Rise of Modern Mercs aka Security Contractors

BBC: Boom times ahead for dogs of war

Quote:

---

Represented were some of the UK's most successful, and controversial, mercenaries - although that is not a term the BAPSC to keen to use.

---

Quote:

---

"Private security companies are not subject to political considerations in the same way conventional armies are. Plus you don't have necessarily have to flag up money you spend on hiring mercenaries. It doesn't necessarily appear in the official defence budget.

"Most importantly, if a private security contractor is killed on active duty, you don't get any body bag pictures on the front pages. That means no bad publicity for the government."

---

Quote:

---

Currently, the security company Blackwater appears to be top of the British firms' hate list.

The US contractor is being investigated following an incident in Baghdad last September, in which 17 Iraqis died. It was just the latest in a number of controversial incidents involving the company.

The shadow of the company lay heavy over Tuesday's conference, with speaker after speaker referring to the damage its actions may have caused to the reputation of private security firms worldwide.

Said one: "We are already disliked and misunderstood, and the behaviour of Blackwater has brought headlines.

"I don't believe anyone in this room thinks we should operate outside the law and be allowed to murder people. If anyone here does believe that, then we are stuffed."

---

I can understand private companies using private security that is approved of by the government. But I don't approve of modern democratic governments using mercs to guard government people and infrastructure.

Also the lack of oversight is not a good thing, it is an abhorrent one.

I feel that this is an outcome of the first Gulf War, where people got the notion that we could fight and win wars with almost no casualties. These days, the threshold for casualties is much smaller and any loss of life is a sever political setback. Contractors, on the other hand, are a different matter entirely...

In any other time in history the casualties sustained in Iraq would be considered quite low, but in today's terms they are cause for withdrawal. While the fate of Iraq is not vital to the US(although arguable), I worry about what would happen if we get into a larger war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

In any other time in history the casualties sustained in Iraq would be considered quite low, but in today's terms they are cause for withdrawal. While the fate of Iraq is not vital to the US(although arguable), I worry about what would happen if we get into a larger war.

---

Perhaps the low tolerance for casualties is largely caused by fragile belief in the goals of the war in the first place.

These companies do also contribute to low retention rates in the army. Same job (if not safer) with more pay.

This is, I believe, a capitalist world, is it not? Supply and demand and all that. The British army is certainly - as the government puts is - stretched. Some might say overstretched. Either way, there's a niche in the market - wide open for Security Companies to step into.

I would love for there to be no need for them, that either our army is sufficiently funded and supported to fight the wars we're getting them involved in; or that there were no wars to fight (human nature would seem to preclude that though).

Hell, I might join one after my SSC is up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

These days, the threshold for casualties is much smaller and any loss of life is a sever political setback.

---

I think it has jack-all to do with our times, but instead with the kinds of wars in which we're engaged. It has been demonstrated time and time again that democracies will tolerate huge casualties if they're engaged in a defensive war. Show Americans an existential threat, and they'll send our young men and women to die in the tens of thousands.

What modern communications destroy is the public's appetite for casualties in what are perceived to be wars of choice. Note how nobody harps on the casualties sustained in Afghanistan. I believe that's because Americans know darn well that the attacks of 9/11/01 originated there. What you hear people moaning about is the casualties sustained in Iraq, which is widely believed to be a war of choice.

America hasn't magically gotten soft and timid since WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

This is, I believe, a capitalist world, is it not? Supply and demand and all that. The British army is certainly - as the government puts is - stretched. Some might say overstretched. Either way, there's a niche in the market - wide open for Security Companies to step into.

---

Yet more privitisation creeping into the British public sector then. They'll be privatising the NHS next. Oh wait...

I agree, the low tolerance for casualties is what is holding the war effort back from reaching any meaningful conclusion. You can't win a war against an enemy that operates in attack groups of 3 with an overwhelming air campaign and strategic artillery bombardments. It doesn't work that way. All the "shock and awe" strategy achieved was to alienate the people that the coalition of the willing were supposedly trying to liberate. Its hard to specifically target one man with an AK in a building in the middle of a built-up area with a gun thats 10 miles away - collateral damage is innevitable. It sends a bit of a mixed message: "We value your democracy, but only as much as some cluster bombs and a few cruise missiles, certainly not as much as 100 dead soldiers."

