Privatized Military

[DavidV]

The privatization of the armed forces would represent an abdication of the government's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens.

No it would not. If private contractors provide better defense services than then individual soldiers, then privatizing the military would be providing better defense services, NOT abdicating them. As long as the government is running the show, there is no fundamental difference in whether it contracts with individuals or groups.

In any case, I don’t think it’s either efficient or in any one’s plans to privatize most or all of the military here or in Israel.

[DavidV]

AutoJC, your argument is essentially that a private military or police agency could revolt against the government that contracted with it and assume power. Whether or not that is a legitimate concern is a practical consideration and does not change the fact that there is nothing theoretically wrong with contracting government services to private companies.

[stephen_speicher]

If private contractors provide better defense services than then individual soldiers, then privatizing the military would be providing better defense services, NOT abdicating them.  As long as the government is running the show, there is no fundamental difference in whether it contracts with individuals or groups.

That is really a very interesting question. I would say that any privatization of the military would hinge on what is meant by "As long as the government is running the show."

I cannot see any objection to having a private organization recruit and train soldiers, if they can do a better job (and that is questionable). But, the military is not like any private group, company, or organization, in that a proper military requires a strict chain of command, from the newest recruit right on up to the man in charge. The soldiers cannot remain a part of a private company since that would undercut both the soldier's allegiance and the command chain. The orders given are life and death orders and the command chain must remain unquestioned and inviolate.

These facts are concretized by the military having their own law and courts. These are not private functions of a company, and the need for law specialization arises from the unique function that the military performs. Soldiers are not merely employees or contractors; their relationship to the military chain of command is unique and fundamentally different from any proper private relationship. If you break an employment contract and leave, you can be sued. If you desert your military post you can potentially be put to death.

[Guest jrshep]

The orders given are life and death orders and the command chain must remain unquestioned and inviolate.

If you desert your military post you can potentially be put to death.

Given this, how does one also insist that the claim that one was "just following orders" is not a just defense against some charge against a soldier…who are accused of wrong doings?

[stephen_speicher]

Given this, how does one also insist that the claim that one was "just following orders" is not a just defense against some charge against a soldier, such as those guards at that prison, Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, who are accused of wrong doings?

Without specific reference to anything in Iraq, as I understand it, the military chain of command can, and should, be broken if the order given is an unlawful order.

[Guest jrshep]

Without specific reference to anything in Iraq, as I understand it, the military chain of command can, and should, be broken if the order given is an unlawful order.

I agree with that. I guess that for a particular soldier, as with each of us as individual citizens, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

John

[RationalBiker]

I cannot see any objection to having a private organization recruit and train soldiers, if they can do a better job (and that is questionable).

Actually, this is done right now to some degree. As some of you may know, their were contractors from Blackwater Training Center that were killed in Iraq not to long ago. That company provides some limited training to military special units.

Beyond that, they even do "mercenary" work for certain agencies and governments.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

I have been there recently as that is where we do our firearms training right now while our range is under repair.

VES

[AwakeAndFree]

But to be able to hire a private army, a government has to have a choice between many contractors. That would mean that there are several armed armies inside the country.

Since government, by definition, has a monopoly on the use of force, it cannot allow several competing armies, with weapons and training.

Whether it would be OK to hire a mercenary army from OUTSIDE the state, would be a practical question - but based on history I would say it is highly undesirable.

[stephen_speicher]

But to be able to hire a private army, a government has to have a choice between many contractors.

Since you do not quote to what you are responding, I just want to make clear that I have never advocated anything remotely like hiring a private army. I said that I would entertain the idea of a private organization doing recruitment and training, if they can really do a better job (which, for several reasons, I doubt). But, after training, the soldiers would have to become a part of the actual military, subject to the military chain of command. This is not the same thing as to "hire a private army." A proper government cannot permit a private army.

[Ed from OC]

Whether it would be OK to hire a mercenary army from OUTSIDE the state, would be a practical question - but based on history I would say it is highly undesirable.

Pardon my ignorance, but to what history are your referring?

Are you talking about hiring an entire army from outside, or supplemental resources?

I haven't spent that much time considering whether a mercenary army is proper, but I think for the USA, modifying the military reserves to be more akin to an organized mercenary force may be a good idea.

After 9/11 I considered enlisting in the military, but did not for several reasons. One big reason is the relationship I would have with the government. I would have little freedom to choose my duties. I would be eager to go to war in Iran, for example, or North Korea, or go after Bin Laden. I would not be eager to spend a year as a target in Baghdad pulling guard duty on some street corner. Nor would I want to go on "humanitarian" missions to pestholes in Africa.

But suppose the Pentagon lacked sufficient troops to fulfill its missions. I see no problem with them contracting out some of the fighting to a small group of mercenaries. Under the strategic guidance of the regular military, a mercenary unit could be assigned a task via a contract, and when completed, perhaps get another one.

Such a situation would enable me to be selective in the fighting I would do.

If history is a guide, the efficacy of such a cadre could be quite astonishing.

