• Private Military Companies
    19 replies, posted
So I wanted to hear Facepunch's view on the private military business. There has been alot of controversy regarding companies like Academi (former Blackwater), most notable the Baghdad shooting in 2007 where Blackwater operatives opened fire against multiple Iraqi civilians, killing 17 and injuring 20. What do you think of it? Is it just exploiting of wars and terror or are they needed when the regular military doesn't have enough resources? I feel like it's too unregulated. It's basicly a commercialised mercenary because the companies will just hire anyone who can fight for them, despite criminal records, mental well-being and such. This places questionable people in a position where they can pretty much do whatever they want.
Ask yourself who regulates the behavior of a national military. Then review the statement you made here, "This places questionable people in a position where they can pretty much do whatever they want." There are external organizations like the UN that attempt to develop international treaties on warfare. But how effective are they?
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;45727233]Ask yourself who regulates the behavior of a national military. Then review the statement you made here, "This places questionable people in a position where they can pretty much do whatever they want." There are external organizations like the UN that attempt to develop international treaties on warfare. But how effective are they?[/QUOTE] Ofc the national militaries have flaws. But they still do a better job than a lot of PMC's do. This is mainly because the PMC's are privately funded which means they will do anything to cut the costs. Therefore hiring whoever gets the job done for the least amount of money (aka people who just want to shoot at stuff).
I recommend you watch Shadow Company, it explains a lot of things to do with current and previous PMCs.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;45727498]I recommend you watch Shadow Company, it explains a lot of things to do with current and previous PMCs.[/QUOTE] I was actually just about to.
They should be outlawed. Or at the very least have so much government insight and regulation that they're borderline nationalized. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] A man in a PMC is a coward at the worse of times, a tyrant at the best of times.
[QUOTE=JojjeZ;45727321](aka people who just want to shoot at stuff).[/QUOTE] That's quite a diluted view on the entirely of PMC employees. Though I'd have to do a little more research because PMCs aren't brought to my attention very often.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;45728027]That's quite a diluted view on the entirely of PMC employees. Though I'd have to do a little more research because PMCs aren't brought to my attention very often.[/QUOTE] I don't think he meant that literally. His point was, the people they hire are not of the best morality for armed forces and at the end care more about the money or having fun at their job than [I]why[/I] they're doing their job.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45728265]I don't think he meant that literally. His point was, the people they hire are not of the best morality for armed forces and at the end care more about the money or having fun at their job than [I]why[/I] they're doing their job.[/QUOTE] What higher purpose should they carry out if money isn't the main motivator?
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;45730439]What higher purpose should they carry out if money isn't the main motivator?[/QUOTE] Serving/defending their homeland, protecting their family etc.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45727788]They should be outlawed. Or at the very least have so much government insight and regulation that they're borderline nationalized. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] A man in a PMC is a coward at the worse of times, a tyrant at the best of times.[/QUOTE] They are high risk security guards. If you want to build a hospital or a business in a warzone, you then hire PMC's to protect your work site, workers, and materials. Inherently not only is there nothing wrong with them, but they are arguably useful for keeping military forces from being used to protect private interests. It also can drastically simplify logistics. They cannot, legally, engage in offensive operations. Security contractors are called security contractors because that is literally what they do: provide security. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=JojjeZ;45731174]Serving/defending their homeland, protecting their family etc.[/QUOTE] Soldiers are legally obligated to carry out any lawful order given to them. They have to attack who they are told to attack. PMC's can ONLY defend targets. Those are the only lawful orders they can be given and, at any time, they can exit their contract without facing prison time. You wanna guess which party spends more time killing folks they shouldn't?
[QUOTE=GunFox;45731341]Soldiers are legally obligated to carry out any lawful order given to them. They have to attack who they are told to attack. PMC's can ONLY defend targets. Those are the only lawful orders they can be given and, at any time, they can exit their contract without facing prison time. You wanna guess which party spends more time killing folks they shouldn't?[/QUOTE] Actually, PMC's can and have been hired for other jobs than security. One example is the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt][u]Wonga coup[/u][/url] in 2004. Sure, you could argue that they were working as individual mercenaries instead of under the flag of a legitimate PMC. But that is the only difference if you think about it. Another example is in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Civil_War][u]1995[/u][/url] where Executive Outcomes where tasked to train the local military and [B]actively fight the rebels[/B] in Sierra Leone. On top of this there aren't any effective regulations and laws which tells PMC's what they can and can't do. The laws and regulations that actually do exist are very hard to put into practical use. The contractors are often deployed in foreign countries where there is no functioning government and therefore no working legal system. The only thing they have to be afraid of is to get send back home.
