View Full Version : US use of "soldiers of fortune"
Kadagar_AV
10-09-2008, 23:26
In 2004, four american "civilians" were killed in Falluja. This made George W Bush order a overwhelming offensive against the city. US troops slaughtered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.
American press described the "civilians" as humanitarian aid workers, in reality they were soldiers of fortune, working for Blackwater Worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA).
This made me interested in the US use of mercenary troops in battle.
Today, these mercs are in Baghdad. It has been estimated that as many mercs as US-army troopers are stationed there.
They are NOT controlled by the same laws and regulations as official army troops. They don't even wear uniform. You can see polaroid sunglasses, bandanas, T-shirts...
Now, as they don't belong to the official army, they do not have to follow the laws of war set by the Geneva convention.
Am I the only one seeing this as a problem?
On a further note: They have legal immunity, meaning they can murder whoever they want, and get away with it.
It has been known that they have opened fire on unarmed civilian targets. Again, they can not be held responcible for this.
So, how do they get cash? Who pays this?
Well, the US has set a "build up" burget for Iraq, money supposed to, doh, build up the country.
30% of the allocated 2 billions are used to fund these mercs.
Am I the only one finding it a tad strange that money supposed to build up the country is used for mercs?
So what are the political gains of this?
First of all, it limis the political pressure, as dead mercs are not listed in the official statistics. No planes landing in the states with Marine troopers carrying coffins with the american flag on it. Also, the official cost of the war is lower, as money to support these kind of operations are taken by other means than listed in teh national american budget for military spenditure.
Also, these mercs can do stuff the Us army can not, as they are, as mentioned, more bound by laws and regulations.
For people interested, I can recomend the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army...
I do not understand how the American population can put up with this :elephant:
If my goverment acted like this, I would try and do something about it. I think most people over here would. But america is quiet... Why?
Or is it ignorance?
By the words of Marshall Adame,
In January 2008, Marshall Adame, a Democrat running for Congress in North Carolina's 3rd District, took part in a live question-and-answer forum where he was asked a question about Blackwater. Adame, who had served as a State Department official in Iraq recounted, "I saw them shoot people, I saw them crash into cars while I was their passenger. There was absolutely no reason, no provocation whatsoever." He then stated, "There is no place in the American force structure, or in American culture for mercenaries, they are guns for hire; No more, no less."
why do you hate freedom?? :soapbox: ~:rolleyes:
CrossLOPER
10-09-2008, 23:35
THIS IS ALL FINE IF YOU ARE NOT RUSSIA.
EDIT: lol this is joke hahaha
yesdachi
10-09-2008, 23:57
The use of Blackwater can be spun to anyone’s agenda. I would rather masturbate with a handful of broken glass then try and change the mind of someone that has already taken the “I hate the USA” stance. Perhaps we should nuke Blackwater. :coffeenews:
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 00:12
The use of Blackwater can be spun to anyone’s agenda. I would rather masturbate with a handful of broken glass then try and change the mind of someone that has already taken the “I hate the USA” stance. Perhaps we should nuke Blackwater. :coffeenews:
Use of mercs can be spun to anyones agenda? I dont get your logic?
"I hate the USA stance", refering to me?
I think there is good and bad in USA, just as in any other country.
Nuke blackwater... huh? Oh well, when you argue on the internet...........
Haven't you played Army of Two?
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 00:22
Haven't you played Army of Two?
Nope, why?
Vladimir
10-10-2008, 00:40
Nope, why?
:laugh4:
Anyway...
The Chief of Staff of the Army asked his Sergeant Major, who was both Ranger and Special Forces qualified, which organization he would recommend to form a new anti-terrorist unit. The Sergeant Major responded to the General's question with this parable: If there were a hijacked Boeing 747 being held by terrorists along with its passengers and crew and an anti-terrorist unit formed either by the Rangers or the Special Forces was given a Rescue/Recovery Mission; what would you expect to happen?
Ranger Option
Results of Operation: The Rescue/Recovery Operation would be completed within one hour; all of the terrorists and most of the passengers would have been killed, the Rangers would have sustained light casualties and the 747 would be worthless to anyone except a scrap dealer.
Special Forces Option
Results of Operation: The Rescue/Recovery Operation would take two weeks to complete and by that time all of the terrorists would have been killed, (and would have left signed confessions); the passengers would be ruined psychologically for the remainder of their lives; and all of the women passengers would be pregnant. The 747 would be essentially unharmed, the team would have taken no casualties but would have used up, lost, or stolen all the "high speed" equipment issued to them.
Swedish Special Forces Ski Instructor Option
Nuke Amerika! :sweden:
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 01:05
Thank you for your valuable insight Vladimir.
However, please dont spam.
:focus:
KukriKhan
10-10-2008, 02:49
One small point, before the fireworks resume:
US troops murdered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.
By definition, 'troops' cannot 'murder', only kill. Being a troop (or having been one), I'd have thought you understood that essential bit of the social contract between soldiers and their citizenry.
