Contractors should battle ISIS?

2014-10-10T09:25:48-04:00

Blackwater founder Erik Prince says contractors should lead the fight against the Islamic State...what say you, o wise RallyPoint members?

http://wapo.st/1vQWx55

Let contractors fight the Islamic State, Blackwater founder Erik Prince says

President Obama's strategy to counter the Islamic State is "half-hearted at best" and will not be able to dig the militants out of cities, Prince said.

Response by MAJ Dallas D. made Oct 10 at 2014 2:27 PM

2014-10-10T14:27:19-04:00

I think we have been down that road and it did not work out. Let's learn from our mistakes.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Oct 10 at 2014 3:02 PM

2014-10-10T15:02:01-04:00

I believe the last time contractors, specifically Blackwater, took the lead on a mission in Iraq, there was a lot of collateral damage and dead bystanders. That caused the regular Army unit that went in next to secure the site and clean things up to take the brunt of the civilian backlash...not to mention the AQI propaganda that ensued. No good could come from a COA like this against the current threat.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 3:06 PM

2014-10-10T15:06:25-04:00

Yeah thats a good idea. Best bang for the buck is paying a Black water or Triple Canopy 200,000 a pop makes sense. /sarcasm

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 3:10 PM

2014-10-10T15:10:42-04:00

I say let them. It worked in the past. When a government can't stand up an Army what else can they do. They need to foot the bill for one. It worked in Africa. Until the UN stopped it and then war broke out again. Sometimes you need bad people to do bad things to bad people. It is the way of the world. The question is only how do you control them. By paying them well enough. I am pretty sure a company doesn't want to take over Iraq. They just want to get paid for doing a job that no one else will do.

Executive Outcomes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Executive Outcomes was a private military company (PMC) founded in South Africa by former Lieutenant-Colonel of the South African Defence Force Eeben Barlow in 1989. It later became part of the South African-based holding company Strategic Resource Corporation.[2]

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 10 at 2014 3:20 PM

2014-10-10T15:20:45-04:00

Business is Business and I have no problem with Mercenaries and they do have their place. Cost Effective? I don't think so but most are ex-military and well trained. If they want to go, why not? Just don't want to foot the bill for private contractors. If Iraq or Turkey pays them, Great! Hear Hear!

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 10 at 2014 3:34 PM

2014-10-10T15:34:09-04:00

Sir I see this as a smart strategic play by Prince to keep Academi's revenue stream flowing. As to the question - no. These guys ROE's have proven problematical in the past. I don't think this went away just because they re-branded themselves. To me this would be like the FBI wanting to help. Its way to out of their core role.

Response by SPC James Lowe made Oct 10 at 2014 4:27 PM

2014-10-10T16:27:24-04:00

I see no reason why not.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 4:38 PM

2014-10-10T16:38:16-04:00

Hi, LTC Strickland.

The pros and cons are the same: loosened rules of engagement and plausible deniability.

If the plan was to just go in and wipe everything out, then fine. Send the mercs in. Kill, kill, kill. But we'll need to rebuild post-ISIS, and the regular military will have to carry the weight of the contractors' actions.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 8:41 PM

2014-10-10T20:41:48-04:00

I think we tried that before... and they were kicked out of the country.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 4:34 PM

2014-10-14T16:34:55-04:00

That makes no sense at all. Who is paying for that? Iraq / Syrian rebels with what money? Our foreign Aid?

Response by MSG Brian Allen made Oct 14 at 2014 6:28 PM

2014-10-14T18:28:41-04:00

US ground forces could and should do the job. But saddled with oppressive ROE, just in the last campaign, would place us right back into the sinking boat we just left. Perhaps the threat or eventual use of 'mercenary' forces who are under little or no ROE would set ISIS/ISIL on their heels.

In the context of cost and monies, our last foray was little more than a bloated goat. War profiteers abounded, fleecing the US of billions. The prospect of using a civilian military force, in the fiscal sense, may leave the coffers a bit fuller in the end. One commentator suggested the government of Iraq should foot the bill. WIth this I agree completely. Blackwater and it's cohorts should approach them with the offer.

