employ unqualified people, that is not the point... They will be people with no sense of loyalty to the country at all.. They are just hired guns.. That is the difference between a standing local army and foreign mercenaries..

In the past, including in this owns countries past.. Mercenaries have been employed to try to quell uprisings.. In recent history we have Libya, Syria et al and the insurgency in Afghanistan is largely foreign to the country.. It is not in their interest to create stability..

In this country, even the police force is starting to be privatised.. This at least is a step to corporatism of government..

This will not stand.. many like myself can see where this is leading ...

Not happening

reply to post by Expat888


I think this development is a multifaceted one, not limited to the UK by any means...

The 'softest' and least publicly discussed facet (opinions only here) is the human factor... which is to say, it has become increasingly difficult (as civilization has progressed) to convince thousands of relatively 'aware' citizens of the BS excuses they have always used to "engender public support" for wars.

Outside of invasions and direct unexpected hostilities; wars nowadays are matters of corporate planning... GANTT charts, spreadsheets, and actuarial tables.... in other words... it's about bottom-line profitability over liability.

Hence, using government regulated troops for such ends is becoming less effective.

Another facet is the overhead cost, heaped on overhead cost of dozens of middlemen between the nations production sources and the 'sellers and buyers' of the means of war. The age of shoddy could not endure the light of exposure... so the rip-off was moved in via layers upon layers of technocrats - each siphoning out some wealth... but essentially working together at all levels to ensure maximum profitability.... sadly we are sold the idea that they are all working together for some noble purpose like "winning the war" or "protecting our troops"... it's an easy sell... especially since we rely on the media "they" own to tell us what's going on.

The third facet is the sad truth that the middlemen who actually "procure" mercenary support are well-served by7 the act... jobs for family, for themselves, incentives far removed from scrutiny, and the ever-present anonymity of corporate wealth....

By the way, I thought Blackwater moved to Dubai (like Haliburton did), not Qatar... then they changed their name to Xe. Prince went to Qatar... and we are meant to suppose he no longer has a connection to the newly named "Xe" which as it happens may be connected to Qatar after all... but we'll never know for certain .. because corporations demand privacy and get it... whereas the citizens demand privacy and are held in suspicious regard for doing so.

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

They are even starting to privatise the police force... This does not look good now does it?

Whenever a government does this it is to keep the puppets in power...

Truth is, most people in the UK are too blind to see the danger they are now in and wont act until its too late..

And the sad thing is that even when they're being transported to the "camps" they'll still be bloody blind to it ,after all ,we put up with succesive governments shafting us at every turn with taxes everywhere , yet are told by the current clown in no 10 that "we are all in it together" please let us wake up and drag them out of parliament by their b******s.

Originally posted by NoRemorse762
reply to post by SyphonX

 

Very few, if any, large corporations run themselves by moral convictions. You are right, it's the bottom line. They would not make any money if their decisions were based on morality. This we can agree on.

You are correct that not giving security contractors oversight is a very very bad thing. In Iraq it bred insurgency and ultimately cost coalition and local indigenous lives.

I just don't think what the dailymail is talking about justifies the fears being presented in this thread. The UK is not going to arm unqualified people with weapons for any reason. The article spoke specifically of unit realignment and logistics. Not about arming a private army to do god knows what. They are talking about doing what I stated in my first post here. Using contractors for cooks and truck drivers, not soldiers. It's up to the citizens of the UK to make sure their MP's know that there are limits to what PMC's should be able to do. Learn from the US's mistake as far as using security forces that are not held liable to any standards.

This is what happens when you don't place any rules on these guys and have an partially illiterate population. Most PMC vehicles I have seen had a "keep back 300ft" sign on the back, unless they were rolling low profile. Then again hanging a trunk monkey out the back of your truck is not low profile. The guys in the video are just sick.
www.youtube.com...

You share most of my sentiments regarding PMC's. You'll have to excuse how heated I can get with the topic, as I've had personally experience as well. A cursory examination of PMCs, like Blackwater et al, to the uninitiated will probably yield the same resulting opinion.

You are right however, it is still "technically" only logistics and transport, but once the door is open.. it is open. So you'll have to excuse my reluctance in that regard.

