Via Marc Lynch, "Can't Win With Them, Can't Go To War Without Them" by Peter Singer (the one who writes about private military contractors, not the controversial philosopher). The basic argument, to quote Lynch's gloss, is that contractors are a kind of addiction "a cheap fix which allows for poorly conceived military interventions beyond the real means of the United States." Their use is counterproductive in counterinsurgency situations, yet we've organized ourselves so that it's impossible to conduct a counterinsurgency without them.
« Does Universal Health Care Make Cancer Kill You? | Main | Cackling »
Contractors and Counterinsurgency
30 Sep 2007 12:37 pm
Comments (21)
I was on record as wanting a million+ man army for Iraq. It may have been impossible or ridiculous, but I obviously had my reasons. Now I guess the consensus now is that a lack of manpower was a good reason against starting the war, but since the war was going to happen, that is as at least if not more irrelevant than my own position.
Since there will be a next war, and another after that, I will argue again for a very large army that is capable of following the Hague obligations. Y'all can say "No More War", and watch the throngs of civilians die and the war crimes continue in some sort of righteous indignation. Whatever rings your bells.
I also wonder what's "cheap" about using contractors. maybe it's cheap in a political sense because it obviates the need for a draft, but it sure isn't cheap financially.
Private armies are a BAD thing. Long term, they are even WORSE.
How would you like to deal with a private militia run by a right-wing fanatic Christian political hack, with no oversight from any government representatives? Cheney’s wet dream.
I also wonder what's "cheap" about using contractors. maybe it's cheap in a political sense because it obviates the need for a draft, but it sure isn't cheap financially.
They're expensive in the few years you're paying them to shoot people; they're cheap in the many years you're not paying to train them, or to have them sit around at home doing drills, or to build huge bases with all sorts of amenities for them to live in, or to educate their children, or to cover their health care until they croak.
Since there will be a next war, and another after that, I will argue again for a very large army that is capable of following the Hague obligations.
Mighty white of you.
Now, what about the enemy that follows no Hague or Geneva Conventions? If they are allowed to be free to flout them and get more rights than captured uniform soldiers get - why should our side (the American side for Lefties not knowing what "side" I reference) bother to comply itself against such foes? Spare me the "It's the Law!!" assertions. They are rules covered by signatories under treaty that have legal consequences only if we remain treaty signatories.
I wouldn't want to withdraw, but the Left's strong defense of enemy rights even though they freely violate Hague and Geneva daily - erodes the long-term viability of Hague and Geneva.
They're expensive in the few years you're paying them to shoot people; they're cheap in the many years you're not paying to train them, or to have them sit around at home doing drills, or to build huge bases with all sorts of amenities for them to live in, or to educate their children, or to cover their health care until they croak.
Let me get this straight:
You say that we will have a large number of organized, armed men with a demonstrated history of using lethal force against civilians who will
- have nothing to do
- have no amenities
- have no education for their children
- will do without healthcare
And that the consequences of this situation will be cheap?
Oh, jesus fucking christ, I bet you thought that was incredibly clever, didn't you?
Oh, jesus fucking christ, I bet you thought that was incredibly clever, didn't you?
Well, yes, actually I did. What is more to the point, I thought it was true.
You have any no ad homenenum - or even cogent - answer?
"They are rules covered by signatories under treaty that have legal consequences only if we remain treaty signatories."
Whatever. Where we at now, a million Iraqi civilians dead, oh 2 million injured, 2 million displaced? Etc, etc. The infant enemies must not be coddled with no lousy wuss internationalist rules. Hague is partly about the treatment of civilian populations in occupied areas. No local militias allowed:war crime. For reasons that are pretty obvious from Iraq.
You want Chris Ford type monsters waging the wars or decent Democrats with compassion? That is your choice. Peace is not an option.
Duncan Kinder,
"a demonstrated history of using lethal force against civilians" -- This is a cheap shot, for a few reasons. First, only a relative handful of the hundreds (if not thousands) of private military contractors have been accused of this. Second, if you are referring to the current controversy, investigations are ongoing. These men should get at least the same presumption of innocence you'd probably give to, say, a captured Muslim terrorist suspect. It's not unheard of in guerrilla warfare to claim after the fact that a combatant wearing civilian clothes was actually a noncombatant civilian.
