Why not mercenary armies?

[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?

 

[Uhtrinity]

Unethical maybe? Guess I am just to ideallistic and deluded to think America should set the moral and ethical highground in all matters. What the hell was I thinking

 

[Meuge]

Mercenaries are not loyal.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Unethical maybe? Guess I am just to ideallistic and deluded to think America should set the moral and ethical highground in all matters. What the hell was I thinking

If the war is for a good reason, what is wrong with paying someone other than an american to fight it? Why is paying an american to fight it morally better?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Yep, all that will happen is Joe Allah will offer more money and they will switch sides.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Does this cause more problems now than it did a couple of hundred years ago? You don't think there are organizational and pay structures which would get people to do the job? Is loyalty an absolute necessity?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Does this cause more problems now than it did a couple of hundred years ago? You don't think there are organizational and pay structures which would get people to do the job? Is loyalty an absolute necessity?

For a national army I believe it is.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Yep, all that will happen is Joe Allah will offer more money and they will switch sides.

That would be no problem. If Joe Allah did that, he is out of pocket. Joe Allah can pay his own armies anyway if he has the money. The US has deeper pockets than Joe Allah and can pay others if some go missing.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Meuge
For a national army I believe it is.

Is it a necessity for getting people to fight? I am not suggesting no national army, but the use of mercenary armies for particular jobs.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Yep, all that will happen is Joe Allah will offer more money and they will switch sides.

That would be no problem. If Joe Allah did that, he is out of pocket. Joe Allah can pay his own armies anyway if he has the money. The US has deeper pockets than Joe Allah and can pay others if some go missing.

Alright, that is true, but what about the effects of during this price war when you have Merc switching sides during operations? Sure you can always pay more, but during the time they switched you throw whatever operation they were doing down the drain.

 

[Polish3d]

I don't think we want to arm and train and teach tactics to those who go for the highest bidder

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Meuge
Mercenaries are not loyal.

Yep, all that will happen is Joe Allah will offer more money and they will switch sides.

That would be no problem. If Joe Allah did that, he is out of pocket. Joe Allah can pay his own armies anyway if he has the money. The US has deeper pockets than Joe Allah and can pay others if some go missing.

Alright, that is true, but what about the effects of during this price war when you have Merc switching sides during operations? Sure you can always pay more, but during the time they switched you throw whatever operation they were doing down the drain.

Deserters can be replaced, and won't be on a large scale if the campaign and pay are managed effectively. Now defection can be dealt with too, in fact more easily can't it? If a person defects he is an enemy combatent with whom the US is at war: i.e. he is liable to lose his life.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I don't think we want to arm and train and teach tactics to those who go for the highest bidder

QFT

We just don't learn from experience, do we?

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Unethical maybe? Guess I am just to ideallistic and deluded to think America should set the moral and ethical highground in all matters. What the hell was I thinking

If the war is for a good reason, what is wrong with paying someone other than an american to fight it? Why is paying an american to fight it morally better?

If so then we can get our own hands dirty. I just think mercenaries are bad. Just look at some of the contracted security / intelligence in Iraq. In the end they answer to no one.

Example

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I don't think we want to arm and train and teach tactics to those who go for the highest bidder

They would not be armed and trained to the same level as US soldiers. The operations would presumably be supported by US soldiers with the various forms of military technology.

 

[Polish3d]

Well we have done this in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam to some extent depending on how you define it

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Well we have done this in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam to some extent depending on how you define it

Limited mercenary units that perform specific tasks isn't the same as national army being a mercenary army. In the end, I believe mercenaries are useful, for as long as the national army has the capability to completely destroy them if their loyalty changes.

 

[CSMR]

I used the wrong term when I said "army". My question is just why aren't mercenaries used more; why do US infantry seem to be doing most of the work. Perhaps someone could tell us what the extent of mercenary use at present?

 

[CSMR]

Mercenary armies shouldn't be ruled out either; presumably they would be hired from national governments; however in this case there are clearly big political problems which would prevent national governments from hiring out military services.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CSMR
I used the wrong term when I said "army". My question is just why aren't mercenaries used more; why do US infantry seem to be doing most of the work. Perhaps someone could tell us what the extent of mercenary use at present?

They are used, everytime you hear contractor,security guard, body guard died, that was a merc.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CSMR
If the war is for a good reason, what is wrong with paying someone other than an american to fight it? Why is paying an american to fight it morally better?

If a war is worth fighting, then we should have no problem fighting it ourselves. See Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory for a thorough explanation of why this should not be practiced.

 

[sandorski]

Mercenaries are very expensive. Tripling or quadrupuling the cost.

 

[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:

 

[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.

 

[judasmachine]

is not our military somewhat mercenary as is? oh wait, a merc would negotiate a better wage.