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

They are even starting to privatise the police force... This does not look good now does it?

Whenever a government does this it is to keep the puppets in power...

Truth is, most people in the UK are too blind to see the danger they are now in and wont act until its too late..

And the sad thing is that even when they're being transported to the "camps" they'll still be bloody blind to it ,after all ,we put up with succesive governments shafting us at every turn with taxes everywhere , yet are told by the current clown in no 10 that "we are all in it together" please let us wake up and drag them out of parliament by their b******s.

Totally agree... We are the proverbial frog being slowly boiled... One day it will be too late, and we will only have ourselves to blame.. The time to act is now.. I hope that the General Dennatt's of the world are taking note, because the people who can also see what is coming are serving and former soldiers...............

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

They are even starting to privatise the police force... This does not look good now does it?

Whenever a government does this it is to keep the puppets in power...

Truth is, most people in the UK are too blind to see the danger they are now in and wont act until its too late..

Evan, can I ask, what do you think is the agenda for privatising our police force is?

It terrifies me the very thought of it, but what do you think the reasons are?

pmc are a waste of money. they're good for bullying and terrorizing local populations.

but they're useless for fighting real wars.

how many of them would charge head long into the enemy thru a hail of machine gun fire, like on d-day, for a hundred thousand dollars, meeting almost certain death.

not many. mercenaries fight for money, not country, flag, or for your life or home.

iraq was different. they didn't 2 stones to throw at the u.s. military.

it's a business decision. and it's not profitable to be a pmc if you're dead.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

They are even starting to privatise the police force... This does not look good now does it?

Whenever a government does this it is to keep the puppets in power...

Truth is, most people in the UK are too blind to see the danger they are now in and wont act until its too late..

Evan, can I ask, what do you think is the agenda for privatising our police force is?

It terrifies me the very thought of it, but what do you think the reasons are?

It could serve several benign things like at the moment several services that the police used to perform such as forensics and drug/alcohol work is done by the private sector, but now, under the guise of austerity and cuts, even more services are now under tender by companies like G4S to take over some of the investigative and custody roles that the police now do.. This is corporatism.. And private companies have total privacy even when under government scrutiny that is open to abuse... They also do not have democratic backing i.e. being policed by consent..

We are in a situation of an overt corporate take-over of the UK via foreign powers with foreign guns to back them up.. Corporate slavery for all...

We need to stop them before its too late..

Originally posted by EvanB


History shows that whenever a government even our own hires foreign mercenaries they are preparing to go to war on their own population...

If anything, history shows us that the use of private mercenary forces (especially in times of warfare) is signaling the beginning of the end of a nation's hegemony over military dominance or prowess. However, this isn't true for England. As another user pointed out, the vast majority of these PMCs will be used mainly as they are used in by the U.S military today: logistics. It's much cheaper to hire a mercenary to run a supply line and work for 6 months than it is to train, equip and pay a soldier indefinitely to do the same damn thing.

However, if the role of the PMC expands inside of the English Armed Forces to the extent that they are used in combat roles--e.g. French Foreign Legion style--then you have to begin to wonder about the stability of the English ability to wage war. History shows us, time and time again, that nations that begin to rely on the military skill of PMCs and foreign contractors have begun the downfall to backseat driver so-to-speak in international politics.

The Romans are probably the best and most fitting example of this. Although I hate to rely on Wikipedia as a source, they do outline the historical use of mercenaries very well.

In the late Roman Empire, it became increasingly difficult for Emperors and generals to raise military units from the citizenry for various reasons: lack of manpower, lack of time available for training, lack of materials, and, inevitably, political considerations. Therefore, beginning in the late 4th century, the empire often contracted whole bands of barbarians either within the legions or as autonomous foederati. The barbarians were Romanized and surviving veterans were established in areas requiring population. The Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire is the best known formation made up of barbarian mercenaries (see next section).

Wiki

reply to post by isthisreallife


Good post..

It is also a sign that the system is losing its grip thus gets rid of a nations ability to defend itself from its control..

This has been happening on a drip drip drip basis for many years in the UK.. From the disarming of the population, to thinning the armed forces and now using foreign mercs..

