Why Have a Public Army At All?

I’d say it was politics. Keeping troop numbers down. I find it sad that private security groups are gaurding the chow trucks bring vittles to the troops in Iraq.

I imagine that sooner or later someone will cap the number of military things that can be outsourced. And that’s good. Who wants a coup in their company’s name?

“Botswana, brought to you by Blackwater Inc. ‘We MAKE it right…or else!’”

Iraq itself should pass vigilanty/bounty hunter laws as well if it hasn’t already.

But I doubt that much will happen as those security groups who actually guard people, are guarding rich important people.

[quote]
Feeling friendly now?[/quote]
Sure, your quotes don’t even mention people who don’t have high paying/low terror private contracting jobs in Iraq though. How rude.

And I was already ON WIki! :laughing:

I’d say it involves politics.

Reagan used the advent of private military companies to buy power.

[quote=“jdsmith”]I imagine that sooner or later someone will cap the number of military things that can be outsourced. And that’s good. Who wants a coup in their company’s name?

“Botswana, brought to you by Blackwater Inc. ‘We MAKE it right…or else!’”[/quote]Apparently, Blackwater already floated the idea of going into Darfur.

Private military contractors are providing security for the court where Saddam was tried and where his henchmen are currently being tried.

[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“jdsmith”]I imagine that sooner or later someone will cap the number of military things that can be outsourced. And that’s good. Who wants a coup in their company’s name?

“Botswana, brought to you by Blackwater Inc. ‘We MAKE it right…or else!’”[/quote]Apparently, Blackwater already floated the idea of going into Darfur.[/quote]

Representing whom? China? Or no. They already HAVE their army.

Why men join Blackwater.

jdsalutes :bravo:

Hearst?

HG

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“jdsmith”]I imagine that sooner or later someone will cap the number of military things that can be outsourced. And that’s good. Who wants a coup in their company’s name?

“Botswana, brought to you by Blackwater Inc. ‘We MAKE it right…or else!’”[/quote]Apparently, Blackwater already floated the idea of going into Darfur.[/quote]

Representing whom? China? Or no. They already HAVE their army.[/quote]

Great thing about mercenaries, they don’t represent anyone. Or rather, they’ll represent anyone willing to pay.

Let Blackwater Loose
NPR: Private Firm Pitches Services
Kennedy School of Gov’t

[quote]
they’ll represent anyone willing to pay.[/quote]
How ironic.

As for Darfur, I’m for whatever it takes to stop the gang rape and slaughter of innocent nobodies.

Private industry will always do a better job than big government. That war support is being outsourced is not a surprise to me at all. When the whole war is outsourced by the government, or is paid for by a group of businesses bypassing the government…well then, that is something else altogether.

[quote=“jdsmith”]As for Darfur, I’m for whatever it takes to stop the gang rape and slaughter of innocent nobodies.[/quote]No you’re not, silly man.

[quote=“jdsmith”]Private industry will always do a better job than big government.[/quote]LOL. You’re going to have to provide links if you want me to be friendly today. :wink:

Pretty much I am though. Overthrow the government, assassinate the president (of Sudan), send in the UN, send in Blackwater. I don’t care. I want killing in the name of (religious) stupidity to end. Period.

Google “US Post Office” and “Federal Express.”
Or “VA Hospital” and “Mayo Clinic.”

psst. In Darfur, both sides are Muslim. It’s largely a racial conflict.

Google “health care” “statistic” “ranking”.

[quote=“Jaboney”]psst. In Darfur, both sides are Muslim. It’s largely a racial conflict.
[/quote]
Wanna bet?

[quote]
It is no coincidence that the Islamist jihadi Janjaweed is involved and supported by the Sudanese government, a government controlled by the National Islamic Front since 1989.[/quote]

[quote]
“…since the modern state of Sudan was established by the British in the 1950s, the northern Arab-Islamic elite attempted to dominate two ethno religious African communities; the southern Black Christians and Animists and the Nubian Black Muslims.

“Since the 1989 coup that brought the National Islamic Front NIF to power with General Omar Bashir and Hassan Turabi, the “Jihadists” in Khartoum focused on the ethnic cleansing of the southern ‘Christians,’ on the base of religious ideology. They tried to rally the Black Muslims against the Black Christians. But as of the end of the 1990s, and especially since 2001, the Blacks understood that they were under two Jihads. One is religious against the Christians, and the other is racial against the Blacks, and they were being played against each other. Hence, the Nuba mountain Black Muslims started to oppose the Arab-led militias.”[/quote]
americanchronicle.com/articl … leID=14099

Playing race is the easy way out. Not that it isn’t true, but it is only part of what is happening there.

