Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is no secret that the role of Private Military Contracots is on the rise. Some have speculated that we are in a new Golden Age for Mercenaries. However, only 10-15% of all Military Contractors are the "armed" variety. That means the vast majority are cooks, drivers, mechanics, and other support and logisitcs positions. This morning I heard the re-run of an interesting discussion about the Military Contractors and how they are handled in/by the U.S. Government and Military.

I think this is it....
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/27/bcst-private-contractors

No transcript.... sorry. It is about 45 minutes to an hour long.

However, it shed some interesting light on the role of these contractors (both armed and unarmed) and how they are treated and utilized by our government.

Give it a listen and share your thoughts.

 Easy E wrote:
It is no secret that the role of Private Military Contracots is on the rise. Some have speculated that we are in a new Golden Age for Mercenaries. However, only 10-15% of all Military Contractors are the "armed" variety. That means the vast majority are cooks, drivers, mechanics, and other support and logisitcs positions. This morning I heard the re-run of an interesting discussion about the Military Contractors and how they are handled in/by the U.S. Government and Military.

I think this is it....
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/27/bcst-private-contractors

No transcript.... sorry. It is about 45 minutes to an hour long.

However, it shed some interesting light on the role of these contractors (both armed and unarmed) and how they are treated and utilized by our government.

Give it a listen and share your thoughts.

My thoughts are this: the rise of mercenaries being employed by America could be symptomatic of a country that has abdicated its ability to project global power, and has become aversive to the risks that warfare entails. The US military of old, confident in its ability, and possessed of genuine strength, would never have resorted to using contractors.

Two examples of this

1) casualties. In my view, America likes starting wars, but doesn't like it when the body bags start coming home. Who does, but I think this effect is more pronounced in the USA. Vietnam was arguably the first example of this instance. The employment of mercenaries negates this. Yes, mercenaries get killed just as well as Marines, but dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors.

2) Iraq: Iraq was an unpopular war that cost America a lot of global political credit and won it few friends. Politically, having mercenaries acting as proxies for you is far less damaging than having actual military units. I may be wrong, but aren't mercenaries subject to different laws if they commit war crimes?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors

Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors

Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.

I hope I didn't come across as demeaning dead people. After all, they're somebody's husband/father/son etc

But I'm a keen follower of American politics, and I love my American history and I noticed this: during the Iraq war, whenever soldiers were killed, the newspapers and tv news were respectful to the dead for obvious reasons.

Whenever contractors got killed, it was a shrug of the shoulders...

Military Service Members are told to go to combat/deploy to accomplish whatever goals set by POTUS. Military Contractors are paid six digits.

As for Combat Mercenaries I never ever ran across units compose entirely of Mercenaries who conduct combat for pay by the US Military. I ran across Security Guards in Qatar/Kuwait from Triple Canopy, Four Horsemen, Blackwater (DoS), and various small organizations that were subcontracted by a bigger organization to meet their contract obligation.

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors

Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.

Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.

So basically selfless > selfish.

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors

Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.

They talked a bit about this point in the interviews. It basically boiled down to stereotypes.

Troops= Our loyal boys and girls who are selflessly putting the national interest above themselves. Their death is a tragedy!

PMC= Dirty, filthy, greedy Mercenary scum. Good riddance.

Edit: Also good point about backign away from our committment and ability to project power. As a nation loses this ability, it is natural to turn to Mercenaries. Therefore, the use of Mercenaries could be a sign of national weakness. Interesting.

 Jihadin wrote:
Military Service Members are told to go to combat/deploy to accomplish whatever goals set by POTUS. Military Contractors are paid six digits.

As for Combat Mercenaries I never ever ran across units compose entirely of Mercenaries who conduct combat for pay by the US Military. I ran across Security Guards in Qatar/Kuwait from Triple Canopy, Four Horsemen, Blackwater (DoS), and various small organizations that were subcontracted by a bigger organization to meet their contract obligation.

The two are not mutually exclusive, though, Jihadin.

How many private contractors did the US military have in world war 2? Vietnam? Gulf War 1? The American revolution?

Like I said, I believe that the US military is abdicating responsibilities that years ago it would have shouldered.

Ahhh now we're reaching back.

Look at the troop draw downs over the history. Units are deactivated that would have supported ongoing operations in a combat zone. We no longer have the draft, US military is formed to fight a two front war before OIF/OEF, US Military is a volunteer force.

Big three clue are given

 Easy E wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors

Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.

They talked a bit about this point in the interviews. It basically boiled down to stereotypes.

