Mercenaries gained something of a bad name for themselves during the latter part of the twentieth century. However, there seems to be a new willingness to use private security firms or whatever else you want to call them across the world's trouble spots.
Given that the UN has proved itself to be a costly waste of money, watching or in some cases complicit in numerous tragedies across the globe should mercenaries be utilized more widely?
At a fraction of the cost, well trained mercenaries can be deployed across the globe and have proved very effective when properly prepared and led.
Thoughts anyone?
Saw a very good program on History Channel International on this very subject this past weekend.
The show's position was that mercs have been around since the earliest of times, and have always been part of the military landscape. The recent increase of merc use is caused by the shortages of manpower in standing armies. Even the largest of nations have seriously curtailed the size of their standing armies, so that when contracts are awarded to civilian companies to operate in a war zone, they are expected, and in some cases forced by contract, to arrange for their own security. Mercs are he obvious answer.
There are no doubts that a handful of well trained mercs can be used more effectively than 100s or 1000s of poorly trained conscripts, as the battles in the mid-20th century in Africa clearly demonstrate. But the age old stigma of being a gun for hire follows them. If they can be paid to attack someone, can they not also be paid to betray? Personally I think that's a bad rap, since all soldiers, free lance or national, are paid for their services. The notion of fighting for patriotic love of your homeland is really only a few 100 years old.
I personally have no problem with mercenaries and think it's a good solution to many military situations.
If we did use mercenaries in place of UN troops, we'd will lose all accountability and might find that the mercenaries may become the cause of the atrocities that the UN was trying to prevent.
Havoc
:chin: Hmmm, don't think the UN has used Mercs (that I am aware of). Doubt anyone would foot the bill for that. I think it's most likely only sovereign nations, or organizations with real money (corporations or illegal organizations) that can afford such an arrangement. The UN can't even pay it's own rent.
An experienced US soldier retires to get a Contractor security job at thrice the pay, which taxpayers pay for.
US troops are fed and supplied by contractors, too. Are they not mercenaries, even if lowly paid? (except for the CEOs)
These contractors may or not accomplish their mission, but they still get paid, with no accountability.
In this sense, the rise of mercenaries to fight for and support the US army is a bad thing.
For certain there is a point at which it becomes cheaper to use professional services, and I certainly don't know where that point is, but the contract cost for some mercs/contractors to do a job has to be balanced against the full cost of the equivilant amount of professional troops. Those full costs cover everything from training, to medical benefits, to retirement and death benefits. With mercs or contractors it's flat fee arrangement, and for limited periods of time and/or limited objectives, I imagine could be quite a bargain for the agency who does the contracting.
Apples and oranges, mates.
We use contractors for a gizzilion things in the US military and government. Clerical, IT systems, intelligence analysts, weapons development. What we don't do is hire soldiers.
A contractor who is hired to be the Iranian naval forces expert in an intel center in Tampa, Florida is not the same as hiring someone to go patrol Ramadi and kill any bad guys he can find.
Nor, frankly, are the various modern security services like Blackwater "mercenaries" in the sense of being hired soldiers. They are ( or are at least supposed to be) hired for very specific, narrrowly-defined jobs that at most are security-related.
When the modern US army has contractors driving their artillery, like 18th century armies, it wiil have gone too far. As it is, I fear for the US contractor run supply lines.
A one off payment for contractors may seem cheap, but I think there is a danger involved for an army that cannot supply and feed itself, or even perform all combat missions.
Quote:With mercs or contractors it's flat fee arrangement, and for limited periods of time and/or limited objectives, I imagine could be quite a bargain for the agency who does the contracting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes this is precisely the reason contractors make sense for a whole list of government contract jobs. [/quote]