[QUOTE=JojjeZ;45727321]Ofc the national militaries have flaws. But they still do a better job than a lot of PMC's do. This is mainly because the PMC's are privately funded which means they will do anything to cut the costs. Therefore hiring whoever gets the job done for the least amount of money (aka people who just want to shoot at stuff).[/QUOTE] Private Contractors are heavily self regulated though, you're not going to be going into the private sector without military experience/Special LEO experience, and even then it's a really competitive market in which you really need to be some of the best of the best to get accepted. Blackwater (Now Academi) and many others use an incredibly low injury/casualty rate as one of their selling points, with Blackwater actually never sustaining a casualty on any of their contracts. This is due to a rigorous screening process that makes sure they're getting quality contractors who they can depend on to get the job done. Though of course, this doesn't apply to shitty poor man PCs, but you won't find people in a position of power skimping out on their protection and hiring one of those.
[QUOTE=JojjeZ;45731862]Actually, PMC's can and have been hired for other jobs than security. One example is the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt][u]Wonga coup[/u][/url] in 2004. Sure, you could argue that they were working as individual mercenaries instead of under the flag of a legitimate PMC. But that is the only difference if you think about it. Another example is in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Civil_War][u]1995[/u][/url] where Executive Outcomes where tasked to train the local military and [B]actively fight the rebels[/B] in Sierra Leone. On top of this there aren't any effective regulations and laws which tells PMC's what they can and can't do. The laws and regulations that actually do exist are very hard to put into practical use. The contractors are often deployed in foreign countries where there is no functioning government and therefore no working legal system. The only thing they have to be afraid of is to get send back home.[/QUOTE] The Wonga Coup was just straight up mercenaries. Mercenaries still exist and will continue to do so. EO effectively created the concept of a PMC, however they were ultimately basically mercenaries. This is also partially why they were dissolved. They laid the groundwork for PMC's as military advisers more than security contractors. PMC's, in order to avoid the rules set by the UN, follow very specific protocols and ROE.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45731341]They are high risk security guards. If you want to build a hospital or a business in a warzone, you then hire PMC's to protect your work site, workers, and materials. Inherently not only is there nothing wrong with them, but they are arguably useful for keeping military forces from being used to protect private interests. It also can drastically simplify logistics. They cannot, legally, engage in offensive operations. Security contractors are called security contractors because that is literally what they do: provide security. [editline]18th August 2014[/editline] Soldiers are legally obligated to carry out any lawful order given to them. They have to attack who they are told to attack. PMC's can ONLY defend targets. Those are the only lawful orders they can be given and, at any time, they can exit their contract without facing prison time. You wanna guess which party spends more time killing folks they shouldn't?[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings]Yet this happened?[/url]
Counter-pirate contracts and maybe protection of civilian aid would be the only purpose for them I could imagine.
the profession of mercenary is one of the oldest professions in the world PMC's are essentially mercenaries with a corporately sterile mandate and aesthetic. They pretty much function as has already been said as high risk security guards, oil companies love them. There have been situations where payed fighters have been used for conventional warfare and rebellions, such as during the recent Arab Spring. But these guys are generally straight up unconnected to PMC's and come from either Africa, the Middle East or Eastern Europe. Personally aside from the obvious lawbreaking and ethical dubiousness of the profession, I don't really have a problem with them. There's always going to be conflict, so why can't you yourself make a career out of it much in the same way arms companies do. My own family brought themselves out of poverty through the profession by fighting in the Spanish Civil war during the 30's.
The regulations and laws that the PMC's have to obey doesn't help because there are no effective ways to apply them. If we look at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Extraterritorial_Jurisdiction_Act]MEJA[/url], the law that's supposed to make the prosecution of PMC's easier. Only three contractors have been successfully prosecuted since it's introduction in 2000. None of the contractors responsible for the Blackwater Baghdad shooting in 2007 got convicted. The district judge dismissed all charges of manslaughter because [I]"the Justice Department had mishandled evidence and violated the guards' constitutional rights."[/I] Now does anyone here really believe that only three contractors have commited crimes since 1965? And like Arctic Snow pointed out. The UN regulations do piss all in this case.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45734628][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings]Yet this happened?[/url][/QUOTE] You wanna start doing the math on innocent casualties vs number of security contractors and innocent casualties vs number of US soldiers? I can guarantee you won't like the number that comes out of it. Mistakes happen. Overall I see far less mistakes coming out of PMC's than I do out of regulars.
There's honestly not that much wrong with today's PMCs. This isn't MGS4, they're just privately paid high-risk security forces. They don't have an agenda, they aren't out to slaughter. It's just bunches of guys with very unique sets of skills and they set out to use them after they got out of the military. Really all there is to it. You can point fingers and bring examples of PMCs messing up or acting horribly in combat situations but the same thing happens with the military. In open combat bad shit happens. It's just kind of how it is. It sucks, and that's why war sucks, but the PMCs aren't a special case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.