Iraq: U.S. Troop and Mercenary Escalations
- Thread starter hundredmillionlifetimes
- Start date
borderpolice
Well-known member
No i didnt say that FFS! I was specifically talking about professional soldiers, like the current employees of the US/UK armed forces. I am not talking about conscripts who are usually forced into service. Eactly why do you need to falsify my position all the time?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Hang on a minute - this is how you described (professional, i.e. non-conscripted) soliders:
Sounds like "killing for money" to me.
The disntinction between conscripted and non-conscripted soldiers doesn't seem too relevant here, since the coalition troops have all voluntarily signed up. Even the Iraqi army consists of men who have volunteered, doesn't it?
vimothy
yurp
Well, you are the person blurring the line between soldiers and mercenaries. In any case I am not trying to "falsify" you position. I find the notion to be bordering on offensive.
You said:
and,
...among other things.
I never mentioned conscripts. We were talking about modern armed forces, not conscripted armed forces. Why further complicate matters by involving them? Soldiers kill people for money, hence they are the same as mercenaries - that's what you said, nothing to do with me.
vimothy
yurp
Hayek was not a conservative. In any case the GOP's Goldwater-Reagan tradition is pretty dead in the water. Congrats Mr Bush.
vimothy
yurp
*ahem*
Excuse me, but where did you get this? Are there special mercenary nursery schools in the US where widdle mercenaries get trained in the delicate arts of state collapse and occupier brutality by ex-IDF muslim haters from an early age?
Excuse me, but where did you get this? Are there special mercenary nursery schools in the US where widdle mercenaries get trained in the delicate arts of state collapse and occupier brutality by ex-IDF muslim haters from an early age?
vimothy
yurp
Would you go there and risk your life?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Come on Vim, we both know this line of questioning isn't going to get us anywhere...
borderpolice
Well-known member
Willing to kill for money. You forget "Willing". But yes, that's right. A perfectly terse characterisation of volunteers for mercenary forces like the UK/US/Blackwater armies.
Which is why they are mercenaries. What's so difficult about understanding this? The distinction between mercenaries and conscripts is the important one.
Why do you bring this up? Has anyone denied this?
Last edited:
borderpolice
Well-known member
Of course you find it offensive because you know very well how spot on it is. the problem with the truth is that it sometimes hurts. But so what?
In any case, with my posts I'm not tyring to make the dissensus hard-right feel good (or anybody else for that matter), i try to be scientific about the sociology of war. And in this context the Conscript/mercenary distinction is more useful, in the sense of giving access to more predictive power, than the Regular Solidier/Mercenary distinction. A hard-nosed, no-nonsense understanding of the mechanics of war is necessary for those who try to prevent it from happening.
I did because they are (in the present context) what mercenaries are distinct from.
Not all modern armed forces are mercenaries. there are some mixed conscript/mercenary forces around.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Because it's completely irrelevant, that's why! Because there are (AFAIK) no conscripted troops, of any allegiance, fighting in Iraq at the moment.
YOU brought up the issue of conscription, not me.
As far as I can see there, there are four main kinds of combatants:
- those conscripted by a government (not relevant here, i.e. in Iraq in 2007);
- those who have volunteered to fight directly for a government (eg, the UK and US troops);
- those who have been employed by a government by proxy, through a private firm, i.e. mercenaries;
- those who form an irregular, non-governmental militia: guerrillas, terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever the hell you want to call them.
Obviously categories 2 and 3 share similarities in that they are not forced to fight (unlike category 1) and that they are *officially* paid, one way or another, by a national government (unlike category 4 - although of course there exists 'state-sponsored' terrorism/insurgency/black ops etc. as well, obviously).
However, I think there are legal and conceptual differences between mercenaries and regular (volunteer) soldiers, too, as has been extensively discussed by others in this thread.
vimothy
yurp
Because Petraeus and his "brain trust" (Kilcullen, Nagl and the rest) all understand that killing people doesn't win you many insurgencies. In fact it is more likely to loose them. Ralph Peters probably doesn't like it, but US forces are not in Iraq to kill people.
Kilcullen posted something on the excellent Small Wars Journal Blog this month, describing US tactics as "efforts to address legitimate grievances, “hearts and minds”, governance improvement, resource and population control, and minimum force — key techniques in the new doctrine." His article on COIN is also well worth reading.
vimothy
yurp
- the right framework.
1. is irrelevant at present, though if Lind and Robb are right, as fourth gen conditions increase, we will probably see more conscription.
2. describes armed forces whose task is becoming increasingly difficult (due to the majority of battles being with 4), hence the increasing reliance on 3
3. are increasing in size and instance in reaction to the new globalised geo-political paradigm (or whatever). They are half way between 2 and 4.
4. terrorists have important advantages over traditional armed forces, they bypass the strengths of more advanced armies.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
borderpolice, let me put it like this for a moment: taking an example diametrically opposite to soldiers, we have doctors, those who are "paid to heal". Now surely you would agree there are importance distinctions (as well as obvious similarities) between a doctor employed directly by an NHS trust, who answers primarily to the NHS and (we hope) has the well-being of his patients as his ultimate priority, and a doctor employed by a private health provider that is subcontracted by the NHS? In the latter case, the doctor is ultimately answerable to a privately-owned, profit-making organisation, and therefore has a set of priorities and interests which he does not share with the NHS doc. You see what I'm getting at here?
borderpolice
Well-known member
- You are confusing individuals with social organisations. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am talking about the term "mercenary" as an abstract summary of what one can assume about an individual's motivation. And the difference between a conscript (forced) and a mercenary (for $$$) is vast in that respect.