[quote][quote]
The media in the United States is very uncomfortable in attributing religious motivations to violence. We see this in the case of the Palestinian suicide bombers who are often described as motivated by poverty and frustration, rather than by religious ideology. In Darfur, there is indeed a religious component to the violence; after all, the Khartoum government is an Islamo-fascist one. [/quote]
You say that the U.S. media is uncomfortable in attributing religious motivations to violence. I don’t think this is the case. If, hypothetically, Christians or Jews were engaging in genocide somewhere in the world, and were saying that this was part of their religion (which it isn’t), the media would be all over it. It is only because these are Muslims that the media ignores the theme, because criticizing Islam does not fit with the left-lib agenda. This is obvious isn’t it?

Lewis: Well, in general, I think the media doesn’t feel comfortable discussing religious motivations for international conflict. However, Jaime, you are completely correct in the double-standard applied to Christians and Jews. The liberal-left desperately wants to believe that Bin Laden and Hamas are motivated by political rather than theological means and have tried to downplay the Islamist ideology.

With Darfur, I think that because it is an intra-Muslim conflict, it is not as clearly religiously-motivated as say, Khartoum’s genocidal war against Sudan’s Christians. The fact that the Darfur conflict is getting far more press than the atrocities committed against Sudan’s animists and Christians indicates that the media is more comfortable with an “ethnic” conflict between Arabs and Africans than with an Islamic jihad against non-Muslims. So, you are right, Jaime, when you say that the liberal-left agenda is not comfortable in criticizing political acts motivated by Islam[/quote]

[quote]
FP: So Dr. Phares, can you crystallize the themes for us? [b]Why are the Muslim Arabs killing the Christians and Blacks? This is an Islamic Jihad combined with racial hate?

Phares: It is both. Probably one of the most lethal religious and racial war combined in contemporary times[/b]. [/quote]
“Intra-Muslim” is not an ethical description. It is a religious one.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … p?ID=15026

Another comment brought on by unabashed lack of knowledge.

It’s like playing tennis with the net down.
Not that this source is the be all and end all.
Not that much care for correcting you.

[quote=“Machiavelli: The Prince: Chapter 12”]I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
[/quote]

[quote=“jdsmith”] Not that it isn’t true, but it is only part of what is happening there. [/quote]Can’t argue with you there.

Jaboney -
Is this what Chompskey teaches people like you?
Respond with diversion when asked for facts?..tsk tsk tsk…

Right, and it’s the latter I was hoping to discuss.

But private contractors are a relevant topic, because that is the closest thing to private armies we’ve got. I think there’s a couple of reasons such groups could never replace the national army. The first is practical. The only reason security contractors like Blackwater and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky, etc., are able to make any money is because the government is, as JD pointed out, outsourcing existing work to them. Whether it is defending American diplomats in Baghdad or operating quasi-legal CIA firebases on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border or (in the case of traditional defense contractors) conducting military research, manufacturing weapons, vehicles, etc., all of that money is coming from the Department of Defense. If the DoD were taken out of the equation, or more generally the government were not involved period, the only potential source of funding for such organizations would be from private investment. That would mean massive investments of billions of dollars into research and development, construction, manufacturing, personnel recruitment, training, intelligence operations, logistics, transportation, and the many other aspects involved in maintaining a modern military. But investors would not likely see a return on their money, even if the private armies invaded other countries and looted their resources. It would be a wiser investment to simply buy the crude resources, refine and sell them, like we do now. Our national defense would be dependent on private citizens essentially “donating” huge portions of their money to military contractors who would not likely make any profit.

The best we could hope for is dozens of smaller armies who could raid other nations at much less cost and support themselves. But in the event of a national emergency, like say foreign invasion, would these groups be able to successfully coordinate efforts to repel an attack? Could they afford to? The national economy would no doubt be suffering, so it’s questionable whether the people could afford their loyalty. What if other nations offered them more money than we could pay them? And of course invasion would be inevitable, because of American-based private armies were raiding the world, the world would retaliate.

My post mainly in jest, but I’m just trying to show that the market isn’t the solution for everything. We couldn’t possibly hope to maintain a strong national defense through private means, nor could we hope to maintain a fair justice system or loyal police force.

I like to ask, what would Jesus do?

GBH -
You would do well to further explore who hires private/contract security companies.
Their main clients are not gov’t agencies.
This is why they tend to do well in areas of instability. Insurance companies demand their services for their insurees.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]GBH -
You would do well to further explore who hires private/contract security companies.
Their main clients are not gov’t agencies.
This is why they tend to do well in areas of instability. Insurance companies demand their services for their insurees.[/quote]

I haven’t seen any actual statistics on who their main clients are, but I’m presently reading Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror, written by a man who spent three years traveling with security contractors all over the world. From what I’ve read so far, there are plenty of contracts from the CIA, DoD, US Foreign Service, etc. But he does mention that US construction companies usually hire security contractors, as do bunches of NGOs, press agencies, and wealthy travelers.