In Carnage and Culture, Victor Davis Hanson writes of the 10,700 Greek hoplite soldiers hired in 401 B.C. by Cyrus the Younger to "help press his claim to the Persian throne." After marching some 1500 miles to face their foe, how effective were they?

"The price for destroying an entire wing of the Persian army was a single Greek hoplite wounded by an arrow." (page 2)

"Though surrounded by thousands of enemies, their original generals captured and beheaded, forced to traverse through the contested lands of more than twenty different peoples, caught in snowdrifts, high mountain passes, and waterless steppes, suffering frostbite, malnutrition, and frequent sickness, as well as fighting various savage tribesmen, the Greeks reached the safety of the Black Sea largely intact -- less than a year and a half after leaving home. They had routed every hostile Asian force in their way. Five out of six made it out alive, the majority of the dead lost not in battle, but in the high snows of Armenia." (page 2)

The author argues that the cultural gap between the Ten Thousand and the army under the whip of Persia gave the Greeks a significant advantage. I won't repeat the entire argument (see the book), but I think it is instructive to see just how much freedom the Ten Thousand had. Here's an indication:

"Once the Ten Thousand, as much a 'marching democracy' as a hired army, left the battlefield of Cunaxa, the soldiers routinely held assemblies in which they voted on the proposals of their elected leaders. In times of crises, they formed ad hoc boards to ensure there were sufficient archers, cavalry, and medical corpsmen." (page 3)

"Upon reaching the coast of the Black Sea, the Ten Thousand conducted judicial inquiries and audits of its leadership's performance during the past year, while disgruntled individuals freely voted to split apart and make their own way back home. A lowly Arcadian shepherd had the same vote as the aristocratic Xenophon, student of Socrates..." (page 3)

And keep in mind this was 2400 years ago!

So I'm not convinced that mercenary armies are a bad idea, provided the proper oversight of their ultimate goals and of the bounds on their methods. In fact, there are some good reasons to consider contracting out more than just support work for the military.

[Tryptonique]

Hessians :

Definition: German soldiers loyal to King George III who fought for Britain in the Revolutionary War. King George was from Hanover, an area in Germany, and called in a favor to his homeland, asking for soldiers willing to fight in the New World. The Hessians numbered almost 30,000, and they fought mostly in the Northern Campaign. They are most famous, however, for being surprised and defeated at Trenton by American forces under General George Washington, whose army had just crossed the Delaware River in the dead of night on Dec. 25, 1776.

The British purchased the services of 30,000 German Soldiers for $150,000, all of which went into the royal coffers of the German princes. These troops came from Hesse Cassel, Hesse Hanau, Brunswick, Anspach, Bayreuth, Anhalt Zerbst and Waldeck.

[another example of mercenaries in war]

[DavidV]

I think that a rational government, a principled foreign policy, and developments in technology have the potential to totally change strategic military policy and greatly increase participation by the private sector.

If America became a capitalist nation and the trend towards global liberalization continued unabated, I think that large standing armies would become obsolete.

An unleashed nuclear arsenal should be sufficient to deter or destroy any enemy nation – without any worries of occupation or creating “democracies.” The remaining security threats would most likely be covert groups operating in remote regions. Such enemies could be dealt with by spec ops groups working with private contractors to assist with logistics and regional intelligence. Private contractors would develop and maintain the technology used by the military, somewhat as they do today. Military operations would be carried out by small teams, guided missiles, and remote drones, with technological support from private contractors. This would allow military forces to consist primarily of security agencies and the air force, with a greatly reduced navy, army, and marines.

[AwakeAndFree]

Pardon my ignorance, but to what history are your referring?

I am refering specifically to the middle-ages and renaissance periods in Europe, where most of the fighting was done through mercenary armies led by travelling noblemen.

Italy for the longest time did not have an army of it's own - but simply hired different mercenary groups. The results was that many times the other side would simply pay a larger sum, and the mercenaries changed sides.

Also, since they were not fighting to defend their homes and their families, they often quit at the crucial time of the fighting.

For that reason Italy was conquered, re-conquered, and changed hands so many times between powers that had national armies.

As for having more choice and say about your duties: I think it is not a matter of whether the army is run by the government or not. A solider might be given some choice before he is enlisted, but no army can function if every soldier can choose what actions he agrees to and what actions he'll "pass".

An army who doesn't act in unity, agility, and ruthless efficiency - is a losing army.

Also - you quote some history book, but you don't give the important details: who were these hoplites, how were they trained, and who controlled them.

In general, the Athenian hoplites not just fought under the government, but were generally volunteers who were not paid. They even had to buy their own equipment! Still, there was no private organization - just the generals appointed by the people and the government.

[Bearster]

the military chain of command can, and should, be broken if the order given is an unlawful order.

Then it's not much of a military. The nature of rank and command is that those who give the orders know more generally, understand war better, and understand this war better. Those who are given the orders are not necessarily given the full context. They are tasked with executing the orders. If the commander says drop a bomb on that target, or firebomb that village, the soldier must do it, do it now, and do it to the best of his ability.

