I'm not sure that really addresses the question of the shift in language.
I'd say that the rebranding began in earnest with GWOT because it's harder to sell (and defend the use of) mercenaries when the name itself implies zero patriotism. Contractor at least implies a more professional approach to the concept of invading a country and being inadequately prepared for it.
Think Shell Shock to PTSD. It's just easier to get the citizens to accept and forget about it.
I'm not sure that really addresses the question of the shift in language.
I'd say that the rebranding began in earnest with GWOT because it's harder to sell (and defend the use of) mercenaries when the name itself implies zero patriotism. Contractor at least implies a more professional approach to the concept of invading a country and being inadequately prepared for it.
Think Shell Shock to PTSD. It's just easier to get the citizens to accept and forget about it.
I was more looking into the broader acceptance of those contractors as a necessity of "everyday life"--then again, the United States has been at on-off war for quite a few years now. I really couldn't tell you when the language changed.
Then I would say the seeds were first down just after Desert Storm. I knew a guy who left the marines and joined a merc outfit. Sometime around '93 or so.
At that point it was still more likely to be hires by other, non-US countries, though. I'm sure the US used some sparingly for a while. But Enduring Freedom (fucking really?) was when we just kind of farmed an lot of it out under no-bid contracts and such.
I'm not sure that really addresses the question of the shift in language.
I'd say that the rebranding began in earnest with GWOT because it's harder to sell (and defend the use of) mercenaries when the name itself implies zero patriotism. Contractor at least implies a more professional approach to the concept of invading a country and being inadequately prepared for it.
Think Shell Shock to PTSD. It's just easier to get the citizens to accept and forget about it.
I was more looking into the broader acceptance of those contractors as a necessity of "everyday life"--then again, the United States has been at on-off war for quite a few years now. I really couldn't tell you when the language changed.
You do bring up an interesting point, that a lot of contractors are doing the sort of menial jobs that in the past were done by lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. And there are reasons for that, mainly having to do with reducing headcount in the armed forces along with providing a gravy train for Halliburton and others with connections to the Bush Administration.
But there's also the Blackwater(or whatever innocuous name they rebranded with) folks, who are essentially engaging in combat without being beholden to traditional command structure, that scare me the most.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm not sure that really addresses the question of the shift in language.
I'd say that the rebranding began in earnest with GWOT because it's harder to sell (and defend the use of) mercenaries when the name itself implies zero patriotism. Contractor at least implies a more professional approach to the concept of invading a country and being inadequately prepared for it.
Think Shell Shock to PTSD. It's just easier to get the citizens to accept and forget about it.
I was more looking into the broader acceptance of those contractors as a necessity of "everyday life"--then again, the United States has been at on-off war for quite a few years now. I really couldn't tell you when the language changed.
You do bring up an interesting point, that a lot of contractors are doing the sort of menial jobs that in the past were done by lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. And there are reasons for that, mainly having to do with reducing headcount in the armed forces along with providing a gravy train for Halliburton and others with connections to the Bush Administration.
But there's also the Blackwater(or whatever innocuous name they rebranded with) folks, who are essentially engaging in combat without being beholden to traditional command structure, that scare me the most.
There is basically no reason to outsource essential services besides graft.
It depends on how quickly you need to have an effective footprint in place.
Going into Afghanistan especially, but also Iraq in 2003 we were still on the heels of a "peacetime" military. Which meant training was not always to standard (or even realistic due to ridiculous abstractions of real training being instructed by NCOs and Os who themselves had come up during peacetime), the amount of personnel needed for many non combat jobs (and combat arms duties like base security) weren't there, and there was an immediate need for a force in place with the training and experience already.
So lets say it takes ~6 months to get a soldier in any MOS to a deployable standard off the street. You could cut out that ~6 months and have already trained and experienced personnel on planes headed to Kuwait, Baghdad, Bagram etc. once the combat arms units have rolled up the Iraqi army and the Taliban forces that were in place.
A lot of the guys getting hired early on by Halliburton or Kellog Brown and Root weren't always veterans, they just had needed skills (electricians, masons, carpenters, truck drivers, etc.) and were put through a quick shooting school to get them up to the capability of defending themselves if they came under fire.
Another aspect of using private contractors that doesn't come with a regular state military is quality control. Especially in my line of work.
