Why doesn't the U.S. lend out parts of its military for money?

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.

**flamingkillamajig**

Perhaps this is a dumb thing to think about but i think it should be considered to an extent. The U.S. has a presence all over the globe and bases around it already, we have the most high tech army on earth to my knowledge and we have a huge amount of debt we need to pay off.

I mean currently the way i see it is having so much of a military without getting anything out of it is a gigantic waste and it doesn't help the U.S. is in debt. So if a country that we are either neutral with or on good terms with needs military help and it serves their interests (but not really the U.S.'s interests though not against the U.S.'s interests) and we happen to be nearby we could help them out for a fee. Kind of like the U.S. loans out parts of its army for a rate decided on how costly the equipment used is or certain hazard pay. A lot of nations have plenty of money but lack a large enough military in case something came around to bite them in the *ss or if it needs help against criminals or terrorists to keep the peace.

The general idea is kind of like mercenaries except from a country with certain guidelines.

I might think up another few possibilities. I'm sure huge chunks of the world lack the military technology or resources to maintain or use this stuff themselves so i can see how they might want to have an army out of nowhere when they need it most.

Anyway if this idea is stupid then tell me but i think it's a decent general idea that could be broadened out a bit.

**djones520**

Because we aren't mercenaries. I enlisted to serve America and her interests. Not Djibouti, India, etc...

**flamingkillamajig**

What if people in the U.S. military could agree to this first though? Maybe they could also be paid extra for signing up to help out some country and get lent out in a sense. Also in a sense this is america's interests as it'd help get us out of an insane amount of debt as a country. This doesn't necessarily mean fighting another country's war but it could help the peace of nations that need it but lack a military to do it.

**djones520**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
What if people in the U.S. military could agree to this first though? Also in a sense this is america's interests as it'd help get us out of an insane amount of debt as a country.

If our guys wanted to be mercenaries, then they can be, after they take the uniform off. Our government sending us into harms way, just to help close the budget, not gonna happen. The costs alone would be unaffordable by the countries who'd do it. It's not cheap to deploy a brigade to gak-holeistan. So charging a country that, and then enough to make a profit, would never happen.

**flamingkillamajig**

What about drone strikes?

Besides not everything has to be super expensive and there are some countries that might afford a small bit of it. It's not like i'm saying we could lend out a stealth fighter jet.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
What if people in the U.S. military could agree to this first though? Maybe they could also be paid extra for signing up to help out some country and get lent out in a sense. Also in a sense this is america's interests as it'd help get us out of an insane amount of debt as a country. This doesn't necessarily mean fighting another country's war but it could help the peace of nations that need it but lack a military to do it.

But what if a few years down the road a person this scheme could possibly put in power turn around on the US, then it wouldn't be in your interests. (Look at Iraq)

Spoiler:

**Dreadclaw69**

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath does not include serving the interests of a foreign power.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Spoiler:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Your link is broken

**TheDraconicLord**

Hum, I'm not in the military, but to my knowledge the military are supposed to act to defend your country, not to do stuff for other countries in exchange for money.

That's what the PMC's are for.

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath does not include serving the interests of a foreign power.

What if they make a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, and then say "you have to fight there so that we can balance the budget, it's in the constitution!"

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath does not include serving the interests of a foreign power.

What if they make a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, and then say "you have to fight there so that we can balance the budget, it's in the constitution!"

Probably end up with a lot less volunteers.

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath does not include serving the interests of a foreign power.

What if they make a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, and then say "you have to fight there so that we can balance the budget, it's in the constitution!"

Probably end up with a lot less volunteers.

"Mr. President, we have a deficit again..."
"Start up the draft!"

**Ouze**

I would totally be OK with this. Like they say - if you're good at something, don't do it for free.