On the other hand, and back on-topic: Mercs, in my AO (if I were in charge) would be expelled, or apprehended, or otherwise neutralized, as 'non-national combatents'. They, by definition, interfere not only with the tactics on the ground, but also with the essential social contract I cited above.
In the Iraq case, they are a holdover from Rummie's "war on the cheap" policy. Gen Petreaus should toss them out of the country, the same as he would a Syrian with an RPG.
PanzerJaeger
10-10-2008, 03:03
US troops murdered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.
You're quickly becoming a one trick pony aren't you?
Anyway.. pathetic, and not worth the effort... :trytofly:
Papewaio
10-10-2008, 03:20
By definition, 'troops' cannot 'murder', only kill. Being a troop (or having been one), I'd have thought you understood that essential bit of the social contract between soldiers and their citizenry.
They can murder someone who is not involved in combat ie non combatent or surrended. Frag grenades into rooms filled with villages... Death Camps... surrended wounded enemy combatents who are then shot out of fear etc.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 03:23
The use of Blackwater can be spun to anyone’s agenda. I would rather masturbate with a handful of broken glass then try and change the mind of someone that has already taken the “I hate the USA” stance. Perhaps we should nuke Blackwater. :coffeenews:
So because of the person who posted the topic, you have no problem with completely unaccountable, exorbidantly paid private mercenaries fighting our wars?
I wonder how good the photos are that they can make with those Polaroid sunglasses...
Eh I mean the opening post does indeed seem a bit biased to me and a link instead of some book recommendation would be very nice, otherwise, as has been said, this can be spun to anyone's agenda.
In my opinion being a mercenary does not make someone evil by itself, some of them are paid to protect certain buildings inside Baghdad, if we ignore the bigger guns, what makes them so different from a security guard in a bank or a policeman guarding a protest? Yeah, there are probably evil mercenaries out there but then there are also evil kings so doesn't it bother you that sweden has a king? :inquisitive:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2008, 03:26
If the mercenaries are as or more cost effective than regular troops, I see no reason why they should not be used on the battlefield to supplement forces, or to be used to free American soldiers for use elsewhere.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 03:27
If the mercenaries are as or more cost effective than regular troops, I see no reason why they should not be used on the battlefield to supplement forces, or to be used to free American soldiers for use elsewhere.
They're only more cost effective because Blackwater lets the U.S. military do the initial training at taxpayer expense, and then pocket/brain-drains vets into private Blackwater service.
While we have a recruitment shortage and argue over troop benefits...
and wonder why there are morale problems..
CrossLOPER
10-10-2008, 03:28
If the mercenaries are as or more cost effective than regular troops, I see no reason why they should not be used on the battlefield to supplement forces, or to be used to free American soldiers for use elsewhere.
That's not the argument.
I'm glad we use Blackwater. It means we can assign those guys to do things like guard KBR convoys and protect State dept. related people. Yeah soldiers would traditionally be the people to do this but like you pointed out this would require more soldiers. Yes it is politically expedient to use Blackwater and other security contractors but from I know and have seen they are not being used as soldiers. The US isn't hiring Blackwater to takeout insurgent strongholds, conduct any sort of raids or do regular patrolling. Instead they are being tasked with manpower intensive 'security' operations of a defensive nature.
The issue with Blackwater not being able to be court martialed has been brought up already in congress and Mr. Prince has had to defend his company. Because of the problems associated with Blackwater when they do kill Iraqis (such as during the well known convoy incident) there is a legal dilemma. Issues such as the legal status of of private security contractors ARE being hammered out right now between the US govt. and the Iraqi govt.
US troops murdered thousands of people (terrorists, of course) and tens of thousands had to flee.
So do you consider Swedish soldiers that have to kill people in Afghanistan murderers as well? Or do the Swedes do no wrong?
Yes, the US has killed innocent civilians, the greater majority of them being accidental. Of course in war there are soldiers that illegally kill civilians, those incidents though when found out do prompt a court martial.
@Crossloper: There are people such as myself that support Russia in actions such as the recent war with Georgia so don't think that all Americans are double standard when it comes to Russia/USA.
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 03:50
KukriKhan, troops can murder just like anyone else.
In this particular case you are correct though, "slaughtered" would probably be a better word, as I am sure not all deaths were pure murders, very few in comparison to be exact.
But as I former trooper, I mus say that I on the contrary know there is a thin line between sanctioned kill and outright murder. If you feel threatened, you tend to shoot first and think later, meaning a lot of unneeded happens in each and every war. Specially if teh combatants dont share a language.
PanzerJaeger, very constructive.
papewaio, Indeed. As I said, murders are quite common in wars.
Husar, wrong word there... tehee...
I gave you a link in my OP. But a quick google search will give you tons of information, what I included was the wiki page of Blackwater.
I don't see how lawless forces used in combat "can be spun to anyones agenda". Could you please elaborate?
And I do not claim the mercs are "evil". However, they have other instructions AND other options than normal soldiers. In effect, they can break the geneva rules of war whenever they want to without being held responcible.
Evil_Maniac From Mars, first of all, as Koga mentioned, the state has already paid for the training. Secondly, the MAIN issue here is not cash, is it? Or is case more important to you than, oh say, laws of war and stuff?