As a contractor, if I couldn't put out good work I could be fired. In fact I was offered to finish out someone's contract in Afghanistan because he got fired. That doesn't work so well in the regular military. Yeah, you can be punished under UCMJ for doing stupid shit, but if you're just incompetent there's not much that can be done other than getting a shitty NCOER or OER. Two SNCOs that I deployed with were great examples of this (but junior enlisted are more than capable of being incompetent): One absolutely detested our job and would find any excuse not to work. He ended up running the mail room for the second half of the deployment. The other was an E9 who would fall asleep at his desk in the middle of the shop in the middle of the day. I think he got a bronze star at the end of the deployment.
That shit wouldn't fly if they were contractors. They'd be on a C130 back to Ali a Saleem and told to find a way home before their first paycheck cleared.
Just curious, when did the rebranding of mercenaries to "contractors" start? Before or after the GWOT?
It can't be that long ago, I can remember when professional soldiers openly mocked the "soldier of fortune" types. And now it seems like the line gets blurred a lot. Like when Blackwater was cowboying around Baghdad murdering civilians, a lot of criticism was met with the "support the troops" line even though those guys were mercs.
The more interesting thing to me is how mercs are slowly shifting from shady to heroic in the minds of a decent chunk of the american mindshare.
I feel like a few years ago they were the bad guys in every video game and movie set in modern times and now it seems the type of people seeing American Sniper and 13 Hours have turned them into heroes.
Just curious, when did the rebranding of mercenaries to "contractors" start? Before or after the GWOT?
It can't be that long ago, I can remember when professional soldiers openly mocked the "soldier of fortune" types. And now it seems like the line gets blurred a lot. Like when Blackwater was cowboying around Baghdad murdering civilians, a lot of criticism was met with the "support the troops" line even though those guys were mercs.
The more interesting thing to me is how mercs are slowly shifting from shady to heroic in the minds of a decent chunk of the american mindshare.
I feel like a few years ago they were the bad guys in every video game and movie set in modern times and now it seems the type of people seeing American Sniper and 13 Hours have turned them into heroes.
Well you've got a new "wave" of guys going into private contracting.
Previously it was heavily Europeans, Africans (South Africans and former Rhodesians), and a few American Vietnam vets who went to fight in the bush wars in the 70's. Into the 90's the image of the mercenary was European/African combat veterans going into groups like Executive Outcomes who were enforcing resource claims, conducting regime change, conducting offensive military actions etc.
More recently it's been American combat veterans (and non combat veterans going into non combat contractor positions) from the GWOT going into security contracting.
Just curious, when did the rebranding of mercenaries to "contractors" start? Before or after the GWOT?
It can't be that long ago, I can remember when professional soldiers openly mocked the "soldier of fortune" types. And now it seems like the line gets blurred a lot. Like when Blackwater was cowboying around Baghdad murdering civilians, a lot of criticism was met with the "support the troops" line even though those guys were mercs.
The more interesting thing to me is how mercs are slowly shifting from shady to heroic in the minds of a decent chunk of the american mindshare.
I feel like a few years ago they were the bad guys in every video game and movie set in modern times and now it seems the type of people seeing American Sniper and 13 Hours have turned them into heroes.
Well you've got a new "wave" of guys going into private contracting.
Previously it was heavily Europeans, Africans (South Africans and former Rhodesians), and a few American Vietnam vets who went to fight in the bush wars in the 70's. Into the 90's the image of the mercenary was European/African combat veterans going into groups like Executive Outcomes who were enforcing resource claims, conducting regime change, conducting offensive military actions etc.
More recently it's been American combat veterans (and non combat veterans going into non combat contractor positions) from the GWOT going into security contracting.
Pretty much spot on. I recall the articles on Mercenary's in the 90's and they were mostly ex SAS / Foreign Legion types working in Africa / Balkans etc... often doing shady shit.
Just curious, when did the rebranding of mercenaries to "contractors" start? Before or after the GWOT?
It can't be that long ago, I can remember when professional soldiers openly mocked the "soldier of fortune" types. And now it seems like the line gets blurred a lot. Like when Blackwater was cowboying around Baghdad murdering civilians, a lot of criticism was met with the "support the troops" line even though those guys were mercs.
The more interesting thing to me is how mercs are slowly shifting from shady to heroic in the minds of a decent chunk of the american mindshare.
I feel like a few years ago they were the bad guys in every video game and movie set in modern times and now it seems the type of people seeing American Sniper and 13 Hours have turned them into heroes.
Well you've got a new "wave" of guys going into private contracting.
Previously it was heavily Europeans, Africans (South Africans and former Rhodesians), and a few American Vietnam vets who went to fight in the bush wars in the 70's. Into the 90's the image of the mercenary was European/African combat veterans going into groups like Executive Outcomes who were enforcing resource claims, conducting regime change, conducting offensive military actions etc.