In response to rebuilding the damaged infrastructure - it didn't accomplish much in the past so let's put that idea in the kit bag and pack it away.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Oct 14 at 2014 6:55 PM

2014-10-14T18:55:40-04:00

He's in Abu Dhabi now and from some of the reports I've heard is that he has a new group that is more focused on Africa. If the countries in the region want to take him up and deal with the situation there without spending American money, I say let them. Most of this came about from Erik Prince lamenting the problems that came about with Blackwater, Xe, The Academi or whatever name they have used since he left the organization. Mixed in with Bill O'Reilly calling for a mercenary organization to intervene on the ground which gave Mr Prince a platform to express his opinion further on TV while promoting one of his books.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Oct 14 at 2014 7:48 PM

2014-10-14T19:48:35-04:00

I would have to see the financials but I think it could be cost effective. Less logistical tail, smaller force, and the added bonus of "no US boots on the ground". A PMC will go in there as a light force as opposed to the Heavy Brigade Combat Team from 1st ID that we deployed to Kuwait just in case this goes South. That right there tells me the government/military has no idea how to handle the situation. Tanks are not effective for patrol the streets of Mosul. And yes ISIS has some armored vehicles and tanks, but we have air support and radios. I guess the PMC's might need some access to that then. Anyway, Blackwater stepped on their dicks before but PMC's are still out there are still carrying out missions. If we can get other nations (say Saudi Arabia with their billions in oil money) to help foot the bill I think it is entirely feasible to use PMC's.

Response by SSG Jed Fisher made Oct 14 at 2014 8:38 PM

2014-10-14T20:38:41-04:00

Lower oil prices will battle ISIS and all other players that rely on oil as their primary source of income. For less than half a billion dollars, a trader could go on the commodities exchange and short oil and cut the price of oil down to $35 a barrel. Then the Middle East and North Africa and Russia as well, could no longer afford to be a nuisance for America.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 10:17 PM

2014-10-14T22:17:48-04:00

LTC Strickland,

I had a big problem with this when some news anchor proposed it on Fox News. The problem I have is that contractors fighting terrorist would question why we have a military force. While the military is to fight the country's wars and if this is to be a war then the Command and Chief needs to go to Congress and seek authorization.
If the Commander and Chief believes in this war than he should make his case to the American people and to the representatives of the people. Although many people say that the American public is tired of war if the case is made I think they would rally behind him.

Just my $0.02....

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 15 at 2014 11:08 AM

2014-10-15T11:08:24-04:00

When you have an overly restrictive ROE, you need to have SOMEONE who can do what needs to be done...

Response by Sgt Daniel V. made Oct 15 at 2014 11:22 AM

2014-10-15T11:22:38-04:00

Fallujah 2004 - the incident lead to 4 member of Blackwater dead it was horrific and soon after fueled by that incident and a rise in radical insurgency we had to take the city down. If we send them there will serious regrets.

Response by SPC Daniel Bowen made Oct 15 at 2014 11:52 AM

2014-10-15T11:52:33-04:00

Everyone here has made really good points! We all have military backgrounds and gained different views from our experiences. There were mistakes made by security contractors, BUT lets not forget the mistakes made the military as well and of those mistakes how many were kept in house? Here is my take on it:
Contractors or "mercenaries" have always had a place in history; from the Roman era to present day. If all you have to bring to the table is one incident to change the course of your decision then you are wrong. Every angle and aspect needs to be taken into account. No matter which route you choose, military or contractor, there will be mistakes and innocent people will die. That is a unfortunate part of war, and its unavoidable because both military and contractors are only human. It's unfortunate that most big wigs don't want to think about it or even admit it. No matter how disciplined you are, one person is apt to mess it up for everyone. From the military, to even being a cop back home, mistakes are made and corrective action is taken. But one mistake shouldn't constitute an entire option to be overlooked.
Most contractors are former military and most carried combat MOS's, so their knowledge and experience should not go to waste if it can change a situation for the better. Can the military fix the issue? With the ROE's changed back to ways they were, possibly. Can contractors (with the same experience and most coming from the same military background) get the job done? With following an equal set of ROE's, possibly. But the cold hard truth is the world sucks and there are evil people in this world, that if taken out of it, could save the lives of millions.
The military stands for something greater than oneself, but I know many contractors that still carry themselves professionally, in accordance with good moral values and a military mindset, to put others well being over their own. To make claims that contractors can't help fix the problem over a handful that may have made bad choices is stupid. It's like blaming the whole military for civilians dying in a US or Allied airstrike. It's not impossible to have contractors fall under certain rules and regulations similar to the military or even act as a QRF, special or support unit.
The way I see it, if a contract agreement opened up to help suppress ISIS, I would consider the possibility. Just because I no longer wear the uniform does not mean my morals and values on innocent lives has gone to shit. I am good at what I do and by god if it can make a solid difference to at least help settle a situation, either in front of or side-by-side with the military, then so be it. The mission is still the same.
You don't need to wear the Flag of Freedom on a uniform to stand up and do what it takes to get the mission done.
Now, I will not deny that there are Cons on contractors going in to suppress ISIS. But it is NOT impossible to set up rules and regulations to make use of our honorable combat veterans who wish to help do what is right without having to wear the uniform. Even contractors have strict rules these days. Do we need an entire civilian army to ransack a war zone? No... But under certain regulations we can use contractors (from any nation) to help fight the evil in this world for a sense of peace, with or without a military. And as for blame when things go wrong.... it's war. Whether its contractors or military personnel, there is always someone to blame.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Oct 15 at 2014 12:42 PM

