[Fidelista]

Some questions----
Are private/ Corporate armies a good thing???
I have noticed that the U.S has a number of companies in the security business {armed and in or out of uniforms} working in Iraq. They are called "civilian contractors". Four were recently killed in the Iraq occupation , in a horrible spectacle. They were employee's of Blackwater security. They were para-military--"security" not contractors as in building infrastructure. Basically hired guns.
This post is NOT about the horrible atrocity that was commited , but about the wisdom , or not , of mercenary, private soldiers.
Are they , or should they be afforded Geneva Convention protections as are U.S military soldiers, or soldiers serving in other nations militaries?.
Would it be , for instance , a good idea to have a larger privately owned army?? and what would be the ramifications.
How would we treat other nations paid , privately owned soldiers?.
A lot of questions----that are not being ask.
I am really interested in how, or if people that 'reside' on the forum feel about this.
As private armed security is a growing enterpise, it something to think about.

 

[Fidelista]

Also, so there is no miscommunication, I was was sickened by the recent events. Fidelista

 

[jackal969k]

In a news report today ( I believe it was CNN ) they reported that these private contractors are paid $350 to $1500 a day and some make as much as $100,000 a day to perform their services.

Most of the men are ex-military and highly trained. I would guess that there is a need for them since the military seems to have all it can handle in Iraq already.

Mercenaries have been around as long as we have had conflicts in the world. IMO I doubt that we will ever have a "privatized army" because the powers to be would feel they are losing control and other things like can the people who run the companies be trusted ect.. There would be too much politics involved.

The incident is an atrocity even though these people knew what they were getting into. The money probably has something to do with some of the people taking jobs like that.

Our soldiers are getting killed too and they are making a heck of a lot less and it could be said that they are there for a different reason.

Just my two pennies.

 

[ComputerFix]

As an aside, one of the individuals may be familiar to some, particularly fans of Mark Burnett "reality" shows.

There was a show done with Rudy from the first Survivor series, on USA network. It took former special forces personnel (military and police) and let them get their bravado out..utilizing members SEALs, SWAT, etc.

Anyway, one of the individuals killed was a competitor on the show.

 

[Fidelista]

http://blackwatersecurity.com/employment.html
Explore Blackwater site , very interesting.

 

[lighthouse]

No - the knowledge that these guys were 'military'? doesn't detract from the awfulness of the event - but the term "Civilian contractor" is a bit misleading. Here in the UK the expression usually refers to people working in the construction industry. So the initial feeling is that they were there as part of the rebuilding programme - not as fighters in some way. And - yeah - as their pay far exceeds that of any regular forces out there it would be interesting to know how different - if at all - their work in the current conflict is. Who are they responsible to? for example, and are they subject to the same rules of engagement etc as anyone else? As personell levels in the British military have been reduced a lot in recent years, will we start to utilise the services of "Cilvilian Contractors" of our own?

 

[Infidel_Kastro]

Some questions----
Are private/ Corporate armies a good thing???
I have noticed that the U.S has a number of companies in the security business {armed and in or out of uniforms} working in Iraq. They are called "civilian contractors". Four were recently killed in the Iraq occupation , in a horrible spectacle. They were employee's of Blackwater security. They were para-military--"security" not contractors as in building infrastructure. Basically hired guns.
This post is NOT about the horrible atrocity that was commited , but about the wisdom , or not , of mercenary, private soldiers.
Are they , or should they be afforded Geneva Convention protections as are U.S military soldiers, or soldiers serving in other nations militaries?.
Would it be , for instance , a good idea to have a larger privately owned army?? and what would be the ramifications.
How would we treat other nations paid , privately owned soldiers?.
A lot of questions----that are not being ask.
I am really interested in how, or if people that 'reside' on the forum feel about this.
As private armed security is a growing enterpise, it something to think about.

Hola Fidelista (hmm, the name sounds vaguely familiar)in reference to "civilian contractors", and your reference to a private army, some things need to be sorted out. the civilian contractors that were killed, like some other people have posted, were ex-Spec Ops personnel. They provided a service for a US civilian entity.
As for the history of these types of combatants, we can look at the US revolution, when several Prussian officers were brought in, as well as Hessian soldiers to fight for our cause, so they have been around for a while.
As far as Geneva Convention protection, they are not afforded the same rights because they are not members of a legally recognized countries armed forces. Much like security guards in the US cannot make an arrest, with the exception of a citizens arrest unless they are a certified police officer in the state, these people are not considered soldiers.
The Brits have regulations for companies like this to operate, and they have been instrumental in affairs in Rhodesia I believe.
As far as having a private army, some people have tried, "Mad" Mike Hoare has repeatedly tried to take over the Seychelles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/27/newsid_2499000/2499153.stm
As far as the US consideration of other countries civilian contractrs, they would be considered mercenarys, nothing more and nothing less, and would be treated as such. they would not recieve Geneva protection, although the US may afford them other rights depending on the role they were playing, but in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are considered "enemy combatants", that are not given protection, instead they are shipped to camp X-Ray.
there is a place for these types of operatives, but only in the private industry. Lets say that I owned a large multi-national opil company, with holdings in another country. If there was a change in leadership, and the country decided they were nationalizing everything and taking my holdings, I cannot get the US to send in military uniots to prtects my investments, oh wait, we did that in Guatemala, but for the most part, I would be left trying to figure out how to protect my ionvestments, which may include having a lrage fighting force to provide security. the movie "The Wild Geese"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078492/plotsummary deals with this kind of thing.