In the army alone I can think of:
Combat troops (the "killers")
Logisitcs & support
Medical
MP
Intelligence
IT & Communications
Finance & HR
etc...
Yeah and? I didn't say that mercenaries are combat troops
only. Incidentally, organisations like Blackwater have Logisitcs &
support Medical MP Intelligence IT & Communications Finance & HR too
There are clear and important differnces between national armed
> forces and mercenaries.
Yes, so what? There are also important differences between the french
and the american army. And yet both are armies. As I mentioned these
differences include the nature of ownership, legal status and public
perception. My point is and has been that in both cases, the employes
of both types of organisations exchange financial reward against the
unlimited willingness to use industrial scale mass violence on
command, with no questions asked. This exchange for financial reward
is at the moral core of the term "mercenary", and because the empoyees
of reguar armies, where they are not conscripted, do make this exchange,
hence they are at the core mercenaries.
I would also like to point out that there is a very significant
exchange of staff between state armies and Blackwater type
organisations. Without having empirical data at hand, I conjecture
that the great majority of private army staff has previously worked
for public armies. Career trajectories the other way round are
probably much more rare. This easy exchange of employees suggests that
the kinds of jobs to be done in both cases points to a great
similarity in tasks.
There's a lot that can be applied to the current
role of mercenary forces from 4GW literature, and that's pretty much
how I'm reading them at the moment.
So what?
Mercenaries are analogous to international
terror networks like al Qaeda.
Interesting. You equate an important part of the Invasion force with
el kaida. Given that you seem to be quite fond of mercenaries, you must
be happy with el kaida as well?
But I'm interested in army contracts; can you provide a link?
Not off the top of my head. I'm sure if you contact some army, they'd
be happy to supply the relevant texts.
By refusing to make the distinction you're
confusing the issue and making debate more difficult.
By refusing to agree that the emporer's new clothes are beautiful, I'm probably
also making his adulation difficult?
Mercenaries? Liggers? I don't know, you've lost me.
Police forces also have contractual obligations of providing violence
on demand, against financial compensation. So there are mercenary
aspects here as well, but the nature of violence is usually more
small-scale, and domestic, targetting a different kind of threat.
By reductive I mean sweeping generalisations that do no justice to
the army's real role. The Gulf War mark II is over. If it were
simply a case of killing people, our armed forces would find it a
lot easier.
I have never claimed that mercenaries or common soldiers are crazed
killers, and it is telling that you (and others) constantly
misrepresent my position. Such individuals may exist, but i suspect
only rarely -- for a start looneys would probably mostly be bad
soldiers. My position has always been that:
the fundamental contract
that the core employes of (1) organisations like blackwater, and (2)
organisations like the UK or US armies is the same namely: the
exchange of money against the willingness and ability to exert
unlimited industrial scale mass violence on demand.
Can you please acknowledge that you understand this point of mine?
otherwise continuing this discussion would be pointless. Note that my
point does not preclude other differences between the respective
organisations. They may for example wear different coloured clothes.
Are you reading Petraeus and Kilcullen and the like?
Not in a focussed way, why?
Come off it, you don't need the "right-wing Corporate media" (by
which I assume you mean "media I disagree with")
No, I don't mean "media I disagree with". A few weeks ago I read a
really good article on the BBC website that I wholeheartedly agree
with for example. I mean a certain socio-economical construct, namely
media industries that
- are professional organisations, i.e. is based on employees with typical career structurs, and a feedback between political opinions
and (perceived) career prospects.
- operate with substantial capital investments (say an operating budget of more than 50 Million Pounds PA) which has (until recently)
be vital for significant public reach.
- have a large scale audience base (at least 6 figure numbers).
- have a high degree of public trust and reputation.
- a tight integration with other economic spheres by way of financing them selves to a significant degree through
advertising. Alternatively: a tight integration with governements
through public funding, and easy career-paths between politics and
media.
Almost all media I consume (and presumably virtually everybody else)
fits this pattern. One thing I have learned
from these media
organisations in the course of my life is that
one cannot trust
these media organisations in times of war.
to help you make the obvious assessment that al Qaeda stands to
benefit from reduced oil output in Iraq. Ditto Iran.
Of course I do, and so do you. I only know that Iran exists, that Iraq
exists, that both have oil, that we need oil, that there is somehting
like el kaida, that there is a war in iraq ... and just about
everything else in this world from these mainstream mass media
outlets. I know that this is hard to accept for most people -- and
indeed it took me a while to accept this -- but most of reality
(i.e. what we conceive of as true) is laregely the result of the mass
media.
As for so what, I was just pointing out that American corporate
interest is very squarely on the side of increased stability,
increased investment opportunities, increased oil output, etc.
I cannot accept such a simpleminded statement. There is no such thing
as "American corporate interest". There are plenty of organisations
that think they would benefit from violence in iraq (e.g. arms
manufacturers) and plenty who don't think they benefit from violence
in iraq (e.g. the airline industry).
...And therefore won't benefit from mercenary inspired systemic
disruptions, or be happy with mercenaries who directly or indirectly
cause Iraqis to give more support to the various insurgencies going
on in Iraq at present.
I never said that mercenaries are purely destructive deranged
psychopath whose main interest in life is to shoot anything that
moves. I characterised the mercenary position as the willingness to
exert violence on demand, for monetary gain. Is this so hard to
understand?