As CrossLOPER explained.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 03:53
Don't feel too isolated like this is Swede vs. America, Kadagar. I'm American and I agree Blackwater has no legitimate place in an occupation and the heavy use of Blackwater is less an issue of saving money-- more an issue of "selling the war on the false premise that it needed fewer troops" and pushing the "privatize the military" ideology.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2008, 03:55
That's not the argument.
He asked if we thought it was a problem - I said no.
They're only more cost effective because Blackwater lets the U.S. military do the initial training at taxpayer expense, and then pocket/brain-drains vets into private Blackwater service.
They take the veterans after the veterans retire from the military. Once a soldier finishes his term, he can leave and do what he likes. If Blackwater pays better, good for them - increase army salary, limit the number of Blackwater employees that are hired, or, in an extreme case, control the salaries of Blackwater through government mandate (alright, the last one was sarcastic). I don't think outsourcing military power is a good idea, but I certainly think using mercenaries where necessary, as supplementary forces, is a good idea.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 03:57
He asked if we thought it was a problem - I said no.
They take the veterans after the veterans retire from the military. Once a soldier finishes his term, he can leave and do what he likes. If Blackwater pays better, good for them - increase army salary, limit the number of Blackwater employees that are hired, or, in an extreme case, control the salaries of Blackwater through government mandate (alright, the last one was sarcastic). I don't think outsourcing military power is a good idea, but I certainly think using mercenaries where necessary, as supplementary forces, is a good idea.
This would be a totally moot point if we took the billions going to Blackwater and used it for better combat pay or sign on bonuses or rewards for serving multiple terms. And since taxpayer money is paying for it anyway I'd prefer to have the people going around under an American flag with weapons overseas to be accountable to some kind of standard.
I don't think outsourcing military power is a good idea, but I certainly think using mercenaries where necessary, as supplementary forces, is a good idea.
Which undermines the defense you just made of it. They weren't used because they were necessary. They were used because the Bush Admin sold the war on the idea that it could be done with fewer troops than many of the generals said it could be, and retired the ones like Shinseki who refused to sign off on the lie.
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 04:01
So do you consider Swedish soldiers that have to kill people in Afghanistan murderers as well? Or do the Swedes do no wrong?
Yes, the US has killed innocent civilians, the greater majority of them being accidental. Of course in war there are soldiers that illegally kill civilians, those incidents though when found out do prompt a court martial.
@Crossloper: There are people such as myself that support Russia in actions such as the recent war with Georgia so don't think that all Americans are double standard when it comes to Russia/USA.
If the Swedish combat doctrine teached to throw in a handgrenade before entering a house I would call them murderers yes. I have had some deep talks with American officers about this, but they would not budge. Swedish forces then refused to do mission alongside US troopers.
The Afghan forces traiend by the swedes uses flashgrenades. More risk for the soldier, but much less civilian casualties.
Don't get me wrong though, we have had swedes do some :elephant: up things. And some have went to jail for it.
And that is my point, when swedish, or American forces breaks the laws of war, we are held responcible for it.
When Blackwater does it, there is no one to hold them responcible.
Take the incident with the torture and sexual harasment tapes from teh Iraqi prison. American army did it, and american army got nailed for it. They had to repent, and they did. just as it should be. See, I have much less problem with the american army than mercs. American army try to, along with the combat training, also teach some sence of moral perspective. Just look at the damn marine Corps, they are todays knights in shiny armour. They RARELY mess up. Them, you would rather see take a bullet to protect a civilian than shoot a civilian.
However, mercs have no code of honour, no LAWS to regulate them... Heck, contrary to normal troops they dont even have a cause they BELIEVE in, they are there to make cash. Yes, I see a problem with that. You do not?
EDIT: When I said "I" have had some deep talks, I actually meant on a personal level. The decision not to go on combat ops with Americans are, for obvious reasons, not for me to decide. I'm not exactly a general...
The problem is not just the taxpaying money, it is also, if I recall correctly, that Iraq has actually prohibited Blackwater from operating in the country, while the US has granted it legal immunity. If, what is essentially a mercenary coporation, is allowed to operate illegaly but with immunity, this creates a very strange and tense situation.
Kadagar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_two :2thumbsup:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2008, 04:19
This would be a totally moot point if we took the billions going to Blackwater and used it for better combat pay or sign on bonuses or rewards for serving multiple terms. And since taxpayer money is paying for it anyway I'd prefer to have the people going around under an American flag with weapons overseas to be accountable to some kind of standard.
I fully agree with you - what happened to the free market? Surely Blackwater should be making money for itself - and yes, that is serious. On the other hand, the government does have to pay for the mercenaries. The question is if you're getting bang for your buck - and that really should be the only question.
Which undermines the defense you just made of it. They weren't used because they were necessary. They were used because the Bush Admin sold the war on the idea that it could be done with fewer troops than many of the generals said it could be, and retired the ones like Shinseki who refused to sign off on the lie.
