Why not mercenary armies?

[Thump553]

We do in fact use mercenaries now-what are the so-called private security forces? Those guys aren't your usual mall rent-a-cops. And when they are in up to their eyebrows in interrogating prisoners, I'd think it's safe to count them as mercenaries.

Also, a cynic would call some of the troops supplied by our "allies" mercenaries-after all, it took a lot of $$$ to buy some of those countries. In that case though the money goes to the politicians and not to the grunt on the ground.

 

[feralkid]

Two words:

Black Water.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Yep, I guess those who don't blindly follow orders and justify all of their actions with sing-song jingoism aren't going to be as 'loyal.' :thumbsup:

If you subscribe to the necessity of having an army at all, which in the current state of the world is more or less a no-brainer, then this is a big deal.

Oh you bet it is. And the politicians are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

The US army is currently a Mercenary army because it is a high paying army that isn't defending its nation.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Oh you bet it is. And the politicians are laughing all the way to the bank.

That's a good one. There is no way the American military spends more on wages than they would have to do to get the same result from mercenaries.

If you want to talk about the military being an agent of aggression and imperialism, rather than being designed as an effective system of national defence, then I completely agree with you.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Two words:

Black Water.

They have an aswsome newsletter

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

The US army is currently a Mercenary army because it is a high paying army that isn't defending its nation.

I think there is a difference between a voluntary army, and a mercenary group. There is a lot of "honor" (whether right or wrong or good or bad it exists) in being part of an Army, or in this part of the US Army. That is something that doesn't exist (or maybe not not as much of a degree) in the Mercenary world. Even if you are opposed to war, there is a level of respect you will give a soldier who says "I served in the Iraqi War as a/an ____" that you will not give to the mercenary who says "I was contracted out by the USA through a private security firm to operate in Iraq"
In the army your job is to fight for your country. You will go to war if the presdient says you will. When you aren't in war, you are not "looking" for war. Mercenaries always have their "skills" for sale to the highest bidder, fight for potentiall many countries, and can choose to turn on a "call to war" if they wish.

I understand the comparison you are making (especially since I agree that our army isn't doing much "defending" right now) but I still beleive it is flawed because of the basic fundamental differences between a volunteer army and a mercenary group. It is a thin fine line that seperates it, but it is an important line nonetheless.


As for why not mercenary armies? Ask Rome that OR just ask any empire in history that ended up resorting to using Mercs and their "experiences" with it

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

The US army is currently a Mercenary army because it is a high paying army that isn't defending its nation.

I think there is a difference between a voluntary army, and a mercenary group. There is a lot of "honor" (whether right or wrong or good or bad it exists) in being part of an Army, or in this part of the US Army. That is something that doesn't exist (or maybe not not as much of a degree) in the Mercenary world. Even if you are opposed to war, there is a level of respect you will give a soldier who says "I served in the Iraqi War as a/an ____" that you will not give to the mercenary who says "I was contracted out by the USA through a private security firm to operate in Iraq"
In the army your job is to fight for your country. You will go to war if the presdient says you will. When you aren't in war, you are not "looking" for war. Mercenaries always have their "skills" for sale to the highest bidder, fight for potentiall many countries, and can choose to turn on a "call to war" if they wish.

I understand the comparison you are making (especially since I agree that our army isn't doing much "defending" right now) but I still beleive it is flawed because of the basic fundamental differences between a volunteer army and a mercenary group. It is a thin fine line that seperates it, but it is an important line nonetheless.


As for why not mercenary armies? Ask Rome that OR just ask any empire in history that ended up resorting to using Mercs and their "experiences" with it

They probally would just say
"oh, I am a merc"

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Oh you bet it is. And the politicians are laughing all the way to the bank.

That's a good one. There is no way the American military spends more on wages than they would have to do to get the same result from mercenaries.

That's precisely my point. If you can get a bunch of white trash slack jawed yokels to join your cause because of their blind patriotic fatih, war becomes a lot less expensive. That is a bad thing, not to mention the fact that it is dangerous.

If you want to talk about the military being an agent of aggression and imperialism, rather than being designed as an effective system of national defence, then I completely agree with you.

The military hasn't defended against a single invader since the war with Mexico. 'National defense' is a crock. Actual national defense (strictly defense of the borders) could easily be done with $40 billion a year.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

The US army is currently a Mercenary army because it is a high paying army that isn't defending its nation.