As for your worry that private military contractors, if they didn't have those PMC jobs would
What do you think happens to the tens of thousands of men who leave the U.S. military every year? They get other jobs, in order to have "something to do", make money, get health benefits, etc. The same happens with PMCs. A significant percentage of former soldiers become cops. When I was in the Army Reserve, probably 70% of my brigade (mostly former active duty soldiers along with a few former active duty Marines) were city cops, state troopers, sherrif's deputies, etc. In the case of PMCs, a number of them aren't even American; these will go back to their native countries.
Not so cheap. The military is now paying $150,000 re-signing bonuses to hang on to Special Forces soldiers due to financial competition from Blackwater and other mercenary outfits -- competition that was wholly created by the U.S. government.
I suspect that I have had more experience with government contractors then most if not all the commenters on this blog. The only thing that government contractors are interested in is finding legal ways to screw the government. That's why we call them crooked contractors. Blackwater is no exception in this regard.
To me, contractors are somewhat outside the law, so we have them. I don't think that any other reason is needed. They're certainly not cheap.
They're also more usable in domestic situations than the military. I've read that NOLA after the hurricane was patrolled by contractors.
Of mercenaries, John Emerson writes:
They're also more usable in domestic situations than the military. I've read that NOLA after the hurricane was patrolled by contractors.
Indeed.
Most normal people look at NOLA and think "disaster."
And with a sufficient degree of realism, you'd think that Conservatives would be looking at NOLA and thinking "opportunity." However, with the necessary degree of realism, you understand they see NOLA and think model....
New Orleans was disaster before the flood; the flood merely exposed it. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard and the National Guard performed heroically and saved a lot of lives in the aftermath. The death toll could have been literally ten times worse if not for their efforts. It's worth noting too that the National Guard included troops from several states -- governors have arrangements where they can provide troops to support another state's efforts in an emergency.
The contractors that Emerson refers to may have been ex-military guys that some wealthy New Orleans residents hired to protect their properties. There was an article about this in the WSJ at the time. I believe one of the companies hired was run by former Israeli military personnel.
As for your worry that private military contractors, if they didn't have those PMC jobs would
Not my worry. These factors had previously been cited by Senescent as reasons to conclude that private military contractors / mercenaries would be cheaper.
What do you think happens to the tens of thousands of men who leave the U.S. military every year? They get other jobs, in order to have "something to do", make money, get health benefits, etc. The same happens with PMCs.
I doubt if we have much actual data as to what PMCs / mercenaries actually do after their gig is up.
These men should get at least the same presumption of innocence you'd probably give to, say, a captured Muslim terrorist suspect
The presumption of innocence actually is a legal formality that applies only in the jury box and does not even extend, for example, to such matters as bail bond hearings. What is more to the point, however, is after the Iraq War does - finally - die down, we are also going to have a lot of former insurgents with spare time on their hands. That would be another interesting subject but not that which we now are discussing.
No, but seriously. Is there a reason to use "private military contractor" instead of "mercenary" ?
You can contract about anything. Mercenary means precisely that people who will participate in war related program activities for money.
No, but seriously. Is there a reason to use "private military contractor" instead of "mercenary" ?
You can contract about anything. Mercenary means precisely that people who will participate in war related program activities for money.
Posted by yabonn | October 1, 2007 6:17 AM
************************************************
In this case actually, yes. If you really look at this piece you see that Singer is a little slippery in that he lumps logistical support personnel in with security people as "private military contractors". So he equates people running stock-rooms for aircraft parts, truck mechanics and cooks in mess halls with Blackwater's armed security people. According to Singer's numbers (which you have to root around for) 26% of the "private military contractors" are armed services.
To face facts, you need to realize that when the military was down-sized in the 90s at the end of the Cold War, the decision was made that the military should focus its efforts on the armed branches and to outsource some logistical support activity.
You're right Campesino, I shouldn't have followed this fudging.
So i propose :
- there's a word for Blackwater employees, it's mercenaries
- the military contractors are the cooks, mainly, but can be mercenaries too
- conflating the two is bad, a reasoning built on conflating the two is worse.
Re Blackwater
This thread is rather far down but I will post this link to a thread in Ed Braytons' blog detailing the connections between the founders of Blackwater and various right wing fascist organizations. I'll post it again if the subject of Blackwater comes up.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/blackwater_hearings_today.php#more
Comments closed October 14, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"a cheap fix which allows for poorly conceived military interventions beyond the real means of the United States."
Don't agree with the italicized part.
Posted by Linus | September 30, 2007 1:38 PM