- As I have already pointed out, one of the key distinctions is that between state owned mercenary forces and more private forces. I even grant you that they may often have distinct aims. But that is irrelevant for individuals' motives -- after all the individuals sign a contract that explicitly requires them to carry out violence on demand.
- Many health practisioneers work for the NHS and private -- all those that I frequent for a start, and most of those who work at my university. In both cases they provide the same services (albeit in nicer looking environments when private). So the situation is in fact very similar to those who fight for money.
If you want to make your analogy relevant, you'll need to consider those who are forced to do health care.
Last edited:
borderpolice
Well-known member
Should I be doing this, you'd doing an impressive job at pretending to be hard-right. congratulations.
Have I ever said that killing as many as possible was effective at pacifying iraq? or the intention of the US/UK government?
However, these two governements knew well, that they might be killing a great number of people, but they didnt care much, because they though that sub speciae aeternae, this didn't matter so much, given that after the overthrow of iraq, peace and democracy would spontaneously break out.
Last edited:
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
The difficulty here is that by psychologising the issues, by reducing them down to an individual's "personal" psychology and motives, all social and economic context is lost, is depoliticized. Certainly at some abstract, rarefied level all soldiers - even conscripted ones - are (and become) mercenaries [though I'm sure you're not going to argue that it is better (more moral perhaps ...) to be a conscripted soldier than a voluntary one, not forgetting that conscript armies include all the soldiers who would have volunteered anyway in the absence of conscription?] but this completely ignores the actual circumstances - political, economic, institutional, etc - that lead most young people to enlist: most US/UK soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are from extremely impoverished backgrounds, many are poor immigrants, many are from ethnic minorities subject to systematic discrimination, many are from rigidly conservative social backgrounds, many - as teenagers - are subject to patriarchal family and peer pressures, many are bribed or seduced by intensive military recruitment propaganda (which is why a majority of soldiers now in Iraq want out, and it won't be long until we see the kind of desertions and mutinies that eventually occurred in Vietnam). Circumstancial necessity and imperatives led them to enlist, in stark contrast to the vast majority of mercenaries working for private military companies, who are under no such crippling pressures.
As to formal differences between regular state militaries (at least in most countries) and private mercenary companies:
Because armed forces constitute a potential threat to governments and citizens, they are subject to a range of controls in democratic countries. These controls are intended to ensure that the military does not undermine the political process, usurp the authority of government, abuse the rights of citizens, and exercise excessive force.
The controls include the following:
1. Executive control. The military and the use of military force are subject to strict executive control, flowing from the head of state to cabinet to the minister of defence to the chief of the armed forces.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
2. Parliamentary control. The executive itself is accountable and answerable to Parliament, which has powers of investigation, recommendation and oversight over the armed forces.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
3. Public control. Parliament in turn is accountable to the electorate. The electorate may vote to replace a government whose defence policy or armed forces lack popular support.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
4. Legal control. The functions of the armed forces are determined and regulated by domestic law, chiefly the Constitution, the Defence Act and the Military Disciplinary Code. These instruments describe the circumstances in which force may be used; the manner in which force may be used; and the sanctions which apply if soldiers are guilty of misconduct.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
5. International control. Armed forces are bound by international humanitarian law, chiefly the Geneva and Hague conventions and protocols. These treaties aim to curb the excesses of war, and to protect civilians in particular. Signatory states are expected to ensure that military personnel comply with international law, and to prosecute soldiers who violate its rules.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
6. Internal control. In a democracy the orientation and values of the armed forces provide a form of internal self-restraint. Soldiers respect the primacy of civilian rule, human rights, the rule of law and the principle of political non-partisanship. These values are inculcated and reinforced through education and training programmes; through the conduct and attitudes of officers; and through disciplinary action against personnel who are guilty of misconduct. 1
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
The controls include the following:
1. Executive control. The military and the use of military force are subject to strict executive control, flowing from the head of state to cabinet to the minister of defence to the chief of the armed forces.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
2. Parliamentary control. The executive itself is accountable and answerable to Parliament, which has powers of investigation, recommendation and oversight over the armed forces.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
3. Public control. Parliament in turn is accountable to the electorate. The electorate may vote to replace a government whose defence policy or armed forces lack popular support.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
4. Legal control. The functions of the armed forces are determined and regulated by domestic law, chiefly the Constitution, the Defence Act and the Military Disciplinary Code. These instruments describe the circumstances in which force may be used; the manner in which force may be used; and the sanctions which apply if soldiers are guilty of misconduct.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
5. International control. Armed forces are bound by international humanitarian law, chiefly the Geneva and Hague conventions and protocols. These treaties aim to curb the excesses of war, and to protect civilians in particular. Signatory states are expected to ensure that military personnel comply with international law, and to prosecute soldiers who violate its rules.
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.
6. Internal control. In a democracy the orientation and values of the armed forces provide a form of internal self-restraint. Soldiers respect the primacy of civilian rule, human rights, the rule of law and the principle of political non-partisanship. These values are inculcated and reinforced through education and training programmes; through the conduct and attitudes of officers; and through disciplinary action against personnel who are guilty of misconduct. 1
Mercenaries are not subject to such control.