5
5
0
Mercenaries have been around for thousands of years. They have been used and extolled by some leaders and condemned and decried by others.
At their best they offer deniability, they offer loyalty, they offer competence.
At their worst they mask atrocities, they betray employers, they are second-rate.
On net are mercenaries a good thing? Do they offer a necessary gray area?
Are they bad? Diminishing accountability and threatening freedom and liberty?
If you have experience feel free to weigh in, if not please read this excellent article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/return-of-the-mercenary/388616/
Or this absolutely outstanding book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Profession-Thriller-Steven-Pressfield/dp/ [login to see]
Then provide thoughts.
At their best they offer deniability, they offer loyalty, they offer competence.
At their worst they mask atrocities, they betray employers, they are second-rate.
On net are mercenaries a good thing? Do they offer a necessary gray area?
Are they bad? Diminishing accountability and threatening freedom and liberty?
If you have experience feel free to weigh in, if not please read this excellent article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/return-of-the-mercenary/388616/
Or this absolutely outstanding book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Profession-Thriller-Steven-Pressfield/dp/ [login to see]
Then provide thoughts.
Posted in these groups: 
Professionalism
Politics
Professionalism Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 33
8
8
0
I have been a soldier, a sailor, and a mercenary. All have had been great experiences. My time as a contractor was very much controlled in our ROEs.
I was in Iraq as a soldier when Blackwater was pretty much running unchecked. They really needed to be reigned in. They were not on the same page as the military commanders in the AOs. Not saying they were bad guys just saying there was a disconnect with command and control.
As a contractor in Afghanistan we were kept watch on and we worked directly with the military for the same goal. If you could not play ball you were put on a plane home.
My time in the Mozambique Straits I worked for the Mozambique government and you just made up the rules as you went along. As long as you were hunting pirates nobody cared what you did on the side. I had to leave because of that. The contractors were as bad as the pirates.
My point is that there has to be somebody to hold contractors accountable or or they can get out of control very quickly.
I was in Iraq as a soldier when Blackwater was pretty much running unchecked. They really needed to be reigned in. They were not on the same page as the military commanders in the AOs. Not saying they were bad guys just saying there was a disconnect with command and control.
As a contractor in Afghanistan we were kept watch on and we worked directly with the military for the same goal. If you could not play ball you were put on a plane home.
My time in the Mozambique Straits I worked for the Mozambique government and you just made up the rules as you went along. As long as you were hunting pirates nobody cared what you did on the side. I had to leave because of that. The contractors were as bad as the pirates.
My point is that there has to be somebody to hold contractors accountable or or they can get out of control very quickly.
(8)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SGT William Howell Great input! thanks for sharing your personal experience on this. Supervision is important in all endeavors and I think your perspective of the possibility of honorable service in a Mercenary company is shared to some extent by Steven Pressfield in The Profession.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
They are not necessarily good or bad but a reflection of their leadership and the controls which their contracts place on them.
They've been part of every American conflict since the Barbary Pirate wars - even got a line in the Marine Corps Hymn for that one (unless you thought O'Bannon's 8 Marines had a greater effect than the 500 mercenaries they hired) - and they'll continue to be part of every one for the foreseeable future. And the reason they will is because there will always be a need for them, whether it's simple lack of trained bodies or freeing up regulars for other missions or taking advantage of their unofficial status.
They've been part of every American conflict since the Barbary Pirate wars - even got a line in the Marine Corps Hymn for that one (unless you thought O'Bannon's 8 Marines had a greater effect than the 500 mercenaries they hired) - and they'll continue to be part of every one for the foreseeable future. And the reason they will is because there will always be a need for them, whether it's simple lack of trained bodies or freeing up regulars for other missions or taking advantage of their unofficial status.
(4)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MAJ Chris Ballard Good use of history quotes, Sir, especially the Marine's Hymn. And hey...8 Marines can do a lot...especially with some decent mercs backing them.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
They are an immensely complicated subject. Rather than speak directly to them, let me draw a parallel through metaphor.
You are a Home Developer. You are building a new 1000 housing development, inside an already occupied suburban sprawl. You have your primary crew who works for you, and has for years. They do good work, are trustworthy, and their cost is justified.