More recently it's been American combat veterans (and non combat veterans going into non combat contractor positions) from the GWOT going into security contracting.
Pretty much spot on. I recall the articles on Mercenary's in the 90's and they were mostly ex SAS / Foreign Legion types working in Africa / Balkans etc... often doing shady shit.
There's a good docu on YouTube that follows a unit in the Balkans made up of guys from all over Europe, but the top shirt was a guy from the British Army who had a hard time making money when he got out and went to fight in foreign conflicts in the 90's. It's a "foreign volunteer" unit, but they were paid so technically mercenaries (and I think they mentioned some of them had fought in different conflicts in Africa and Eastern Europe).
I'll try to find it again it's bookmarked in one of my playlists.
There is basically no reason to outsource essential services besides graft.
It depends on how quickly you need to have an effective footprint in place.
Going into Afghanistan especially, but also Iraq in 2003 we were still on the heels of a "peacetime" military. Which meant training was not always to standard (or even realistic due to ridiculous abstractions of real training being instructed by NCOs and Os who themselves had come up during peacetime), the amount of personnel needed for many non combat jobs (and combat arms duties like base security) weren't there, and there was an immediate need for a force in place with the training and experience already.
So lets say it takes ~6 months to get a soldier in any MOS to a deployable standard off the street. You could cut out that ~6 months and have already trained and experienced personnel on planes headed to Kuwait, Baghdad, Bagram etc. once the combat arms units have rolled up the Iraqi army and the Taliban forces that were in place.
A lot of the guys getting hired early on by Halliburton or Kellog Brown and Root weren't always veterans, they just had needed skills (electricians, masons, carpenters, truck drivers, etc.) and were put through a quick shooting school to get them up to the capability of defending themselves if they came under fire.
Another aspect of using private contractors that doesn't come with a regular state military is quality control. Especially in my line of work.
As a contractor, if I couldn't put out good work I could be fired. In fact I was offered to finish out someone's contract in Afghanistan because he got fired. That doesn't work so well in the regular military. Yeah, you can be punished under UCMJ for doing stupid shit, but if you're just incompetent there's not much that can be done other than getting a shitty NCOER or OER. Two SNCOs that I deployed with were great examples of this (but junior enlisted are more than capable of being incompetent): One absolutely detested our job and would find any excuse not to work. He ended up running the mail room for the second half of the deployment. The other was an E9 who would fall asleep at his desk in the middle of the shop in the middle of the day. I think he got a bronze star at the end of the deployment.
That shit wouldn't fly if they were contractors. They'd be on a C130 back to Ali a Saleem and told to find a way home before their first paycheck cleared.
You're leaving out the fact that mercs answer to nobody when they fuck up. The government can't put them in prison when they break rules of engagement or commit crimes. At least with the military there's meant to be some accountability. If you're right about companies like Blackwater hiring people off the street that weren't veterans with bare bones training that isn't encouraging when America's soldiers are in a combat zone and need support from them.
There is basically no reason to outsource essential services besides graft.
It depends on how quickly you need to have an effective footprint in place.
Going into Afghanistan especially, but also Iraq in 2003 we were still on the heels of a "peacetime" military. Which meant training was not always to standard (or even realistic due to ridiculous abstractions of real training being instructed by NCOs and Os who themselves had come up during peacetime), the amount of personnel needed for many non combat jobs (and combat arms duties like base security) weren't there, and there was an immediate need for a force in place with the training and experience already.
So lets say it takes ~6 months to get a soldier in any MOS to a deployable standard off the street. You could cut out that ~6 months and have already trained and experienced personnel on planes headed to Kuwait, Baghdad, Bagram etc. once the combat arms units have rolled up the Iraqi army and the Taliban forces that were in place.
A lot of the guys getting hired early on by Halliburton or Kellog Brown and Root weren't always veterans, they just had needed skills (electricians, masons, carpenters, truck drivers, etc.) and were put through a quick shooting school to get them up to the capability of defending themselves if they came under fire.
Another aspect of using private contractors that doesn't come with a regular state military is quality control. Especially in my line of work.
As a contractor, if I couldn't put out good work I could be fired. In fact I was offered to finish out someone's contract in Afghanistan because he got fired. That doesn't work so well in the regular military. Yeah, you can be punished under UCMJ for doing stupid shit, but if you're just incompetent there's not much that can be done other than getting a shitty NCOER or OER. Two SNCOs that I deployed with were great examples of this (but junior enlisted are more than capable of being incompetent): One absolutely detested our job and would find any excuse not to work. He ended up running the mail room for the second half of the deployment. The other was an E9 who would fall asleep at his desk in the middle of the shop in the middle of the day. I think he got a bronze star at the end of the deployment.