Troops= Our loyal boys and girls who are selflessly putting the national interest above themselves. Their death is a tragedy!

PMC= Dirty, filthy, greedy Mercenary scum. Good riddance.

Edit: Also good point about backign away from our committment and ability to project power. As a nation loses this ability, it is natural to turn to Mercenaries. Therefore, the use of Mercenaries could be a sign of national weakness. Interesting.

Thanks for saying I made a good point. High five. It's true though. If you have to pay people to fight for you...

Here's a historical example of how to do it right.

Rommel once said that the British were clever because they got other people to fight its wars : Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians etc. etc.

But these soldiers from the Empire were volunteers who believed in the Imperial goals, who believed in protecting the Motherland i.e Britain

That's a massive difference.

I include this example because some people have compared what the US military is doing in this day and age to what the British empire did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Ahhh now we're reaching back.

Look at the troop draw downs over the history. Units are deactivated that would have supported ongoing operations in a combat zone. We no longer have the draft, US military is formed to fight a two front war before OIF/OEF, US Military is a volunteer force.

Big three clue are given

I agree that the US military is obviously a volunteer force, but if the 'cause' and the incentives were worthwhile then I believe you would have the numbers.

The Roman Republic could always recruit volunteers, the British army was a volunteer force, but it was never short of achieving its goals. Both Rome and Britain had an ethos that people bought into. I'm not saying that Imperialism is a good thing, but America does not have that ethos. It had it during the cold war where is stood as the defender of liberty, but that's gone now.

I think we're getting to deep into geo-poitics and what makes nations tick.

So, then the question is.... why is that ethos of Liberty gone? What has replaced it?

It's kind of like:

"I need you to go collect honey from those bee hives. I'll lend you this bee keeper suit for use, and instruct you on how to use it, and pay you $40. Or you can go do it without the suit and instructions and I'll pay you $100."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.

So basically selfless > selfish.

That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...

Frankly, from what I hear a great deal of the soldiers do it for their wallets too.

It's a strange one.

 Manchu wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.

So basically selfless > selfish.

That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...

Oh no. I am afraid this will not end well.

 Easy E wrote:
So, then the question is.... why is that ethos of Liberty gone? What has replaced it?

"You cannot ask a man to die for sixpence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him..."

- Napoleon Bonaparte.

In other words, people have to believe in something, rightly or wrongly.

The Roman Republic had it.

The British Empire had it - look how many volunteered in 1914 to fight the Germans.

The American rebels in the revolution had it

and so on.

These days, people know the horrors of war, and there's a perception that big business runs the world and that democracy is not worth a damn because every politician answers to Wall Street.

Honestly, who's going to charge into battle for google or coca cola?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Frankly, from what I hear a great deal of the soldiers do it for their wallets too.

It's a strange one.

Its also a "accomplishment" one goes to combat to experience combat (to an extent). Also as a leader its a major accomplishment and a sense of pride to lead troops in combat.

If you are a Private Military Contractor- what are the benefits like if you are injured in the field? How about retirement? Does anyone here know?

Here's the big difference.

Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

These days, people know the horrors of war,

Actually, I think its the opposite.

I think people are too sensitive to violence that they aren't willing to risk anything. So when they see casualties they immediately overreact(not to diminish the deaths of soldiers) but really every war the US has been involved in since the Civil war has seen casualty rates fall through the floor.

We're too sensitive to casualties. But when it comes to war things have to boil down to numbers, not emotion. And the numbers are not too high.

Basically, people need to accept that in war people die. And that really not very many of our guys end up dying, so playing up US casualty numbers as being bad really shows ignorance of the real horrors of war. WW2 and the Civil War were true metrics of horrible casualties, not any modern war we've had.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the big difference.

Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.

ISnt also any soldier that goes into the military and uses the GIbill to pay for school?

There are no US soldiers who don't get paid.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

These days, people know the horrors of war,

Actually, I think its the opposite.

I think people are too sensitive to violence that they aren't willing to risk anything. So when they see casualties they immediately overreact(not to diminish the deaths of soldiers) but really every war the US has been involved in since the Civil war has seen casualty rates fall through the floor.

We're too sensitive to casualties. But when it comes to war things have to boil down to numbers, not emotion. And the numbers are not too high.

Basically, people need to accept that in war people die. And that really not very many of our guys end up dying, so playing up US casualty numbers as being bad really shows ignorance of the real horrors of war. WW2 and the Civil War were true metrics of horrible casualties, not any modern war we've had.

