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.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/senate-investigation-slams-blackwater-employees-in-afghanistan/19370456


yep says it all. these guys in my opinon are worthless and most of the damn spending we do on this war is to pay their fething contracts. My salary in 2004-2005 in iraq as a single soldier on active duty $24k for the year and that is on the high end for me. At the time I had 3 years in. A contractor company when I got out offered me 25k a month.

Thats not a problem with mercenaries, its a problem with hiring full auto macho men as mercenaries.

Get your mercs from the UK or Germany and you seldom have these trigger happy problems.

I have worked with mercs from the UK and yep not as bad but still bad. The problem is companies like XE(blackwater) just want the cash so they hire people off the street pretty much not actual soldiers.

Empchild wrote:
A contractor company when I got out offered me 25k a month.

So why didnt you take it?

I hope that all the national governments learn that outsourcing your national defense is a bad idea. I think there's going to be a lot more of this that comes out over the next 20-40 years. And I think it'll take decades, because some people won't talk until it's either way past the event and/or on their deathbed.

LuciusAR wrote:

Empchild wrote:
A contractor company when I got out offered me 25k a month.

So why didnt you take it?

long story, but I have principals, and being a merc breaks all of them.

Fair enough.

When you hire men from darfur and sudan regardless of their role in the killings of those places you don't end up with professional soldiers. Blackwaters inventory of personnel have more skeletons in their closets than the armies of most dictators. America should never have relied on blackwater for anything.

I agree with Shuma and somewhat with Empchild. That said, I think that there is a place for an expert, professional PMC on the modern battlefield.

Hiring people with no training, indoctrination, or RoE is a one-way ticket to disaster.

You don't take it because it's low end.

And the first time something goes south, they'd probibly drop you or forget about you.

Theres more to that kind of work then just a Joe Job paycheck. Stuff's not 9 to 5 you know.

Very few members for Xe were hired from africa so lets not start downt his path pleaseeeeeee. Most of them are hired in western Europe or north America. All that said their standards are much lower then most companies. Most companies require so many years as a specific MOS as a soldier. I.E infantry or combat eng at the extreme. Often these people are called "contractors" as the U.S does not and will not under the Geneva convention employ mercenaries as they are outlawed in the rules of war. These people are hotshots who often have little to no training but spend a month training at the Xe compund here stateside. 1 month doesn't come close to the skills you need to be a professional soldier....oo and shuma your still on ignore for me btw.

Very few members for Xe were hired from africa so lets not start downt his path pleaseeeeeee.

Several stories have leaked about XEs hiring practices in regards to background checks when working with foreign militias and mercenaries. It's far from a majority, but they seem to exist. They also have a number of employees that were trained under south american dictatorships. They aren't choosy.

All that said their standards are much lower then most companies.

When you create multiple shell companies rather than reorganizing or reacting to the poor public performance of your faux soldiers that becomes apparent. They are also accused of enabling and aiding trafficking of weapons to the PKK and other organizations.

oo and shuma your still on ignore for me btw.

There's a point at which ignore stops doing anything, I think that point is when you opt to look at all of my posts.

tell you what Empchild. i'll ignore him, while you take a break......

I am interested in why someone may think there is a valid role for mercenaries on the modern battlefield as conceived by the western powers.

It seems to me that sanctioning mercenaries as full-on military forces, owing no loyalty or control except to whoever is their current or next paymaster, would de-stabilise the situation.

Hawkins wrote:tell you what Empchild. i'll ignore him, while you take a break......

Because you ever responded to one of my posts with something worth reading .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I am interested in why someone may think there is a valid role for mercenaries on the modern battlefield as conceived by the western powers.

It seems to me that sanctioning mercenaries as full-on military forces, owing no loyalty or control except to whoever is their current or next paymaster, would de-stabilise the situation.

Thats less of a logical thought and more of a direct observation of what has occurred. Blackwater has been a destabilizing and expensive force since it was contracted to work in the theatre.

It's all about flags on coffins my friends. When a member of the armed forces dies in Iraq or Afghan it's all over the news, coffins coming of the back of planes, mourners lining the streets and tearful parents holding photo's of their child in their dressies. When a mercenary/private security contractor dies it's just an annonymous black bag and no one paying any attention.

It all goes to taking the attention away from unpopular conflicts, the major difference being that armed forces personel are ordered to go there and have no choice (please don't start on the whole "no ones forced to join up" thing), mercenaries go for the money.

Also by using mercenaries the government can unofficialy ask them to do some rather distasteful things without dragging the armed forces image through the mud.