2014-10-15T12:42:25-04:00

As a former Contractor......... NO WAY can they accomplish what the Real Military can. No Combat Support System, no Arty, no Tanks or Personnel Carriers (not enough Desert Transportation), no real Aviation assets, No FOB's......etc.......etc.....etc. There needs to be Real Boots on the Ground with Contractors performing special missions (PSD etc) that are supported by........wait for it........... Real Boots On The Ground!

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2014 7:19 PM

2014-10-15T19:19:00-04:00

SrA Jeff Campbell, I think I've seen a similar thread on RallyPoint. And I am all for contractors participating in the battle. If they can (and I do believe they can) take it to the enemy, why not?

Here's the thread I saw:

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/contractors-should-battle-isis

Contractors should battle ISIS? | RallyPoint

Blackwater founder Erik Prince says contractors should lead the fight against the Islamic State...what say you, o wise RallyPoint members? http://wapo.st/1vQWx55

Response by SrA Jeff Campbell made Oct 16 at 2014 8:20 AM

2014-10-16T08:20:49-04:00

Puff the Magic Dragon hits Taliban
Reuters ^
Posted on 10/15/2001 8:17:35 PM by edhawk

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military on Monday attacked Afghan targets around the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar with an Air Force Special Forces AC-130 gunship, one of the most devastating weapons in America's air arsenal, a senior defense official said. The official, who asked not to be identified, said it was the first time the four-engine turbo-prop aircraft had been used in the nine-day air campaign against Taliban military and guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan (news - web sites). ``It lays down withering fire,'' said the official, who declined to say exactly what target the aircraft, which is operated by Air Force Special Forces troops, was used against.

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Oct 16 at 2014 10:30 PM

2014-10-16T22:30:51-04:00

Here's why we (contractors) don't and why the US military shouldn't. First, there's no profit or anything beneficial to gain from it. Iraq has already proven to be a terrible investment because the Iraqis are unwilling and incapable of maintaining any kind of positive progression. They are simply too lazy, divided, narcissistic, apathetic, ignorant and uncivilized to take advantage of what we have already done for and given them. Second, why fight for a country that won't fight for itself? Again, bad investment with little to no return where death is a worst case scenario. Training Kurdish Pesh Merga with SF and contractors is about as far as we should commit ourselves, because they are the only force worth training or equipping and will actually fight instead of flee and leave ISIL a trove of weapons and equipment and strategic ground. Third, finally, and most importantly, it's in Iraq and Syria, not the US. We've done enough meddling for a lifetime. Until they are operating here, are a threat to Israel, or have long-range nuclear launch capabilities, we should stay the hell out and let Iraq and Syria burn until there is nothing left of where civilization began. They had their chance, lost it and don't deserve anything else.

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Oct 16 at 2014 11:47 PM

2014-10-16T23:47:39-04:00

I'm actually kind of disgusted by the amount of demonizing and ignorant statement being made about contractors on this thread. The men of Blackwater are all prior service military or former law enforcement and the majority of you trash on them without thought. These men protected the Ambassador, embassy staff, visiting senators, congressmen, Secretaries/Directors, and even the VP and President, and risked their lives and would've (and have) sacrificed themselves to protect them, even the most vile like Hillary, Kerry and Pelosi. That is true professionalism.
Don't forget it was contractors that ran convoys to deliver food to your cushy chow halls so you could sit fat and happy having your "Surf & Turf" and a decent holiday meal on Thanksgiving, Easter and Christmas.
I would blame this mental midgetry on "the New Military" but I'm seeing a lot of this garbage from Senior NCO's and field grade officers who should know better but are too institutionalized to realize it. If this thread tanks my career then good riddance, I want no part of an organization that touts being a brotherhood, then craps all over good men because of ignorance, lack of understanding and plain fear.
I apologize for my lack of tact but this nonsense gets me a little agitated, especially coming from fellow service members

Response by SSG Dwight Welsh made Oct 17 at 2014 4:00 PM

2014-10-17T16:00:20-04:00

Sounds good to me.