You cant say they do not have a plan!

reply to post by paraphi


You are trying to make a comparison of apples and oranges. The force you claim as foreign are/were in fact part of the British/UK commonwealth and thereby part of the British standing military forces. You see, India at that time was a british holding, the colonies of South Rhodesia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not countries, they are british subsidiary holdings. Now, if you had of said the british used russian mercenaries, you would be correct at least in your comparison, but I don't think that has ever happened.

If you see a buildup of foreign troops in your country/colony and it is made to look as a commonplace occurrence, for continuous training, expect the worst. Foreign troops are the best bet if the PTB want to quell an uprising, since foreign troops, whether state sanctioned or mercenaries, will generally shoot citizens in anything other than their home country/colony. These brainless morons don't realize that the same thing is happening in their own country/colony to their wife, kids, parents, brothers, sisters, etc. by other foreign troops.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


I understand your point and acknowledge that the Commonwealth and the fore-runner nations formed their own militaries which fought and shed blood alongside their British forces peers and across many wars and theatres.

However, the point I was leaning toward is that the British armed forces attract nationals from all over the world, not just Nepalese who form the Ghurkhas. For example, there is c. 2,000 Fijians serving in the British armed forces at the mo. I believe that people can join the British armed forces from across the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland and I expect the British armed forces are enriched by this involvement.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

I understand your point and acknowledge that the Commonwealth and the fore-runner nations formed their own militaries which fought and shed blood alongside their British forces peers and across many wars and theatres.

However, the point I was leaning toward is that the British armed forces attract nationals from all over the world, not just Nepalese who form the Ghurkhas. For example, there is c. 2,000 Fijians serving in the British armed forces at the mo. I believe that people can join the British armed forces from across the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland and I expect the British armed forces are enriched by this involvement.

Regards

In a way I agree that the UK forces would be "enriched" culturally by having "soldiers" from other countries (non-commonwealth colonies), but, those "soldiers" would then be mercenaries and personally, I don't think culture really helps out a lot during a campaign. One of the primary differences between a merc and a soldier is that the merc fights only for money, the soldier fights for ideals (hopefully) and nationalistic purpose as well as the money (which everyone needs to live). I might also mention that people in a national military (at least when I was working for the military) lived by a very specific code of conduct. That does seem to have fallen away these days, obviously with mercs on the battlefield. Or maybe it's all the lies from our political talking heads, it's hard to believe you're doing the right thing, when they (politicians) can't even do the right thing at home.

If you have the money you can buy a merc. You can't buy a soldier as the only price a true soldier recognizes is honour and duty to his brothers in arms and his responsibility to people who can't defend themselves. But I am old school, what do I know, the world is upside down now, terrorists are heroes, criminals are saints, the common man is the new criminal and the insane psychopaths are running the asylum...

Cheers - Dave

Mercenaries cannot be held accountable either.
Look at the USA and blackwater.
I dont think this is WHY the UK is doing this, but its a positive.
The UK is broke I imagine taking these full time soldiers off the pay roll will help a bit!
Nations dont need large armies any more, they need drones, carriers, jets and cruise missiles.
You need small pockets of men to perform quick violent attacks.
Its the way of the future!

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by paraphi

 

You are trying to make a comparison of apples and oranges. The force you claim as foreign are/were in fact part of the British/UK commonwealth and thereby part of the British standing military forces. You see, India at that time was a british holding, the colonies of South Rhodesia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not countries, they are british subsidiary holdings. Now, if you had of said the british used russian mercenaries, you would be correct at least in your comparison, but I don't think that has ever happened.

the British still use Nepalese mercenaries (Ghurka's - although strictly speaking according to the GC they are not mercenaries...), and had Swiss and German mercenaries in the Napoleonic Wars, and a 3000 strong Swiss legion was recruited during the Crimean war.

the British also paid a great deal of money and sent equipment to the various states opposed to Napolen in the first decade of the 1800's, including paying for the Russian-German legion in Russian service

Then there are units such as the Czech Legions of WW1, and the Free French, Polish, Jewish and similar units in WW2 - were they mercenary??