Privatizing the military

[Pathy 0]

Well private firms are more cost efficient as theres a motive to keep costs down (profit). So in theory it would be cheaper to privatise. (its reckoned private firms operate at 15% lower costs). However, you would also have to make the market contestable, or create some sembelance of competition, otherwise there would be nothing to stop these firms raising thier prices well above the market price in order to gain supernormal profits. And at the same time, a private firm cannot benefit from the economies of scale that a public firm can. For instance, the order of new hardware, a larger organisation may get a reduction in cost per unit by ordering in bulk, whereas if you had several small firms, they would not need as much and wouldnt get the lower unit cost to be gained by bulk buying. So if the market can be made contestable, which means that there may only be one firm operating ( so it gets lower unit costs due to economies of scale ), but there is still the threat of another company coming in and replacing them (so that they make an effort to be competitive instead of acting as price makers), it would mean that the cost of these firms would be lower than the regular army. And thats how an economist would talk

However, there are many other factors to consider besides economic

[ofpeditor 0]

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

By no means Hellfish; in essence, what do you think I work for?

We're contracted out as for the rescue and retrieval of persons or nationals domestic and abroad.

Quote[/b] ]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.....

Pathy, just a heads up, you've put your foot in your mouth. There's a HUGE difference between professional soldiers contracted out by the government and the yeehaw shoot-em-up mercenary stereotype you have in your uneducated head.

Let me ask you this. You're in a tight spot, you need help. Do you care who it is that comes in to rescue your ass, as long as you're rescued? If you say yes, you're lying. I've been working six, coming up on my seventh year in SAR for a firm contracted out by agencies, and the guys I work with are 90% former US Mil. Majority of these guys have put in 10, 15, 20 years service and have seen active combat in their respective branches, as well as with the firm. We're not the drooling, steroid pumping, bloodshot profit-driven killers that you seem to have assumed for PMCs which ARE different from "mercenaries." Yes, we are paid to do our job, which is not to kill, but to complete our mission statement, in the case of our firm RESCUE & RETRIEVAL. And yes, our salary is an additional benefit to our work, but no, we don't have our own little political agenda. We're contracted out, for the last time, given our mission statement, and professionals, meaning we do what we're required to do.

The government will never let the entire military be privatized. They have their own checks and balances system in place to prevent this "power trip" you're so worried about. We acquire resources and logistical support from the USMil and agencies, it's not a secret. They use us as, if you look at it subjectively, as pawns. The pawns can't do anything without the support of the Queen, aka the government. Without their financial support, without the logistical support (transportation, equipment, and other critical items that let us operate), we're unable to do anything. Why do you think they can afford to pay the salaries they pay us? Because they do not have to worry nor finance the millions or billions of dollars spent on the procurement of the hardware that the USMil does. It ain't rocket science, genius. If they DID spend the cash flow on things like helicopters, etc, there wouldn't be PMCs as there'd be no "sex appeal" of a high salary to fund their guns, aka their operators. Like I already said, it ain't rocket science.

Quote[/b] ]And thats how an economist would talk

Unfortunately no, an economist wouldn't talk like that. He'd know what he was talking about first.

To help answer the original questions:

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?

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?

1. We are not under the same laws governing warfare and combat as the conventional forces. This is due in part to the fact that in essence, we're classified as a corporation, and a person like myself is just an employee. I'm not a person that can pull Statues and Laws out of my ass, so I don't know the exact specifics, but as I said, we're not under the same laws and guidelines.

2. Some equipment is our own. All my personal gear, from firearms to armor to my boots is MY gear, purchased on my tab, within a budget placed through the firm. We're not new to this game, we know what we like to use and we know what works. Therefore, the firm will comp us the bill of our gear, as long as it is reviewed and deemed appropriate.

Vehicles, we've got some of our own, actually a few Landies and a few Chevy Suburbans tricked out for our purposes for use in urban operations. However, besides a couple of ATVs, mobility-wise, we look towards and depend heavily on the help the mil for logistical support on lend-lease policy.