Also give them carte blanche to handle it how they need to without any ROE!!!!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2014 4:50 PM

2014-10-17T16:50:12-04:00

Sounds like the biggest political cop-out for those in DC. Granted, I understand that some of the most talents ex-military professionals gravitate and continue their profession in contracting, but it all sounds like a proposition to allow politicians to say "we didn't put boots on the ground!" to save their own political careers. Who's going to pay for them? They're not just going to go fight ISIS on their own dime because they "feel" like its the right thing to do. Tax paying dollars are going to get spent, which then you might as well just use the Military

Response by Cpl Travis Hartland made Oct 18 at 2014 8:28 AM

2014-10-18T08:28:20-04:00

Guns for hire has been a part of history since the beginning of time however I think we set a very dangerous precedent in our foriegn policy if we start using private contractors to project that foriegn policy. History has also shown that there tends to be a great deal of corruption and control issues with this option.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2014 1:43 PM

2014-10-18T13:43:09-04:00

If indeed we are dealing with a more deadly and lethal enemy, we need a force that is equally more deadly and lethal to fight them. Is our military up to it? Yes. Can they do it? Yes. Will they get permission from higher-ups? Probably not. Will the ROE ease up in light of a different kind of enemy? Not likely. Can a fast reaction force like Blackwater be used as an asset? Absolutely. Should PMC be used in combat situations? Why not. Will it decrease US casualties? Likely to a very strong YES. Will the US military find the use of PMC offensive? No, I think think the view them as an asset. So, while I agree on many talking point, we need to realize that when we started hiring PMC to do our job, it changed the way we do business; drone strikes as well. The whole face of battle is changing before our eyes. We need to adapt, I'd like to note that many officers did not approve of Erik Prince's statement, and many Senior NCOs concur with Mr. Prince, why is that? We now rely on our PMC, they will not be going away any time soon. As far as the ROE discipline...I honestly believe that is looked at as an asset not a downfall. You could all disagree with me...but, who doesn't want an 'A' team, on call...someone to call to get the job done when politics get in the way.
For those that disagree with the use of PMC, that could be viewed as job security as well, so I understand that opinion...and dont really disagree. I mean we cannot privitize the US military. My .02. -E6L OUT

Response by TSgt Robert Williams made Oct 18 at 2014 5:16 PM

2014-10-18T17:16:20-04:00

They don't have what it takes. Pretty guns!

Response by TSgt Robert Williams made Oct 18 at 2014 5:15 PM

2014-10-18T17:15:21-04:00

They don't have what it takes! Pretty guns!

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Oct 18 at 2014 9:25 PM

2014-10-18T21:25:02-04:00

For all those throwing the term "Mercenary" around and using it as a dirty word. Would these Dutch, and now German, bikers be "mercenaries". They are foreign combatants, not necessarily hired or paid, fighting for a country that's not theirs...
http://www.special-ops.org/german-bikers-unite-dutch-comrades-fight-isis/

German bikers unite with Dutch comrades in fight against ISIS | World

&nbsp &nbsp Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria have received a surprising accession. While allied forces refuse to take part in military action on the ground, several German bikers have reportedly joined the fight against the jihadists. Kawan A., the club leader of the ‘Median Empire’ gang, wrote on his Facebook:

Response by COL Vince Lindenmeyer, Ph.D. (Retired) made Oct 18 at 2014 10:35 PM

2014-10-18T22:35:02-04:00

Contractors do not swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. U.S. Armed Forces professionals voluntarily serve in a vocation/calling in a team of trained experts certified in the ethical application of combat power, serving under civilian authority, entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interests of the American people. Heed this, Blackwater, nor any contractor, at the end of the day, is not subordinate to civil authority or the American people.

I greatly respect the individual professionals and prior service vets who carry out critical contract security roles IN SUPPORT OF the military subordinate to civil authority.

You are encouraged to please read Gen Dempsey, CJCS, White Paper on the Profession of Arms (http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/aprofessionofarms.pdf) and your respective service literature. Please remember your oath.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 4:05 AM

2014-10-19T04:05:51-04:00

Here is the law on mercenaries.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 4:50 AM

2014-10-19T04:50:43-04:00

Anyone who is active and thinks this is a good idea. I implore you to volunteer to get your ass kicked at SERE . I went to SERE because they make everyone who has job that flies go to. I can tell you that it was not a very pleasant experience. In fact it is the miserable thing I have done in the military.

But one thing is I have got an appreciation for, is that there is an international law called the Geneva Convention. If you ARE POW, the enemy can still fuck with you. Now ask yourself the question if the United States sticks their middle finger in the air at international law what might happen to you if you now in a legitimate conflict. Do you think that you might not be harassed more because we now decided that we can conduct warfare because we sent some bearded contractors from Acadamie to do your job? But they are not under legal pretenses to do so.

