• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greater Reliance on Mercenary PSMCs: Practical or Dangerous?

Evilroddy

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,406
Reaction score
8,012
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What are the pros and cons of Western states (countries) relying more and more on mercenary/PSMC companies (Private Security and Military Contractors) to conduct war and to guard and maintain military infrastructure? Should they also be used domestically to protect private interests and property if such protection involves doing violence to citizens? Given the poor reputation of the former PSMC Blackwater in Iraq and the new revelations concerning the role of TigerSwan (coordinating other mercenaries in the Dakota Pipeline protests), is this a wise course of action? Are PSMCs which carry out security, paramilitary, espionage and surveillance operations breaking the traditional monopoly of violence and covert operations which has been granted to the state by the citizens?

What are the benefits and the costs of this monetisation of military and security functions? Erik Prince of Blackwater fame has lobbied hard for mercenary PSMCs to be used in Libya to intern and repatriate migrants before they get to the Mediterranean and Europe. He has also suggested that similar strategies be used domestically vis a vis illegal/undocumented aliens living in the USA. PSMCs are involved in manning and servicing the offshore internment camps for illegal migrants operated by Australia. Is this wise policy?

On the other hand mercenary PSMCs fulfil vital roles in personnel and force protection operations. They enable NGOs and aid workers to operate in hostile environments where they would otherwise be unable to work. They protect VIPs in hostile environments. These companies also guard and protect sensitive and valuable infrastructure in less stable parts of the world, allowing business to proceed despite local instability. PSMCs have lower legacy costs than regular military personnel, so despite their high up-front cost, there may be economies to using them for short periods of time in the long run. So what are the benefits associated with greater reliance on PSMCs?

TigerSwan's own internal documents, leaked to the Intercept, indicate that its personnel regarded water protectors as insurgents and terrorists and conducted a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation involving security, surveillance, disseminating disinformation and domestic espionage on the protestors. Should private firms be allowed to conduct such operations on US soil against US citizens?

What do people think about this often overlooked trend over the last quarter century? Are mercenary PSMCs worth it or are they a Pandora's Box fraught with danger?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
What are the pros and cons of Western states (countries) relying more and more on mercenary/PSMC companies (Private Security and Military Contractors) to conduct war and to guard and maintain military infrastructure? Should they also be used domestically to protect private interests and property if such protection involves doing violence to citizens? Given the poor reputation of the former PSMC Blackwater in Iraq and the new revelations concerning the role of TigerSwan (coordinating other mercenaries in the Dakota Pipeline protests), is this a wise course of action? Are PSMCs which carry out security, paramilitary, espionage and surveillance operations breaking the traditional monopoly of violence and covert operations which has been granted to the state by the citizens?

What are the benefits and the costs of this monetisation of military and security functions? Erik Prince of Blackwater fame has lobbied hard for mercenary PSMCs to be used in Libya to intern and repatriate migrants before they get to the Mediterranean and Europe. He has also suggested that similar strategies be used domestically vis a vis illegal/undocumented aliens living in the USA. PSMCs are involved in manning and servicing the offshore internment camps for illegal migrants operated by Australia. Is this wise policy?

On the other hand mercenary PSMCs fulfil vital roles in personnel and force protection operations. They enable NGOs and aid workers to operate in hostile environments where they would otherwise be unable to work. They protect VIPs in hostile environments. These companies also guard and protect sensitive and valuable infrastructure in less stable parts of the world, allowing business to proceed despite local instability. PSMCs have lower legacy costs than regular military personnel, so despite their high up-front cost, there may be economies to using them for short periods of time in the long run. So what are the benefits associated with greater reliance on PSMCs?

TigerSwan's own internal documents, leaked to the Intercept, indicate that its personnel regarded water protectors as insurgents and terrorists and conducted a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation involving security, surveillance, disseminating disinformation and domestic espionage on the protestors. Should private firms be allowed to conduct such operations on US soil against US citizens?

What do people think about this often overlooked trend over the last quarter century? Are mercenary PSMCs worth it or are they a Pandora's Box fraught with danger?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

It would better to rely on UN soldiers.
 
joG said:
It would better to rely on UN soldiers.
Click to expand...

