PDA

View Full Version : US “Mercenary Army”...“Paid For Directly By The Corporations That Would Most Benefit


Rover
05-22-2006, 10:03 AM
Interesting Article. Seems this could be the future.


Ted Koppel: Time for U.S. to Form an "Army of Mercenaries"?
By E&P Staff

Published: May 21, 2006 12:05 AM ET

NEW YORK Little known to the American public, there are some 50,000 private contractors in Iraq, providing support for the U.S. military, among other activities. So why not go all the way, argues Ted Koppel in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, and form a real "mercenary army"?

Such a move involving what he calls "latter-day Hessians" would represent, he writes, "the inevitable response of a market economy to a host of seemingly intractable public policy and security problems."

It is make necessary by our "over-extended military" and inability of the United Nations to form adequate peace forces. Meanwhile, Americans business interests grow ever more active abroad in dangerous spots.

"Just as the all-volunteer military relieved the government of much of the political pressure that had accompanied the draft, so a rent-a-force, harnessing the privilege of every putative warrior to hire himself out for more than he could ever make in the direct service of Uncle Sam, might relieve us of an array of current political pressures," Kopple explains.

"So, if there are personnel shortages in the military (and with units in their second and third rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan, there are), then what's wrong with having civilian contractors? Expense is a possible issue; but a resumption of the draft would be significantly more controversial....

"So, what about the inevitable next step — a defensive military force paid for directly by the corporations that would most benefit from its protection? If, for example, an insurrection in Nigeria threatens that nation's ability to export oil (and it does), why not have Chevron or Exxon Mobil underwrite the dispatch of a battalion or two of mercenaries?"

Koppel notes that Cofer Black, formerly a high-ranking C.I.A. officer and now a senior executive with Blackwater USA, "has publicly said that his company would be prepared to take on the Darfur account."

He concludes: "The United States may not be about to subcontract out the actual fighting in the war on terrorism, but the growing role of security companies on behalf of a wide range of corporate interests is a harbinger of things to come."

Tranzure
05-22-2006, 10:08 AM
The answer is: No.

Anterak
05-22-2006, 10:17 AM
Do you give more of yourself on the battlefield if your motive is money rather than "patriotism" or "rightneousness"?

More than the scary thought that "coorporations raising armies to defend their interests" (ring a cyberpunk bell in my old roleplay brain), who will care about right or wrong when what matters is the paycheck?

Not like I'm naive enough to believe some conflicts are fought for "good" reasons only, but at least gov's can raise this card. Now if armies become "private"...

Tranzure
05-22-2006, 10:28 AM
What was that movie/book...or which? Seems there's been more than one about corporate armies defending their interest. They all turned out bad, so...

Bylimet Spiritwalker
05-22-2006, 11:34 AM
An army serving for monetary gain can be trusted not to turn it's weapons on it's employer if the enemy offers more?

If a man's loyalty is to money, rather than to country and/or an ideal, that man can never be relied on.

Kanyli
05-22-2006, 06:52 PM
That's lots of books, and as I recall it never ends well in the stories.

Lleauric
05-22-2006, 07:06 PM
But it worked so well for the Romans...

Shit.. we are copying every other fucking mistake they made, why not this one too.. lets "outsource" all those jobs of imperialism that Americans dont want to do.
Why not some Professionals in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Liberia, ect..