Not really. I defend using mercenaries when cost-effective, efficient, and necessary. That is all.
US doctrine to toss in a frag first is for high intensity MOUT. High intensity MOUT is different from low intensity in that soldiers have already taken fire from a building or KNOW that enemy soldiers are inside. The US practices and emphasizes a lot of room clearing training for soldiers, very rarely do we practice high intensity MOUT because like everyone know there are higher civilian casualties with it as well as the fact that frags have a tendency to penetrate the crappy houses that so many people have thereby injuring the soldiers.
Bear in mind most of the time when soldiers enter a house it consists of knocking on the door and telling the inhabitants that their house will be searched for whatever reason (mortar launch in area, IED went off nearby, etc...). Also I know when I was deployed we got flashbangs instead of frags.
I get your point that you don't like the legal status of mercs but like I said that is currently being wrangled with by the Iraqi govt. I'm pretty sure that the Iraqi govt. pulled Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq after the convoy incident.
The State Dept. is supposed to ensure that civilians that have committed crimes abroad get prosecuted but unfortunately the State Dept. is too cowardly to do so. I'm positive that it would ensure that Blackwater contractors who did wrong within the US (such as during Katrina) would be prosecuted and its failure to do so in Iraq is its own double standard. Having said that you could say that the State department is illegally using/protecting security contractors. Believe me, I don't like their invulnerability as well but I appreciate the work they do because then I'm not stuck sending my soldiers on those jobs allowing me to better accomplish whatever mission I'm given better. I'd much prefer that they be held accountable for their actions than stop using them.
I'd also like to point out that most of the contractors in large number that are in Iraq have nothing to do with a weapon. They drive trucks, do laundry, serve food, do construction, run the MWR and other things of that sort. The number of security contractors is far smaller than the total number of regular contractors.
Contractors working with the Department of State or the U.S. military (or with
any of the coalition forces) in Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat
immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities, and whose conduct
may be attributable to the United States. Section 552 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) makes military contractors
supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but due to
constitutional concerns, it seems more likely that contractors who commit crimes in
Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply extraterritorially or
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by
means of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). Generally, Iraqi
courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the
relevant member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq. Some contractors,
including those with the State Department, may remain outside the jurisdiction of
U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq.
It is estimated that some 50 private security contractors employing more than
30,000 employees are working in Iraq for an array of clients, including governments,
private industry, and international organizations such as the United Nations.
Armed services include
! static security — protecting fixed or static sites, such as housing
areas, reconstruction work sites, or government buildings;
! convoy security — protecting convoys traveling in Iraq;
! security escorts — protecting individuals traveling in unsecured
areas in Iraq; and
! personal security details — providing protective security to highranking
individuals.
Private Security Contractors in Iraq:
Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32419.pdf)
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 04:33
Evil_Maniac From Mars, so... price before morale and laws, huh?
spmetla, You are right, I did in no way mean that US army toss in grandes first whenever entering a house.... And yes, knocking on the door is the method most commonly used;)
However, let's just say that there are times when an american trooper have more free hands to do as he please than, say, an austrian or a swede.
IF mercs would be held responcible I would have less of a problem with it.
I still would not like it though, for already mentioned reasons.
If the Swedish combat doctrine teached to throw in a handgrenade before entering a house I would call them murderers yes. I have had some deep talks with American officers about this, but they would not budge. Swedish forces then refused to do mission alongside US troopers.
That's the thing. No where does United States Military Doctrine state that clearing a house in a civilian zone consists of throwing a grenade. Typically, in the wars we are in, it consists of a boot kick to the door, followed by a shout for the inhabitants to get down and the soldier's reason for entering (As already mentioned, things tend to explode over there, they need to keep the civilians down and out of the way). If it is a building known to be occupied by insurgents, usually a grenade is necessary to clear it, be it frag or flash.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 04:38
If part of the "cause" in Iraq is "winning over hearts and minds", then legally immune, unaccountable armed contractors running around essentially free to do whatever they want, while civilian Iraqis have no recourse against abuses, doesn't seem like a good way to do it.
So I could care less if the U.S. is paying 50 cents a day for them to be there. They shouldn't be there.
spmetla, You are right, I did in no way mean that US army toss in grandes first whenever entering a house.... And yes, knocking on the door is the method most commonly used;)
However, let's just say that there are times when an american trooper have more free hands to do as he please than, say, an austrian or a swede.
However this does not equate to murder now does it. Soldier's perform combat operations - and in combat operations people get killed. Now as any soldier knows combat operations in any urban environment are extremely dangerous and the risk to civilians is great. Calling this unfortunate aspect of urban combat murder is placing a label that does not do the soldier any fairness.
Most combat vets to include myself attempt to minimize the deaths of civilians. Only one operation I know of during Iraq comes close to violating this committment that most soldiers in that I served with attempt to live up to. And even that was done by individual soldiers/officers and from what I have read and heard those individuals have been brought up for courts martial. So while your entitled to your opinion, calling soldiers murders is extreme and demonstrates a foolish position.
IF mercs would be held responcible I would have less of a problem with it.
