Hi Abu Buckwheat,

Quote Originally Posted by Abu Buckwheat View Post
The problem is the "M" word ... everyone keeps calling PM/PICs "Mercenaries" when if fact they have been contracted by the USG or subcontractor to meet specific force protection goals ... not the traditional finance motivated mercenaries the movies portray. There are no "mercenaries" in Iraq or Afghanistan withthe exception of some foreign terrorists and criminals who are paid for attacks on the coalition ... but on the American people do have jobs, for which they are oaid and which may result in them carrying a defensive weapon.

The few "mercenaries" who were in Iraq all went home to South Africa in 200, formed up to conduct a coup in Equitorial Guinea and got caught in Zimbabwe ... end of mercenaries. In a word its why PMCs are so touchy.
I'd certainly agree with that! Symbolically, "mercenary" does have connotations of "devil" compared with the "angel" of a soldier in national service. What I find fascinating, and this is from the angle of looking at symbol shifts, is the terminology change to "Private Military Contractor". I think that there is a real fight (at the symbolic level) over whether or not the term "contractor" is just "mercenary" in another form. Remember, I talking at the symbolic level of, say, national discourse.

I think that the US may have a really nasty situation for this in the sense that there is a very vocal group, and I think you know who I mean , who argue that anyone who is armed and accepting payment is a "mercenary" in the pejorative sense ("myrmidon" is another word that often shows up - too bad most of that crowd doesn't know where it comes from ). Using the term PMC in some ways just plays into their hands - hey, they're like "private" man and, like, obviously running dogs of the capitalist oppressors !!!!!

Marc