I mean, that's what it works out to in practice anyway, an enormous percentage of what the armed forces do is really just corporate welfare anyway; either directly via enormous, economy-busting expenditures to defense contractors, or indirectly by protecting corporate interests overseas for companies like Exxon, BP, and so on. We love jingoism and patriotism but frankly the US armed forces haven't "protected America" in like 60 years. Might as well just be honest about it and make a buck.

**flamingkillamajig**

Yes except we don't have to give them equipment. If we lend it it would be in our interests. Then again i suppose you have a point that eventually a nation we helped could screw us over in the end. I dunno i still don't think it'd be as bad if it was loaned rather than given away for a price.

There might be some foreseeable problem in the future but like in that story the other outcome was a communist run country.

Have you ever seen the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War'? I'll admit it basically mentioned that the events that lead up to the terrorists in al qaeda happened because we gave weapons to afghanistan to cause it to happen but the other outcome was the soviet union would expand its borders through military force. A lot of things can seem to be bad in the end. Personally i'd rather have terrorists to face than the soviet union embroiling the world in a nuclear war or march through killing lots of people on its path to where it went.

I dunno maybe it's a bad idea what i said.

**daedalus**

I... you want the US to overtly and directly send it's military to kill people for money.

I'm going to sit on that for a second... little while longer... okay, so... who?

Who is there out there that isn't already part of a mutual defense pact with the US, that isn't appallingly misaligned with the morals and beliefs of US people, and has money, such that we can send our soldiers to die valiantly in the name of overt government and corporate profit?

Remember the "Blood for Oil" gak-fit in the early post-9/11 days? Wouldn't go over too well.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
What if they make a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, and then say "you have to fight there so that we can balance the budget, it's in the constitution!"

Worry about that bridge if we ever need to cross it

Besides imagine the protests over a draft to fight a foreign war, for US service personnel to fight and die.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

flamingkillamajig wrote:
I dunno maybe it's a bad idea what i said.

I'd be generous and say that your idea was horrendous

**d-usa**

It's like eminent domain, but with people!

(I hope it's clear that I think it's a silly idea...)

**flamingkillamajig**

daedalus wrote:
I... you want the US to overtly and directly send it's military to kill people for money.

I'm going to sit on that for a second... little while longer... okay, so... who?

Who is there out there that isn't already part of a mutual defense pact with the US, that isn't appallingly misaligned with the morals and beliefs of US people, and has money, such that we can send our soldiers to die valiantly in the name of overt government and corporate profit?

Remember the "Blood for Oil" gak-fit in the early post-9/11 days? Wouldn't go over too well.

Not like it'd be the first time the U.S. or any other country killed for a gain like land in mexico or most of the other parts of land in the U.S. This is helping the U.S. and they could probably volunteer to help another country for a pay boost.

There are a lot of countries in the world. We already have bases in a lot of other countries. We also wouldn't be the first country to my knowledge to lend out our military for other nation's interests (german hessians supposedly were used during the revolutionary war of the U.S. because the british army didn't want to face their own people supposedly).

**daedalus**

Okay. So say that the American public can stomach it, and enough soldiers are on board to make it viable.

Where's your market? What countries would we offer such a service to?

**Dreadclaw69**

Machiavelli on mercenaries;

AUXILIARIES, which are the other useless arm, are employed when a prince is called in with his forces to aid and defend, as was done by Pope Julius in the most recent times; for he, having, in the enterprise against Ferrara, had poor proof of his mercenaries, turned to auxiliaries, and stipulated with Ferdinand, King of Spain, for his assistance with men and arms. These arms may be useful and good in themselves, but for him who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive.

And although ancient histories may be full of examples, I do not wish to leave this recent one of Pope Julius II, the peril of which cannot fall to be perceived; for he, wishing to get Ferrara, threw himself entirely into the hands of the foreigner. But his good fortune brought about a third event, so that he did not reap the fruit of his rash choice; because, having auxiliaries routed at Ravenna, and the Switzers having risen and driven out the conquerors (against all expectation, both his and others), it so came to pass that he did not become prisoner to his enemies, they having fled, nor to his auxiliaries, he having conquered by other arms than theirs.