If he was to "question authority" at every turn, he'd be guilty of insubordination.

[stephen_speicher]

Then it's not much of a military. The nature of rank and command is that those who give the orders know more generally, understand war better, and understand this war better. Those who are given the orders are not necessarily given the full context. They are tasked with executing the orders. If the commander says drop a bomb on that target, or firebomb that village, the soldier must do it, do it now, and do it to the best of his ability.

Tell that to the 8 million Jews slaughtered in WW II by soldiers who were just "following orders!"

I see in a another thread you said to a poster: "God, that's #$*&! malevolent or totally clueless." Your words to him, there, apply more so to you, here.

The Gestapo leader, Adolph Eichmann, used your argument to defend against his genocide -- the wholesale destruction of innocent life -- "I was following superior orders." There is a reason that the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, the contractual code sworn to by inductees into the military, specifies obeying a "lawful general order" and obeying "any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces." [Emphasis mine.]

If he was to "question authority" at every turn, he'd be guilty of insubordination.

To "question authority" is not the same thing as refusal to obey an unlawful order. Ethics in general, and the Objectivist ethics in particular, is not a set of out-of-context absolutes to moralize about indiscriminantly. How you have the nerve to tell another poster "God, that's #$*&! malevolent or totally clueless," is truly beyond me.

[AwakeAndFree]

The Israeli military code differentiates between two kinds of unlawful orders: one that is unlawful, but the soldier must still obey, and then file a complaint against his commander (for example - leaving him to guard for too long), and the second, called an "expressly unlawful" command - which the soldier must not obey, or he will be prosecuted together with his commander.

For example - if your commander tells you to shoot some innocent bystander that poses no threat.

The Nazis had just one rule: Obey orders, unless there is a break in the chain of command, and your direct orders contradict Hitler's wishes.

[stephen_speicher]

The Israeli military code differentiates between two kinds of unlawful orders: one that is unlawful, but the soldier must still obey, and then file a complaint against his commander (for example - leaving him to guard for too long), and the second, called an "expressly unlawful" command - which the soldier must not obey, or he will be prosecuted together with his commander.

For example - if your commander tells you to shoot some innocent bystander that poses no threat.

Wrongful orders that have little to no effect on you or others is in an entirely different class than unlawful orders to exterminate 8 million Jews. Whatever the name you attach to it, the main point is that the military chain of command is no excuse for disregarding horrendous orders.

The Nazis had just one rule: Obey orders, unless there is a break in the chain of command, and your direct orders contradict Hitler's wishes.

The "I am just following orders" mentality at the Nuremberg Trials, and elsewhere, is truly a disgusting and pathetic thing to see.

[AwakeAndFree]

The "I am just following orders" mentality at the Nuremberg Trials, and elsewhere, is truly a disgusting and pathetic thing to see.

As someone who watched the Eichman trials re-runs every year on Holocaust Remembrance Day, I have to agree. But this is just one part of the general collectivist mentality.

Did you know that when asked for his last words, he wanted to thank three countries: Germany, Austria, and Argentina - for treating him so well. Think of the horror - your last words, having to do not with individual loved ones, but with COUNTRIES. Chilling.

[stephen_speicher]

As someone who watched the Eichman trials re-runs every year on Holocaust Remembrance Day, I have to agree. But this is just one part of the general collectivist mentality.

Did you know that when asked for his last words, he wanted to thank three countries: Germany, Austria, and Argentina - for treating him so well. Think of the horror - your last words, having to do not with individual loved ones, but with COUNTRIES. Chilling.

The actual words, verbatim, are even more chilling than the summary.

"Long live Germany, long live Austria, long live Argentina. I owe a lot to these countries. I had to obey the rules of war and my flag.”

I hope that Bearster can keep those words in mind the next time he argues for a military in which one should never disobey an unlawful order.

Erandror, I am really glad to know that each year in Israel there is a Holocaust Remembrance Day, and that the trials are made real to people via a broadcast. People need to understand that the same mentality responsible for that horror, surrounds them today. And, they should wipe it out just as Hitler and his Nazis deserved to be wiped out.

[AwakeAndFree]

Holocaust Remembrance Day is important, and so are the re-runs of the Eichman trials. However, there is a lot of unwarranted collectivism in the ceremonies of this day, and I always hated it.

In any case, there are more than just the trials. It is usually 24 hours of incessant Holocaust documentaries. When I was 17, I even went on a highschool trip to Poland, and visited all the concentration/death camps.

I've always thought that growing in a pleasant environment without ever being exposed to the other side of human emotions (namely sadness, anger, pain) leaves a man shallow in his thinking and crippled in his emotional capacity.

There is little danger of that in Israel.

I have to say that I am often amazed at how immature and unserious Americans my age can be. The people of this forum excluded, of course, I think this is the result of people living a good life without ever realizing there is an alternative. Without ever stopping to appreciate what they have.