However, there is specialized work that you do not need full time. You hire contractors to do that work. Painters, electricians, plumbers, you name it. You vet these guys, and for the most part you trust them.
However, sometimes they need specialized work because these houses had change requests like hot tubs, or sky lights, or whatever. So they hire sub-contractors. You don't know these sub-contractors. Each tier below you, the level of trust & confidence degrades just a little bit more. Additionally, since you are the one paying the final bill, the money has to be made up "somewhere," so the tolerances get looser about what is acceptable.
Rules that apply to your guys don't apply to these guys, because you aren't the one directly paying them. You can't fire them because you aren't really their boss, and because their work is so specialized, there is no one to replace them if you did. Cowboy mentality creeps in.
Now what does this have to do with us?
Well some things we explicitly have to do. Somethings we are expressly prohibited from doing. Private Security firms (aka Mercenaries) fill that niche. They exist because of necessity. Nature abhors a vacuum.
You are a Home Developer. You are building a new 1000 housing development, inside an already occupied suburban sprawl. You have your primary crew who works for you, and has for years. They do good work, are trustworthy, and their cost is justified.
However, there is specialized work that you do not need full time. You hire contractors to do that work. Painters, electricians, plumbers, you name it. You vet these guys, and for the most part you trust them.
However, sometimes they need specialized work because these houses had change requests like hot tubs, or sky lights, or whatever. So they hire sub-contractors. You don't know these sub-contractors. Each tier below you, the level of trust & confidence degrades just a little bit more. Additionally, since you are the one paying the final bill, the money has to be made up "somewhere," so the tolerances get looser about what is acceptable.
Rules that apply to your guys don't apply to these guys, because you aren't the one directly paying them. You can't fire them because you aren't really their boss, and because their work is so specialized, there is no one to replace them if you did. Cowboy mentality creeps in.
Now what does this have to do with us?
Well some things we explicitly have to do. Somethings we are expressly prohibited from doing. Private Security firms (aka Mercenaries) fill that niche. They exist because of necessity. Nature abhors a vacuum.
(4)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I knew I could count on you for a vote for my personal choice (complicated). I like the extended metaphor. Did you like the article? Can I convince you to read Pressfield's book?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. I'll read almost any book twice.
It's a good article. It actually highlights why we have such a large military, and dissuade countries from building up. Fewer overall conflicts. Sure when one breaks out it's huge.. but it's controlled. As compared to lots of little uncontrolled ones.
It's a good article. It actually highlights why we have such a large military, and dissuade countries from building up. Fewer overall conflicts. Sure when one breaks out it's huge.. but it's controlled. As compared to lots of little uncontrolled ones.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The Flying Tigers
La Légion Étrangère
Ghurkas
5 Commando
4 Commando
Nothing new, historically speaking, despite the sensationalistic subtitle.
Mercenaries are like the weather -- they're a fact of life, neither inherently good nor inherently bad.
La Légion Étrangère
Ghurkas
5 Commando
4 Commando
Nothing new, historically speaking, despite the sensationalistic subtitle.
Mercenaries are like the weather -- they're a fact of life, neither inherently good nor inherently bad.
(3)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
Sir,
I would differ with you with regards to the FFL, Ghurkas, 4 and 5 Commando as they were/are all actual units within their respective Armed Forces, and as such they were governed by the same rules.
FFL of course can only recruit foreigners but fight for and with the French Army.
Ghurkas are Nepalese and doing the same for the British Army.
No. 4 and No. 5 Commando I don't see them being considered Mercenaries.
The Flying Tigers, I'm with you. Paramilitary force through and through.
What should we do about the Eagle Squadrons in WWII? Or the Lafayette Escadrille in WWI? American pilots fighting with and for the British and French as part of their military, not paramilitary.
v/r
I would differ with you with regards to the FFL, Ghurkas, 4 and 5 Commando as they were/are all actual units within their respective Armed Forces, and as such they were governed by the same rules.
FFL of course can only recruit foreigners but fight for and with the French Army.
Ghurkas are Nepalese and doing the same for the British Army.
No. 4 and No. 5 Commando I don't see them being considered Mercenaries.
The Flying Tigers, I'm with you. Paramilitary force through and through.
