Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[Bill Moore]

Tom,

I share your concerns, but don't come to the same conclusion. What is wrong with solutions that make sense economically? If it is cheaper to use Blackwater and other PMCs to do critical fringe work like provide VIP security, why not? For the most part they are better trained and not encumbered by the military bureaucracy. We all feel for those and their families who are lost in this fight, but they understand the hazardous nature of their work, and unfortunately sometimes that risk comes to fruition. Of course it makes the news, then everyone starts second guessing the wisdom of employing them, but if their mission was providing security for the Dept of State, it is better that they provide it, then pulling our Special Ops types from the field to do it. It appears to me to a functional compliment to our manning strategy.

When a contractor commits a crime, as those mentioned above, they definitely need to get hammered, or hurts all of us. If that isn't happening, then it needs to get fixed ASAP.

We're fighting networked enemies with a hierarchical bureacracy, so if we can incorporate (pun intended) more flexibility in our approach I'm for it (however the problems you mentioned need to be addressed). I think some of our ideas on security are outdated. A private security company out of S. Africa did outstanding work in Sierra Leone, probably saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives, because they "had" the flexibility to act, while bureaucratic militaries sat on the side lines. However, do to fears of "mercenary" operations with all the old connotations, they were forced to pull out, and as anticipated the Gangs went on a murdering rampage.

I know you frequently mention the situation in Rwanda, would you have objected to a PMC if they could have saved thousands of lives?

This is a subject that governments need to reconsider. PMC's are highly practical and can save thousands of lives around the world, where professional militaries are simply prohibited from going due to their states' political processes. It really confuses what is right and what is wrong, but I'm a simple guy, if you can save lives with a PMC, then use them. What is key is the P "Professional".

Bill

[marct]

Hi Bill,

This is a subject that governments need to reconsider. PMC's are highly practical and can save thousands of lives around the world, where professional militaries are simply prohibited from going due to their states' political processes. It really confuses what is right and what is wrong, but I'm a simple guy, if you can save lives with a PMC, then use them. What is key is the P "Professional".

As ZDFG probably noted, I'm one of the people who doesn't see a distinction between PMCs and mercenaries. Having said that, I actually don't have a problem with governments hiring mercenaries (outside of those raised by Machiavelli in The Art of War) in the abstract. I do have a problem wth the way a number of the current contracts appear, and let me emphasize the word "appear", to be constructed in such a limited manner. You mentioned the Sierra Leone case with Executive Outcomes. That was a good example of what could be done with mercenaries and, barring international pressure against them, the would have been able to guarantee security.

My complaint is not with mercenaries per se, as ZDFG notes, many are very well trained and highly disciplined. In fact, they are probably better trained, on the average, than many national army troops. My complaint is with the term PMC and some spurious attempt to create a new categorical term for mercenaries.

Marc

[zdfg]

Thanks to those who offered a welcome. I'm happy to participate in these types of debates.

One of the major distinctions between contractors and the traditional usage of mercenararies is that PMC's are generally banned from participating in DA (Direct Action). This does not extinguish their right to defend themselves from death or grevious bodily harm, or prevent the same to another person.

The other major distinguishing difference is that the majority of the PMC's share citizenship with the host entity. An American guarding a gate at an American military base overseas under contract, should in no way be viewed differently than a DoD police officer, under color of authority, at a base in New Mexico. This is common on a number of CONUS posts, and an argument could be made as to why they are needed when a large MP/FPO contingent could be made available. Money, and mission requirements, length of training ramp up, length of perishable assignments, reliability. A guy with all that, now making XXX number of dollars a day, performing a subset a task order he was originally performing under less well paying, sometimes more demeaning circumstances also does not fit the traditional mercenary image. This person very well may have more loyalty to the nation, they simply serve under a different 'branch' for lack of a better term.

Furthermore, high threat VIP protection in the middle east has taken off as an artform, and niche all it's own. Contractor support was secured because certain available assets were judged unprepared.

