-
First, let me state that I'm American, happy to be so, and proud of and greatful for the vast majority of our soldiers. The following is not meant to insult or disparage anyone in uniform.
An uncomfortable thought struck me last night while I was listening to the BBC. They were doing a story on the prison fiasco in Iraq, in which a lot of the focus is on American military "contractors" working for Military Intelligence. From what I understand, these private contractors were doing translations, interogations, and analysis of those interogations, and it was those same contractors, working under MI, who told the US Reserve military police prison guards to "soften up" the Iraqi prisoners.
As if this wasn't disturbing in and of itself, what then struck me, and where this story finally gets its tenuous connection to these forums, was that "private military contractors" may just be a new way of saying "mercenaries." Mercenaries, in my understanding, are hired soldiers. German Hussars come to mind. So do Byzantine troops, and thus so does much of the late Roman army.
That last part is the main focus of my concern. The similarity between this new evolution in how the U.S. government fields military forces. In the previous few wars the US has used "contractors" mostly for logistical stuff like making tents, rations, working in the kitchen, and supply shipments. What seems new is how we are now contracting out security (read: peacekeepers and MPs) interogation, and bodyguard duties.
It is my understanding that as the Roman army stopped requiring Roman citizens to serve in the army and instead started hiring german, slavic and galic mercenaries to man the borders, the professionalism of Rome's soldiers may have increased but the determination to fight to the last man and the dedication to the security of Rome and the will of the Senate erroded. Those armies were also more susceptable to being bribed and then act as a private army for wealthy military generals, who sometimes would march on Rome. I know that's a far cry from the current situation in the US, but I'm concerned about the trend towards what I see as a heavier use of mercenaries in our wars, and the similarities between the trend I see now and the events that occured during and after the Marian reforms to the Roman armies.
Thus, two questions:
a) is "contractor" just a newer, more free-market and politcally-correct way to say mercenary?
b) what do you think about the correlations between Rome's move from a citizen to a mercenary army and my perception of that same evolution occuring with the US?
-
come on, at least make a small effort to post inthe proper forum. we have an Off-Topic forum, it's called the Tavern.
moved.