So you advocate for a UN Army? I think that sort of thing needs to wait for the setting up of a global government, which I predict happens after the current economic and political order finishes collapsing. Maybe nuclear terrorism gets us there first.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So you advocate for a UN Army? I think that sort of thing needs to wait for the setting up of a global government, which I predict happens after the current economic and political order finishes collapsing. Maybe nuclear terrorism gets us there first.
Click to expand...

The way getting there could interesting. But I think you might be right that the window of opportunity we possibly had after the Iraq war is probably closed. That was Obama's worst failure.
 
joG said:
The way getting there could interesting. But I think you might be right that the window of opportunity we possibly had after the Iraq war is probably closed. That was Obama's worst failure.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you feel that there was a window, because I never saw it, America was far from being willing and America had the power to prevent it. As our power shrinks this gets to be less of a problem. Maybe we turn into Obama style ashamed of America Americans, and thus can be guilted into it down the line?
 
Evilroddy said:
What are the pros and cons of Western states (countries) relying more and more on mercenary/PSMC companies (Private Security and Military Contractors) to conduct war and to guard and maintain military infrastructure? Should they also be used domestically to protect private interests and property if such protection involves doing violence to citizens? Given the poor reputation of the former PSMC Blackwater in Iraq and the new revelations concerning the role of TigerSwan (coordinating other mercenaries in the Dakota Pipeline protests), is this a wise course of action? Are PSMCs which carry out security, paramilitary, espionage and surveillance operations breaking the traditional monopoly of violence and covert operations which has been granted to the state by the citizens?

What are the benefits and the costs of this monetisation of military and security functions? Erik Prince of Blackwater fame has lobbied hard for mercenary PSMCs to be used in Libya to intern and repatriate migrants before they get to the Mediterranean and Europe. He has also suggested that similar strategies be used domestically vis a vis illegal/undocumented aliens living in the USA. PSMCs are involved in manning and servicing the offshore internment camps for illegal migrants operated by Australia. Is this wise policy?

On the other hand mercenary PSMCs fulfil vital roles in personnel and force protection operations. They enable NGOs and aid workers to operate in hostile environments where they would otherwise be unable to work. They protect VIPs in hostile environments. These companies also guard and protect sensitive and valuable infrastructure in less stable parts of the world, allowing business to proceed despite local instability. PSMCs have lower legacy costs than regular military personnel, so despite their high up-front cost, there may be economies to using them for short periods of time in the long run. So what are the benefits associated with greater reliance on PSMCs?

TigerSwan's own internal documents, leaked to the Intercept, indicate that its personnel regarded water protectors as insurgents and terrorists and conducted a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation involving security, surveillance, disseminating disinformation and domestic espionage on the protestors. Should private firms be allowed to conduct such operations on US soil against US citizens?

What do people think about this often overlooked trend over the last quarter century? Are mercenary PSMCs worth it or are they a Pandora's Box fraught with danger?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

As this civilization continues to breakdown we increasingly rely on mercenaries, militarily and otherwise....the American elite are far along the trail of becoming mercenaries in everything they do for instance....because there is no other way to get needed things done.

Of course this is bad, and of course this is not going to change until the great crash happens, that is the final crash.

Then we will have to birth a new world order.

I wish I was going to live to see it.

I am very curious you see..
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Interesting that you feel that there was a window, because I never saw it, America was far from being willing and America had the power to prevent it. As our power shrinks this gets to be less of a problem. Maybe we turn into Obama style ashamed of America Americans, and thus can be guilted into it down the line?
Click to expand...

There you are right. The difficulty would have been persuading the American people. A number of the heavies in the Bush administration and the Senate did, however, did understand the dire survival implications of not creating a system of global security. The debate had been extensive and the conclusion was definite. First steps were taken by the US that persuaded the UN to change its set of norms, which was done in 2005, if I recall correctly. Obama Sorrily let the American initiative die.
 
joG said:
There you are right. The difficulty would have been persuading the American people. A number of the heavies in the Bush administration and the Senate did, however, did understand the dire survival implications of not creating a system of global security. The debate had been extensive and the conclusion was definite. First steps were taken by the US that persuaded the UN to change its set of norms, which was done in 2005, if I recall correctly. Obama Sorrily let the American initiative die.
Click to expand...

As I recall he decided that this was an argument that was doomed to lose in the face of UN ineffectiveness and hostility towards America.

I have no idea if he was right.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
As I recall he decided that this was an argument that was doomed to lose in the face of UN ineffectiveness and hostility towards America.