Had the coalition gone in with ground troops from the off, the campaign might have reached a better outcome by now. There wouldn't have been the need to destroy so much infrastructure - which is as vital to ordinary civilian life as to "insurgent life." Unfortunately, this is not a campaign which is valued highly by the people of Britain, America, Australia.... Their way of life is not percieved to be under threat so they will not tolerate casualties of the scale seen in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think it has jack-all to do with our times, but instead with the kinds of wars in which we're engaged. It has been demonstrated time and time again that democracies will tolerate huge casualties if they're engaged in a defensive war. Show Americans an existential threat, and they'll send our young men and women to die in the tens of thousands.

---

You are in essence correct about the kind of wars engaged but your leaving one critical piece out concerning about the time we live in. Believe it or not the United States was involved in conflicts before WW2 that were wars of choice, but the public was unaware of the events until after the conflict. The aspect of instant communication and the amount of media available to the general public is an aspect of our time that prevents wars of choice from gaining much public approval because we are better informed then previous times. You kind of covered it your second paragraph but your initial point neglects that fact - when you argue that it has jack all to do with our times.

Quote:

---

America hasn't magically gotten soft and timid since WWII.

---

While my grandfather was alive he might of argued with you about that - the depression made for a lot of hard men doing hard things during WW2.

But as a nation we have not gotten as soft and timid as some would like to believe we have.

I don't like the idea of private contractors doing security work that should be the job of the national armed forces. It merely highlights weaknesses in the forces (notably lack of men and equipment), creates a weak link in the occupying forces. Knowing the general trend of privatisation it probably costs more, while doubt serving as a useful band-aid both for military purposes and for political expedient.

I'm no great fan of the idea of private firms in Iraq hiring private armies either, although I can see why their security demands it. This is not a good sign IMO. It does not suggest that we are winning.

I give this from the view-point of an ignorant civilian (although the servicemen I've spoken to generally dislike soldiers of fortune, even if they once served alongside them). No doubt those here of a military background will have a more worthwhile input.

It's easy to say that in a defensive war we would fight hard and win, but it's debatable. We have revisionists saying that, essentially, we caused the war with Japan by cutting off civilian supplies and boycotting businesses. "Putting pins in snakes will one day get you bit". It isn't a far stretch to say that we would have people asking us to cede land and may actually give in, do to "what we owe them".

In a larger war I have no doubt that the propaganda machines on the other side(s) combined with our massive casualty rates will send us reeling. If it even gets that far before we curl up and die from intense talk.

Sign of the times indeed. Our countries are filled with lazy and treacherous cowards and well intentioned pacifists. Maybe It's about time that harder working/fighting people incinerated our culture. Talking points?

Contractors are a PR loophole for the government and until we come to a consensus about what the hell we are doing as a country, they will be necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Our countries are filled with lazy and treacherous cowards and well intentioned pacifists. Maybe It's about time that harder working/fighting people incinerated our culture. Talking points?

---

This kind of broad-brush generalization really honks me off. I assure you that Americans would fight the bloodiest fight you can imagine to defend our nation and our way of life. It's a complete and utter logical fallacy to say, "Oh, sure, I know we fought hard in the past, but kids these days ..."

I count on two constants: (1) Things are usually getting better, and (2) people complain about how things are getting worse.

So as not to derail the thread completely, I am very conflicted about mercenaries. I think they could be useful as all get-out in tamping down conflicts in nasty corners of the world that no first-world nation would ever want to touch. But the lack of accountability is a serious issue, and one which we have not addressed in our current Iraqi adventure.

Civilizations fall due to lack of conviction. It is a far cry to say that we would all fold, I agree, but the rise in mercenary use seems to be a hallmark of failing national conviction. I believe that the United States is in danger of this, but Im too young to really know anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Civilizations fall due to lack of conviction.

---

A bold and rather unsupported claim, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

A bold and rather unsupported claim, don't you think?