I still would not like it though, for already mentioned reasons.
I detest Mercs even more then you, but I refrain from labeling soldiers as murderers until they have violated the Rules of War. Can you say the same? Or are you just another individual who can not tell the difference between what happens in an Urban Combat Operation and when troops violate the law? (I say this given your own statements about Combat and the terms that you use, its inconsistent)
Evil_Maniac From Mars, so... price before morale and laws, huh?
spmetla, You are right, I did in no way mean that US army toss in grandes first whenever entering a house.... And yes, knocking on the door is the method most commonly used;)
However, let's just say that there are times when an american trooper have more free hands to do as he please than, say, an austrian or a swede.
I'd say that's part of the reason that most UN forces are considered powerless. The French in Lebanon are an example, they have armor, infantry, and all sorts of equipment yet they do nothing against Israeli aircraft which fly into Lebanon and nothing against Hezbollah which is illegally rearming and has actually disarmed French peacekeepers.
If UN forces acted more like Russia did in Georgia and like India just did in the Congo then perhaps it would be more effective.
Having said that, I'd say an Austrian or Swede is just as likely as a US soldier to get processed for his or her actions. Austria and Sweden do not however do much 'peacekeeping' and have thankfully not needed to fight a war in quite a long time, especially for Sweden. If the Austrian and Swedish contingent of Eurfor in Chad were given free reign to actually take on rebel forces there or protect Darfur refugees from Sudanese forces then perhaps they'd be facing moral crises like US soldiers must.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 04:48
However this does not equate to murder now does it. Soldier's perform combat operations - and in combat operations people get killed. Now as any soldier knows combat operations in any urban environment are extremely dangerous and the risk to civilians is great. Calling this unfortunate aspect of urban combat murder is placing a label that does not do the soldier any fairness.
Most combat vets to include myself attempt to minimize the deaths of civilians. Only one operation I know of during Iraq comes close to violating this committment that most soldiers in that I served with attempt to live up to. And even that was done by individual soldiers/officers and from what I have read and heard those individuals have been brought up for courts martial. So while your entitled to your opinion, calling soldiers murders is extreme and demonstrates a foolish position.
I detest Mercs even more then you, but I refrain from labeling soldiers as murderers until they have violated the Rules of War. Can you say the same? Or are you just another individual who can not tell the difference between what happens in an Urban Combat Operation and when troops violate the law? (I say this given your own statements about Combat and the terms that you use, its inconsistent)
I do not believe U.S. soldiers are generally murderers or seek to be such. But, laws and regulations are needed to ensure that behavior or tendency in some individuals is controlled or, as last resort, penalized and dealt with.
Legal immunity for private people doing some of the same jobs, at better pay, is horrible. And I've heard many resentful stories from guys who've served in the armed forces about Blackwater, and I don't blame them. I'd rather all that money go to the troops, either in care, better equipment, better pay, better benefits, sign on bonuses, whatever. Not to what is, legally, just a privately hired set of thugs who don't answer to anyone.
I do not believe U.S. soldiers are generally murderers or seek to be such. But, laws and regulations are needed to ensure that behavior or tendency in some individuals is controlled or, as last resort, penalized and dealt with.
Those laws and regulations exist - its called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Rules of Engagement as established by the Chain of Command, (think high level). So I would suggest reading that document - its a fairly big one and easy to find on the Internet. Now if your arguement is that those laws and regulations should be enforced to the standards mentioned within the UCMJ
and other Military doctrine and regulation manuals - your going to have to mention specific exambles.
Legal immunity for private people doing some of the same jobs, at better pay, is horrible. And I've heard many resentful stories from guys who've served in the armed forces about Blackwater, and I don't blame them. I'd rather all that money go to the troops, either in care, better equipment, better pay, better benefits, sign on bonuses, whatever. Not to what is, legally, just a privately hired set of thugs who don't answer to anyone.
Hince the statement I made about detesting Mercs greater then even Kadagar. When I was in we called them cowboys and tried to have nothing to do with them. Now my younger brother has to deal with them again and he detests them with an even greater passion then I do. So if Kadagar limited his comments to the sorry state of using Mercs I would have a tendency to either agree with his arguement or just stay silent, but calling soldier's murderer's as a generalization is beneath comtempt especially from someone that claims to have served.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 04:57
Those laws and regulations exist - its called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Rules of Engagement as established by the Chain of Command, (thing high level). So I would suggest reading that document - its a fairly big one and easy to find on the Internet.
Uh, I wasn't say they didn't have a code. I was laying out why having a code is important, and contrasting to why Blackwater and private contractors not having one like the U.S. military is not a good thing.
Hince the statement I made about detesting Mercs greater then even Kadagar. When I was in we called them cowboys and tried to have nothing to do with them. Now my younger brother has to deal with them again and he detests them with an even greater passion then I do. So if Kadagar limited his comments to the sorry state of using Mercs I would have a tendency to either agree with his arguement or just stay silent, but calling soldier's murderer's as a generalization is beneath comtempt especially from someone that claims to have served.
