Private Armies & PMCs on the battlefield and on peace operations.

[a_majoor]

As has been pointed out, mercenary armies have been around since the dawn of time. Read the "Anibasis" for a thrilling account of how 10,000 Greek mercenaries were recruited, marched into the heart of the Persian Empire, and then had to fight their way back out after their employer was killed. The Italian City States of the 1400-1500 time period routinely hired armies of various sizes, and many units/formations/regiments started in the distant past as mercenaries, such as the Cossacks,the French Foreign Legion or the Gurkha's.

Even in our history, the French, the British and the Americans were quick to hire local tribes of Indians (Native Americans) as scouts, shock troops or "special forces" (able to carry out missions line troops could not). While not mercenaries in the strict sense of the term, both the LdSH and the PPCLI were raised and equipped by private individuals for use by the Crown.

Mercenaries fell out of favor in early modern times since they were unreliable and not fully subject to control by the Crown (whichever Crown happened to hire them). The same objections to mercenaries in the past apply today (they are people after all, and subject to the same motivating factors as anyone else). Large scale use of mercenaries in combat operations will probably not happen for a long time, since it will be expensive, but I might forcast platoon or company sized formations being hired for D&S jobs around bases, depots and the like.

We have seen large scale support of third parties, such as the Contras and the Muhajadeen in the 1980s, planning OP STORM in the 1990s and support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the Afghanistan campaign. This might actually be the wave of the future, small investments in men and equipment, low political cost at home, and potentially big gains in theater.

 

[Infanteer]

Just to give you guys an idea of the money private guys are making - I've been told that US Special Forces NCO's close to their 20-year retirement are being offered $100,000 USD bonuses to resign - and yet the military is still hemorrhaging to the Private side.   And why not?   You get to practice the profession you're good at and you can basically call your own shots - all without the annoying "government policy" thing to jerk you around.

As many have been apt to point out, this is nothing new - the cycle of state-controlled vs privately-controlled armed forces has been a constantly oscillating curve.   We're only apt to be uneasy of the mercenary because the paradigm with which we view armed conflict is a largely Westphalian one - a viewpoint that sits on the peak of the curve (the state-controlled end) that has dominated the last few centuries (through its origins in the Peace of Westphalia, nationalism, universal service, the nation-state, and Industrial Total War).   Were this Feudalism.ca or LombardRepublic.ca, we'd probably be in the "trough" of the curve, explaining the virtues of our private forces.

Martin Van Crevald elaborates on this in detail in his Transformation of War - he basically asserts that we are moving away from the "Clauswitzian Trinity" of State, Citizen and Soldier to something more like a Feudal arrangement.   Whiskey601 stated that:

War making would no longer be an extension of politics, it would be an extension of economics.

I'd say that war is still an extention of politics - war is always an extention of politics (competing power structures); you just have to ensure your defintion of politics is loose enough   .

However, the key is that politics is no longer monopolized by the state, thus the recourse to armed conflict (politics by other means) exists for sub-state actors.

The result?   As stated above, the breakdown of the Clauswitzian Trinity.   We may very well see, as Ghost pointed out, the rise of the modern day Condotieri who will outfit and lead their private battalions of soldiers-of-fortune and offer their services to the highest bidder (who may or may not be a state actor).   As well, we may see the increasing irrelevance of legal structures regarding combat (Geneva Conventions, LofAC) which are built around the Westphalian edifice of state supremacy (and legitimacy).

Hell, even the sub-state guys are getting involved in this.   I've seen grumblings by professional soldiers that the biggest concern in Iraq is that the Iraqis, who are tactically deficient and lacking in combat skills, will start to import Chechens and Afghan Mujihadeen who are experts in the business - thus giving the drive of the insurgent fighters the proficiency required to start hammering out tactical successes (a bad thing for us).

The kicker is that none of this will be new - history has a knack for revolving in cycles.   What was old is new again; plus ce change, plus ce la meme chose....   Oh well, at least we know we are in a growth industry.

May you live in interesting times,
Infanteer

 

[KevinB]

Todays Private Military Contractors are not quite the 60-70's Merc's - The majority of the Private Security Firms have contracts with the US State Dept and the troops have a specific mandate.

  I woudl hardly call one signing to protect a US embassy worker, local gov't offcial or even an oilfield worker to be in the same character of those hired or drug out of bars to fight for a cuase he or she had no idea in.

As well todays PMC's have above average military training (in general) than the unskilled majority did of that day...


At the current status quo - I would not be too concernd - as those who are hemorraging out of the TierI and II groups are ethical amd moral men.

Should the need for bodies increase hundrefold then the recruiters woudl have to be less and less picky - hiring thugs and petty theives like days of old to work under experienced "officers"

 

[aesop081]

I'd say that war is still an extention of politics - war is always an extention of politics (competing power structures); you just have to ensure your defintion of politics is loose enough   .

"War is a continuation of political intercourse interspersed with the use of other means" - Clauswitz, On War

 

[Infanteer]

Thanks, I thought it was Noam Chomsky who said that one....