---

True. I think it's a stretch to call those rebellious colonials civilized. ~;p

The rise of "Private Military Contractors" irks me greatly. Sure, there are many normal ones who see themselves as doing jobs that national armies can't because of diplomatic arrangments, but many show blatant disregard for the security of others, earning them quite a reputation.
They take away from national armies, too. Why pay "Contractors" when you could increase wages and benefits for your own military?
As TW players, we can answer that if one has not planned very carefully using spies and assassins, one must use more than favorable numbers of mercenaries to bolster one forces and fight effectively. However, if one plans every miniscule detail (though life is much different than a game here, so unpredictable) and 'upgrades' one's 'smith building tree' and 'barracks/stables' one has a long run solution as opposed to the temporary relief that mercenaries provide (they cost too much in upkeep!).
Yeah, Total War metaphor (and rhyming in this last sentence).

Quote:

---

It is a far cry to say that we would all fold, I agree, but the rise in mercenary use seems to be a hallmark of failing national conviction.

---

America is still a place of startling and powerful conviction. It's just not in our leaders or their causes. I think our national response to 9/11 is proof enough. When we see our lives and beliefs threatened we fight hard. We just don't believe that Iraq is necessary, and we don't like unnecessary deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think it has jack-all to do with our times, but instead with the kinds of wars in which we're engaged. It has been demonstrated time and time again that democracies will tolerate huge casualties if they're engaged in a defensive war. Show Americans an existential threat, and they'll send our young men and women to die in the tens of thousands.

What modern communications destroy is the public's appetite for casualties in what are perceived to be wars of choice. Note how nobody harps on the casualties sustained in Afghanistan. I believe that's because Americans know darn well that the attacks of 9/11/01 originated there. What you hear people moaning about is the casualties sustained in Iraq, which is widely believed to be a war of choice.

America hasn't magically gotten soft and timid since WWII.

---

And yet here in Canada Iraq and Afghanistan are viewed are being the same. Wars of choice as you put it. Every week that a flag drapped coffin rolls off a Hercules, I read opinion pieces slamming Shrubs imperial wars (note wars plural). And how it's Canada's disgrace for being involved in one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think it has jack-all to do with our times, but instead with the kinds of wars in which we're engaged. It has been demonstrated time and time again that democracies will tolerate huge casualties if they're engaged in a defensive war. Show Americans an existential threat, and they'll send our young men and women to die in the tens of thousands.

What modern communications destroy is the public's appetite for casualties in what are perceived to be wars of choice. Note how nobody harps on the casualties sustained in Afghanistan. I believe that's because Americans know darn well that the attacks of 9/11/01 originated there. What you hear people moaning about is the casualties sustained in Iraq, which is widely believed to be a war of choice.

America hasn't magically gotten soft and timid since WWII.

---

I certainly would not consider WW1 a defensive war, yet many more thousands of Americans died on the fields of Europe. WW2 is a stretch as well...

Times have certainly changed, and so have American sensibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I certainly would not consider WW1 a defensive war, yet many more thousands of Americans died on the fields of Europe.

---

And if you've been reading your history, you know that the American public was extremely reluctant to get involved in WWI, and that it was a tremendously unpopular war. No doubt the internet message boards of the day thrummed with people saying, "Americans have lost that gumption we had in the Spanish-American war."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

WW2 is a stretch as well...

---

ORLY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Times have certainly changed, and so have American sensibilities.

---

When voicing such sentiments, it's customary to also say, "You kids get off my lawn!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And if you've been reading your history, you know that the American public was extremely reluctant to get involved in WWI, and that it was a tremendously unpopular war. No doubt the internet message boards of the day thrummed with people saying, "Americans have lost that gumption we had in the Spanish-American war."

---

So would you say that Americans are willing to take 117,465 deaths in Iraq (or anything close to that), or have times changed?

Quote:

---

ORLY?

---

Read back a little further in history... cause and effect.

Quote:

---

When voicing such sentiments, it's customary to also say, "You kids get off my lawn!"

---

Im 20 years old. I know how the people of my generation think and I know how their parents think. Hell, even my own father who served in the German military and is a proud descendent of German soldiers from way before WW1 offered to buy me a car if I didn't join the marines. Western society is soft...