I have no idea if he was right.
Click to expand...

In the debate I recall three general ideas to avoid the coming war. They were to use the UN, NATO or create a new organization. None of these was ideal for various reasons and in the end the decision unenthusiastically fell on the UN reorganisation of which was started.
 
Evilroddy said:
What are the pros and cons of Western states (countries) relying more and more on mercenary/PSMC companies (Private Security and Military Contractors) to conduct war and to guard and maintain military infrastructure? Should they also be used domestically to protect private interests and property if such protection involves doing violence to citizens? Given the poor reputation of the former PSMC Blackwater in Iraq and the new revelations concerning the role of TigerSwan (coordinating other mercenaries in the Dakota Pipeline protests), is this a wise course of action? Are PSMCs which carry out security, paramilitary, espionage and surveillance operations breaking the traditional monopoly of violence and covert operations which has been granted to the state by the citizens?

What are the benefits and the costs of this monetisation of military and security functions? Erik Prince of Blackwater fame has lobbied hard for mercenary PSMCs to be used in Libya to intern and repatriate migrants before they get to the Mediterranean and Europe. He has also suggested that similar strategies be used domestically vis a vis illegal/undocumented aliens living in the USA. PSMCs are involved in manning and servicing the offshore internment camps for illegal migrants operated by Australia. Is this wise policy?

On the other hand mercenary PSMCs fulfil vital roles in personnel and force protection operations. They enable NGOs and aid workers to operate in hostile environments where they would otherwise be unable to work. They protect VIPs in hostile environments. These companies also guard and protect sensitive and valuable infrastructure in less stable parts of the world, allowing business to proceed despite local instability. PSMCs have lower legacy costs than regular military personnel, so despite their high up-front cost, there may be economies to using them for short periods of time in the long run. So what are the benefits associated with greater reliance on PSMCs?

TigerSwan's own internal documents, leaked to the Intercept, indicate that its personnel regarded water protectors as insurgents and terrorists and conducted a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation involving security, surveillance, disseminating disinformation and domestic espionage on the protestors. Should private firms be allowed to conduct such operations on US soil against US citizens?

What do people think about this often overlooked trend over the last quarter century? Are mercenary PSMCs worth it or are they a Pandora's Box fraught with danger?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I think the widespread use of mercenaries in the GWOT is a bad thing for the taxpayers, and to the extent that mercenaries get paid much more than any soldier or sailor, an insult to the average soldier or sailor.

It is a mechanism to keep the fraudulent GWOT up and running.
 
Evilroddy said:
What are the pros and cons of Western states (countries) relying more and more on mercenary/PSMC companies (Private Security and Military Contractors) to conduct war and to guard and maintain military infrastructure? Should they also be used domestically to protect private interests and property if such protection involves doing violence to citizens? Given the poor reputation of the former PSMC Blackwater in Iraq and the new revelations concerning the role of TigerSwan (coordinating other mercenaries in the Dakota Pipeline protests), is this a wise course of action? Are PSMCs which carry out security, paramilitary, espionage and surveillance operations breaking the traditional monopoly of violence and covert operations which has been granted to the state by the citizens?

What are the benefits and the costs of this monetisation of military and security functions? Erik Prince of Blackwater fame has lobbied hard for mercenary PSMCs to be used in Libya to intern and repatriate migrants before they get to the Mediterranean and Europe. He has also suggested that similar strategies be used domestically vis a vis illegal/undocumented aliens living in the USA. PSMCs are involved in manning and servicing the offshore internment camps for illegal migrants operated by Australia. Is this wise policy?

On the other hand mercenary PSMCs fulfil vital roles in personnel and force protection operations. They enable NGOs and aid workers to operate in hostile environments where they would otherwise be unable to work. They protect VIPs in hostile environments. These companies also guard and protect sensitive and valuable infrastructure in less stable parts of the world, allowing business to proceed despite local instability. PSMCs have lower legacy costs than regular military personnel, so despite their high up-front cost, there may be economies to using them for short periods of time in the long run. So what are the benefits associated with greater reliance on PSMCs?

TigerSwan's own internal documents, leaked to the Intercept, indicate that its personnel regarded water protectors as insurgents and terrorists and conducted a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation involving security, surveillance, disseminating disinformation and domestic espionage on the protestors. Should private firms be allowed to conduct such operations on US soil against US citizens?