 

[Bert]

Private armies or security forces exist or may exist primarily because
national armies are unable or unwilling provide the security to maintain
unhindered commercial operations.  Governments and business
share many common interests but it ends at the micro level and
in that private armies cannot replace national armies.

Governments maintain military forces and deploy them in instances
of geo-political conflict (or proxies), humanitarian concerns for
extended periods, usually for broad reasons.  Private security forces
are deployed  by organizations with specific concerns usually for the
protection of assets and the ability to maintain unhindered operations.
It wouldn't be viable for oil conglomerates to maintain security forces
capable of altering the nature of a region.  Both types of security
forces may be similar, but their management has differing objectives.

 

[bossi]

Darn - I was wrapping presents and missed this discussion ...

In another thread discussing Canada's role in monitoring the elections in Iraq there's a news story which states that civilian contractors will be used to protect the monitors - thus, it would appear that Canada has already bought in to the idea of using expendable resources instead of deploying our armed forces.

 

[KevinB]

Probably hired from an outfit called John's Trout Farm... 

 

[Boydfish]

Private armies might offer a reasonable cost foriegn policy option for second and third tier countires looking to exert influence beyond thier own borders.

For example, barring a major shift in public opinion and support, neither Australia, Canada and New Zealand will be able to maintain and/or deploy a corp level even divisional level expeditionary force.

On the other hand, if they organized a consortium force, of sorts, to provide that foriegn expeditionary capability, they could pool their resources to do exactly that.  For the most part, the consortium would be a "framework" until a specified contract from one or more of the client nation states tendered said contract.  In practice it would be a sole source contract, but you could hypothetically see Merc-Mart bidding against McSecurity Contractors bidding on who will service the Roto 957 to Bloggistan.

The sole source nature of the contract would include things like a regular payment to maintain that framework and contractual assurances that formation equipping and ramp-up times would be maintained.  For example, if we use the example of Merc-Mart and the Canadian, Australian and NZ governments, Merc-Mart would agree that they'd keep/maintain/store a full divisional equipment set of US/NATO standard equipment in exchange for proportional funding from each of the three governments to offset the purchase price as well as the maintenance costs.

Note that is just the equipment; not troops on hand to run/exercise with them, just the kit.

If any of the three governments then wants to exercise a foriegn policy option such as sending up to a divisional sized force to Bloggistan, they pay for the human resources costs to Merc-Mart to staff the stored divisional set.  Likely this would be done via a combination of methods, including using sub-contractors, recently releases from US/NATO forces and even "home grown" trainees(Ex. People who agree to complete a basic training package, with perhaps annual refresher courses in exchange for them being given first offers for sub-contracts on contracts.).

Just my two cents.

 

[pbi]

I can't see this progressing too far in the US: IMHO the military simply holds such a vital and important, almost mythological, role in the US vision of itself in the world and of its own history, to see mercenaries or PMCs given much more than the sort of "security force" jobs they have now. As well, the Armed Forces and their various "friends" in the US represent a very powerful lobby which IMHO would be quick to react to any attempt to seriously "cut in" on military core business such as fighting. Even the extensive use of contractors for support services (such as KBR here in Afghanistan) has provoked some concern, just as it has in our own forces. A much more likely scenario (and one that might arguably have already occurred in some places in the past...) would be for the US to support a client state or movement that in turn hires mercs or PMCs (or whatever...) to do the dirty work.

Cheers.

 

[Crazy_Eyes]

Ok, this is above my level...and I'm trying to understand it the best I can so dont flame me too bad, the way I see it, wouldn't this be too much of a security risk?? Arming civilian "companies" with modern military equipment and training? I mean whats to stop them from turning tail? Would they be under Military Law?? I mean if a civilian doesn't have to "serve" any fixed time with a private military organization, whats to stop them from going in getting trained then walking away with that training? Just my 2 cents, I hope it makes sense, and you dont have to adress it if you dont want too, but I'd appreciate it for my own knowledge. Thanks

 

[Infanteer]

Ok, this is above my level...and I'm trying to understand it the best I can so dont flame me too bad, the way I see it, wouldn't this be too much of a security risk?? Arming civilian "companies" with modern military equipment and training? I mean whats to stop them from turning tail? Would they be under Military Law?? I mean if a civilian doesn't have to "serve" any fixed time with a private military organization, whats to stop them from going in getting trained then walking away with that training? Just my 2 cents, I hope it makes sense, and you dont have to adress it if you dont want too, but I'd appreciate it for my own knowledge. Thanks

Funny, the city-states of Italy asked the same questions 700 years ago....

 

[Crazy_Eyes]

Please forgive me, my knowledge of history isn't that great and I'm unsure of what your referring too, maybe pm me about it, thank you

 

[a_majoor]

Citizen soldiers are one of the core elements of western civilization, and when the nation, state or empire deviates too far from the ideal of citizen soldiers, that is usually when it falls, from the dying days of Imperial Rome, when few Romans cared to man the Legions, to the Italian City-States of the 14-1500's. One of the reasons Europe of the Middle Ages was so unstable was the disconnect between the fighting men and the ideal of citizenship (despite our image of knights in armour, most fighters were either mercenaries, or peasants and serfs "press ganged" into the battle).

