Blackwater for Darfur. Would you support this?

[RichardE]

I have a group of friends who I regularly meet with for coffee where we discuss politics ect ect. It is the sort of group of very diverse people that seem to form in university that begins your so called "network." I find these people relatively intelligent in many matters and for some reason the last few weeks we have discussed the question of Darfur from an academic standpoint (since we really have no way to make a change that the social clubs are not doing already). I came up with the idea of using or hiring Blackwater to defend the areas in Darfur that need defending as sort of a peacekeeping force almost, or we could use as a tactical force to kill the people causing the problems.

My friends initially dismissed me as a warmonger... (we have discussed Israel/Palestine as well) but I still persisted thinking it was a good idea. A few nights later I am sitting down at my computer and decide to look up whether this idea is feasible and to a little surprise I find it is an idea that has been thrown around a few times in the last few years. So much actually that the head of BW commented on it, and there is speculation the UN security council is going to authorize it.

Text

he international community hasn't lived up to the promise of "never again." In Bosnia, Rwanda and now Darfur, hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered while the world largely watched. The United States calls the killing in Darfur "genocide."

Enter Blackwater, a private military company that says it can help keep peace in Darfur. Doug Brooks runs an association of private military firms, which includes Blackwater. He says his members can help where governments have failed.


"What we've seen is the West has largely abrogated any responsibility to put their own people on the ground in places they don't care about," says Brooks. "It's willing to authorize these missions, but it's not willing to put boots on the ground. The private sector can step in. It can fill that gap."


The United Nations, which hopes to deploy in Darfur this fall, opposes the outsourcing of force.

The peacekeeping pitch sounds great, but has all kinds of problems, says Peter Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and author of Corporate Warriors.

For one thing, he says, there's little accountability. If contractors misbehave -- as they did at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- they rarely face charges. Singer says private military firms are focusing on peacekeeping, in part, to improve their image.

"It's a wonderful way to put a very nice face onto an industry that faces a pretty big question of legitimacy," says Singer. "Because, at the end of the day, it's the corporate evolution of the mercenary trade."

At Blackwater's headquarters in North Carolina, the airy, glass atrium seems more Fortune Magazine than Soldier of Fortune. The company's training center covers an area about half the size of Manhattan. Facilities include a mock-up of a motel for assault training and several miles of track where trainees are taught how to drive in dangerous conditions.

Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camp in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback.

"Any sort of intervention would have to be done by nation-state militaries," Taylor says. "What we seek to do first is be the best deterrent we could possibly be."

But Taylor acknowledges that the political hurdles to such a contract are huge. Nations are often reluctant to allow in U.N. peacekeepers, let alone private soldiers. Many African nations would be especially resistant, given the continent's bad history with white mercenaries.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, under-secretary general for peacekeeping at the U.N., says the international community shouldn't be allowed to dump its responsibilities on the private sector.

"If you want to have peace, it's not just a technical issue, it's a political issue," he says. "So, I don't think states can get off the hook by committing to tragic situations by just handing over the job to private companies."

In fact, private military firms already provide services to peacekeepers. They've flown African soldiers around Darfur. In Congo and Liberia, they've protected U.N. food convoys, warehouses and personnel.

The private military industry took off at the end of the Cold War as armies downsized, but conflicts flared in regions like the Balkans. The industry now makes billions of dollars each year. Firms provide everything from fighter jets to bodyguards in more than 50 countries.

Singer, the military analyst, says the security companies are looking to peacekeeping because they expect work in Iraq will begin to dry up when the United States pulls back.

"There are a lot of crises in the world," says Singer, "so if they can get their foot in the door, it potentially opens up an entire new business sector."

Deborah Avant, a professor at George Washington University and author of The Market for Force, says she thinks that someday, somewhere, private firms will be hired to defend civilians.

"I think that's probably something that will unfold in the next five years," she says. "Ultimately, it's a political failure of states and yet an increasing sense among the rather diffuse, international community that something must be done."

For now, private bids to do peacekeeping are going nowhere. And in Darfur, a fragile peace agreement is fraying. In an interview with NPR, Jan Egeland, the U.N.'s chief aid coordinator, said U.N. trucks are attacked every week. He said some humanitarian organizations have already left Darfur and others are debating whether to go.

