Private Armies

[Old Geezer]

The American Military is increasingly contracting military services which is a relief in some ways (cheaper, more efficient, and frees up the military for other purposes)

but can it pose a threat to national security??? Is it potentially a breach of the monopoly on force? is the danger worth the savings?

[RadCap]

On what basis does anyone make the claim such things are more dangerous for national security or are somehow breaches of govt monopoly on force? Perhaps if someone were to explore the assumptions they make to come to such conclusions, the questions might never need be asked.

[Old Geezer]

On what basis does anyone make the claim such things are more dangerous for national security

i) History;

The British used German Mercenaries against the US during the revolutionary war. They had no stake in the battle and no commitment to anything but money, what happened? Washington crossed the Delaware and Romped their drunken asses.

We have relied on arming and paying armies in the past with disastorous results (remember the muhajideen?)

ii) motive

as is the case in Saudi Arabia, private armies originally made for our purposes are now working for the Saudi Regime. Why? cause Saudi Arabia has money. Now when the shit hits the fan over there, we have to not only deal with their crappy forces, but the private armies we initiated.

or somehow breaches of govt monopoly on force?

I didn't say breaches, I said potential breaches... I dunno, maybe it was the fact that they are literally flying all over combat zones with US military Airships??

[RadCap]

History - so you are comparing these americans to mercs and non-american hired combatants. Not only that, but you are comparing them to ones who FAILED. Again, on what basis do you make such comparisons? What EVIDENCE exists which makes such comparions valid? Fear doesnt count.

Motive - money and power have had an effect on military personnel throughout history. You might as well be making the case that a govt military can be a danger to national security - IF they decide to go rogue for whatever reason. So - UNLESS you have evidence that such is happening here, you have no basis to claim otherwise.

--

You still didnt explain how them 'flying all over combat zones with US airships' can cause a breach in govt monopoly of force - any more than ANY person doing that can cause a breach in govt monopoly.

In other words, you still have not provided the assumptions you are making to consider these as valid concerns.

[Old Geezer]

so you are comparing these americans to mercs and non-american hired combatants

i) A private corporation by definistion is not necessarilly American. (for instance Dynecorp (serves both the American and Saudi Arabian Militaries) AND they are free to hire whom they want.

ii) standard of proof. A mercenary is a mercenary is a mercenary. Please explain to me how the two are different.

"Motive - money and power have had an effect on military personnel throughout history. You might as well be making the case that a govt military can be a danger to national security"

various government militaries have been a threat to various nation's security throughout the world. Thats why our system of government developed oversights etc. (yet still we sell WMD to saddam)

"IF they decide to go rogue for whatever reason. So - UNLESS you have evidence that such is happening here, you have no basis to claim otherwise."

According to its own factbook, 11% dyncorps revenues come from overseas, in such places as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan Russia, Egypt etc. Their largest contractual obligation is to the Saudi Military.

Also, they do not have to go Rogue to pose a threat to national security, all they have to do is decide that other ventures might be more profitable. Then they exercise their legal rights to not continue contracting.

"You still didnt explain how them 'flying all over combat zones with US airships' can cause a breach in govt monopoly of force - any more than ANY person doing that can cause a breach in govt monopoly"

During the war in Afghanistan, most of the Alliances we won on the ground were won by bringing in large briefcases full of money. A mercenary corporation is a formalized example of this. In afghanistan, if the alliance shifted back it didnt matter because we had superior technology and could still destroy the "rogue" alliance. But if our Military lets a private entity use the same level of technology and training as the government, the government no longer has the physical ability to dictate the terms of use of that force.

[Praxus]

A private corporation by definistion is not necessarilly American. (for instance Dynecorp (serves both the American and Saudi Arabian Militaries) AND they are free to hire whom they want.

By the way only Americans are being hired, I don't know where you would get the fact that Saudis are protecting Americans. I sure as hell know we would not allow such a thing.

We are not hiring them to fight a war, we are hiring them to protect certain people.

Also, they do not have to go Rogue to pose a threat to national security, all they have to do is decide that other ventures might be more profitable. Then they exercise their legal rights to not continue contracting.