3. You'll never get PMCs with capabilities to overthrow a nation. We're kept in check, and we do not have the resources for such actions. We serve a supporting role, leaving such "invasions" to the boys with all the toys, our Armed Forces.

[Pathy 0]

Im disappointed, no, shocked, by your rudeness and bias on your part.

One, when a soldier works for profit, they dont tend to care about who their paymaster is. Sad fact, but thats human nature. Just look at ex South African SF soldiers who became politically unacceptable after the apathied ended.....

Two, if you privatise the military, there ARE no ex governmental soldiers.

Three, the military at present may operate a checks and balance system, but you seem to be totally out of touch with the topic of this thread, which is the privatisation of the entire military

Most of your arguments are based on the present situation, which, is not the topic of this thread. Get with the program, so to speak.

And if thats not how an economist would talk, care to show me? Oh sorry, you cant, you dont know the 1st shit about the science of Economics....

Sorry, i may be jumping to conclusions, but thats no better than what youve done across me:

Quote[/b] ]There's a HUGE difference between professional soldiers contracted out by the government and the yeehaw shoot-em-up mercenary stereotype you have in your uneducated head.

You dont know whats im my head, my vision is not of a bunch of rednecks like yourself, but more in large corporations operating professionally for large sums of money. So please dont jump to conclusions. Ive just done it twice across you, i bet you dont like it....well, consider how it works the other way before posting your own responce, ok, there has been absolutely no reason for you to go personal with me, yet, you have instantly jumped in the deep end with this.....

Cheers,

Uneducated Pathy (thats why i can spout macro and mirco-economic theory at you, because im some trailer park hick....)

[ofpeditor 0]

I originally had this as a PM, but I feel it addresses your queries and is on-topic enough to post here.

------------------------------------------------------

Before I decide to respond, IF I decide to respond to your reply, let me just clear up some issues here.

1. I may have come across as harsh, and for that, I'm still not going to apologize. You read it how you wanted to, inflection is lost when words are put down in type.

2. What is your background on PMCs? Do you have ANY understanding of how we operate, from the administration to the operators like myself? What DO you know about private firms that are contracted out? Or are you making comments from what you THINK you know? From reading your comments in this thread, you've established your ethos, and from my point of view, and I highly doubt I'm alone on this, you're shootin' from the hip with your remarks. On this subject, I feel that you're uneducated, I'm entitled to that belief, just as you're entitled to your own.

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.....

You brought up mercenaries. I was correcting you on that. 'Mercenaries,' in the context that I've picked up from your statement, are completely different from private companies that are contracted by the US Government for an uncountable number of reasons, which I'm not going to get into. If you meant differently, enlighten me.

I'm completely "in touch" with the thread, and hence posted a counterpoint to it that the military will never be entirely privatized; therefore you're arguing a moot point. If you read my post thoroughly, and I ask you to go back and check it again, I made my point that the Military will never be entirely privatized for the exact reason you pointed out - the government has and wants to retain control over it's protecting force; hence, PMCs will always play a supporting role to the actions taken by the US Government and it's military. Again, like I already pointed out, we rely on the Military and Gov't agencies for logisitcal support, and that's not going to change. We'll never grow beyond the hand that feeds us, and thanks to laws which I'm sure you're aware of, we're restricted in who can offer us a contract. You learn something new everyday.

Irrelevant, but: of course I know nothing about Economics, why do you think I made the switch from this to this back in Uni?    

I still stand by the fact that it ain't rocket science, genius  

Cheers mate, don't blow a gasket over a forum post, I'd hate to have to go in and fix you up.  

[walker 0]

Dear ofpeditor

Your main problem as a contractor is that you have little or no backup.

Legaly even if you kill in self defence you may be open to charges of murder.

You are specificly excluded from the protections of the conventions of war and the geneva convention.