That shit wouldn't fly if they were contractors. They'd be on a C130 back to Ali a Saleem and told to find a way home before their first paycheck cleared.
You're leaving out the fact that mercs answer to nobody when they fuck up. The government can't put them in prison when they break rules of engagement or commit crimes. At least with the military there's meant to be some accountability. If you're right about companies like Blackwater hiring people off the street that weren't veterans with bare bones training that isn't encouraging when America's soldiers are in a combat zone and need support from them.
1. That's flat out wrong. Private Military Contractors very much so can be charged and imprisoned if convicted.
2. They weren't security contractors doing WPS contracts for the Diplomatic Security Service, they were being hired to literally perform the jobs they already had experience in e.g. electricians, plumbers, truck drivers, masons, carpenters, mechanics etc. Where they lacked training was in tactical skills, which they were given just about the same level (probably much better in reality) as a non combat arms soldier would get.
The guys who were doing WPS (Worldwide Protective Services) contracts were guys who were already experienced in personal security operations or combat veterans (many special operations personnel) who were getting courted when their enlistment contracts were ending. The guys doing static security only really need about the experience of any other armed security guard here in the US, and plenty of static security companies (SOC comes to mind) used foreign nationals for static security.
The word shift from Mercenary to Contractor is probably related to Geneva Convention which outlaws their use by nation states.
Mercenaries are illegal, unlawful combatants, Contractors are civilian security support, totally not mercenaries by another name.
Technically the use of Mercenaries, uhh Contractors are a War Crime as paying for non-national soldiers to do military duty in an active war zone against the convention. Even if said military duty is standing around guarding stuff. According to the Geneva conventions that shit is supposed to be done by real soldiers.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
If you read through the justification for Article 47 it specifically states that the more harsh wording of "shall not be accorded" rather than "does not have the right to" was purposefully avoided due to the humanitarian nature of the conventions and the predicament it would place a signatory in if they were to afford those rights to someone defined as a mercenary.
My personal opinion is this: there is a significant difference between someone being paid to perform security (purely defensive) operations and non combat tasks (construction, vehicle operation, service support) and someone who is being paid to conduct offensive military operations against their own or a third party population.
But I also happen to hold the opinion that there is nothing wrong with clandestine intelligence collections (spying), and spies hold the same status according the Article 46.
Posts
I'd say that the rebranding began in earnest with GWOT because it's harder to sell (and defend the use of) mercenaries when the name itself implies zero patriotism. Contractor at least implies a more professional approach to the concept of invading a country and being inadequately prepared for it.
Think Shell Shock to PTSD. It's just easier to get the citizens to accept and forget about it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I was more looking into the broader acceptance of those contractors as a necessity of "everyday life"--then again, the United States has been at on-off war for quite a few years now. I really couldn't tell you when the language changed.
At that point it was still more likely to be hires by other, non-US countries, though. I'm sure the US used some sparingly for a while. But Enduring Freedom (fucking really?) was when we just kind of farmed an lot of it out under no-bid contracts and such.
You do bring up an interesting point, that a lot of contractors are doing the sort of menial jobs that in the past were done by lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. And there are reasons for that, mainly having to do with reducing headcount in the armed forces along with providing a gravy train for Halliburton and others with connections to the Bush Administration.
But there's also the Blackwater(or whatever innocuous name they rebranded with) folks, who are essentially engaging in combat without being beholden to traditional command structure, that scare me the most.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Academi, formerly Xe Services, formerly Blackwater
(all within the last ten years)
It depends on how quickly you need to have an effective footprint in place.
Going into Afghanistan especially, but also Iraq in 2003 we were still on the heels of a "peacetime" military. Which meant training was not always to standard (or even realistic due to ridiculous abstractions of real training being instructed by NCOs and Os who themselves had come up during peacetime), the amount of personnel needed for many non combat jobs (and combat arms duties like base security) weren't there, and there was an immediate need for a force in place with the training and experience already.
So lets say it takes ~6 months to get a soldier in any MOS to a deployable standard off the street. You could cut out that ~6 months and have already trained and experienced personnel on planes headed to Kuwait, Baghdad, Bagram etc. once the combat arms units have rolled up the Iraqi army and the Taliban forces that were in place.
A lot of the guys getting hired early on by Halliburton or Kellog Brown and Root weren't always veterans, they just had needed skills (electricians, masons, carpenters, truck drivers, etc.) and were put through a quick shooting school to get them up to the capability of defending themselves if they came under fire.