Initially, there may have been some chest thumping about plausibility-deniability warriors, but that was short lived. The Wild West atmosphere died quickly under the strain from media scandals like Abu Ghraib.

Pentagon is pushing to bring DoD contractors under UCMJ, and FM's and doctrine are being developed to isolate DoD contractors under hierarchical chains of command that report to national authorities.

Strictly looking at this from the viewpoint of armed contractors. Support contractors are a different group altogether. Much like the distinction between combat arms and combat support. Mutually supportive, but apples and oranges.

Forgive my rambling, it's dark, I'm cold, and tired.

[Stan]

Money, and mission requirements, length of training ramp up, length of perishable assignments, reliability. A guy with all that, now making XXX number of dollars a day, performing a subset a task order he was originally performing under less well paying, sometimes more demeaning circumstances also does not fit the traditional mercenary image.

Evening ZDFG !

It would appear (perhaps because I already do much the same under a DoS program) that PMC's remain attractively cheaper than their Active Duty counterparts, and for some time now remain largely unknow, both alive and dead. Kind of sad !

I however agree that some control mechanism such as the UCMJ should be employed for the good of all.

This person very well may have more loyalty to the nation, they simply serve under a different 'branch' for lack of a better term.

I concur with you wholeheartedly. Retired now for more than a decade, I am no longer content with GI grumbling, and feel quite good about being an American and absolutely hate the term "expat" !

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi ZDFG,

Thanks to those who offered a welcome. I'm happy to participate in these types of debates.

I'm glad you're here and participating, too . I far prefer getting information from people on the ground that the media or "official" reports - it's always more "real".

One of the major distinctions between contractors and the traditional usage of mercenararies is that PMC's are generally banned from participating in DA (Direct Action). This does not extinguish their right to defend themselves from death or grevious bodily harm, or prevent the same to another person.

I note that you are using the term "generally". I would have to assume, then, that there are cases where PMCs are used in DA - the more "traditional" role as it were. Again, let me reiterate that I am not, in principle, opposed to this at all. I am, however, curious as to the flexibility of PMC units based around their contracts.

The other major distinguishing difference is that the majority of the PMC's share citizenship with the host entity. An American guarding a gate at an American military base overseas under contract, should in no way be viewed differently than a DoD police officer, under color of authority, at a base in New Mexico.

Let me just say, and I do say this with respect, that I have to disagree with you on this. Let's take Afghanistan as an example. An American contractor, guarding a gate may be the same as a DoD police officer in CONUS, but are they the same as a member of a national army in a NATO deployment? The practice of using non-forces personnel in home nations bases is, I would suggest, different from using non-forces personnel in combat zones.

I think that the key to this difference lies in two areas. First, what any individual nation choses to use in its home area is up to them, and troops from other nations accept that under a "guest right" basis - the old, "when in Rome...". But in the field when the operation is run by the alliance (e.g. Afghanistan) and not a single country (as in Iraq)? In that type of a situation, I would expect that the loyalty of the contractor would be to their employer first, their country second, and the alliance third. I could easily be wrong on this, but that would be my expectation.

Second, I would have to question the legal limitations and code under which PMCs operate. The oft touted idea that PMCs will be brought under the UCMJ does not, to my mind, make exact sense if they are not national army troops involved in DA (I could certainly see it if they were involved in DA, although, even there, I would have problems in an alliance situation). Let me take an extremely simplistic example: certain charges that may be brought under the UCMJ and non-existant under the military justice codes of other nations in NATO (rules on alcohol and homosexuality come to mind). Why should a contractor, working in an alliance situation, be subjected to the US UCMJ?

I'm bringing this second point up for a fairly simple reason. What if you had a contractor who was not ex-US military? Should they be operating under, what to them, would be a completely foreign military code? Would it not maken more sense to attempt to create a Code that was acceptable to all members of the alliance involved? BTW, lest you think that this is unrealistic, such a code has been developed in the past for both the Condottieri and for the Landsknechts.

This person very well may have more loyalty to the nation, they simply serve under a different 'branch' for lack of a better term.