I agree calling the troops murderers would not be accurate. I did however share his disagreement with Kukri that they COULDN'T commit murder. Killing the enemy and killing unarmed women are not the same thing and of course, the existing code already recognizes this. For soldiers in uniform, at least.
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 05:07
Redleg, Right and wrong. What is murder in one country isnt in the next. I DO however 100% agree with you that the average GI Joe does his best to avoid civilian casualties.
However, if you read up on the tactics used in Falluja, you will see that the difference between mass murder and urban combat sometimes is.... very small indeed.
As an example, calling in airstrikes on a mob where maybe one out of 50 is carrying a weapon. Mass murder or valid combat doctrine?
Don't get me wrong though, I know the morale dilemmas. A good friend of mine, no matter nationality, was defending a base. Some APCs were heading straight for said base, on the APCs sat children, forced/lured to be there. There was no way the base could pack up and leave in time, so my friend had to order his men to open fire on the APCs. As a side reason, if the enemy would have learnt that putting kids on APCs makes them safe from UN attack, then, well, a whole lot MORE kids would die in the long run. My friend however was traumatised and resigned the same day, he later treid to adopt one of the kids, having one leg less after the attack. Did he murder those kids, well, I would say no. So yes I do see the moral differences, however, I do mean that a soldier also can murder. I would rather have marksmen take out the one with weapons in a mob, even if it means one or two marksmen would probably die for sticking their heads up. That's war.
However, that is about the US army, this thread is about mercs.
My reasoning is BASED on US troops acting more controlled than mercs, so no disagreement there.
spmetla, one big difference is that Sweden and austria send so few men, that we can choose only to send the elite. They have a couple of years and braincells more than the average american soldier. So yes, might change if we had to see real action.
I am not sure more control is bad though... I prefer too much control over to little... Not fun for the men on the field though.
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 05:17
Redleg, from wikipedia on falluja.
On April 3, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force received a written command from the Joint Task Force, ordering offensive operations against Fallujah. This order went against the wishes of the Marine Commanders on the ground who wanted to conduct surgical strikes and raids against those suspected of involvement in the Blackwater deaths.[25]
On the night of April 4, the US forces launched a major assault in an attempt to "re-establish security in Fallujah" by encirling it with around 2000 troops.[24][1] At least four homes were hit in aerial strikes, and there was sporadic gunfire throughout the night.
Again, I like the Marine Corps code of honour. Even they were against what happened. Blackwater had a LOT to do with this operation though, thus, when I talked about the "murder" of Falluja I actually wanted to point my finger at Blackwater, not the Marine Corps.
Blackwater pushed the politicians into hasty, ill planned decisions. The Marines unfortunately were the one having to follow Blackwater directives.
I am however aware I did not be clear about that in my OP. However, AGAIN, I have nothing against the Marines. It is mercs I highly dislike. And the political power they have.
Redleg, Right and wrong. What is murder in one country isnt in the next. I DO however 100% agree with you that the average GI Joe does his best to avoid civilian casualties.
Then why the label? Murder has a legal definition that is consistent throughout the Western world, so I don't buy that arguement as a legitment stance.
However, if you read up on the tactics used in Falluja, you will see that the difference between mass murder and urban combat sometimes is.... very small indeed.
You obviousily missed the statement "Only one operation I know of during Iraq comes close to violating this committment that most soldiers in that I served with attempt to live up to. And even that was done by individual soldiers/officers and from what I have read and heard those individuals have been brought up for courts martial. "
As an example, calling in airstrikes on a mob where maybe one out of 50 is carrying a weapon. Mass murder or valid combat doctrine?
Now one would have to provide the exact event and the details around it. Somilia airstrikes were called on just such an event - and while not every one was armed - most had the intent to attack.
Don't get me wrong though, I know the morale dilemmas. A good friend of mine, no matter nationality, was defending a base. Some APCs were heading straight for said base, on the APCs sat children, forced/lured to be there. There was no way the base could pack up and leave in time, so my friend had to order his men to open fire on the APCs. As a side reason, if the enemy would have learnt that putting kids on APCs makes them safe from UN attack, then, well, a whole lot MORE kids would die in the long run. My friend however was traumatised and resigned the same day, he later treid to adopt one of the kids, having one leg less after the attack. Did he murder those kids, well, I would say no. So yes I do see the moral differences, however, I do mean that a soldier also can murder. I would rather have marksmen take out the one with weapons in a mob, even if it means one or two marksmen would probably die for sticking their heads up. That's war.
However, that is about the US army, this thread is about mercs.
My reasoning is BASED on US troops acting more controlled than mercs, so no disagreement there.
And again why the use of labeling combat soldiers as murderers. Are some guilty of that crime - sure, but your making a specific claim and generalizing them all into that catergory. And by your own arguement you seemly understand the difference. So are you being disengous (SP) or as some stated just plain anti-american. If it's something else then please state so
Redleg, from wikipedia on falluja.
Again, I like the Marine Corps code of honour. Even they were against what happened. Blackwater had a LOT to do with this operation though, thus, when I talked about the "murder" of Falluja I actually wanted to point my finger at Blackwater, not the Marine Corps.