So, since my position on this is known, I am all for hiring Blackwater and sending them in to keep peace in this area and restore some normality to the lives of Darfurs and Sudans citizens what do you think? Do you support the hiring of mercenaries to keep peace in areas where governments cannot act due to political reasons?

 

[Red Dawn]

Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

 

[RichardE]

http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/25

A paper written on this subject in regards to using PMF (Private Military Firms) for Darfur, not just Blackwater.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

 

[cirrrocco]

we should also send blackwater to clean up the corruption in chicago and also to police parts of mexico where many people try to come into the us.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: cirrrocco
we should also send blackwater to clean up the corruption in chicago and also to police parts of mexico where many people try to come into the us.

Why post if its just useless dribble? If you have no opinion on the topic at hand why bother posting at all? I'm sure you can make a new thread if you want to discuss Chicago politics. Christ P&N has turned into nothing but a "thread, cheap retort, pathetic retort, cheap retort" since The election cycle started.


Sandorski and Red Dawn, with the knowledge that Mercenaries forces have always existed in one form or another (The US ones are recent though) and the idea that eradicating PMF will never actually happen, not to mention the monopoly on force of States is a recent development and not the rule as far as civilization goes, do you think it would not be better to have US based PMF's working rather than third would country PMF's when we can politically change the way for instance B W works as we saw from the killing of civllians. If an African force had killed those 19 civilians we would never have heard of it, but since BW operates from the US, they are given some level of political scrutiny and answer somewhat to the people as a whole.

 

[StageLeft]

It is not a bad idea and has precedent. In any case, it would be more effective than what is being done now, which is next to nothing.

I read a book--cannot remember its name now--but it is a few years old about an SAS operation in Sierra Leone to free some British military. It is a true story and occurred in the late 90's. Anyway, the background for this is that paid, skilled mercenaries in that area and other spots in Africa have had FAR more effectiveness per dollar/amount of personnel than gov-sanctioned. Some governments in Africa have hired PMC (private military contractors) who are well armed and not bogged down by UN bullsh*t and are able to really affect change there. The UN is greatly hamstrung by bickering and silly rules of engagement that basically don't allow their soldiers to fire a gun unless they are literally that second being raped by a rebel opposition after seeing him personally line up a dozen kids and cap them in the head.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: RichardE
I have a group of friends ?

I am shocked. You have friends?

 

[Genx87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

These guys performed wonders in Sierra Leone until the UN forced them out and sent the country back into chaos.

I believe about 300 mercenaries trained about 2000 local troops and they fought together. They pushed the rebels back into a village before the UN intervened. The UN's budget was about 10x what the mercs costed and completely ineffective.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

3rd that!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

These guys performed wonders in Sierra Leone until the UN forced them out and sent the country back into chaos.

I believe about 300 mercenaries trained about 2000 local troops and they fought together. They pushed the rebels back into a village before the UN intervened. The UN's budget was about 10x what the mercs costed and completely ineffective.

Yep, I know they are mentioned in the book I referred to above, which turns out it was called Operation Certain Death, which in real-life referred to Operation Barras.

This book tells some savage tales about what rebels in Africa are capable of. Savagery in the extreme.

 

[blackangst1]

I fully support firms like BW; however, I dont think Darfur is a mess we should even touch. We dont exactly have a great track record when it comes to picking sides in a civil war. Just my opinion.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

These guys performed wonders in Sierra Leone until the UN forced them out and sent the country back into chaos.

I believe about 300 mercenaries trained about 2000 local troops and they fought together. They pushed the rebels back into a village before the UN intervened. The UN's budget was about 10x what the mercs costed and completely ineffective.

Yep, I know they are mentioned in the book I referred to above, which turns out it was called Operation Certain Death, which in real-life referred to Operation Barras.

This book tells some savage tales about what rebels in Africa are capable of. Savagery in the extreme.

Just ordered that book on your recommendation, cheers and thanks :beer:

From the wiki article it seems everytime the PMC or PMF was forced out to be replaced by UN workers with strict ROE the countries dissolved back to a failed state rather quickly.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

These guys performed wonders in Sierra Leone until the UN forced them out and sent the country back into chaos.

I believe about 300 mercenaries trained about 2000 local troops and they fought together. They pushed the rebels back into a village before the UN intervened. The UN's budget was about 10x what the mercs costed and completely ineffective.