You may well be correct in his; I really have no way of knowing, and I would be really interested to see what you have to say on this topic. It strikes me that you are thinking of PMCs, at least in this instance, as mor of limitanii than legionnaire. Do you see this as a major trend?

Furthermore, high threat VIP protection in the middle east has taken off as an artform, and niche all it's own. Contractor support was secured because certain available assets were judged unprepared.

I think you are absolutely correct in this; and the same applies in Mexico and Columbia where kidnapping is an art form. Would you think that a VIP security contractor should come under the UCMJ?

Strictly looking at this from the viewpoint of armed contractors. Support contractors are a different group altogether. Much like the distinction between combat arms and combat support. Mutually supportive, but apples and oranges.

But still an interesting test case in a lot of ways .

Forgive my rambling, it's dark, I'm cold, and tired.

Always glad to hear you ramble .

Marc

[120mm]

In my opinion, it is a GOOD thing that the military is losing its most talented members to PMCs due to better pay, working conditions and less bull####. The military needs to change those very things, vis-a-vis its most talented members. Perhaps a "talent drain" will cause the political types to force the military to change the archaic and wasteful way it conducts business.

The way things stand, vast amounts of incompetent non-contributors are grossly overcompensated, while the competent contributors are underpaid and treated like crap.

I do not see how the current "top-down" system will ever make good use of "transformation".

[Tom Odom]

Tom,

I share your concerns, but don't come to the same conclusion. What is wrong with solutions that make sense economically? If it is cheaper to use Blackwater and other PMCs to do critical fringe work like provide VIP security, why not? For the most part they are better trained and not encumbered by the military bureaucracy. We all feel for those and their families who are lost in this fight, but they understand the hazardous nature of their work, and unfortunately sometimes that risk comes to fruition. Of course it makes the news, then everyone starts second guessing the wisdom of employing them, but if their mission was providing security for the Dept of State, it is better that they provide it, then pulling our Special Ops types from the field to do it. It appears to me to a functional compliment to our manning strategy.

....Bill

Bill

On PMCs and contractors in general, I see the 60,000 or so contractors on Iraq as economic insanity; 4 years does not a "short-term solution make".

On wisdom of PMCs doing the undoable, maybe just maybe in the name of the United Nations, OAS, OAU that makes sense. But in the name of the United States? We take oaths as Soldiers, Diplomats, and even Civil Servants to represent, sustain, and defend the Constitution. Our government is one of deliberate pollitical debate; we do not engage in private wars or wars as private enterprise. If we need PMCs or whatever you call them to fill in such missions. maybe just maye that mission is not ours.

As for Rwanda, aside from actively recruiting an Israeli-Zairios merc force on the ground, I also met with a Brit company that did our local security forces in Kinshasa and was looking at the mission in the camps. The senior rep in Zaire was Sam Melessi and I bumped into him and a Brit on the UN L-100 flight from Kigali to Nairobi. They were bidding on a camp contract; I asked Sam if he was going to be able to shoot folks as necessary. He responded that the ROE would be "liberally" interpreted.

If Sam's mission or the Israeli-Zairios force that actually got the mission had had the capacity to disarm the camps, then maybe, Bill, I would look on it as a success. They did not; the camps became another self-licking ice cream cone of contractors, NGOs, and UNHCR spenidning millions and millions of dollars to sustain 1 million bloody handed "refugees."

In contrast we had a force on the ground that could have taken on the mission--UNAMIR 2--but we as the world community lacked the will to use it. Later, the US and the UK would actually be in the process of finally doing something when the Rwandan military resolved the camp situation but sparked an even greater war.

As for niches in dip protection; again that is a self-licking ice cream cone. We justify the need to fill the need rather than addressing the origin of the need. If we have too many folks that need this sort of escort we have 2 options: reduce the numbers requiring the escort/protection or two increase the number of USG tranied escorts. Put the money into a sustained program versus a "short-term" fill that seems to only expand.

Best

Tom