What do people think about this often overlooked trend over the last quarter century? Are mercenary PSMCs worth it or are they a Pandora's Box fraught with danger?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Private soldiers usually cost the same or more as regular soldiers, their only advantage is why they are used. They use them because they are not a military org under the govt, therefore govt is not responsible for what they do, unlike with an enlisted military
 
Hawkeye10 said:
As this civilization continues to breakdown we increasingly rely on mercenaries, militarily and otherwise....the American elite are far along the trail of becoming mercenaries in everything they do for instance....because there is no other way to get needed things done.

Of course this is bad, and of course this is not going to change until the great crash happens, that is the final crash.

Then we will have to birth a new world order.

I wish I was going to live to see it.

I am very curious you see..
Click to expand...

Mercenaries have been used throughout time. Point of fact they are not used near as much as they used to be. They do the jobs the military wants outsourced. These days not much of the actuall fighting unless they want that done with plausible deniability or extreme discretion. Mercenaries are a way to ramp up capability fast and then when not needed drop just as fast.

Note I used to be one. So I have some bias on the subject.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Mercenaries have been used throughout time. Point of fact they are not used near as much as they used to be. They do the jobs the military wants outsourced. These days not much of the actuall fighting unless they want that done with plausible deniability or extreme discretion. Mercenaries are a way to ramp up capability fast and then when not needed drop just as fast.

Note I used to be one. So I have some bias on the subject.
Click to expand...

Would you be able to give a rough idea on the pay differences between an E-5 and his mercenary equivalent, annual salary?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Would you be able to give a rough idea on the pay differences between an E-5 and his mercenary equivalent, annual salary?
Click to expand...

First I have NEVER been in the military so I only know what my relatives have told me as how military pay works. I just worked for the DOD as contractor moving their fuel. Second job pay is very unlike the military as there are no ratings per say. Pay is based on your job, how hot the zone is, the relative need and availability of people to fill the job, and nationality. Americans, Western Europeans, Australians, Canadians tend to be paid the most relative to other nationalities, with third world contractors like Indians, Pakistanis and Indonesians being paid least. The more skill or responsibility for your job the more you are paid. I was a convoy commander, I was in charge of over 31 vehicles and 31 men, 300,000 gallons of fuel. My base pay was 3100.00 a month plus an hourly wage of if I remember correctly $34.00 an hour which was tax free from uncle sam to 88,000 after meeting certain qualifiers. The state of California only exempts your pay if you are gone for 540 days consecutively. We did not get paid 24/7. Just the hours we worked. Which in the beginning was routinely 120+ and then dropped toward then end of my stay about 88-94 hours weekly. Base pay for my drivers was $2700 for an expat. My TCN's (Third Country Nationals, think Indians ect.) were paid about $500 plus a small hourly wage. I never knew exactly as I never saw the paperwork as those TCN's were subcontracted to us. The Logcap 3 and 4 projects were cost plus. I think the highest I brought home was $111,000 toward the end of my stay. Anywho I hope this kind of answers your question. I can say this with absolute surety, that the logistics contractors earned EVERY penny we got. EVERY penny. Quite frankly we were underpaid for the job we were doing and the risks we were taking.
 
PirateMk1 said:
First I have NEVER been in the military so I only know what my relatives have told me as how military pay works. I just worked for the DOD as contractor moving their fuel. Second job pay is very unlike the military as there are no ratings per say. Pay is based on your job, how hot the zone is, the relative need and availability of people to fill the job, and nationality. Americans, Western Europeans, Australians, Canadians tend to be paid the most relative to other nationalities, with third world contractors like Indians, Pakistanis and Indonesians being paid least. The more skill or responsibility for your job the more you are paid. I was a convoy commander, I was in charge of over 31 vehicles and 31 men, 300,000 gallons of fuel. My base pay was 3100.00 a month plus an hourly wage of if I remember correctly $34.00 an hour which was tax free from uncle sam to 88,000 after meeting certain qualifiers. The state of California only exempts your pay if you are gone for 540 days consecutively. We did not get paid 24/7. Just the hours we worked. Which in the beginning was routinely 120+ and then dropped toward then end of my stay about 88-94 hours weekly. Base pay for my drivers was $2700 for an expat. My TCN's (Third Country Nationals, think Indians ect.) were paid about $500 plus a small hourly wage. I never knew exactly as I never saw the paperwork as those TCN's were subcontracted to us. The Logcap 3 and 4 projects were cost plus. I think the highest I brought home was $111,000 toward the end of my stay. Anywho I hope this kind of answers your question. I can say this with absolute surety, that the logistics contractors earned EVERY penny we got. EVERY penny. Quite frankly we were underpaid for the job we were doing and the risks we were taking.
Click to expand...

