Privatizing the military

[red oct 2]

i've been hearing a lot about private security companies like Blackwater who have been providing security in Iraq and also providing Paul Bremmer w/ private body guards. so i've been wondering, since the U.S. government already lets private companies handle anything from reconstruction to supplying soldiers, will there come a time where the government privatizes the military and just let private companies do all the fighting? if this does become a reality, this raises some other questions i've been wondering about, such as:

1.would a private army be obligated to follow Geneva Convention? could a CEO or President or even a individual employee of this private military be held for war crimes?

2. would there be a limit to what kind of weapons a private army would be allowed to have in its arsenal? such as would be allowed to have only small arms or could they be as well armed as a government run military w/ tanks, apcs, naval ships, submarines, aircraft, or even chemical or nuclear weapons?

3. suppose a private army were hired by a nation to invade another, who should be responsible providing security and humanitarian aid? the private army? or the country that hired them?

finally what do all members w/ who served in the military think of all of this? would any of you work as a mercenary if it payed well enough?

[brgnorway 0]

That's a new and very interesting topic!

Quote[/b] ]1.would a private army be obligated to follow Geneva Convention? could a CEO or President or even a individual employee of this private military be held for war crimes?

Diffucult to answer, but I'd say no after the lawyers had their feast after a possible incident. I suppose they would only be charged as criminals.

Quote[/b] ]2. would there be a limit to what kind of weapons a private army would be allowed to have in its arsenal? such as would be allowed to have only small arms or could they be as well armed as a government run military w/ tanks, apcs, naval ships, submarines, aircraft, or even chemical or nuclear weapons?

I suppose in most cases outsourcing would be too risky securitywise and a real threat to democracy. Just think about the influence a threat by a carrier pose. But I don't know. Nowadays nothing surprises me!

Quote[/b] ]3. suppose a private army were hired by a nation to invade another, who should be responsible providing security and humanitarian aid? the private army? or the country that hired them?

We'll see soon

[IceFire 0]

If you mean the entire military were to be privatised, I would say that is a stupid and crazy idea.

If you say the US were to hire mercinaries to conduct operations.  Well that depends.  In one way, it could be done secretly and the US could deny all involvement if something goes wrong.

Regardless, I think the US govt is capable of handling any operation it needs to.

Although you should take a look at an article posted here some time ago.  It was about mercinaries who worked for African governments who were really helping to eliminate many rebel forces.  Some even worked for US oil companies defending their interests. It talked about some british guy who flew a HIND chopper around killing rebels.

[red oct 2]

yea i figured this subject might be rather interesting to talk about.

Quote[/b] ]I suppose in most cases outsourcing would be too risky securitywise and a real threat to democracy. Just think about the influence a threat by a carrier pose. But I don't know. Nowadays nothing surprises me!

thats something that also has me worried myself. since you can already see that corporations are up to no good, what happens when a corporation with a army of 29 million soldiers is up to no good? what would happen to the UN whos sole job is to help bring peace to the world? the meat and patato's of any private army would be war and conflict, so having a organization thats trying to bring peace to the world wouldn't at all be good for buisiness.

[red oct 2]

If you mean the entire military were to be privatised, I would say that is a stupid and crazy idea.

If you say the US were to hire mercinaries to conduct operations.  Well that depends.  In one way, it could be done secretly and the US could deny all involvement if something goes wrong.

Regardless, I think the US govt is capable of handling any operation it needs to.

Although you should take a look at an article posted here some time ago.  It was about mercinaries who worked for African governments who were really helping to eliminate many rebel forces.  Some even worked for US oil companies defending their interests.  It talked about some british guy who flew a HIND chopper around killing rebels.

yes i did see that article. and no doubt Africia is a mercenaries paradice. which brings me to the point i just mentioned above that no corporation would like to see its meal ticket taken away. on the plus side though, having a private military would mean governments would no longer have to invest billions into upkeeping their military which means more money for health care, education and what not.

[GoOB 0]

private military would mean governments would no longer have to invest billions into upkeeping their military which means more money for health care, education and what not.

Wouldn't the government have to pay the companies though? And the companies expenses would be fairly high aswell, a "private" army would probably cost a bit more than one being run by the government. If you want that private army to have the same capabilities as one run by a government.

And personally I think it would be a bad idea bringing companies into conflicts were civilians are very likely to get killed.

I doubt many of the "coalition" soldiers acting in for example Iraq right now are educated in peacekeeping, and we have already seen the results of that. What happens if companies are brought in to situations like those?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]I doubt many of the "coalition" soldiers acting in for example Iraq right now are educated in peacekeeping, and we have already seen the results of that. What happens if companies are brought in to situations like those?

Well the UK forces there do have a peacekeeping training , but I wouldnt be so sure about US forces. If anybody has accurat information about it, post it here.

As for the PMC issue, they are illegal in many countries. But I fail to see what could be achieved by shutting down a professional army, and hiring a PMC when needed.

I prefer to see a national army as a something to be feared, and as a something that tels the enemy "dont attack here, we have a strong army, and it would cost you too much to attack here" As for goverments using PMC firms in crisis alongside the regular army, that is a old thing. But in the medievel times they just called them mercenaries, instead of Private Security Companý.

EDIT: its a bad idea

[red oct 2]

private military would mean governments would no longer have to invest billions into upkeeping their military which means more money for health care, education and what not.

Wouldn't the government have to pay the companies though? And the companies expenses would be fairly high aswell, a "private" army would probably cost a bit more than one being run by the government. If you want that private army to have the same capabilities as one run by a government.

