Privatising war, yay or nay?

Should we privatise war? As in handing out contracts and jobs to private military companies, such as Blackwater USA. It is already going on, Blackwater USA has contracts with the US Government in 10 countries, including Iraq, where it serves as a 'private security force'. In basic terms, they are mercenaries.

I say, let's privatise war. I see them as armed relief workers, who carry out duties such as escorting essential supplies and important personnel, training policemen and soldiers, delivering aid, etc. If they get attacked in their line of duty, they would be authorised to respond violently.

That way, the 'real' soldiers can be relieved from delivering aid, and moved on to the battlefield.

Yay or nay?

No. I don't mind using groups like Blackwater for specific missions like protecting American diplomats, but as a general rule I think that's a bad idea. It would result in us cutting back our own military budget and just outsourcing all the work...and once we do that, why should the mercenaries listen to us?

You say that they'll be "authorized" to fight back if they're attacked...but authorized by whom? And how will we respond if they exceed their authority, if we have no troops of our own on the ground to enforce the government's mandate?

I just have visions of the McDonald's Army going to war with the Burger King Army for control of Cameroon.

Kandahar said:

No. I don't mind using groups like Blackwater for specific missions like protecting American diplomats, but as a general rule I think that's a bad idea. It would result in us cutting back our own military budget and just outsourcing all the work...and once we do that, why should the mercenaries listen to us?

You say that they'll be "authorized" to fight back if they're attacked...but authorized by whom? And how will we respond if they exceed their authority, if we have no troops of our own on the ground to enforce the government's mandate?

I just have visions of the McDonald's Army going to war with the Burger King Army for control of Cameroon.

Click to expand...

I'd assume they'd have a contract with the United States governments, with the contract outlining the perimeters of the Contractor's authority and use of force.

Under the contract, I'd also assume that the United States government would indeed take full responsibility for their actions.

I don't call for a full employment of contractors, but just enough to fill the void that soldiers leave behind when they go to the front lines. I don't suggest contractors fight, but like I said, they could be used as armed relief workers. The United States Army would still have safety in numbers.

Contractors, as they are treated as private citizens, are not under the jurisdiction of the applicable uniform military code, which means they can't be tried under a court martial. They can still be, however, tried by civil courts for their injustices, which works just as well.

If it weren't for the historical examples of it going poorly, and that the military should be, ah, how to put it, a natural function of the populace, even to the exclusion of my dear, beloved free market, as a matter of my dear, beloved constitutional government. As is my custom, I would like to see the light of the free market shone on the situation to a larger extent though.

We pay our soldiers, I'm not saying the right amount but a number on paper, if they have to go do the thing - more should be made of that, combat service brought in line with egoism and self determination rather than made contrary to it with all this high-minded jingoism that wouldn't be a good sole motivation even if the the mainland were directly under threat. I'd say pay well for it, and let deployment be less of a sporadic issue, one way or the other - right now it's like getting the 'whammy' - demoralizing and it diminishes the effect of the pay if it's up in the air.

I don't like this in-and-out GI bill thing - people already looking at the exit-door in boot camp. If the Posse Comitatus Act got the appreciation it deserves, I'd be all about professional, professional soldiers, like 40 year olds in infantry if needbe, but either way, making it like a post-high-school internship is counterproductive.

Why don't we just disband our armed forces and intelligence and hire soldiers-of-fortune and mercenary spies? I heard that the free market works for everything.

But really, can I get some reasons why not? I don't believe we should, but it's a good question, no?


Duke

It does work for everything, people aren't great at leaving each other do their thing whether it works or not though, hence the need for constitutional government and a military.

It worked for Rome... right?