Mercenaries are Evil...or not

**Farnan** · June 21, 2007, 03:44 PM

Mercenaries Volunteer for Duty in Darfur

March 31, 2006: Blackwater USA, one of the major providers of security personnel in Iraq, has offered to provide a brigade of peacekeepers for any operation, anywhere in the world. In particular, Blackwater said that it could provide a brigade in a place like Darfur for much less money than it would cost NATO to provide the same number of troops. Blackwater is proposing providing peacekeepers, not conventional combat troops. This proposal is based on Blackwaters two years experience in Iraq, where it provides thousands of foreign and Iraqi security personnel. Blackwater hires former military personnel, especially those who have been in Special Operations units, for its security jobs. The company says it has discussed the proposal with American and NATO officials. No one in an official position has made any public comments about this concept. It's not a new idea, but the shady historical reputation of mercenaries has worked against any government openly accepting the concept. This in spite of the success of mercenaries in Iraq, and elsewhere.

The Blackwater proposal also addresses a peacekeeper shortage the UN is having. There's also the problem of getting well trained and equipped peacekeeping troops. Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are major contributors of good troops, but there are not enough of them. The UN has been approached about using mercenaries in the past, and has refused to consider it. But with no country rushing to send first class troops to Darfur, and the African Union forces already there being overwhelmed by the scope of the problem, Blackwater may have a customer.

There are two other considerations. First, mercenary peacekeepers are already a fact of life in many areas. NGOs, including UN agencies, commonly hire foreign, and local, muscle to provide security. All Blackwater is proposing is expanding this practice, and delivering a more efficient, unified, force. It is known that the NGO practice of hiring local gunmen often leads to further complications, not increased security. A second factor is that, down the road, some of the nations that have been renting lots of their troops, to the UN, on a regular basis, may see the Blackwater Brigade as unwanted competition. Because the UN pays more per peacekeeper than these troops earn back in South Asian or any African countries, these jobs are quite lucrative for the troops and the countries they come from. So, while the Blackwater Brigade may be a good idea, it will only come to pass if it can overcome the political and emotional baggage mercenary peacekeepers drag in with them.

From strategypage.com

**~~The Super Pope~~** · June 21, 2007, 03:45 PM

Neccassary for poorer countries, or they put children into the ranks

**Daovonnaex** · June 21, 2007, 03:52 PM

I don't have a problem with mercenaries per se, but I have a similar problem with them as I do with defense contractors: they are likely to lobby for war to fatten their profits.

**LoZz** · June 21, 2007, 04:07 PM

id much rather have real soilders who are duty bound by international law to protect me, i wouldnt trust a bunch of mercs

**jankren** · June 21, 2007, 04:08 PM

The question is how reliable are mercenaries? Are they gonna break easily in the face of imminent danger? Or are they gonna shoot random people as they want since they are not bound to any military moral standard?

**Farnan** · June 21, 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by jankren

The question is how reliable are mercenaries? Are they gonna break easily in the face of imminent danger? Or are they gonna shoot random people as they want since they are not bound to any military moral standard?

Blackwater troops are former Special Operations troops, mostly from the UK, Australia and US, so they are competent. Also, as its volunteer duty to do such they are more likely to be people who are more bound to follow international law than hired thugs. Also, war crimes are bad for business.

Anyway I'd rather trust an ex-SAS operator than a local hired thug. And I'd rather have mercenaries support me and defend me than no one.

**LoZz** · June 22, 2007, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Farnan

Blackwater troops are former Special Operations troops, mostly from the UK, Australia and US, so they are competent. Also, as its volunteer duty to do such they are more likely to be people who are more bound to follow international law than hired thugs. Also, war crimes are bad for business.

Anyway I'd rather trust an ex-SAS operator than a local hired thug. And I'd rather have mercenaries support me and defend me than no one.

you have to be a us citizen to join blackwater acording to their website, i imagen a few uk and australian guys are in it, but not many, id say its 80% americans

**Daovonnaex** · June 21, 2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by jankren

The question is how reliable are mercenaries? Are they gonna break easily in the face of imminent danger? Or are they gonna shoot random people as they want since they are not bound to any military moral standard?

Some mercenaries are better than other mercenaries. Like anything else in the private sector, you get what you pay for. The former South African mercenary organization, Executive Outcomes, was damn good. Blackwater as far as I understand is pretty good as well.

**~~The Super Pope~~** · June 21, 2007, 04:11 PM

They are a lot better, paticularly British and South African, than the millitias the warlords use

**Tom Paine** · June 21, 2007, 04:24 PM

I don't know - some of the worst Iraq warcrimes have been by contractors. However the volunteer situation here is nonanalogous, and I'd say that people volunteering for this sort of thing are probably doing it altruisticly.

**~~The Super Pope~~** · June 21, 2007, 04:27 PM

5 Commando in the Congo was very good

**Cluny the Scourge** · June 21, 2007, 04:32 PM

They would undoubtedly plunder and loot like hell, spend their off-hours using their authority and weapons to set up their own stake in local organised crime, and be deeply unmotivated to their actual given objectives.

**~~The Super Pope~~** · June 21, 2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Cluny the Scourge

They would undoubtedly plunder and loot like hell, spend their off-hours using their authority and weapons to set up their own stake in local organised crime, and be deeply unmotivated to their actual given objectives.

But it's better than warlords armies that cut people's hands off

**killerchinchilla** · June 21, 2007, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Cluny the Scourge

They would undoubtedly plunder and loot like hell, spend their off-hours using their authority and weapons to set up their own stake in local organised crime, and be deeply unmotivated to their actual given objectives.

I don't think that would be the case. The company would be under the gaze of the worlds press, such actions would be very bad for business and I'd have no doubt they'd make sure their men where disciplined. It seems to me something like this could be used as a way of getting further work, if done in a professional and effective manner. As has been mentioned in another thread many western nations can no longer effectively wage an armed campaign for a prolonged period due to lack of public support, and indeed public hostility. The answer to this could well be the use of private companies in certain situations, lets face it the death of a mercenary isn't treated the same as the death of 'one of our brave boys'. A good and well publicized performance could make their use much more palatable.

**Hookah Smoking Caterpiller** · June 21, 2007, 04:38 PM

they are handy in M2TW

**kev-o** · June 21, 2007, 05:36 PM

Mercs can get the job done faster without political road blocks. They are simple and effiecient.

**Carach** · June 21, 2007, 05:43 PM

may have been asked but uhm.. arent blackwater the company thats part owned by the vice president of the USA? and also makes up the majority of mercs currently in iraq and benefiting hugely from the occupation there?

(mercs make up the second highest number in Iraq, second only to the US military)

**Dromikaites** · June 22, 2007, 02:00 AM

In terms of effectiveness and efficiency the mercenaries provided by companies like Blackwater or Executive Outcomes are probably an excellent choice.

From the moral point of view most of the soldiers used in peacekeeping operations are anyway professionals (therefore "killers for money"/"hired guns"/"hired muscle") not conscripts doing their military service.

From the practical point of view the professional soldiers working as peace keepers behavior is only as ethical as their employers (=governments) enforces it to be. Without proper enforcement the "bad apples" in the regular armies would commit war crimes, engage in drug and weapons traffic, prostitution, extortion (and occasionally they do, making the headlines). The employer of mercenaries can therefore enforce proper behavior, in which case the mercenaries, most of them being ex-members of the military would probably have little difficulty to comply with.

The main problem is in recent history (post WW2) the mercenaries were mainly involved in coups or similar disreputable operations in Third World countries. This creates a serious PR problem for any international body which would consider hiring mercenaries for any large scale operation.