What should we do about the Eagle Squadrons in WWII? Or the Lafayette Escadrille in WWI? American pilots fighting with and for the British and French as part of their military, not paramilitary.
v/r
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Mike Hoare might disagree with you abut 4 and 5 Commando, SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA.
And how would you classify the Pope's Swiss host? Or the "executive" mercenary types -- the ones who have been training soldiers for other nations around the world since the end of WW2? Lots of Israelis taught "security" in Latin America, and there were quite a few SAS who were "asked" to spend some time on a sabbatical training Arab soldiers. Or perhaps Air America?
And how would you classify the Pope's Swiss host? Or the "executive" mercenary types -- the ones who have been training soldiers for other nations around the world since the end of WW2? Lots of Israelis taught "security" in Latin America, and there were quite a few SAS who were "asked" to spend some time on a sabbatical training Arab soldiers. Or perhaps Air America?
(0)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
In the context of your other entries, it appeared as if 4 and 5 Commando were references to the actual British Army units.
I see now you were talking about the Katanga 4 Commando and the 5th Commando ANC.
Quite different indeed.
As far as I understand it, 4 Commando was a Katanga military unit, and at some point Hoare served in some advisory capacity. I personally wouldn't consider them a mercenary unit as much as a militia unit with a mercenary advising it.
The Swiss Guard fulfills more of a police force, a bodyguard role, than that of an "Army Soldier" as they don't really fight for the Vatican. Perhaps during the Restoration Period as they were actual mercenaries fighting for various armies. Nowadays, not really.
As for the other mercenaries you mention, there it is, mercenaries through and through. If the money is right, they go where it is given to them handsomely.
It's strange to think of both von Steuben and Lafayette as mercenaries, but for a little while they were.
.
.
I see now you were talking about the Katanga 4 Commando and the 5th Commando ANC.
Quite different indeed.
As far as I understand it, 4 Commando was a Katanga military unit, and at some point Hoare served in some advisory capacity. I personally wouldn't consider them a mercenary unit as much as a militia unit with a mercenary advising it.
The Swiss Guard fulfills more of a police force, a bodyguard role, than that of an "Army Soldier" as they don't really fight for the Vatican. Perhaps during the Restoration Period as they were actual mercenaries fighting for various armies. Nowadays, not really.
As for the other mercenaries you mention, there it is, mercenaries through and through. If the money is right, they go where it is given to them handsomely.
It's strange to think of both von Steuben and Lafayette as mercenaries, but for a little while they were.
.
.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
The notion of mercenaries being purely mercenary in their motivation is a popular, albeit unsubstantiated in modern times, remnant of Machiavelli.
In reality, most modern-day "mercenaries" tend to be drawn by other factors -- not least the longing felt by an old fire-horse to answer the alarm one more time, racing through the streets pell-mell to the clang of the firebell. Oftentimes, they are strongly "encouraged" by their own country to venture forth in the name of this or that cause (or, in some instances, to clinch deals for the export of weapons, subsidizing the cost of a home-grown armaments industry).
For what it's worth, you might also find this 30-year-old perspective (from the midst of the Cold War) interesting reading, SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA :
http://www.fredoneverything.net/PlayboySOF.shtml
Also, the Swiss Guard does indeed trace its heritage to the days when Swiss troops were renowned for their professionalism and effectiveness, in a time when a commander's host very often had to fight its way out.
In reality, most modern-day "mercenaries" tend to be drawn by other factors -- not least the longing felt by an old fire-horse to answer the alarm one more time, racing through the streets pell-mell to the clang of the firebell. Oftentimes, they are strongly "encouraged" by their own country to venture forth in the name of this or that cause (or, in some instances, to clinch deals for the export of weapons, subsidizing the cost of a home-grown armaments industry).
For what it's worth, you might also find this 30-year-old perspective (from the midst of the Cold War) interesting reading, SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA :
http://www.fredoneverything.net/PlayboySOF.shtml
Also, the Swiss Guard does indeed trace its heritage to the days when Swiss troops were renowned for their professionalism and effectiveness, in a time when a commander's host very often had to fight its way out.