Thanks much for the insight! I knew a guy who flew airplanes as a contractor like that, out of Jordan but covering Iraq. He was recruiting but I wasn't interested.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thanks much for the insight! I knew a guy who flew airplanes as a contractor like that, out of Jordan but covering Iraq. He was recruiting but I wasn't interested.
Click to expand...
My brother flew in Afghanistan as a contractor for a private entity under contract to the US Govt. He is a high time rotary/fixed wing pilot with over 45 years experience. According to my brother, the pay is in the 200k range with three months on and a month off. This in tax free money as long as there is certain amount of time spent outside the CONUS. When I was in the military, early/mid 1970's, I was surprised to find civilian contractors in charge of security at a main base ammunition depot at Ft. Bragg, NC. There were at the time over forty thousand troops stationed at the base. Plenty of Military Police units...cost effective??
 
Rexedgar said:
My brother flew in Afghanistan as a contractor for a private entity under contract to the US Govt. He is a high time rotary/fixed wing pilot with over 45 years experience. According to my brother, the pay is in the 200k range with three months on and a month off. This in tax free money as long as there is certain amount of time spent outside the CONUS. When I was in the military, early/mid 1970's, I was surprised to find civilian contractors in charge of security at a main base ammunition depot at Ft. Bragg, NC. There were at the time over forty thousand troops stationed at the base. Plenty of Military Police units...cost effective??
Click to expand...

Only the first 88,000 and you have to spend 330days out of country. States that have income taxes may or may not exempt income made overseas for the DOD. California did not exempt its taxes if you came back before 540 days. Contractors can be cost effective nowadays because of government DOD civilian salaries are quite hefty especially when benefits are factored in as well as the government overhead.
 
The PSMC TigerSwan broadens it net to a wider spectrum of "progressive" threats which it likens to the militant jihadist movement.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/21...-surveillance-to-array-of-progressive-causes/

These PSMC analysts are somewhat divorced from the American reality and seem to be a clear and present danger, by their methodology against the American Left, to the rule of law and free political expression including civil disobedience. What are they expecting? Suicide bombers for Single-Payer Healthcare? Car Bombers for Pay Equity? Martyrs fore Voter Registration? Food Stamp Fedayeen? These guy are paranoid nuts with sophisticated surveillance equipment and military grade weapons. Disturbing.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
joG said:
It would better to rely on UN soldiers.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much the Syrians are going to appreciate it if we put them in camps only to rape them.
 
cpwill said:
I don't know how much the Syrians are going to appreciate it if we put them in camps only to rape them.
Click to expand...

The UN must get its act together. German officers should do that well. If we can find any willing to put themselves near the action, we'll have it running like a BMW in no time.

;)
 
cpwill said:
I don't know how much the Syrians are going to appreciate it if we put them in camps only to rape them.
Click to expand...

I doubt they appreciate our bombing their homes and killing their families, and that's water over the dam.
 
In a meeting with, among others, Secretary of Defence General J. Mattis and National Security Advisor General H. R. McMaster, mercenary company owners Stephen Feinberg of Dyncorp and Erik Prince of Academi proposed several options to replace US troop reinforcements to Afghanistan with private military and security contractors (PMSCs/mercenaries). One of the proposals floated by Erik Prince was for the US to set up a company to run and police/occupy Afghanistan and to appoint a "Viceroy" to run the company and the country. Secretary Mattis was reportedly highly sceptical, Gen. McMaster was noncommittal but President Trump's inner circle were quite enthusiastic. Is Prince trying to give the US its own East India Company and if so what does that mean when the US denies being a neo-colonial power?

Prince has also suggested that mercenary companies be deployed to Libya and the American southwest to run immigration/emigration control camps to stop illegal migrations getting to Europe and the USA. This to me is a very dangerous escalation in the use of PMSCs and mercenaries. Does posse comitatus apply to military corporations and PMSCs?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom