The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Private Military Contractors
Novus
regular
regular
Private Military Contractors (PMC) are essentially (though not technically) mercenaries. They act as (among other things) military suppliers, consultants, bodyguards and de-facto hired guns. My goal in this thread is to increase my personal understanding of the subject so please do correct me if I am mistaken on any point. Here are some links that go into detail
The 1up preview of Army of Two that sparked my interest
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3160705
The Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_contractor
An interesting paper on the subject – fairly detailed with links to other interesting papers
http://paolonalin.ionmetrix.com/doc/PMC%20Legitimacy%20and%20Accountability_LE.pdf
Basically PMC’s remain legally undefined; they are able to carry out military operations while avoiding pesky things like the Uniform Code of Military Law and the Geneva Convention. This doesn’t mean that PMC’s are necessarily financially driven morally bankrupt warmongers, it just means they have that option with little or no legal repercussion (for the governments and corporations involved; obviously the actual soldiers can find themselves in serious trouble). Of course this is an overly cynical and subjective generalization of PMC’s; many PMC corporations do act as stabilizing influences in the regions they operate; allowing small countries to establish a capable security force that enables them to maintain some semblance of otherwise unattainable peace.
So while there is some good and some bad with PMC’s the real issue surrounding them is accountability. The big questions:
-Is this unavoidable; a basic reality that countries will always find a way to work outside the legal framework?
-Do the pros outweigh the cons; does the positive influence of PMC’s do more to help the world than the fact that these companies have a strong motive to encourage military conflict?
-What would be the ideal solution; putting political and corporate interests aside what should be done to place PMC’s under strict legal control?
-What would be a practical solution; what can governments/the UN realistically do to improve the situation and bring some degree of legal restraint?
-Am I full of crap; do I show a complete misunderstanding of the situation and need to stfu?
The 1up preview of Army of Two that sparked my interest
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3160705
The Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_contractor
An interesting paper on the subject – fairly detailed with links to other interesting papers
http://paolonalin.ionmetrix.com/doc/PMC%20Legitimacy%20and%20Accountability_LE.pdf
Basically PMC’s remain legally undefined; they are able to carry out military operations while avoiding pesky things like the Uniform Code of Military Law and the Geneva Convention. This doesn’t mean that PMC’s are necessarily financially driven morally bankrupt warmongers, it just means they have that option with little or no legal repercussion (for the governments and corporations involved; obviously the actual soldiers can find themselves in serious trouble). Of course this is an overly cynical and subjective generalization of PMC’s; many PMC corporations do act as stabilizing influences in the regions they operate; allowing small countries to establish a capable security force that enables them to maintain some semblance of otherwise unattainable peace.
So while there is some good and some bad with PMC’s the real issue surrounding them is accountability. The big questions:
-Is this unavoidable; a basic reality that countries will always find a way to work outside the legal framework?
-Do the pros outweigh the cons; does the positive influence of PMC’s do more to help the world than the fact that these companies have a strong motive to encourage military conflict?
-What would be the ideal solution; putting political and corporate interests aside what should be done to place PMC’s under strict legal control?
-What would be a practical solution; what can governments/the UN realistically do to improve the situation and bring some degree of legal restraint?
-Am I full of crap; do I show a complete misunderstanding of the situation and need to stfu?
I'm not smart, but thanks to the internet I can pretend.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
Novus on
0
Posts
All the spending of war without the messy expenditure of resources
MWO: Adamski
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
On a side note, this is great for that 'grunt' who was in the army for 20-30 years with nothing my combat training in him. This gives that person a career path after the military.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why PMC's are very very bad. What little government/military oversight they have is undoubtedly corrupted as a cost of doing business.
But there needs to be some kind of systematic oversight, and they need to follow the law. In this case, the law is the US Code of the Law and the Geneva Convention. That seems to be the problem here - not that they're private, but that they're apparently given carte blanche to run wild.
I blame that more on the Bush administration than on the contractors. We have a White House that's hostile to the very notion of international law and very chummy with defense contractors; if a different White House in a different administration put the hammer down on the Defense Department to build in oversight clauses into these firms' contracts we wouldn't have nearly these problems.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That video is some fucking BULLSHIT. I fucking hate the world for this kinda shit.
What I mean to say is, that is SO wrong. I don't think I've ever seen anything so horrible.
With a military body everything they do reflects back on the country; with a private force everything reflects on the individual while the higher ups remain squeaky clean. Is there a way to hold Politician A responsible for the contractors they hire? Which governing body would be responsible for implementing and monitoring this?
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
There's nothing I can do about it though, I'm Canadian, and I know Canada ain't doing any of this shit.
Whoever's signature is on that contract.
And, preferably, that person's boss.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know that maybe my thinking is simplistic, because I don't have any military experience at all, but I don't see why it should be any different for defense contractors.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Take this scenario and pretend you own the company; or are at least on the board of directors. The people doing this are in the upper echelons of political power; in a lot of cases the people above them have more to hide than they do. I don't really have the answers to any of this - hence the discussion post - but I believe the only ones who could possibly be relied upon to be impartial (slim chance as it may be) would be the UN; unfortunately they lack the political chutzpa to call out the US nor do they have the resources to police every other country who might also make use of PMC’s.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. The reason this is happening is because the corruption is at the top of the food chain, with a White House that holds international law in disdain and is beholden to corporate special interests.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That is the rub.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
I remember there was this huge outrage when two "contractors" were killed in a car somewhere in Iraq, and people around them mutilated the bodies and then hung them from a bridge. It was marked as an atrocity (and yeah that kinda thing isn't too cool), but nobody ever mentioned that the two killed were mercenaries. I don't know about you guys, but I consider mercenaries to be a totally valid military target. Hell, they're morally more valid than a lot of the soldiers there, since a lot of the troops there aren't exactly happy being there, but the mercenaries are there just to make a buck. Which is of course why they don't use words like "mercenary" since they are a repugnant idea to a lot of people.
"Mercenaries" has such a bad connotation, though. I can understand why they would want to avoid that word.
Maybe they should say "armed contractor" or "combat contractor" or something like that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd seen that video before, but I didn't realise they were British!
Has anyone got a link to the army report? I want to see it before I start hassling my MP. I doubt he's going to bring it up at PMs Question Time but I'm still going to batter his inbox to see how he tries to weasel out of it.
Yeah. Wikipedia actually mentions it on the link that Shinto gave. It was 4 people, not two, and they were in Falluja. I also saw them referenced as "civilian contractors", which is of course an even more misleading term.
I think it will be sweet when these large private groups start operating for huge companies instead of nations. Not sweet as in its a world I would like to live in, its just an interesting concept. It will be like living in a cyberpunk novel.
Yeah actually I didn't know about that either.
And its not like you see this on TV either. Hell, even youtube took the video down at the parent companies request. Its great that the internet even exists, it allows something like this to actually be seen by lots of people. Normally this kind of thing would never make it out in the (kind of) open.
Actually it was on TV briefly.
And it gets better.
Or maybe they should say "mercenaries", since they are mercenaries. Not that I ever expect any government to stop pussyfooting around anything they deem distasteful.
I was wondering why the guys building my deck had assault rifles ....
Just curious (haven't read it) but does this book actually have info related to PMC's or is it more of a "I hate conservative christians" book?
I kinda lean right but Blackwater operating within the US (katrina)when the national guard can't even stop people from crossing the border doesn't fly with me.
Yours are doing it too? I just thought they didnt like me.
On a more serious note, I meant in war zones and the like. Not plumbing contractors. Which might as well be mercenaries for all the luck I'm having getting one to tie in my house. Bastards.
I remember a story about a "Contractor" escaping from his captors and living in the desert for a few days, got back to US lines...yeah like he was a Telephone Engineer O_o
The UK used to have a few of these companies in Africa in the 70's and 80's back when they were Mercenarys, now the US has a few massive ones with contracts for the US govt. I think private armys are the 2nd or 3rd largest occupying force in Iraq, perfect deniable opertators for the govt, send them in to do something messy and when it cocks up "it wasn't our orders" etc...
They also do a lot of good in a lot of places that you'll never even hear about. I'm amazed that these days they are getting so much government and UN support though. When I worked for Sandline, we got nothing from western governments but disdain generally. Eventually closed up shop because of the lack of support and it actually beginning to cost money to help out in African shitholes that the world had chosen to ignore. Most of the places governments couldn't even afford to pay everything it cost, but we worked anyway, hoping the UN or somebody would eventually stop turning a blind eye. Never happened, Sandline basically went bust, bullshit in West Africa continues to be ignored to this day.
I've read some of Scahill's other stuff, and I wouldn't describe him as an unbiased journalist. Scare tactics are his stock and trade, everything he writes is terrifying. Because that's the emotion he is aiming to invoke, and he's good at it.
This video does need a little clarification from the youtube description. Sometimes the way regular military and PMC vehicles operate is to have giant signs saying "approach X amount of distance and you will be fired up" the theory being to protect from suicide bombers.
A regular military unit would be obligated to fire warning shots and in theory would use some discretion, like the crazy notion to see if the vehicle is speeding up towards you. These guys are shitheads and are killing innocent people who are vaguely around their vehicle for shits n' giggles, but due to them being governed by corporate bullshit instead of Uniformed Code or the Geneva Convention they got away with it using that excuse.
If you watched the video, in the first scene, they're shooting cars on the other side of the street, as well as the ones (further) behind them.
If that wasn't enough, in the last part, they fucking STOP so the car behind catches up, and fire at it.
That's not some "Keep X meters back" bullshit.
Rome, anyone?
Arguably the single greatest destabilizer that preciptated Rome's fall was the propogation of private militaries. This is how every single dictator in the history of Rome seized power: with militaries attached to individuals, not countries. I think we could pretty safely substitue "corporation" for "individual" in the modern day world.
You simply cannot have military bodies that are loyal to people or companies, as opposed to systems. Otherwise, bad things will happen.
My God, it's bad enough when militaries are loyal to nation-states and international governing bodies. It's an incredible destabilizer to endow individuals or small groups of individuals united in purpose (like in a corporation) with that much power. It's disaster waiting to happen.
A good military is one that obeys not a person, not an agenda, but a system. Like a nation-state. Even then, such a military is only as good as the system it serves. And of course the most stable system is one in conflict -- that is to say, one that is not united in purpose. When people all get together and agree and there is no dissent? That's when atrocities happen. When there is disagreement and compromise and political conflict? That's stability. Again, look back on Rome, treasure-trove of parallels that it is. When the Senate was it its most vigorous, when every politician was ready to ruin his colleagues at the slightest opportunity -- that was a stable system. It endured incredible duress. With Caesar, they got lucky. But of course you can't count on all dictators to be intelligent and keep the public's well-being in mind. And so as the trend continued, as official channels for conflict and dissent were extinguished -- stability evaporated.
The problem with PMCs is that they endow military power to individuals, or organizations that act very much like individuals. No conflict? No stability.
PMCs are without question a dire threat to the stability of the United States, or any country that utilizes them.
Can I have some evidence their British btw? If I missed someone confirm how they know they were then excuse me, but I didnt hear any voices on the video other than the radio and that was too hard to make out.
These guys are British:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VktQBj1Dm4
You can hear their accents, however they are not Mercenarys but SBS
That Counter Punch link has the full story.