In my view, America's never been bombed. When I say bombed, I don't mean the terrorist attacks, but proper aerial, world war two style bombing from a foreign air force.

As a result, they're more keen to get involved in warfare in my view.

In the UK, there are plenty of people alive who remember the Luftwaffe bombing, and as a result, we're less likely to be pro-war IMO.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
There are no US soldiers who don't get paid.

What about US soldiers in US military prisons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the big difference.

Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.

Agreed. The danger with mercenaries is that they could go over to the other side. Look at renaissance Italy.

Mercenaries nowadays work differently than what people usually think about. They are less of the "Oh see, he pays more, we'll join up with him!" sort. They are...assistance companies. Sort of. They know that repeatedly getting employed by the same employer is more worthwhile than turning your back on him. Furthermore, they are well aware of politics and alliances. Germany has no idea how to have a working military, so it's mostly the US who hires but there's no reason why you would turn against the US after having been employed before.

 Easy E wrote:
If you are a Private Military Contractor- what are the benefits like if you are injured in the field? How about retirement? Does anyone here know?

I didn't watch the Video, but here is my point of view on it.

Defense contracting is a huge industry. Several Fortune 100 companies in the US are Defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin. There are plenty of retirements, and long term jobs available.

The primary purpose is generally to be "Experts" on a System, or something of that nature. The Soldiers jobs is generally to be the basic maintenance level, or to push the "Fire" button when it comes to weapons. This is a bit of an overs implication, but that's how it works.

So when anything outside the scope of the soldiers happens to the system, it's the contractors job to fix/replace, whatever. The Nature of warfare has changed, because there is such a massive array of equipment that goes with our Military now. It would be impossible to expect the limited number of soldiers to be experts on it all. This is one of the main reasons we have seen a rise in Contractors.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What about US soldiers in US military prisons?

As you may have guessed, the answer appears to be "it depends."

http://work.chron.com/soldiers-paid-confinement-19248.html

Generally, however, U.S. military servicemembers' pay doesn't stop unless they're convicted at courts-martial and then it's only under specific conditions.

I don't think its fair to have this binary distinction between soldiers and contractors and declare the former as angels and the latter as demons.

The thing is they are generally the same people, most contractors are ex military so have already served 'king and country' and are almost certainly patriots. If they want to put their skills to use on the private sector once their millitary careers have finishef I don't see what's inherently objectionable about that. A choice between taking a normal civilian job and earning a small fortune doing a job they already know how to do must be damn tempting.

I also don't think the term 'mercenary' is applicable to these guys. A mercenary by definition will serve anyone on the provision they pay them more. There is no way these guys would turn on the west if its enemies offered to pay them more. They are firmly on our side.

All the same, American mythological beliefs seem to portray one is a much nobler light than the other.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Frankly, from what I hear a great deal of the soldiers do it for their wallets too.

It's a strange one.

Of course money is a factor.

It certainly isn't the only one though. You think I'm living it up over in here in Afghanistan, just for the money right now? Feth that...

I will be honest, my last reenslistment is coming up at the end of this year, and about 75% of the reason I am going to do it, is for the retirement. I've done my service to the nation, there is no question to that. Now I'm in this for me. I still have the zeal for the job, I still enjoy it, but if I had the choice to retire now, I would. I've gotta stick it out to 20 though to get that check.

The life is gakky, money is one of the things that helps to balance it out.

I might as well chime in here, as I am, for all intents and purposes a PMC.
I'm an ex RAF Airframe Fitter, now contracting in Saudi Arabia.
It's not the first time I've been here, I was here when I was serving, during the last gulf war.

Most of the PMC I've run into over the years, if not all have been ex military.
I'm lucky, I have a trade, and I can go all over the world on the strength of it, the infantry types are not so lucky.
Let's be honest, there are few civilian jobs that need thast particular skill set.
When I did my resettlement training courses when I was leaving the RAF, I was there with another RAF tech, a Navy Artificer, and about 20 infantrymen.
The plan for future employment was depressingly similar.
Myself and the other RAF tech were planning to go offshore into the oil industry, the Navy guy was going into IT support, all the infantrymen wanted to do private security in Iraq.

The work is available, they have the skills and I say why not?
If you have a marketable skill and there is demand, why shouldn't you make some return from the years you invested in training?

I make far more out here contracting than I ever did in service.
I would have stayed in to complete 22 years if I could have, but forces drawdowns meant I couldn't, so here I am.
I have my family out here, and we can afford for my wife not to work, so she can stay at home with my 15 month old daughter.
Totally worth it.