The Florentines, being entirely without arms, sent ten thousand Frenchmen to take Pisa, whereby they ran more danger than at any other time of their troubles.

The Emperor of Constantinople, to oppose his neighbours, sent ten thousand Turks into Greece, who, on the war being finished, were not willing to quit; this was the beginning of the servitude of Greece to the infidels.

Therefore, let him who has no desire to conquer make use of these arms, for they are much more hazardous than mercenaries, because with them the ruin is ready made; they are all united, all yield obedience to others; but with mercenaries, when they have conquered, more time and better opportunities are needed to injure you; they are not all of one community, they are found and paid by you, and a third party, which you have made their head, is not able all at once to assume enough authority to injure you. In conclusion, in mercenaries dastardy is most dangerous; in auxiliaries, valour. The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing rather to lose with them than to conquer with others, not deeming that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.

I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men. And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.

I was not intending to go beyond Italian and recent examples, but I am unwilling to leave out Hiero, the Syracusan, he being one of those I have named above. This man, as I have said, made head of the army by the Syracusans, soon found out that a mercenary soldiery, constituted like our Italian condottieri, was of no use; and it appearing to him that he could neither keep them nor let them go, he had them all cut to pieces, and afterwards made war with his own forces and not with aliens.

I wish also to recall to memory an instance from the Old Testament applicable to this subject. David offered himself to Saul to fight with Goliath, the Philistine champion, and, to give him courage, Saul armed him with his own weapons; which David rejected as soon as he had them on his back, saying he could make no use of them, and that he wished to meet the enemy with his sling and his knife. In conclusion, the arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind you fast.

Charles VII, the father of King Louis XI, having by good fortune and valour liberated France from the English, recognized the necessity of being armed with forces of his own, and he established in his kingdom ordinances concerning men-at-arms and infantry. Afterwards his son, King Louis, abolished the infantry and began to enlist the Switzers, which mistake, followed by others, is, as is now seen, a source of peril to that kingdom; because, having raised the reputation of the Switzers, he has entirely diminished the value of his own arms, for he has destroyed the infantry altogether; and his men-at-arms he has subordinated to others, for, being as they are so accustomed to fight along with Switzers, it does not appear that they can now conquer without them. Hence it arises that the French cannot stand against the Switzers, and without the Switzers they do not come off well against others. The armies of the French have thus become mixed, partly mercenary and partly national, both of which arms together are much better than mercenaries alone or auxiliaries alone, yet much inferior to one's own forces. And this example proves it, the kingdom of France would be unconquerable if the ordinance of Charles had been enlarged or maintained.

But the scanty wisdom of man, on entering into an affair which looks well at first, cannot discern the poison that is hidden in it, as I have said above of hectic fevers. Therefore, if he who rules a principality cannot recognize evils until they are upon him, he is not truly wise; and this insight is given to few. And if the first disaster to the Roman Empire should be examined, it will be found to have commenced only with the enlisting of the Goths; because from that time the vigour of the Roman Empire began to decline, and all that valour which had raised it passed away to others.

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it. And it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength. And one's own forces are those which are composed either of subjects, citizens, or dependants; all others are mercenaries or auxiliaries. And the way to take ready one's own forces will be easily found if the rules suggested by me shall be reflected upon, and if one will consider how Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and many republics and princes have armed and organized themselves, to which rules I entirely commit myself.

**daedalus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Machiavelli on mercenaries;

To be fair, that would actually benefit the US. Problem is it'd only work once.

**Dreadclaw69**

daedalus wrote:
To be fair, that would actually benefit the US. Problem is it'd only work once.

It might not get used once. Most countries have had some experience with mercenaries, and in many instances they have been less than positive. After all, if you're paying someone to wage war it isn't in their interests to do it quickly. That dries up cash flow quickly.