I came into the weird mercenary vortex of Soldier of Fortune magazine when the phone rang in 1980. The voice on the other end was low and conspiratorial, the vocal cords sounding as if they had been ravaged by gargling gravel. Something in it whispered of far places and dark secrets too evil to be told.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Yes, they are mainly for reasonable purposes. Most mercenaries are Veterans and former soldiers of all services. The US public seems to take the loss of every soldier as one too many for public opinion. With the lack of political will our leaders show, such as in Syria and Iraq, government does not want to disclose use of traditional service forces. The way the work is getting done is contract/mercenary forces.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I think that we would gain benefit as a nation by revitalizing the Constitutional provision for letters of marque and reprisal.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Chris Ballard
So long as I am not required to quarter them in my house. That is a clear violation of my Constitutional rights!
(0)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
Capt Richard I P., Ron Paul thought it was a good idea: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/09/letters-of-marque-and-reprisal-an-introduction/
Usually, the private sector can do things better and cheaper than the government can. I don't know how well it would work, but I think it's worth a shot.
Usually, the private sector can do things better and cheaper than the government can. I don't know how well it would work, but I think it's worth a shot.
(2)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
Letters of Marque were long standing and well proceed the creation of the United States Constitution. I think you may be on to something?
Letters of Marque were long standing and well proceed the creation of the United States Constitution. I think you may be on to something?
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we relied very heavily on "armed contractors" for a number of reasons. These include:
1) Insufficient manning to complete the mission. With the post Desert Storm drawdown and the switch to a Reserve based force, we don't have enough soldiers. An anecdote: At the DAV NSO in Philly, one of the Service Officers was a Navy ET/SS (Submarine electronics tech). He broke his back in a HMMVW (or whatever the acronym is) with an Army unit. So, I asked him, how does an ET/SS break his back in IQ? He was in the Navy Reserves, and he was activated to serve as a communicator with an Army unit... The need to augment Army and MC units with Navy/AF/CG personnel was a new thing, and had lots of growing pains...
2) ROE. Contractors operate outside ROE in large part, so they could be tasked with things our troops couldn't...
3) Convenience. Who wants to work in the DFAC when they could be out kicking @$$? So having contractors working these unglamorous jobs freed up more troops for other things (this is a corollary to 1 above of course)...
4) Whatever else the commanders wanted done that was messy...
If we had properly manned forces and a ROE that allowed our troops to do the mission, we likely would not have needed nearly the number of contractors. I can't say whether it would have been better or worse, because I was not there...
1) Insufficient manning to complete the mission. With the post Desert Storm drawdown and the switch to a Reserve based force, we don't have enough soldiers. An anecdote: At the DAV NSO in Philly, one of the Service Officers was a Navy ET/SS (Submarine electronics tech). He broke his back in a HMMVW (or whatever the acronym is) with an Army unit. So, I asked him, how does an ET/SS break his back in IQ? He was in the Navy Reserves, and he was activated to serve as a communicator with an Army unit... The need to augment Army and MC units with Navy/AF/CG personnel was a new thing, and had lots of growing pains...
2) ROE. Contractors operate outside ROE in large part, so they could be tasked with things our troops couldn't...
3) Convenience. Who wants to work in the DFAC when they could be out kicking @$$? So having contractors working these unglamorous jobs freed up more troops for other things (this is a corollary to 1 above of course)...
4) Whatever else the commanders wanted done that was messy...
If we had properly manned forces and a ROE that allowed our troops to do the mission, we likely would not have needed nearly the number of contractors. I can't say whether it would have been better or worse, because I was not there...
2
2
0
It really depends on how tightly they are controlled. Historically, mercenaries were not well thought of. This is mostly due to how they were paid: with loot. Their contract with the monarch/government usually only covered their Captain's pay and equipment with a bit of trickle down to the soldiers. The soldier's pay came mostly from what they could loot on campaign. So most folks thought of mercenaries as nothing better than state sanctioned bandits.
Now, if tightly controlled (like Regulars usually are), mercenaries can give a small country/kingdom the ability to buy an effective combat force in less time and money than it would take to raise one.
Now, if tightly controlled (like Regulars usually are), mercenaries can give a small country/kingdom the ability to buy an effective combat force in less time and money than it would take to raise one.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
LTC Paul Labrador Sir, Good point on the historical payment regime pushing them toward banditry.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Completely above my pay grade. Realize it has been an integral part of armies since humans realized that war is a messy business, but I'm cool with staying out of this realm.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google