August 2, 2006
-
Socrates Cafe's Latest: What are the pros and cons of commercializing war
This discussion topic has to do with changes that have take place in the American Armed forces as well as the decision to use more mercenaries - funded apparently by the U.S. government - in Iraq.
When I was in the Army, back in the flintlock era, the army pretty much fed, guarded and cleaned up after itself - now as I understand it, all those chores are contracted out. the argument is that it saves money - something I find hard to believe. If a private, for-profit company can feed the troops cheaper than the army could feed itself, than the troop aren't eating as well or the mess sergeants were taking stuff home - a lot of stuff.
I think the thrust of this discussion is not about that subject though, rather the rising use of mercenary units in the fighting zones of Iraq. The references for this topic include the article from the Norfolk VA newspaper about a visit to a mercenary training camp where the reporter was impressed by the hard training and competence of the soldiers.
Mercenaries have a long and somewhat mixed history. In Lucerne there is a moving memorial to the Swiss mercenaries killed defending the French royal Family during the French revolution and France's use of its Foreign Legion is legendary but in modern times mercenaries haven't faired as well.
I know of at least one incident in Iraq where an American army communications unit that was supposedly guarded by the mercenary troop guarding a regional administrator came under attack by Muktar al Sadir's militia. The mercenaries, led by a couple of the graduates of the training school mentioned above all fled, leaving the americans under severe attack. Fortunately there was a group of Russian marines (about 20) who were able to come to the Americans aid and keep several hundred Iraqi militia at bay until american Marines could get there (about 24 hours). No Americans were killed in this fight but there were some casualties.
This raises the question - how dependable are mercenaries? I see them as analogous to Bank security guards - they have a gun and may look impressive, but how dependable they are depends on how committed they are to the cause - not how much they are paid.
Using mercenaries does give the politicians an opportunity to commit fewer regular troops to the fight, and thus put themselves at a little less political risk. the British used them during the American Revolution with the usual results.
Comments (4)
What is the dictionary definition of mercenary? What is your definition of mercenary? Is it important to clarify definitions in order to understand the points being made?
Thanks for your thoughts, tychecat. I'm not familiar with the incident you've mentioned (where hired operatives abandoned their post). Do you have a link to an article or something we could refer to? But you do make a point that a potential con could be a lower level of committment to the cause. However I'm not sure that enlisted personell don't sometimes suffer from the same confusion on the front lines. So I'm not sure that this couldn't be a con for both enlisted and hired warriors, second guessing ones purpose and committment to an imposed cause. I'm interested in learning more about that particular incident, as it could shed some light on your point. Please let me know if you find and post it. Thank you!
Simone
I just reviewed the fight I mentioned - my brain played its usual tricks and i got some of the details wrong, Those were Ukrainian soldiers, not Russians.
There have been several reports about the battle which took place at Kut in early April of 2004. Here's a link from one of many self-aggrandizing reports about the battle:Kut Battle
I found out about the battle through online friendship with one of the American troops involved. The mercenaries who fled were under American supervision but were locals hired to protect the local (I think British) administrator. The supervisors mentioned did not flee, but were not very effective, according to my eyewitness.
As an ex-enlisted soldier (Korea) I can assure you that front-line personnel are seldom in doubt about who they are fighting or what they are supposed to do. Their primary loyalty is to their unit and each other, as is true of mercenaries also, but in addition, they feel a sense of commitment I think may be lacking in mercenaries.
You should note that the article mentioned above was written by one of the supervisors I mentioned - it does not even mention the American troops involved and lays the blame on the British diplomat. A little googling will give you other points of view.