talkpolitics | Privatizing warfare

Maybe this will be relevant in a way to the monthly topic, the future development of the world. Because war and the military is an essential part of society, and there've been some well noticeable trends there in the recent years. First of all, here's a curious review of some of the largest private armies that now exist in the world:

A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

Mercenaries, or "private contractors" as is the new PC term now, have been part of warfare through all stages of human history. In fact I'd say citizen-army is a relatively recent development in comparison. Well, there are many ethical and purely strategic issues involved in privatizing warfare. From the question to whom do they owe their allegiance, since they're being paid for by private companies; to the question how effective they can be in a tough military situation. I'm no expert, but still, here are some scattered musings.

Apparently, one of the stated reasons for privatizing warfare is the expenses for maintaining a government-funded military. The argument here is that the US cannot be present in all corners of the world, it's getting strained thin when it has to fight in several places at once (Afghanistan, Iraq).

The other problem stems from the ineptness of local governments to strengthen their own military (Afghanistan). That's the reason the developed nations who have some interest in those particular regions, go in and fund these governments to provide security there (Pakistan), thus legitimizing those governments/regimes as a side effect (Yemen). It's like a cycle: you fund your chosen side, you legitimize it diplomatically on the international scene, so it starts looking worth funding, as opposed to a mere collection of jerks who'll just misappropriate the funds (Libya). Many regimes have been born and maintained that way (Chile), up to the point where they've become expendable, hence brought down (Egypt).

Making a killing: how private armies became a $120bn global industry

This author makes an argument worth thinking about, as it causes concerns about private security contractors. They operate in a grey area which frequently borders on the limits of law. There's a problem with setting and adhering to proper standards of accountability. Governments outsourcing their duties in defense/offense to private contractors could afford to pay the higher price for highly trained mercenaries, then have them do the dirty job, and then if/when those screw up and the shit hits the fan, said government could conveniently wash its hands by saying it never commissioned those particular actions, and it was the private company who did it. There's no one to blame but the company alone, full stop. As the "high-ranking US military commander" cited in the article says, "Those guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them".

While I wouldn't go as far as to claim that governments (especially the US one) are any sort of moral institutions, they at least have it as part of their job to perform actions that are morally acceptable to the people electing them into office in the first place. And of course to have some sort of accountabiliy mechanism and oversight. Having a certain code of conduct that takes into account the popular mores of said society. In the meantime, same could not necessarily be said about the mercenaries hired by private corporations. Nothing binds them to particular codes of conduct, moral codes, etc, save the internal rules of said corporation, which stem from its private interests. Which do not necessarily match those of society.

And then there's the reliability problem, which originates in the uncertain nature of the mercenary's allegiances. Because history has often shown that mercenaries are inherently unreliable and tricky to use, as one could find themselves faced against an army that they had previously used for their purposes. A similar problem arises when using ideologically divergent proxy armies - one has to always keep such a proxy, or a group of mercenaries, on a very short leash, unless you like being stabbed in the back when you least expect it. Because the bottom line in hired labor is money, not allegiance to any cause, nation, code, or honor.

Case in point: Iraq. Again, I'm not very well versed in this particular domain, but from what I could gather from people who've been inside the kitchen of events for some time, it would seem that independent contractors there have found themselves amidst frequent scandals due to their bad reputation for military standards and abuse that has caused rage and hatred both among regular troops and the local population alike. And that has already begun taking some pretty grotesque proportions.

Here's some interesting read: One Nation Under Contract. According to author Allison Stanger, mercenaries now account for roughly 50% of all American troops deployed overseas in war zones. Granted, not all of them are combatants. Let's make one thing very clear. It's one thing to do the laundry and provide transportation and security for important persons, it's quite another to be at the frontline and do the actual fighting. But the latter is also becoming a priority of the private contractors, especially in Iraq where the regular troops have left.

The author touches on several key moments:

1) The US is pouring billions of dollars to outsource its military, including payments under the table to coalition partners without disclosing how much has been spent and what exactly it's being given for. And that, at a time when everybody in the US is bickering about taxpayers' money being spent for bail-outs, etc. Whenever the issue of cutting the military budget is even remotely touched, both sides of the aisle raise their voices to the heavens and do their best to stop the debate in its roots. That must tell us something.

2) There are two arguments being given in defense of outsourcing the military: it spares American lives, and it spares the military budget. Well, the latter isn't exactly correct, because these mercenaries are in fact paid substantially more than American soldiers to essentially do the same job, and it's doubtful they do it more efficiently. Only, this time there are huge private business interests involved as well, making billions in the process.

3) Payments to these mercenaries divert funds away from domestic programs and initiatives related to the military and those of service, and that's one of the root causes for the financial cutbacks (example: Wisconsin) that are being done in order to avoid having to draft soldiers from the US population.

So, I guess the final question of this diatribe is: is paying mercenaries from public coffers preferable to conscripting potentially unwilling soldiers or conversely, promoting more investment in the regular military? I'd be particularly interested to hear from soldiers / ex-soldiers on this issue, and not necessarily from US ones only. Thanks in advance.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

Steve Fairnu wrote an interesting book (http://books.google.com/books?id=z1Zro-gfvjEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Big%20Boy%20Rules&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Big%20Boy%20Rules&f=false) on these private operators in Iraq. One of the aspects that he details is the poor discipline and the consequent atrocities committed by some of them.

On the upside, they employ people who would not be happy in any non-violent profession.

From:

404.livejournal.com

In every game I've played that involved PMCs, they were always the bad guys.

From:

blue-mangos.livejournal.com

Image problem. Fucking Blackwater.

From:

404.livejournal.com

I know! Just last week I saw a PMC agent helped a little old lady across the street, too bad afterwards he called in a drone attack on the market she was going to because of a suspected terrorist was seen shopping there for falafel a few minutes earlier.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Privatizing warfare

Credits & Style Info

Links

Summary