They can not work for a Government the US Government deems a threat or we are at war with.

[Old Geezer]

"By the way only Americans are being hired, I don't know where you would get the fact that Saudis are protecting Americans. I sure as hell know we would not allow such a thing."

Dyncorps does work for the United States Military, and they Do work for the Saudi Military. Check out the investor relations section of their web page, and check out the link I posted up top.

"

"We are not hiring them to fight a war, we are hiring them to protect certain people."

You seem to be talking about some specific company perhaps that is true for those companies, but we are also hiring these corporations to do things like military operations in SA

"They can not work for a Government the US Government deems a threat or we are at war with. "

while they are under contract, this is true... But contracts are open to expiration. and when the private armies are big enough, they are open to flat out breaches,

[Praxus]

Are you trying to claim that they could somehow stop us from enforcing the contract?

There is no way a private company offering such services could match the military power of a nation. The largest company in the world doesn't even make as much money as the US Defense Budget.

while they are under contract, this is true... But contracts are open to expiration. and when the private armies are big enough, they are open to flat out breaches,

It is ALWAYS true, no one has a right to fight for a fourign army in oposition to the United States.

Dyncorps does work for the United States Military, and they Do work for the Saudi Military. Check out the investor relations section of their web page, and check out the link I posted up top.

That fact is irrelivent to the point at hand.

[LucentBrave]

I'll vouch for you Old Geezer, although my credibility according to certain people within the forum, is nil. We have a DyneCorp right here on Okinawa. I do business with Mr. Skipper, the head of DyneCorp, Okinawa on a daily basis. I don't know how we could function without the products and services they provide for us.

That is correct Praxus. The services that provide us with what we need could never match our military power. How the hell do you think we got where we are in the first place. Where do you think the money is going in order to get the things we need in order to fight for your rights and freedom. The funds go to DyneCorp and to Boeing and to many other companies that are non-military owned. Where do you think we get this stuff from? The government doesn't manufacture this stuff Praxus. I have no clue as to how you would reason this one out.

We don't even have have the CE squadron build our base buildings anymore. We rely on Okinawan companies to build them for us. Hell, we even had some Okinawan guys in my shop two days ago fixing electrical problems.

The government heavily depends upon civilian contractors, american and not, to get us what we need in order to do stuff. Oh, and far as protection goes, we have Japanese defense force soldiers guarding our main gate at Kadena AB. We have Japanese protecting American troops here on base. Same went for Korea. Only there, the Korean Cops protected us from protestors, not american cops. We don't have the man power to do so. This is validated proof. If I were aloud to take pictures of the front gate for proof, I would.

[oldsalt]

While the government has always contracted out various jobs required by the military, it does so now more than ever. It is a part of the reason we can have an all volunteer military. We simply do not have the personnel to do everything. Such contracts also give retired military personnel a way to continue their military service, thereby tapping into experience and expertise which would otherwise be lost to the country. For instance, my brother retired after 32 years in the Navy (2 years beyond when he was supposed to retire, by the way). He now works as a consultant for the Navy and, among other things, trains Navy Seals. Defense contractors hire people like my brother to train the military in how to use the weapons systems, and other various products. We also contract out much of the catering that the military requires.

I can't speak to the advisablity of all such contracts, but I do know that without them, we'd be forced to fall back on some form of the draft to fill the needs of the military.

I admit to being surprised to hear that we use civilian personnel to guard our bases.

[LucentBrave]

They aren't civilians. They are another nation's army guarding our facilities. It's much of the same though...

I always feel strange when I come on-base and an Okinawan police officer checks my ID in order for me to go home.

[Old Geezer]

The services that provide us with what we need could never match our military power. How the hell do you think we got where we are in the first place.

Smart military strategy isn't about resting on one's laurel's it is about accounting for all contingincies. While it is highly unlikely that they could become a threat to our power, it is entirely possible that we will lose control of essential services (as we have to an extent in the illegal arms trade)

and it is also possible that they will begin to influence policy