WWI and WW2 were the early signs of a ripe fruit beggining to spoil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Western society is soft...

---

Or maybe I just don't see why I should die on some muddy battlefield in the name of someone else and an agenda I may not even support, try breaking into my home to find out how soft I am. :dizzy2: :viking:

Despite that, all humans are soft targets. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Or maybe I just don't see why I should die on some muddy battlefield in the name of someone else and an agenda I may not even support..

---

Thats my point. Back in the day, a lot more people were up for that kind of thing.. look at how many millions said "umm, ok" when asked to walk into machine gun fire! :smg:

Problem is the modern economy education does not make good cannon fodder.

Look at the way the British Empire fractured. The colonies when they became more economically powerful and educated fractured away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

So would you say that Americans are willing to take 117,465 deaths in Iraq (or anything close to that), or have times changed?

---

Of course times have changed; what I'm arguing is that people have not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Read back a little further in history... cause and effect.

---

If you're going to argue that WWII was a war of choice for the U.S., you're gonna need your own thread. Let's just say that you're staking out a minority position among historians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I know how the people of my generation think and I know how their parents think. Hell, even my own father who served in the German military and is a proud descendent of German soldiers from way before WW1 offered to buy me a car if I didn't join the marines. Western society is soft...

---

Um, yeah, that must be why we're dominant in every measurable field, including military power. 'Cause we're all so soft.

When do you hypothesize this "softening" occurred?

Quote:

---

Thats my point. Back in the day, a lot more people were up for that kind of thing.. look at how many millions said "umm, ok" when asked to walk into machine gun fire!

---

So it isn't that western society has become soft , it is that they are not so stupid anymore .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Thats my point. Back in the day, a lot more people were up for that kind of thing.. look at how many millions said "umm, ok" when asked to walk into machine gun fire! :smg:

---

Yes, it was all glorious and fine until they arrived at the front, do you really think they all liked to run into that machinegun fire?
There's a reason western society isn't fond of war anymore, actually there are two and for some countries even a few more.

And this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So it isn't that western society has become soft , it is that they are not so stupid anymore .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So it isn't that western society has become soft , it is that they are not so stupid anymore .

---

Tribesy, you have summed up all my thoughts in a single sentence. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Of course times have changed; what I'm arguing is that people have not.

---

That doesn't answer my question. If the people have not changed, why did they put up with losing over 100,000 men in an unpopular war then and today 4000 is grounds for calling it quits?

Quote:

---

If you're going to argue that WWII was a war of choice for the U.S., you're gonna need your own thread. Let's just say that you're staking out a minority position among historians.

---

Not really, but ok...

Quote:

---

Um, yeah, that must be why we're dominant in every measurable field, including military power. 'Cause we're all so soft.

---

What does technological superiority have to do with the ability to take large numbers of sustained casualties?

Quote:

---

When do you hypothesize this "softening" occurred?

---

Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So it isn't that western society has become soft , it is that they are not so stupid anymore .

---

Well, I think that Western society is soft because people are more knowledgable about the world, among other things.

I think it also has to do with a lack of civil society. Nobody wants to make a personal sacrifice, especially for an unpopular war. Thats not a bad thing. It would be, however, if we were truly threatened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, it was all glorious and fine until they arrived at the front, do you really think they all liked to run into that machinegun fire?
There's a reason western society isn't fond of war anymore, actually there are two and for some countries even a few more.

And this:

---

I think you misunderstand my point. All I am saying is that the Western world is not willing to accept casualties like they did in the past. That has good and bad implications.

I think its good that we have by and large replaced large casualty figures with far superior technology.. but that might not always be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I think its good that we have by and large replaced large casualty figures with far superior technology.. but that might not always be the case.

---

And we might not always be soft. We're soft because we can afford it, once we cannot afford it anymore, it may change.

I should probably point out that, for the British at least, that during WW1 a large proportion of the early volunteers for the army joined up for a steady wage, some new clothes and three square meals a day. When conscription was first introduced more than twice as many men failed to turn up to enlist than those who did. When compulsion became more serious then lo and behold the numbers enlisting rocketed.

I don't think calling any of those men stupid is fair.