Since the Government chooses to send us out in support of other people's values, either the UN in "peacekeeping" or PSO missions, or to support American foreign policy (ISAF, OP APOLLO, OP PALLADIUM; not bad for a bunch of "morons"), we are becoming the mercenary troops of this century. At least we still retain a fearsome military reputation, somewhat like the Swiss, who were using weapons and tactics developed in the 1300's well into the 1500's, yet their appearance on the battlefield was often enough to shake the resolve of "bigger and better" opponents. (Too bad we don't get a cut of the spoils).

 

[pbi]

The reference is to the problem that confronted Renaissance-era governments (including the Italian City-states) that made use of mercenaries in place of, or in augmentation to, their own forces. While these mercenary forces were often made up of very skilled and well-armed soldiers and leaders, they were in it for the money, and were notorious for saving their own skins or changing sides based on financial considerations. The advantage to them was that they offered governments a "turnkey" deal: no need to raise, train, equip and maintain a unit: just "rent" it.

Other civilians were employed on the battlefield as well: up until around the middle of the 19th Century, it was not uncommon for some or all of the transport, artillery haulage and supply services to be provided by civilian contractors. In fact, there is an (apocryphal) story that one of the functions of fusilier units, originally raised to guard the artillery, was to discourage civilian artillery haulers from buggering off when things got hot. The formation of permanent military CSS branches in Western armies was to a great extent a result of the realization that these civilian contractors could not be relied upon.

Now, it seems, that the US and Canada are once again resorting to similar practices: hopefully without the bad results that originally led to the militarization of these functions centuries ago. Cheers.

 

[Freedom_Rider]

Ok, this is above my level...and I'm trying to understand it the best I can so dont flame me too bad, the way I see it, wouldn't this be too much of a security risk?? Arming civilian "companies" with modern military equipment and training? I mean whats to stop them from turning tail? Would they be under Military Law?? I mean if a civilian doesn't have to "serve" any fixed time with a private military organization, whats to stop them from going in getting trained then walking away with that training? Just my 2 cents, I hope it makes sense, and you dont have to adress it if you dont want too, but I'd appreciate it for my own knowledge. Thanks

From what I have read and heard about "Private Armies", most of them are better equipped than the regular government forces.

I have a friend who flies helicopter for a company under contract to the American government. He is  currently in Iraq.
The personal side arm he carries ( suplied by the company he works for) is an Ingram Mac-10.
He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia Convention in the late 40's).

 

[KevinB]

I have a friend who flies helicopter for a company under contract to the American government. He is   currently in Iraq.
The personal side arm he carries ( suplied by the company he works for) is an Ingram Mac-10.
He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia Convention in the late 40's).

 

[a_majoor]

From what I have read and heard about "Private Armies", most of them are better equipped than the regular government forces.

I have a friend who flies helicopter for a company under contract to the American government. He is currently in Iraq.
The personal side arm he carries ( suplied by the company he works for) is an Ingram Mac-10.
He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia Convention in the late 40's).

Unless he is flying an Apache and lands at a base guarded by a coporate Battlegroup equipped with M-1 tanks and M-2 IFVs, I would hardly say "Private Armies" are better equipped in any way than the Government forces.

Terrorist cells are actually a good comparison to PMC's, they exist at the sufference of a sponsoring government, and are constrained to remain limited in size and overall effect due to the relatively limited resource base they have to draw from. Government Armies have continental to global reach, and have the resource base to remain in the field until either the job is done or the government has enough. Armies plan campaigns with "branches and sequels", while PMCs and terror cells can perform limited operations over an extended period of time, or expend their resources in a single spectacular operation.

While an individual employed as a mercenary or PMC might have better personal kit than a line infantry soldier, in the bigger scale of things, it is immaterial unless this guy is superman as well.

 

[Morpheus32]

I think people are really taking this a bit beyond what is actually happening overseas.  In Iraq, various companies and individuals have hired private security firms to secure individuals, facilities and infrastructure.  If you want to draw comparisons, we have "private" security companies doing the same thing in Canada.  Brinks is an example.  The difference is there is no Brinks in Iraq so the company is bringing them in to the do the job.  The same goes for personal security teams.  We have companies in Canada that do the same.  In Iraq, they are armed with small arms and the like.  Blackwater is employing a helicopter but notice it is not armed.  The person in the back is armed but the helicopter is not a gunship.  So the sky is not falling, the difference is that private companies are taking on the security issues for their own reasons which by the nature of business are profit based.  So it is really not that big a leap.  We have similar private infrastructure here in Canada including armed security guards.  So really it is not a big deal.

Jeff

 

[KevinB]

Triple Canopy has a 160th SOAR MH-47E on attachement (crewer by 160th pers)
  Some Pigs...