I am curious what people on here think about the use of private companies/contractors in Iraq -- not just as basic civilian support, but as security guards who apparently actually fight quite a bit. Here's an editorial discussing the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21WED2.html. Please don't aim beefs you have with the editorial at me; I'm merely providing the link as background material.
I seem to recall that there were armies for hire in Europe in the 13th/14th/15th/16th century, somewhere in there, maybe even later. Apparently it's much more lucrative to provide security services than it is to be in the military for real. Is this anything like where employers who are under budget constraints classify some workers differently than they otherwise might just to have them show up on a different budget line-item? Hm.
Anyway, comments welcome, or you can ignore the topic, whichever.
