OT: Privatized War

Puke · #1 May 3rd, 2004, 05:29 PM

are these not interesting times? I remember a few weeks ago, I had read that the four civilians killed and mutilated in Fallujah may have been mercenaries, as one of of them was wearing dog tags.

Then I read in a South African news paper that one of them was confirmed to have been a US "Security Contractor" that we had down there a few years back, assassinating people involved with the appartheid conflict. Cant remember which side of it we had him supporting though, but word has it that he was a rather brutal fellow.

And now I come accross this interesting litte read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

20,000 mercenaries? Increasing to 30,000 as we withdraw conventional forces? Do a google search for Blackwater Security and take a look at their hireing requirements! I knew that we used "private contractors" but I didnt know that it happened on this scale!

Anyway, Im sure you folks have several thoughts on the matter. I think that I will refrain from voicing an opinion one way or the other, but I am interested in seeing what you all have to say.

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro · #2 May 3rd, 2004, 06:52 PM

When you train very hard year after year to be somesort of special operations badass, there's not much you are qualified to do when you leave the service. Some become mercenaries, others join U.N. peacekeepers or NGO's (I honestly don't know what that is) There are even some who re-enlist in the French Foreign Legion. Mercenaries do have their place and are often times better equipped and better trained then the regular armed service counterparts. I say sure go ahead and use 'em. But they better pick something better to drive than a Land Cruiser.

sachmo · #3 May 3rd, 2004, 07:01 PM

It's a very interesting situation, because it doesn't seem that the media makes a distinction between a civilian and a mercenary. Here in America, we don't handle civilian deaths very well. But would we be as shocked and outraged if we learned that the civilian casualty was in fact an armed peacekeeper who was armed and went knowingly into harm's way, for money?

Please note that I am not saying that there have not been innocent civilians killed in Iraq, on either side, but I personally make a distinction between security forces and private citizens.

capnq · #4 May 3rd, 2004, 07:26 PM

NGO = non-governmental organization, I think.

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro · #5 May 3rd, 2004, 07:53 PM

Yeah, even though we all know their mercenaries now the media still says "civilian contractors". I also wonder why those Japanese civilians were there. Do I need to put quotes around civilian? Were they just being stupid? Were they putting pee pee in our Cokes?

AMF · #6 May 3rd, 2004, 08:00 PM

Well, the Japanese do an awful lot of NGO stuff - aid work, mostly. And, given that they have few if any "security" type consultants in Japan, I suspect they're just the run of the mill aid worker types.

Quote:

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
Yeah, even though we all know their mercenaries now the media still says "civilian contractors". I also wonder why those Japanese civilians were there. Do I need to put quotes around civilian? Were they just being stupid? Were they putting pee pee in our Cokes?

Krsqk · #7 May 4th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Well, I found this little quote surprising:

Quote:

"Each private firm amounts to an individual battalion," said one U.S. government official familiar with the developments.

A battalion? That's quite a bit of firepower. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining the market demand for several battalion-sized private "security" forces (i.e., mercs). Somehow seems a bit too much like something I'd d/l from Baen.

[edit]I meant I have trouble seeing the demand that led many someones to say to themselves, "Self, you have much goods laid up for many years. Life will be boring now, so why don't you go recruit a bunch of old SpecOps personnel who still wanna fight and start your own mercenary battalion!"

[ May 03, 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

narf poit chez BOOM · #8 May 4th, 2004, 08:44 AM

Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

sachmo · #9 May 4th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.

AMF · #10 May 4th, 2004, 03:13 PM

Wouldn't they be "governed," albeit perhaps less strictly, by the ROE for the theater? I'm just thinking that it'd be awfully weird if they were allowed to go into theater and weren't briefed on the ROE in place, since that is a theater level decision and they'd be responsbile to/hired by the Combatant Commander, no?

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo:
I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.