Shadow Military/Mercs your thoughts.

[MAKO69 186]

I just watched “The Shadow Military”. As a former service member I don't see a problem with private security/soldiers that are run professionally. Private security/soldiers could be just another tool that a govt. can use to mitigate a hostile situation. They would have to be just as accountable for their actions as any soldier from what govt. had hired the agency. Example if the United States hired a private security company then they would have to answer to the U.S. Govt. and or U.N. Laws. Some more food for thought would be allowing private companies to procure strike aircraft and boats to support their own private forces.

 

Here are two other documentary grab a 12 pack enjoy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrvRLlkAEbE

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdY2lvUaP8

 

 

[macelena 1,070]

Hiring foreign veterans, OK, but companies? No way.

[+Typhoid 231]

depends on what they're used for.  Contract security - yes.  Intelligence support operations - yes.  Active combat operations - no. 

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

As one who has witnessed a Black Water Murder fest in Iraq, I would say the only place on the battlefield for them is hanging from trees by their necks.

 

Think about it, if they where good soldiers they would still be in the military.

 

Under zero circumstances should the most powerful military force in the history of mankind hire mercenaries. For any reason. Their loyalty is to the Green not the Red, White, and Blue.

 

Most are liers and scoundrels anyway.

 

[JediMaster 451]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but the US military doesn't pay enlisted men that great. The benefits offered are ok, but if you can make more money doing the same job, and the people you're working with and for are ostensibly all former US military, why WOULDN'T you go?

[von Baur 54]

I saw the same program a year or two ago, MAKO. As former special forces I was in agreement with you, particularly in light of the stories I'd heard about the "private contractors" in Sierra Leonne. But in that same program they pointed out some of the excesses Crazyhorse talked about (unless they re-edited the show, which is happenning lately).

 

If they're going to play by reasonable rules (not necessarily the extremely limiting ROE that the military is forced to abide, but reasonable rules) I'm ok with it and I say use them as much as is necessary. It saves soldiers, not all of whom want to be in combat or are particularly good at it, either case detracting from the effectiveness of a unit and its survivability. But it seems they go above and beyond in a bad way too often. And by too often I mean ever. And please don't lecture me on "Combat is different." I'm well aware of that. But you must also be aware that there are and must be limits beyond which we cannot allow ourselves or those representing our interest to go. Otherwise we end up like the "unidentified peace-keepers" that "helped" Crimea secure a "fair and impartial" election.

 

I only have news reports to go by. I've never witnessed any of these actions first-hand. Crazyhorse says he has and I'm willing to take him at his word. And when coupled with the news reports and documentaries, the evidence becomes compelling if not overwhelming.

 

 

**edit**

To Crazyhorse:

I think it unfair to state that a mercenary's only loyalty is to money. He's doing a job for which he gets paid, that's true. But aren't we all? And sometimes our jobs call on us all to do things we don't like or wouldn't normally do. I know it's true of me. If you can honestly say otherwise you're a lucky man. But I don't think that in itself makes someone a bad person. And, unlike the military, a "private contractor" (mercenary) has the option to turn down any job he doesn't care for. I'm sure many, of not most, of them are good people with high moral standards which they wouldn't violate for any amount of money.

 

But then, I like to think the best of people.

Edited April 18, 2014 by von Baur

[MrGoTime 20]

I've been involved in peacekeeping ops in various areas and I've seen privatized guys used pretty frequently. From my lmited experience, I would agree with some of the other posters here that active full spectrum ops might not be the place for mercs. But for use in peacekeeping or other periphery backwater roles, I don't have any problems with it. Maybe camp security, MP type stuff. Gate guarding, ECP (entry control point), etc.

 

My main concern is about the economics. Is it really cheaper for a government to hire out a "mercenary" company than it is to actually deploy troops? It might be honestly, but I have not seen the figures.

[+Typhoid 231]

It is much cheaper to use contractors rather than regular forces for a lot of functions. With regular forces there is a lot of support and tail that come with them. For contractors, they are the support. They also don't come with pension liabilities and similar add on's. That cost is built into the contract.

 

Contractors are used for a lot of support functions and can augment active duty forces.

 

Full disclosure; I was a contractor for a couple of decades and the company I worked for , and the companies I competed against for task orders, provided direct support for military operations, support tasks, research and development (who do think provides all those cool toys you all play with?), and general support.

 

Direct combat ops? No.

 

Combat Service Support? Yes.

 

The US hasn't been able to go to war without contractors for decades. That does not make us mercenaries.