Mercenaries - Politics/Iraq

[Jon Miller]

I was at the book store today. I ended up picking up a Terry Pratchett (Whcih I hopefully didn't already own) that I had only read once before. (was feeling in the mood for humor)

I saw a book about the Blackwater mercenaries... apparently it is a US group that is some 25,000 man strong, mostly involved in Iraq. People who do this get paid 600-1000$ a day for 2 month contracts..

Do we want this? It seems to me that private armies isn't the direction we should be going (I know that some science fiction writers, and other speculative people are in favor.. ). There are also, apparently, other security groups there... they are about as serious as our military.

This seems really dangerous and chaotic to me. I dislike how much we do with our military that is beholden to congress.. military groups that are private groups seems like a big step back as far as accountability goes.

JM

[Apocalypse]

You might like enjoy the show Jericho, where the problems with mercenaries the US highers is a reoccurring theme. http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/1/584

[Berzerker]

not sure about complete mobilizations like WWII, but the US has made use of private soldiers from the beginning. And while there are foreigners hired by these groups, they're American businesses and American run.

[Pekka]

JM, if you're interested in the topic, you should DEFINITELY see documentary called Shadow Company. It deals with this issue and it's a good one. I've been following PMC activity for years, as once I was eager to join one. But it never got to that.

There are loads of problems with private militaries and soldiers. First of all, what kind of laws apply? The person who now lists them to me is full of BS. The fact is, no one knows.

Also, they can be viewed as illegal combatants. Remember that **** about arresting a bunch of folks, sending them to all kinds of places, just because they weren't identified as part of Saddam's army? Remember how most of here said Geneva Convention is kind of blur and if you aren't wearing a uniform and be clearly indentifiable, well, you are not protected then.

So guess how many of these are protected? According to the same logic, NONE. And on top of that, they actually travelled there, so there case is even easier to define as being illegal combatant or what ever that term was.

Some loser might try to say they aren't mercs, but that's exactly what they are. I mean, they consider themselves mercs and they are the modern day mercs, period. I'm NOT talking about ... like those truck drivers, or builders. They aren't mercenaries. But folks such as blackwater? Mercs.

But it isn't an easy case. I mean some of them are doing a good job, some of them principles. But from the perspective of law, thanks to Dubya playing stupid and twisting the issue that everyone else thought was pretty simple, well, they're **** out of luck. SO yeah, they can be and most likely will be absolutely tortured and killed. Show me a merc who was returned? Nah.. no one gives a **** about them.

And what if they engage in illegal activities, say war crimes? There's no supervision, there's no... who do you blame? It's a big problem, so you just want to look the other way, should some mess happen. It's a mess legally, a total mess.

But I support PMCs. Depending on their action, it can be good or bad. It has been good and bad. I support the idea of it though. I don't recognize the absolute unchallenged power of nation states right to use force and violence and then everyone else FREEZE! Hammer time!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Pekka
Also, they can be viewed as illegal combatants. Remember that **** about arresting a bunch of folks, sending them to all kinds of places, just because they weren't identified as part of Saddam's army? Remember how most of here said Geneva Convention is kind of blur and if you aren't wearing a uniform and be clearly indentifiable, well, you are not protected then.

So guess how many of these are protected? According to the same logic, NONE. And on top of that, they actually travelled there, so there case is even easier to define as being illegal combatant or what ever that term was.

This is an excellent point.

[Pekka]

Of course it is.

It's not a problem we hadn't had before, I mean mercenaries, we've always had them. Now PMCs have formed and some of them are straight put merc businesses, no question about it. So what's the difference?

Well the difference is, that you have these people in the place, who pays them? OK, that's a problem. It's not a legal problem necessarily, I mean PMCs themselves might be engaging in illegal activities in there and we just haven't defined it so and no one really knows except that it's a really really "on the edge" issue. But who pays them? Again, not talking about truck drivers, logistical support isn't such a problem legally or in other terms, unless it sucks and the government ends up paying ****loads of money to a business when they could have had it done by privates for almost free.

Anyway, the point is, that should they be determined as illegal combatants, then the next thing we would look at is who hired them. So that's a really big problem, ok? If we want to be pragmatic about it, this is the situation, let's take down the national identities down for a while and look at it like it is.

And hey, this isn't an American problem. We've got all kinds of people there, we got many Finns there as well (they were just in the papers). We got all kinds of.. mostly westerners there, and none of them fall to the category of legal combatant by the standards the Afghans were treated. It's a problem.

[Jon Miller]

I Actually thought about getting the book, Blackwater USA I think was the name.

I just read one chapter though, it didn't seem to be very coherent, rather having examples of behavior at different time frames.

JM

[Pekka]

If you want to learn about PMCs and merc business, better start from somewhere else than Blackwater though.

[Will9]

Awile back the DailyShow interviewed someone who wrote abote Blackwater.

The video is here

[Patroklos]

I have trained with Blackwater, they are for the most part just retired vets used to train people in their requisite skill. Was there a reason I have to be trained in maritime counter narcotics by a current member of the USCG vise a former member of the USCG?

Would you prefer we gave Haliburton a platoon per construction team? Should private companies/citizens not be allowed to hire security/bodyguards (Blackwater personnel are used in the US to). Would you prefer we just let these valuable skill sets remain unused?

Also, they can be viewed as illegal combatants. Remember that **** about arresting a bunch of folks, sending them to all kinds of places, just because they weren't identified as part of Saddam's army?

Hardly as grey as you think. In most cases these guys are under contract by the US government (which is exactly what members of the Army are), so they are not private citizens taking up arms against a power, which is what the GC addresses.

They are also always easily identifiable as 1.) American and 2.) armed. Or more to the point, NOT using the population as a cover or deliberately appearing to look like civilians, which is the reason the GC makes a distinction.

And in the case of privately hired security/bodyguards, who are they attacking? They are defending private interests, which is legal pretty much everywhere. Now if a group of Blackwter guys not being operated by a government (in which case that government is responsible) went and attacked the nearest Iraqi police station, then their acts are criminal just as they would be here.

[Pekka]

So?

under Geneva Convention, there is no difference. Besides, you're making blank statements. More to the point, they are still illegal combatants under the new Bush definition.

I think I've never heard a bigger BS excuse than "well we have to give these contracts to our businesses, during the war, and we need to protect them as well."...

War and things around it has been defined a long time ago pretty well. Some of us just don't get it.

[Patroklos]

War and things around it has been defined a long time ago pretty well

Your right. Remember the Hessiens? What is the difference between a Blackwater employee who signs a contract and a USA private that signs a contract? Legally anyways?

Governemnt forces are government forces, very simple. I realize that doesn't make as good a conspiracy story, but the truth usually doesn't.