Nasty b**tard want to to torture you. The police will never investigate it and you have no recource to the international courts.

Most importantly the country or organisation who employs you has no interest in your safety to the contrary it would be simple matter for them to leave you high and dry and disavow any knowledge of you. Money matters make it worth while for the employing country or any organisation or country involved even those you fight against to pursue you legaly freezing your assets and recovering moneys for the inevitable dammage done in a fire fight.

Unless there are international laws to regularise such work you will always be a vulnerable employee.

I personaly think the UN could do with a proper paid full time profesional force only loyal too them and that that would be the best place for "contractors"

Kind Regards Walker

[Pathy 0]

Fair enough,

1) Well thats fine by me, i can bear a grudge

2)Ive never been in a PMC, i never want to.

Quote[/b] ]What DO you know about private firms that are contracted out?

I know alot about private firms that are contracted out, in all kinds of industries, what makes YOU think your so different.....the theory is the same for all.

Again "establishing my ethos" was an ethos for the situation that would occur if the government decided to privatise, not based upon the existing situation.

I tried to approach from the economic reasons for BMG's question

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

and i made a pretty good attempt at it ok, privatisations are all the same, whatever the situation. Military is what is called a natural monopoly, so there would only be economic benefits if they made one firm rather than several small firms, thats why i assumed only one firm.....

Mercenaries...lets see

mer·ce·nary (2)

Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&n-"er-E

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages -- more at MERCY

: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service

mercenary (2)

Function: adjective

1 : serving merely for pay or sordid advantage : VENAL; also : GREEDY

2 : hired for service in the army of a foreign country

- mer·ce·nar·i·ly /"m&r-s&n-'er-&-lE/ adverb

- mer·ce·nar·i·ness /'m&r-s&n-"er-E-n&s/ noun

Well i suppose it all depends on HOW the privatisation goes....if your talking, one firm per country, or firms only being limited to thier home country, or only being allowed to recruit people from that country, i guess its correct to say that they arent mercenaries, because for instance, an American still might sign up to a PMC to protect thier country.

[ofpeditor 0]

You make some good points walker; however, these are common misconceptions.

The level of involvement isn't something I'm going to willingly discuss, so what I'll say is more often than not we are given a great deal of support and 'backup' from the hands that feed us.

One of the ways around this is that, technically, we're considered civilians and therefore have the same protective rights that an ordinary civilian possess. If an American national is taken hostage, the US Mil will do everything in its power to get that person back safely. If harmed, actions or reactions are staged accordingly. While we may be on our own sometimes, we're generally not left without a lifeline. Example being the events that unfolded in Fallujah with the Blackwater contractors. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; this time in the form of Semper Fidelis.

What I will say, and any other contractor will agree, we rarely find ourselves dealing with local police or enforcement agencies. Depending where one operates, local authorities can be about as crooked as a redneck's tooth. Even happens here in the US.  

Everything you've said here has been an issue that's covered through our guidelines.  

Thanks for the comments walker, always good to hear different thoughts.

[ofpeditor 0]

I know alot about private firms that are contracted out, in all kinds of industries, what makes YOU think your so different.....the theory is the same for all.  

Because I'm a part of one.

And no, the theory is not the same for all.

[Pathy 0]

The theory is, mr " i didnt do ec or buis at uni", its the practice (the fine details) that are different, but..even then....thats not a huge ammount of difference.

[The Frenchman 0]

Quoting for Emphasis

[hellfish6 7]

Sorry, I kind of forgot that this topic existed.

I support the idea of PMCs because it retains valuable military knowledge. All those guys in Iraq right now (or at least the majority of them) are guys who fulfilled their contracts, did their duty and got out of the military. By retaining them in PMCs, you're holding on to all that knowledge and experience that would have been lost otherwise.

Is it not better to hire someone for a year and give him a $100,000 salary than to recruit (or draft) someone else, train them for four years (about right for an above average E-5 to make it past SFAS) and spend untold gobs more money to do that training?