There are good and bad in all professions, unfortunately this is a sector which seems to attract a lot of donkey-caves and when things go wrong or get out of hand people end up dying.

It's all about flags on coffins my friends. When a member of the armed forces dies in Iraq or Afghan it's all over the news, coffins coming of the back of planes, mourners lining the streets and tearful parents holding photo's of their child in their dressies. When a mercenary/private security contractor dies it's just an annonymous black bag and no one paying any attention.

I'm fairly certain that was one of the driving forces behind their contractual deployment en masse. They both masked the number of troops truly deployed while obscuring the casualty rates for an administration that presided over a public heavily infected by those numbers. The numbers did leak often, but the public at large didn't particularly care.

Also by using mercenaries the government can unofficialy ask them to do some rather distasteful things without dragging the armed forces image through the mud.

This was also in my opinion a driving factor, they were in charge of detainment and interrogation of a significant number of suspects for a significant amount of time.

There are good and bad in all professions, unfortunately this is a sector which seems to attract a lot of donkey-caves and when things go wrong or get out of hand people end up dying.

When you want to stay in the fight, but you don't want to fight for your country any more what does that say?

Squil wrote: 'There are good and bad in all professions, unfortunately this is a sector which seems to attract a lot of donkey-caves and when things go wrong or get out of hand people end up dying. '

semi trained non professionals with guns sent into extreamly mind taxing situations..... ya think?

Hawkins wrote:Squil wrote: 'There are good and bad in all professions, unfortunately this is a sector which seems to attract a lot of donkey-caves and when things go wrong or get out of hand people end up dying. '

semi trained non professionals with guns sent into extreamly mind taxing situations..... ya think?

You can quote people by using [*quote] and [*/quote]. Just place the segment of text you want to quote between the quote brackets and remove the "*".

Hawkins wrote:Squil wrote: 'There are good and bad in all professions, unfortunately this is a sector which seems to attract a lot of donkey-caves and when things go wrong or get out of hand people end up dying. '

semi trained non professionals with guns sent into extreamly mind taxing situations..... ya think?

To be fair there are also a lot of blokes out there who have many years military experience under their belts who carry out their roles with great professionalism. Some get dis-illousioned by military life and others are drawn by the chance of doing the same job but for a lot more money. However a lot of the guys who end up on the books of companies like XE/Blackwater are those who couldn't hack military life or were one step from being discharged anyway.

I would also find it interesting to know how many they have on their books who were declared UMS (Unfit for Military Service) or who were discharged either for other reasons?

Well there are mercenaries and there are mercenaries.

Don't tar them all with the same brush.

For starters the Gurkhas and French Foreign Legion are mercenaries, in case you didnt know that. People think they are British and French army respectively, they are mistaken. Admittedly those two units do have a different status in terms of the law of war to ordinary mercenaries.
More a technical addendum to the above. The Swiss Guard are also mercenaries, however as they are more a ceremonial unit plus the Popes bodyguard they are normally de-categorised from the formalised mercenary units listed above.

The third type of fully legalised mercenaries are combat advisors. These are pretty much needed, and also encouraged basically because you get a 'free spy'. Combat advisors are normally career veterans who have moved on to sunnier climes for a bit of cash and good living. They are normally worth the hire to the country employing them, providing a technical and training officer cadre. They also show a point of allegiance. Smarter countries take combat advisors from multiple sources of identical numbers and ranks, this 'spreads about' the influence. Normally this applies to European and English speaking world advisors.

After that the waters start to get murky.

The point to remember is that the source and the contract indicate a lot of the legality. If a government hires mercs and deploys them in its borders th laws of war apply. Outside that perameter mercs have less rights. It is quite legal to execute a captured mercenary as an illegal combatant in some circumstances, namely the lawful government of the nation they are arrested in. What this means can obviously vary, thus mercs have to enter contracts with both eyes open.

Its not just the pay and duration that is negotiated, ransom and health care/extraction opportunities are things looked at too. Mercenaries var from small teams to battalion sized operations.

Most mercenary leaders try to gain a reputation for professionalism and trust and thus secure repeat contracts. Though this isnt always reciprocated and mercenaries are often gaoled by the hosts or killed outright if found to be a political wembarassment or too costly.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Hawkins wrote:tell you what Empchild. i'll ignore him, while you take a break......

Because you ever responded to one of my posts with something worth reading .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I am interested in why someone may think there is a valid role for mercenaries on the modern battlefield as conceived by the western powers.