I think there is a difference between a voluntary army, and a mercenary group. There is a lot of "honor" (whether right or wrong or good or bad it exists) in being part of an Army, or in this part of the US Army. That is something that doesn't exist (or maybe not not as much of a degree) in the Mercenary world. Even if you are opposed to war, there is a level of respect you will give a soldier who says "I served in the Iraqi War as a/an ____" that you will not give to the mercenary who says "I was contracted out by the USA through a private security firm to operate in Iraq"
In the army your job is to fight for your country. You will go to war if the presdient says you will. When you aren't in war, you are not "looking" for war. Mercenaries always have their "skills" for sale to the highest bidder, fight for potentiall many countries, and can choose to turn on a "call to war" if they wish.

I understand the comparison you are making (especially since I agree that our army isn't doing much "defending" right now) but I still beleive it is flawed because of the basic fundamental differences between a volunteer army and a mercenary group. It is a thin fine line that seperates it, but it is an important line nonetheless.


As for why not mercenary armies? Ask Rome that OR just ask any empire in history that ended up resorting to using Mercs and their "experiences" with it

They probally would just say
"oh, I am a merc"

Isn't a good portion of the US citizens that are serving/working in Iraq are private contractors/mercs....Haliburton is one such contractor that come to mind.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: JinLien

Isn't a good portion of the US citizens that are serving/working in Iraq are private contractors/mercs....Haliburton is one such contractor that come to mind.

Yup and I agree right there that "private security forces" are fancy names for mercenaries. And they way they conduct business is obvious. They don't have to deal with who they kill (watching a PBS frontline told of how troops were jealous of mercs because they got paid substancially more, and whenever the mercs killed people (since they don't the oversight that the military has) it would generate more animosity towards the MILITARY rather than the mercs) and they charge us insane prices (this has been going on WELL before Bush and even Clinton...). They primary goal (unlike some troops, actually hopefully most troops. I won't say our administartion because I don't trust them) is to make money, not provide stability to the country.

To get an idea watch this frontline called "Private Warriors"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

 

[tweakmm]

We've already got "mercenaries" in the middle east. I put that word in quotes because they are really our guys, but legally they are Haliburton's.
International conventions what?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
That's a good one. There is no way the American military spends more on wages than they would have to do to get the same result from mercenaries.

That's precisely my point. If you can get a bunch of white trash slack jawed yokels to join your cause because of their blind patriotic fatih, war becomes a lot less expensive. That is a bad thing, not to mention the fact that it is dangerous.

If you want to talk about the military being an agent of aggression and imperialism, rather than being designed as an effective system of national defence, then I completely agree with you.

The military hasn't defended against a single invader since the war with Mexico. 'National defense' is a crock. Actual national defense (strictly defense of the borders) could easily be done with $40 billion a year.

Of course national defence as it exists in the US today is a scam. Actually, it may be a 'good investment' for Americans, as Imperialism tends to be profitable for the Imperialists. But it certainly isn't 'defence'.

That being said, a 'volunteer' (not 'unpaid') army will be a more effective, less expensive defensive force than a mercenary one.

 

[LunarRay]

Army is for occupation. No hope of getting any group of mercenaries to occupy a fully hostile country for long. Any action against a nation with as many folks as Iran or any area nation would require 50 divisions at least and the support for that is dollar wise insane. We just don't have the troops to be embarked on any endeavor but sadly not the smarts to see it.
Can't we just stay in our own back yard and let the rest of the world play what ever games they want in theirs..

 

[Genx87]

They used Mecenaries in Sierre Leone with unbelievable success.
The UN couldnt stand for this and intervened, spent 10x the money, and the situation erroded quickly into a terrible situation.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Mercenaries are very expensive. Tripling or quadrupuling the cost.

Not quite, see Sierre Leone

 

[judasmachine]

d'oh didn't mean to quote. edited.

Just a wild idea, and don't flame me for it, but perhaps we should unionize the military, maybe that way they'd get paid better, and their familes would be better taken care of. If you hire me to put my a$$ on the line, you damn well better guarantee that my family will get every dime entitled to them if I die, and that they are fed and housed while I'm still alive. Perhaps a little mercenary attitude is just what we need.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Why are US troops killed? Each US solder that is killed is a huge cost in political and financial terms in comparison to a soldier of another country. Why then does the US not employ armies of non-US "mercenary" soldiers? What would be the difficulties in doing this? Political, legal?