The PMCs provide an excellent option to temporary solutions. Like it or not, we're not going to be in Iraq for much longer. It makes much more sense to me to have guys retire (you can theoretically retire from the military at age 38 with 20 years' service) come back in for a short stint than to wait till you have to train a buck private to the same level.

Just my thoughts. And I'm thinking of these guys not as mercenaries (in the real sense of simple hired guns out for a buck) but as security contractors (who are professionals with above average talents in combat situations). If an Army lawyer or accountant retired and went to work for a corporation, would you still be upset about that? Or an MP who retires and joins the local police force and SWAT team?

[toadeater 0]

If an Army lawyer or accountant retired and went to work for a corporation, would you still be upset about that? Or an MP who retires and joins the local police force and SWAT team?

If they're an Abu Ghraib MP...

A privatized military would be just as screwed up as any other privatized, monopolized industry, why would things be different?

[Winters 1]

Be afraid, be very afraid

[Bernadotte 0]

Be afraid, be very afraid  

Exactly!

I privatised military with shareholders to satisfy might advertise itself with exactly those words.  Just like cosmetics companies make make us fear our natural appearance, breath and body odour security firms will market fear of attack where it might not really exist.  They might even try convincing the public that an enemy has WMDs when it's not actually true.

Hard to imagine, right?  

In Deus Ex: Invisible War the privatised military, called SSC, promoted itself with the slogan, "SSC means business."  

[Jinef 2]

Ahaahahaaahhahahahhaahhahaahahaahaah...

Again your serious right

Privatising the military....

Do you people just make up stupid topics for the hell of it?

It would not work, full stop. You can't have soldiers in trade unions, if it was privatised you would have legislation limiting it, it just would not work, it has to be under government control.

If you are out in the sea drowning, I'm not going to bother coming to rescue you because I have a trade union meet.

Bloody hell this is one of the most absurd ideas ever .... I think this should be closed. It would not work, at all, the end.

[Winters 1]

Be afraid, be very afraid  

Exactly!

I privatised military with shareholders to satisfy might advertise itself with exactly those words.  Just like cosmetics companies make make us fear our natural appearance, breath and body odour security firms will market fear of attack where it might not really exist.  They might even try convincing the public that an enemy has WMDs when it's not actually true.

Hard to imagine, right?  

In Deus Ex: Invisible War the privatised military, called SSC, promoted itself with the slogan, "SSC means business."  

I was more afraid of a bunch of drunken yahoos trying to take over Mexico.

[Bernadotte 0]

Bloody hell this is one of the most absurd ideas ever ....

Ok, then how 'bout privatised government?

Oh nevermind, the English already tried that.

It's called the monarchy.

[denoir 0]

One of the ways around this is that, technically, we're considered civilians and therefore have the same protective rights that an ordinary civilian possess.

This is only true for contractors providing civilian services i.e that they are unarmed. Carry a gun and you're no longer a civilian but an illegal combatant, not protected by Geneva.

[red oct 2]

Ahaahahaaahhahahahhaahhahaahahaahaah...

Again your serious right  

Privatising the military....

Do you people just make up stupid topics for the hell of it?

It would not work, full stop. You can't have soldiers in trade unions, if it was privatised you would have legislation limiting it, it just would not work, it has to be under government control.

If you are out in the sea drowning, I'm not going to bother coming to rescue you because I have a trade union meet.

Bloody hell this is one of the most absurd ideas ever .... I think this should be closed. It would not work, at all, the end.

stupid topic?! go back to your eurovision thread.... oh, wait nevermind... it was closed!

anyway...

when a company like Blackwater pays over double what the average soldier makes i don't think too many people will care about any union. and from what i've been hearing, these people don't seem to have much trouble in getting guys from the SAS into their ranks. Blackwater has opened two new offices in Kuwait City and Baghdad and is supposed to have a considerable number of rent-a-cops in Iraq. Absurd idea? apparently not.