And personally I think it would be a bad idea bringing companies into conflicts were civilians are very likely to get killed.

I doubt many of the "coalition" soldiers acting in for example Iraq right now are educated in peacekeeping, and we have already seen the results of that. What happens if companies are brought in to situations like those?

that is true that governments would have to pay the company a amount of money for their services but w/ a political climate that we have today and that no government today has the stomach for a long term involvement in bring peace to Africia, im sure that any pmc would have more than enough opportunities to make ends meet. there are plenty of companies and rich people who would pay well to for well trained body guards and security to protect their interests in the troubled spots of the world. so i wouldn't doubt for a moment that governments would have to pay nearly close as much as what they pay now and maybe could even make money them selves simply by leasing high end military equipment to pmc's.

[hellfish6 7]

I guess I'm the only one that voted for it being a good thing.

[Llauma 0]

I guess I'm the only one that voted for it being a good thing.  

So why did you think that it's a good thing?

[ozanzac 0]

I see  'private armys' as a very bad idea. Just the existance of corporations profiting directly from war would see a dramatic increase in the amount of conflicts that turn into 'all out war', as these corporations would essentially, have to troll for conflict, in order for the company to be most profitable.

Quote[/b] ]2. would there be a limit to what kind of weapons a private army would be allowed to have in its arsenal? such as would be allowed to have only small arms or could they be as well armed as a government run military w/ tanks, apcs, naval ships, submarines, aircraft, or even chemical or nuclear weapons?

Who's to stop a corporation from obtaining such materials. Who's to stop a company from making the machines of war in a corrupted country? How would a government deal with such a threat should it feel threatened by a private force. Most likely, all out war.

In my opinion, there is only money to be made for the private sector selling materials and equiptment. War is an extremely expensive operation. Why would anyone possibly pay for a private company to actually fight a war, when the reality is, the remuneration to the 'corporation' would probably involve giving the company unlimited access to all the resources that are available within the areas 'liberated' and freindly to the private army. It's like selling ones sole, in order to prevent someone else from taking it.

But. I reckon a worldwide 'Rent-a-peice-of-military-equiptment' franchise where only the tools of war are supplied and not the human resources would be quite profitable, and much more ethical than a mercenary force.

(And I'd like to add, companies, such as boeing, already lease equiptment to the military, such as Airborne Tankers e.t.c., as well as hold contracts to maintain some military equiptment)

[Guest]

I am a corporation that makes money from providing armed forces. A magic comet from outer space lands and there is world peace. Damm....what do I do? "Hey Mr Bush! Someone in the Middle East just called you a pussy!". Woohoo....I'm back in business

It would be in these corporations best interests to have a lot of wars. Which is mind-numbingly horrific (unless you are one of the few people here who thinks war for it's own sake is a good idea...).

[toadlife 3]

Very very very bad idea.

You think having a military is expensive now? Just imagine if Halliburton ran it for you.

[The Frenchman 0]

Also, very bad.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

SÖLDNER

It is gonna end in abuse of power. The executive body of a country MUST be governmentally owned otherwise it ends up in a clash, possibly even in a Putsch. And then you got conditions as in most of Africa.

[Pathy 0]

What your basically proposing is making corporations that work for the profit motive....killing for profit. That cant be a good thing.

Mercenary armies. WOuld you trust the force defending your country to be loyal to it if they were a bunch of mercenaries?    They are more likely to sieze power for themselves.....

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

the business of the military is not "killing"!!!! Have you played too much Duke Nukem?

[Pathy 0]

"Hail to the king baby!"

Nah, the military train to kill, if you privatise military, they will look for wars, hence killing for profit.

Im actually basing it on the economic principles of how firms work. Most firms work for profit, right. So assuming that these mercenaries work for profit (and most existing mercs dont work out of the goodness of thier own heart or to satisfice thier shareholders), they will want as many jobs as possible. Jobs to be gained by fighting wars and killing. So in a round about way, mercs kill for profit.

You are assuming i am saying the existing military is there to kill. I am saying that if you end up with a load of Mercenary corporations, you will end up with people killing for profit.

Cheers mate, any further things i havent covered, let me know....

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]the business of the military is not "killing"!!!!

'

It is killing people and blowing stuff up. You then try to prevent other people from killing you because you killed people and blew stuff up.

Quote[/b] ]Nah, the military train to kill, if you privatise military, they will look for wars, hence killing for profit.

But war is a very risky business, and mercenary companies would lose gigantic amounts of cash if they lost a lot of men and equipment. The companies would probably be more interested in doing security work.

[Pathy 0]

That depends on who thier fighting, and what the rewards are.

The Government might put a monetary bonus on high or low enemy casualties, or capturing objectives instead, providing motives either way.

[bmgarcangel 0]

Just curious, why in the hell would oyu think about privatizing the fricken military!

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Government might put a monetary bonus on high or low enemy casualties,

In security work, the bonuses would go to the mercenaries who killed as few people as possible. Killing more people than necessary would only cause more trouble, so the government would reward the mercs who caused as little trouble as possible.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just curious, why in the hell would oyu think about privatizing the fricken military!

Security, reconstruction, and more.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Government might put a monetary bonus on high or low enemy casualties,

In security work, the bonuses would go to the mercenaries who killed as few people as possible. Killing more people than necessary would only cause more trouble, so the government would reward the mercs who caused as little trouble as possible.

Thats why i put high OR low.........

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thats why i put high OR low.........

1. I would have just put "low"

2. I'm argumentative