Another aspect of using private contractors that doesn't come with a regular state military is quality control. Especially in my line of work.
As a contractor, if I couldn't put out good work I could be fired. In fact I was offered to finish out someone's contract in Afghanistan because he got fired. That doesn't work so well in the regular military. Yeah, you can be punished under UCMJ for doing stupid shit, but if you're just incompetent there's not much that can be done other than getting a shitty NCOER or OER. Two SNCOs that I deployed with were great examples of this (but junior enlisted are more than capable of being incompetent): One absolutely detested our job and would find any excuse not to work. He ended up running the mail room for the second half of the deployment. The other was an E9 who would fall asleep at his desk in the middle of the shop in the middle of the day. I think he got a bronze star at the end of the deployment.
That shit wouldn't fly if they were contractors. They'd be on a C130 back to Ali a Saleem and told to find a way home before their first paycheck cleared.
The more interesting thing to me is how mercs are slowly shifting from shady to heroic in the minds of a decent chunk of the american mindshare.
I feel like a few years ago they were the bad guys in every video game and movie set in modern times and now it seems the type of people seeing American Sniper and 13 Hours have turned them into heroes.
Well you've got a new "wave" of guys going into private contracting.
Previously it was heavily Europeans, Africans (South Africans and former Rhodesians), and a few American Vietnam vets who went to fight in the bush wars in the 70's. Into the 90's the image of the mercenary was European/African combat veterans going into groups like Executive Outcomes who were enforcing resource claims, conducting regime change, conducting offensive military actions etc.
More recently it's been American combat veterans (and non combat veterans going into non combat contractor positions) from the GWOT going into security contracting.
Pretty much spot on. I recall the articles on Mercenary's in the 90's and they were mostly ex SAS / Foreign Legion types working in Africa / Balkans etc... often doing shady shit.
There's a good docu on YouTube that follows a unit in the Balkans made up of guys from all over Europe, but the top shirt was a guy from the British Army who had a hard time making money when he got out and went to fight in foreign conflicts in the 90's. It's a "foreign volunteer" unit, but they were paid so technically mercenaries (and I think they mentioned some of them had fought in different conflicts in Africa and Eastern Europe).
I'll try to find it again it's bookmarked in one of my playlists.
You're leaving out the fact that mercs answer to nobody when they fuck up. The government can't put them in prison when they break rules of engagement or commit crimes. At least with the military there's meant to be some accountability. If you're right about companies like Blackwater hiring people off the street that weren't veterans with bare bones training that isn't encouraging when America's soldiers are in a combat zone and need support from them.
1. That's flat out wrong. Private Military Contractors very much so can be charged and imprisoned if convicted.
Contractors Convicted for Nisour Square Shootings
This is thanks to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act passed in 2000.
2. They weren't security contractors doing WPS contracts for the Diplomatic Security Service, they were being hired to literally perform the jobs they already had experience in e.g. electricians, plumbers, truck drivers, masons, carpenters, mechanics etc. Where they lacked training was in tactical skills, which they were given just about the same level (probably much better in reality) as a non combat arms soldier would get.
The guys who were doing WPS (Worldwide Protective Services) contracts were guys who were already experienced in personal security operations or combat veterans (many special operations personnel) who were getting courted when their enlistment contracts were ending. The guys doing static security only really need about the experience of any other armed security guard here in the US, and plenty of static security companies (SOC comes to mind) used foreign nationals for static security.
Mercenaries are illegal, unlawful combatants, Contractors are civilian security support, totally not mercenaries by another name.
Technically the use of Mercenaries, uhh Contractors are a War Crime as paying for non-national soldiers to do military duty in an active war zone against the convention. Even if said military duty is standing around guarding stuff. According to the Geneva conventions that shit is supposed to be done by real soldiers.
Geneva Convention Article 47: Mercenaries
If you read through the justification for Article 47 it specifically states that the more harsh wording of "shall not be accorded" rather than "does not have the right to" was purposefully avoided due to the humanitarian nature of the conventions and the predicament it would place a signatory in if they were to afford those rights to someone defined as a mercenary.
My personal opinion is this: there is a significant difference between someone being paid to perform security (purely defensive) operations and non combat tasks (construction, vehicle operation, service support) and someone who is being paid to conduct offensive military operations against their own or a third party population.
Geneva Convention Article 46: Spying
But I also happen to hold the opinion that there is nothing wrong with clandestine intelligence collections (spying), and spies hold the same status according the Article 46.