**flamingkillamajig**

daedalus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Machiavelli on mercenaries;

To be fair, that would actually benefit the US. Problem is it'd only work once.

Yeah it would but i didn't realize it'd screw over the recipient so bad. Whoops.

It could make some more enemies for the U.S. once they've been dried out of money.

As it is though i think the U.S. has screwed up in quite a few places honestly. Not like this would be the first or last time if it happened. The big mistake currently seems to be the U.S. getting itself into debt in the first place. Didn't thomas jefferson say something about the hazards of debt? If i remember he died in complete debt and everything he owned was taken away. This is why i'd rather not buy something if i don't have the money for it even if it's at a paid rate.

We still currently use mercenaries and it probably isn't to our benefit. Like i said plenty of nations currently don't have an army. Armies are expensive to maintain and a large amount of that debt is probably in part because of it.

**curran12**

"Like I said, plenty of nations currently don't have an army"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

There ya go. Now which one of those are we selling our lives to again?

This is the most inane idea I've ever heard. And the rationalization is worse, completely unresearched and made with apparently no research, foresight or...as it seems a clue.

**xole**

This was a pretty bad idea. I'm pretty sure if a politician were to even suggest this his or her career would be instantly ruined.

**flamingkillamajig**

curran12 wrote:
"Like I said, plenty of nations currently don't have an army"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

There ya go. Now which one of those are we selling our lives to again?

This is the most inane idea I've ever heard. And the rationalization is worse, completely unresearched and made with apparently no research, foresight or...as it seems a clue.

Way to take my words extremely literally. I meant 'not much of an army'.

It was an idea i pitched. Mercenaries are an old thing but this was something i likened to mercenaries. That's why i didn't research all about mercenaries. I was throwing ideas out there. You don't have to be insulting.

**sebster**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anyway if this idea is stupid then tell me but i think it's a decent general idea that could be broadened out a bit.

There's basically two problems. The first, as already mentioned by other posters, is that people don't join the armed forces so they can go and fight for a foreign power to earn money for your government. If they were willing to do that then they'd just join a private firm (plenty do after their service, of course).

The bigger problem is that they're just aren't any countries out there that are rich and in need of military assets. There are plenty of rich countries with pretty crappy militaries, but this is because they choose to spend their money elsewhere because they have no real security concerns. These countries aren't going to pay for your military, given they're simply choosing not to pay for one of their own. And there are plenty of countries with a lot less military than they need. The problem is that these countries have insufficient military resources because they can't afford more. They're not going to cut the US a cheque to rent their troops, because they don't have the money - afterall, if they had money they'd build up their own military assets.

**Jihadin**

Well....I know a lot of armored vehicles they can get on the cheap in Afghanistan. They just have to buy and pay for transport of the vehicle. Israel not turning down a steal of that kind. Anyone else notice the Frag 7's HUMVEE's they started using...

**sebster**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
Not like it'd be the first time the U.S. or any other country killed for a gain like land in mexico or most of the other parts of land in the U.S. This is helping the U.S. and they could probably volunteer to help another country for a pay boost.

There's been lots of blood spilt for the sake of acquiring some piece of land or another. And private mercenaries are common throughout history. But incidents of soldiers being sent to die somewhere by their government, because a foreign power is cutting a cheque to that government are basically zero.

There are good reasons for this. Instead of trying to think about why your idea might work, spend some time thinking about why, despite governments using troops to expand their borders/capture some nice loot, and despite mercenaries being common in history, there's never been an instance of a government renting troops out to a foreign power.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
despite mercenaries being common in history, there's never been an instance of a government renting troops out to a foreign power.

Not to be a pendatic jerk, but technically... the Swiss used to do it, yes?

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
sebster wrote:
despite mercenaries being common in history, there's never been an instance of a government renting troops out to a foreign power.

Not to be a pendatic jerk, but technically... the Swiss used to do it, yes?

I believe so.