It would probably be a good idea if Haliburton and Big Oil did this. Then they could spend their own money, rather than my money, invading countries for oil.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Army is for occupation. No hope of getting any group of mercenaries to occupy a fully hostile country for long. Any action against a nation with as many folks as Iran or any area nation would require 50 divisions at least and the support for that is dollar wise insane. We just don't have the troops to be embarked on any endeavor but sadly not the smarts to see it.
Can't we just stay in our own back yard and let the rest of the world play what ever games they want in theirs..

We tried that in the early 20th century and spent the majority of it fighting extremely bloody wars anyway.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
d'oh didn't mean to quote. edited.

Just a wild idea, and don't flame me for it, but perhaps we should unionize the military, maybe that way they'd get paid better, and their familes would be better taken care of. If you hire me to put my a$$ on the line, you damn well better guarantee that my family will get every dime entitled to them if I die, and that they are fed and housed while I'm still alive. Perhaps a little mercenary attitude is just what we need.

Military goes on strike?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Army is for occupation. No hope of getting any group of mercenaries to occupy a fully hostile country for long. Any action against a nation with as many folks as Iran or any area nation would require 50 divisions at least and the support for that is dollar wise insane. We just don't have the troops to be embarked on any endeavor but sadly not the smarts to see it.
Can't we just stay in our own back yard and let the rest of the world play what ever games they want in theirs..

We tried that in the early 20th century and spent the majority of it fighting extremely bloody wars anyway.

Even into the mid 20th as I recall reading about a certain "lend lease act". Our isolationist response to a thousand year Reich was correct for then but for now I think a bit more universal involvement would suit my attitude's need for a sharing of the wealth ... death and any other diminishings of risk... But where is Gort when you need him... hmmm

 

[logsalen]

Modern warfare evolved from the middle ages model to the current nationalist model because it was found you could get people to do things for "country", "duty", "honour" etc. that they would never contemplate on a simple cost benefit basis. To get people to face the random and uncontrollable nature of modern combat (artillery, IED's, Bombs) you would have to increase pay to ridiculous rates.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, the fundamental difference between a mercenary force and a nationalist army is that the mercenary force appeals selfish ideals and the nationalist army appeals to selflessness - maybe if we were using mercenary armies, there would be less incentive to actually get involved in wars just due to the expense.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: logsalen
Modern warfare evolved from the middle ages model to the current nationalist model because it was found you could get people to do things for "country", "duty", "honour" etc. that they would never contemplate on a simple cost benefit basis. To get people to face the random and uncontrollable nature of modern combat (artillery, IED's, Bombs) you would have to increase pay to ridiculous rates.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, the fundamental difference between a mercenary force and a nationalist army is that the mercenary force appeals selfish ideals and the nationalist army appeals to selflessness - maybe if we were using mercenary armies, there would be less incentive to actually get involved in wars just due to the expense.

Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure the risks of being in the US army are all that high. It would be interesting to see a comparison between various professions including military service.
I was thinking if you employed people from Africa, India, Malasia or some such country where wages are low, they would be willing to take the risk for a manageable wage, whereas there are huge political costs from using US soldiers which tie up the military effectiveness of the US. If a few Americans are killed public sentiment moves against a war, as has happened more than once and predictably.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: logsalen
Modern warfare evolved from the middle ages model to the current nationalist model because it was found you could get people to do things for "country", "duty", "honour" etc. that they would never contemplate on a simple cost benefit basis. To get people to face the random and uncontrollable nature of modern combat (artillery, IED's, Bombs) you would have to increase pay to ridiculous rates.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, the fundamental difference between a mercenary force and a nationalist army is that the mercenary force appeals selfish ideals and the nationalist army appeals to selflessness - maybe if we were using mercenary armies, there would be less incentive to actually get involved in wars just due to the expense.

Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure the risks of being in the US army are all that high. It would be interesting to see a comparison between various professions including military service.
I was thinking if you employed people from Africa, India, Malasia or some such country where wages are low, they would be willing to take the risk for a manageable wage, whereas there are huge political costs from using US soldiers which tie up the military effectiveness of the US. If a few Americans are killed public sentiment moves against a war, as has happened more than once and predictably.

The US & other major powers has always uses other people to fight for them, such as the Iran/Iraq war.

 

[biostud]

Because:
they don't follow any conventions and you have no real control of their actions
you just get another problem once they turn against you
they're not very well organized, and most usefull as smaller terrorizing bands