Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.
|
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2539816
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2575454
Two Economist articles on the subject (sorry, they're subscription, but then, anyone with sufficient interest in world politics to hang out in this cesspool but doesn't subscribe to the Economist and the NYT (and/or WaPo) should probably be put on ignore, anyway. Then again, the NYT is only just coming up with this? They usually try to co-opt other news agencies' leads rather faster than that; a 2 week lag following something as mainstream as the Economist is pathetic).
Yes, mercenaries are members of an old, old profession, much older than the 13th century. Nice trivia point: the Pope is still guarded by mercenaries, the only Swiss citizens permitted by Swiss law to be hired as such.
My understanding is that mercenaries' increasing use in Iraq (by the coalition itself) stems in part from (i) limited coalition troop numbers, (ii) better skills & efficiency than the usual gov't trained troops, (iii) they're cheaper than using your own army (no gov't bloat, competition), (iv) better morale (better paid and no illusions about "how dare they send me into actual service just because I signed up!") and (v) easier to deploy because not subject to the military chain of command. (Why they would be used by private firms seems too obvious to go into.)
ETA: re: re-instituting the draft: (ii) above reminded me, IMHO, it will never happen. Not because congress wouldn't approve it or the public outrage would be so high, but because the technical skills required of even grunt-troops at this point are so high that the US will never really be able to have an army of conscripts again. In fact, they've been having trouble for some years getting troops with the necessary skills even with volunteers, college programs and the like.