Yep, I know they are mentioned in the book I referred to above, which turns out it was called Operation Certain Death, which in real-life referred to Operation Barras.

This book tells some savage tales about what rebels in Africa are capable of. Savagery in the extreme.

Just ordered that book on your recommendation, cheers and thanks :beer:

From the wiki article it seems everytime the PMC or PMF was forced out to be replaced by UN workers with strict ROE the countries dissolved back to a failed state rather quickly.

I hope you like it. I think you will; on a vacation my dad and two brothers all cranked through it, it's a very good read.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

These guys performed wonders in Sierra Leone until the UN forced them out and sent the country back into chaos.

I believe about 300 mercenaries trained about 2000 local troops and they fought together. They pushed the rebels back into a village before the UN intervened. The UN's budget was about 10x what the mercs costed and completely ineffective.

Yep, I know they are mentioned in the book I referred to above, which turns out it was called Operation Certain Death, which in real-life referred to Operation Barras.

This book tells some savage tales about what rebels in Africa are capable of. Savagery in the extreme.

Just ordered that book on your recommendation, cheers and thanks :beer:

From the wiki article it seems everytime the PMC or PMF was forced out to be replaced by UN workers with strict ROE the countries dissolved back to a failed state rather quickly.

Yup and it is a damn shame. I watched a documentary on the mercs in Sierra Leone. Classic case of the UN fucking things up. Mandating the govt kick the mercs out and allow peacekeepers in. The result was an escalation of hostilities. The cost differences and manpower requirements were ridiculous as well. The UN force numbers about 10,000 troops and couldnt stop a fly and cost about 1 billion annually. The Mercs cost about 70-100 million annually with about 300 mercs working with 2000 local troops they trained and two helicopters.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I fully support firms like BW; however, I dont think Darfur is a mess we should even touch. We dont exactly have a great track record when it comes to picking sides in a civil war. Just my opinion.

Darfur is far from a civil war. It's genocide.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

 

[NeoV]

I'm for it

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I fully support firms like BW; however, I dont think Darfur is a mess we should even touch. We dont exactly have a great track record when it comes to picking sides in a civil war. Just my opinion.

Darfur is far from a civil war. It's genocide.

Fair enough.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

They do what their employer pays them to do, so the motive problems are not theirs but their government's. If they are in the service of a legitimate government they can be a positive power and act without the often excess bureaucracy and BS of the UN. If you review the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers they are often just absurd, like they can watch a woman get raped or some kids hacked up but unless they are directly under attack they can't do anything.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

Which can be a very good motivator when backed by a state sanctioned ability to elimitate them. If a blackwater representative was offered say 750k to turn over to the Iraq side, or say an entire Squad was turned, how quickly could state sanctioned violence courtesy of the US or the Co-allition eliminate them?

These mercenaries groups are much different than the ones that operated in Roman times, or the Medevial period where turning was commonplace and a regular occurrence and you could not depend on there loyalty. The technology today makes it a trivial affair for a state to take out 2-3k people.

I think money, the ability to do a job you enjoy (This be the application of lethal force) combined with the real knowledge that you are allowed to live as long as you do not threaten the security of the United States of America or any other super power can be a strong leash on an otherwise chaotic profession.

 

[StageLeft]

I think money, the ability to do a job you enjoy (This be the application of lethal force) combined with the real knowledge that you are allowed to live as long as you do not threaten the security of the United States of America or any other super power can be a strong leash on an otherwise chaotic profession.

At least for now it appears to be. We're well aware of the cowboyism of groups like Blackwater, but these are not true mercs in the classic sense and do have more than simply money to be aware of, such as international law. A company based in the US is not going to sell its mercs to North Korea and if a company engages in terrible acts it will be blacklisted and unable to get business.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope, I see nothing good ab out allowing mercenaries even to exist let alone to work for the UN.

yup

ditto

It's a shame you guys say this but appear to be unaware of any cases where they have impacted Africa, like what's already been mentioned in this thread.

The problem with Mercenaries is that their Motives are untrustworthy. You can't effectively control a system, especially one of Violence, when $$ is the prime motivator.

When has ANY mercs, or countries for that matter, had motivations other than money? What other reason to do it? Because we care? You know better. The minute people understand that relations internationally are done for money, and thats how it is, and get over it because its not going to change, we can make progress.