Blackwater pushed the politicians into hasty, ill planned decisions. The Marines unfortunately were the one having to follow Blackwater directives.
I am however aware I did not be clear about that in my OP. However, AGAIN, I have nothing against the Marines. It is mercs I highly dislike. And the political power they have.
I know all about falluja the event that is questionable is the steering of men back into Falluja that attempt to flee as non-combatants that was reported Now while you can question the operational "smartness" of the operation - which is indeed highly suspect, that by itself does not consitute what your attempting to protray. If you want to address the possible violation of the Rules of War address the issue that checkpoints were established not to detain non-combatants that were fleeing but from what I have read actually turned them back toward the combat zone. Now I dont know if anything actually developed from this issue because I lost track of the event because of a family crisis that took a while to resolve
Uh, I wasn't say they didn't have a code. I was laying out why having a code is important, and contrasting to why Blackwater and private contractors not having one like the U.S. military is not a good thing.
Then I misread the statement, to mean that you thought more regulation was needed.
I agree calling the troops murderers would not be accurate. I did however share his disagreement with Kukri that they COULDN'T commit murder. Killing the enemy and killing unarmed women are not the same thing and of course, the existing code already recognizes this. For soldiers in uniform, at least.
Soldiers indeed have been charged with unlawful killings in Iraq. Now I dont know if the military went as far as charging them with murder, but charges indeed have been filed and individuals convicted in a Courts Martial.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 05:33
Then I misread the statement, to mean that you thought more regulation was needed.
Soldiers indeed have been charged with unlawful killings in Iraq. Now I dont know if the military went as far as charging them with murder, but charges indeed have been filed and individuals convicted in a Courts Martial.
From what I read it sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue. Did you ever think it would happen? :help:
From what I read it sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue. Did you ever think it would happen? :help:
Probably because you incorrectly assumed I was a republican - I am a strict constitutionist, which would indicate that mercs are not to be detested out of principle. That and I detest them for the cowboys that they are.
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2008, 05:54
There, edited OP, "murdered" is now "slaughtered" to avoid derailing.
:focus:
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 05:54
Probably because you incorrectly assumed I was a republican - I am a strict constitutionist, which would indicate that mercs are not to be detested out of principle. That and I detest them for the cowboys that they are.
I had no idea what your party was, all I knew was that I would never vote for it. ;)
And I hate to defend Blackwater, but those Mercs were killed delivering food from a catering company, if I recall.
And to Phantom Fury, this was an attack on a known insurgent stronghold. Houses, Mosques etc. were in fact holding insurgents and weapons. The collateral damage was unavoidable in this case.
I had no idea what your party was, all I knew was that I would never vote for it. ;)
Good thing there is no party for me then.. But why would you have a problem with anyone that supported the document that is the foundation of the nation. For instance try reading the document concerning the legislative powers.
It applies in part to the discussion we are having here.
Well I guess the most I can do is accept the differing opinions on mercs. I support their use but not their legal immunity.
I'll try and reserve anymore tangents on the UN and such for other threads.
And I hate to defend Blackwater, but those Mercs were killed delivering food from a catering company, if I recall.
I believe they were unarmed at the time as well.
Also, changing murder to slaughter only pisses me off more so I think I'll make like Panzerjaeger and leave the discussion.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 06:18
Good thing there is no party for me then.. But why would you have a problem with anyone that supported the document that is the foundation of the nation. For instance try reading the document concerning the legislative powers.
It applies in part to the discussion we are having here.
Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 06:19
Accidental Double Mint Power.
Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.
That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.
The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) forbade the US Government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees, or similar private police companies. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute as forbidding the US Government's employing companies offering mercenary, quasi-military forces for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978).
Dont confuse Republicans for constitutionists, since neither party truely follows that path any longer
Koga No Goshi
10-10-2008, 06:34
That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.
I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.
But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)
Papewaio
10-10-2008, 07:45
papewaio, Indeed. As I said, murders are quite common in wars.
Actually I maintain that it is possible for a solider to murder not that it is common.
The hand grenade incident I was referring by the way was the My Lai Massacre... abnormal enough that it caused a court martial. Interesting part of it that for some reason leaving the military absolves one of all war crimes committed while in service... I'm sure the Nazi's in the Nuremburg trials and the Japanese Imperial soldiers in the Tokyo trials had wished that rule of law known to them.
So I don't think that murders happen very often. I do think that a double standard is applied depending if you are prosecuting ones own vs another. That is a very human thing to do. And on top of that cover ups do happen, and even when exposed there is always pardons and the like.
IMDHO the troops generally do the right thing. It is the law and the attempts to go by the letter to skirt justice by higher up in the command particularly the politicians who beat the drums of war that needs to be addressed more closely.
Meh, if they don't behave in Iraq, then the Iraqi police should arrest them and put them on trial for what they did. In what way are they immune to that? I mean if I smuggled drugs to Indonesia and they caught me I couldn't just say "I'm a german citizen, I'm immune", could I? :inquisitive:
I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.
Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.
Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards
But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)
Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather :dizzy2:
Kadagar_AV
10-11-2008, 00:27
When someone offer you his hand...... .... ... .... ...... ...... ?
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 01:02
Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.
Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards
Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather :dizzy2:
Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.
Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.
Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.
Appling your ethics on the issue is fine, however your own arguement is self-defeating here. The constitution itself is a working document which allows for the time to change the document. Yes there were slave holders that encouraged the document to initially leave out the part that slaverly was wrong. We fought a major war over that issue and corrected the document to reflect the fact that it was wrong. Attempting to claim an ethical stance about killing muslims or shoting gay people, both which violate not only the main body of the document but also several amendments is again a false arguement. Do you have such little understanding of the document itself that you believe that its a bad document for setting up the standards of the government?
Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.
The law is how societies allow themselves to be governed. So again where did I say the law is the be all end all of anything.
Your again reaching for a position that I did not take
the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 01:24
the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.
Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.
Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.
Hince the document has the ability to be adjusted by the amendment process.
Right and wrong is an ethical issue and a moral issue based upon the laws that the government passes. The constitution provides the framework for which the government is to function. Since I dont claim that the document is perfect only that its the foundation of our basic ability to govern our nation and which our laws are formulated from.
In fact the constitution protects your right to protest on the actions of the government that you fill is a violation of doing something right.
Which allows the constitutional process work
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-11-2008, 04:51
Evil_Maniac From Mars, so... price before morale and laws, huh?
Answered with:
Now, as they don't belong to the official army, they do not have to follow the laws of war set by the Geneva convention.
So, what laws? Are there laws saying that mercenaries cannot be hired by the state? If so, I would be much obliged if you could point them out. There is nothing wrong with mercenaries as long as they are efficient, disciplined, and cost-effective.
Kadagar_AV
10-11-2008, 16:11
The laws I was refering to was the laws of war. Mercs are not bound by them.
As mentioned earlier. A couple of times.
Ironside
10-11-2008, 18:43
Answered with:
So, what laws? Are there laws saying that mercenaries cannot be hired by the state? If so, I would be much obliged if you could point them out. There is nothing wrong with mercenaries as long as they are efficient, disciplined, and cost-effective.
Goes Machiavellian on EMFM.
:book:
The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XII
How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries
[...]
I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; [...]
I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.[...]
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-11-2008, 19:12
Goes Machiavellian on EMFM.
My argument is not for or against mercenaries in general, but on the right or necessity of the state to secure their use.
The laws I was refering to was the laws of war. Mercs are not bound by them.
As mentioned earlier. A couple of times.
Which makes my point. Thank you.
My argument is not for or against mercenaries in general, but on the right or necessity of the state to secure their use.
Of course countries should be able to employ the use of mercenaries. However, these mercenaries need to have the agreement to operate where they are, must follow the rules of war, and should answer for their actions. So far, Blackwater is operating illegaly since Iraq forbade it to, and is now legally immune.
Kadagar_AV
10-11-2008, 20:11
Swedishfish, I would have a lot less against mercs if they followed the requirements you set up. I would still be against it however, cause of one single reason: No one should fight for money, but for what they believe in.
EMFM, You are not making much sence.
HoreTore
10-11-2008, 20:12
Sweden has soldiers in afghanistan?
What the heck happened to your neutrality? :dizzy2:
Swedishfish, I would have a lot less against mercs if they followed the requirements you set up. I would still be against it however, cause of one single reason: No one should fight for money, but for what they believe in.
I think many of the common soldiers didn't sign up for "Patriotism" either. This is how these guys make money, and it is fine by me. However, they need to be held on a very tight leash.
Sweden has soldiers in afghanistan?
What the heck happened to your neutrality?
Reconstruction Teams I believe. Sweden isn't totally neutral, it's even leading an EU Battlegroup.
Laws od war are a stupid idea anyway as war is usually when law and talking are not in effect anymore, war is when the rage of men gets so big that they are willing to kill others, applying laws to that is like putting a guard dog into a cage or chaining the legs of the horse you want to ride on, it goes against the true spirit of war, just like differentiating between soldiers(you may kill them) and civilians(you may not kill those) and then arming the whole citizenry in case of an invasion. :dizzy2:
Laws od war are a stupid idea anyway as war is usually when law and talking are not in effect anymore, war is when the rage of men gets so big that they are willing to kill others, applying laws to that is like putting a guard dog into a cage or chaining the legs of the horse you want to ride on, it goes against the true spirit of war, just like differentiating between soldiers(you may kill them) and civilians(you may not kill those) and then arming the whole citizenry in case of an invasion. :dizzy2:
When civilians bring up arms against armies, they are then combatants.
When civilians bring up arms against armies, they are then combatants.
Exactly, which means if the US ever lose a war, they will be eradicated to the last man/woman/child. ~;)
Goes Machiavellian on EMFM.
:book:
The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XII
How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries
[...]
I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; [...]
I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.[...]
Correct me if im wrong, but didn't Florence's "citizen army" get annihilated on the field of battle using Machiavelli's advice?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.