It seems to me that sanctioning mercenaries as full-on military forces, owing no loyalty or control except to whoever is their current or next paymaster, would de-stabilise the situation.

Thats less of a logical thought and more of a direct observation of what has occurred. Blackwater has been a destabilizing and expensive force since it was contracted to work in the theatre.

I was thinking of events in 14th century France, 15th century Italy and 17th century Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Well there are mercenaries and there are mercenaries.

Don't tar them all with the same brush.

For starters the Gurkhas and French Foreign Legion are mercenaries, in case you didnt know that.

I did know that. However the Ghurkas and FFL (and SFL) are fully integrated within, dependent upon and loyal to the parent country's legally constituted military structure.

They are physically incapable of acting against their sponsor's interests to any significant degree.

Advisors, trainers and so on are in effect beefed up security guards or consultants.

It is fully fledged mercenary armies, with logistical support and so on, which I seriously query.

Frakking hate mercs! No code of conduct, no honor, no rules of engagment. Raping murdering, stealing weapons, stealing tax payer money the list goes on. and who takes the road side bombs. The soldiers who don't work for money, but for the upholding the constitution of these united states.

SCUM!

All seriousness aside, at least they have a sense of humour.

In September 2008, the investigation found, more than 200 AK-47s were taken out of Bunker 22 and signed for by an employee named "Eric Cartman," which is the name of a character on the animated series "South Park." Hundreds of those weapons remain unaccounted for, according to the committee.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am interested in why someone may think there is a valid role for mercenaries on the modern battlefield as conceived by the western powers.

It seems to me that sanctioning mercenaries as full-on military forces, owing no loyalty or control except to whoever is their current or next paymaster, would de-stabilise the situation.

There are "mercenaries", which are generally percieved as "owing no loyalty or control except to whoever is their current or next paymaster". These no longer exist in any real way. Even XE wouldn't head over to Al Qaeda if they offered to pay more than the US.

PMCs are a stabilising force because they have a more direct sensitivity to loss of equipment and personnel, encouraging more limited engagement and restraint. If and only if the PMC is made up of expert professionals.

PMCs are a stabilising force because they have a more direct sensitivity to loss of equipment and personnel, encouraging more limited engagement and restraint.

In September 2008, the investigation found, more than 200 AK-47s were taken out of Bunker 22 and signed for by an employee named "Eric Cartman," which is the name of a character on the animated series "South Park." Hundreds of those weapons remain unaccounted for, according to the committee.

Does not compute.

ShumaGorath wrote:

PMCs are a stabilising force because they have a more direct sensitivity to loss of equipment and personnel, encouraging more limited engagement and restraint.

In September 2008, the investigation found, more than 200 AK-47s were taken out of Bunker 22 and signed for by an employee named "Eric Cartman," which is the name of a character on the animated series "South Park." Hundreds of those weapons remain unaccounted for, according to the committee.

Does not compute.

How about some reading comprehension and quoting with context?

Try:

If and only if the PMC is made up of expert professionals.

I love when this topic comes up. You can instantly tell where someone stands depending if they use the term PMCs or Mercs.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:PMCs are a stabilizing force because they have a more direct sensitivity to loss of equipment and personnel, encouraging more limited engagement and restraint. If and only if the PMC is made up of expert professionals.

The problem is most of these companies grew or sprung up overnight to fill in the gaps left by the military in Iraq. You're not getting these bands of highly trained ex-soldiers, you're getting anybody with a pulse and a gun just because the companies wanna get in on the gold rush.

In September 2008, the investigation found, more than 200 AK-47s were taken out of Bunker 22 and signed for by an employee named "Eric Cartman," which is the name of a character on the animated series "South Park." Hundreds of those weapons remain unaccounted for, according to the committee.

I guess you'd better respect his authoritae now.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:If and only if the PMC is made up of expert professionals.

The point is that that is a very big 'if'.

Right now we have professional standing militaries that have been more or less established in their current forms for at least a hundred years each. They've developed oversight, review and control to levels that aren't perfect but are pretty sound. More importantly, they've developed a culture that puts the mission and the country first, and this culture strongly influences everyone in those militaries.

Most of the merc companies being discussed here have none of that. Most are very new and do not have the same levels of control and oversight. They do not have the same culture as national militaries.

The problem is that if you look at how militaries look to use merc forces (to bolster troop numbers when military operations are underway) I seriously doubt that merc operations will ever develop standards of conduct equivalent to our own militaries.

And I really doubt the benefit of flexibility is worth using troops that don't meet the standards you place on your own troops. Certainly not if they're to be deployed in the field.