[GoOB 0]

I'd still like to see if Blackwater or any other company for that matter would be suitable for full-scale invasions like we saw in the beginning of GW2.... Keep in mind that Blackwater wouldn't be able to support a very large contingent of troops... And what do Blackwater operatives do? Provide security and deal with the local populace? Heh, the military is much more cost-efficient with that I'd say....

[red oct 2]

not necessarily, it costs a lot of money to keep over 100000 troops fighting in a country on the other side of the world. you have the cost of fuel and oil for the vehicles, maintenance expenses, if you want to have a naval presence that will cost more cash, medical supplies,ammunition and food for the troops. this isn't even counting the rebuilding costs and w/ all that, we still aren't having a whole lot of success w/ a private security firm, you could just hire people from the country and maybe even get away w/ paying them less because of exchange rates in currency.

[Jinef 2]

The Eurovision topic had a point, It was on and it was something to laugh at, great.

This is just stupid.

Have you really thought how this would work? In order for it to be privatised it would need to create income, as people would not be taxed to provide for it, so you would need constant conflicts to keep it working, constant conflicts and security needs = fucking outrageous.

I am not at all impressed by this, the military is defined as a goverment organisation orientated around the defence of a nation state, not a state of commerce or industry.

I can't explain why I don't like it, but i'm serving in the UK forces and the whole idea seems FUBAR to me.

Edit: Forget about contractors and small security firms, think about the topic title - handing over the annual budget of Å30 billion (or $250 billion in the US) to a fat corporate board who have no moral values or sense of the 'real world'.

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]General Smedley Butler is a Marine Corps legend. He was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor, the nation’s highest military award for bravery.

Here are his words.

“As a soldier, I long suspected that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it.â€

“It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force --the Marine Corps... And during that period I spend most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism...

“Thus I helped make Mexico...safe for American oil interests... I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers... I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests... I helped make Honduras ‘right’ for American fruit companies... In China ...I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.â€

General Smedley Butler, 1935

“War is a Racket,†Real War Stories, by Joyce Brabner, No. 2 (Forestville, CA: Eclipse, 1991).

[DaSquade 0]

I voted NO, but guess it is already to late  

Washington fields mercenary army in Iraq

[mick78 0]

Hey. For those that simply state this is a stupid topic, why keep reading it??

To the best of my knowledge, Hollow point bullets are banned by the Geneva (spelling?) convention due to the nature of the wound they cause.

I work as a Police Officer. I use a Glock 22, .40 hollow point bullets.... why? The police service I am with is not a member or signatory (spelling again....?) to the geneva convention. They provide the best stopping power for us.

Geneva convention is over rated. Ask the North Koreans about their efforts during the korean war, not long after the geneva convention was made... and then even some of the Americans in Iraq that have made the news around the world these days...

Another argument is that if PMC's were used as the main force instead of the governments forces, the PMC's would go seeking war to get paid.

How is this *any* different to the companies that manufacture ammunition, tanks, guns and planes?? there is a hell of a lot of politcal pressure from companies like that to get governments to "liberate" other countries....

Also, you refer to PMC's as soldiers for profit? What percentage of people would stay in the armed forces if they werent making a profit??? if it was voluntary, i think you'd find your armed forces a hell of a lot smaller.

Someone also referred to the efficiency of the government over the private sector.

I work for the state government as opposed to the federal government, in an organisation of around about 15,000. There is no way in hell that ANY portion of my work is ran efficiently. In every job i had prior to this in the private sector, bosses were generally hired because they were good, whereas my industry has bosses employed because they are "yes men" and ride on their superiors coat tales.. where their superiors are generally as incompetent as they are. Systems are worked out because they are efficient, not because of a knee jerk political reaction...

I think this post is long enough for now

flame away if it makes you feel better.

MICK!

*edit* I think, on a whole, it would be a bad idea to completely privatise the military.. However, privatisation in some areas benefits everybody.