The whole point of these laws are for our protection, granted some countries have not followed them, like Vietnam. But they are supposed to. If they don't than in theory they get tried for war crimes. They get executed or go to jail forever.

If we say ok I am going send bearded civilians without ROE to do a job do you honestly think there will not be reproductions? I want you to think long and hard who might be fudcked in the future if we set a precedent that we no longer give a shit. Than you have ask your self in the future if another country decides to start a war with their contractors will we have grounds to object.

ROE is restrictive at times even though it is supposed to be permissive in nature. But it's there for a reason. It is to make sure we are conducting warfare in a manner that does not inflict unnecessary damage or CIVCAS when the overall objective is to deter threats. In a COIN environment it is especially critical to follow these rules so that innocent people are not erroneously killed by our hands.

It sucks it is hard but it is what we took an oath to do. To suggest this as an alternative than I think it is time to shut down the DOD!

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 6:29 PM

2014-10-19T18:29:37-04:00

Why is it that we can say no boots on the ground, or we have ended the war in Afganistan, or pulled the troops out, but this only applies to US military? We could have PMC all over the AO providing contingent security, VIP security, and armored transport....and be spending a lot more money paying them...but the general public is okay with it because Johey and Suzy aren't in harms way anymore. Am I the only one that sees through this charade?

Response by PFC Clayton Struthers made Oct 21 at 2014 12:31 AM

2014-10-21T00:31:26-04:00

Absolutely not. BW/Ix/WTFthenameisthisweek, appearing before any government official, in public, has only one goal: more taxpayer dollars. It's an insult, to the American People, and the Soldiers who have fought and died for this Nation. Seeing these people in the spotlight, even for a second, is disgusting in the extreme, it almost like they think we have forgotten their conduct previously, but just my "opinion"

Response by Capt Douglas Chilson made Oct 21 at 2014 11:23 AM

2014-10-21T11:23:26-04:00

Absolutely Not!!!
Contractors are useful for 3 things overseas: Transporting Goods, Guarding Warehouses, and Maintenance; cost 3x as much to deploy and are barely capable at that - oh but they allow for fewer 'uniformed' servicemembers being reported to congress right?

Most of them were either turned down for enlistment or couldn't hack it in the real service; they are improperly trained, do not respect the orders of those appointed over them, and either do not understand OR choose to ignore International Law and other Rules of Engagement.

Sending Mercs in place of Uniformed Troops is a Mistake; And mark my words When (not if) but When they Screw Up, it will be the US military not the contractors that the world press points their fingers at - just like at GitMo

*On a side note regarding the ISIS Crisis; IF we do send Our Troops over there to clean up another part of the world's garbage Again... at least do it right.
Send them over Properly Equipped to get the Job Done, or Don't send them at all.
Or, just say F*** the rest of the world, and bring all our people home - God knows we could use them to Secure OUR OWN Borders

Response by PV2 Lawrence Trayer Jr made Oct 21 at 2014 12:40 PM

2014-10-21T12:40:43-04:00

I think that service members should earn what the contractors would be paid as well as the freedom to do the job they are sent to do without the interference of politicians and liberal media.
They have been defending our freedom and way of life for centuries. Let them continue to do so.

Response by SN Keith Jarboe made Oct 21 at 2014 4:55 PM

2014-10-21T16:55:23-04:00

The only issue I see is that they are businesses just like any other and thus they have to cover their operating costs and payroll in order to remain profitable.

Who's going to pay the check?

Other than that it's a good plan.

Response by SPC Ray Sells made Oct 21 at 2014 8:22 PM

2014-10-21T20:22:43-04:00

We need to use any and all tools in our tool bag. Bring in Blackwater and any other speclalized military we can to go after the ISIS rebels and take off the gloves.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Oct 22 at 2014 7:22 AM

2014-10-22T07:22:13-04:00

am i too old to be hired, i will gladly go fight isis...I will be 63 in november

Response by CW3 Chuck Huddleston made Oct 22 at 2014 8:16 AM

2014-10-22T08:16:15-04:00

I fully believe the recent ROE restrictions of the present armed forces is overly restrictive to our warriors, it is now based on political BS, not effective defense/offense measures. If someone fires at me. I'm returning fire regardless if they are hiding in a mosque or someone's house. That's the way it is and should be. We need to cut the tea time and show a strength of force. I don't want their money or country, I just want to support our alliances we have with other countries.
Contractors don't have the political BS that the active military does and can do whatever needs to be done, regardless of method. No, they can't just "free fire" and randomly kill people, but they can skirt our ROE and accomplish their objectives. They are paid to do what they do and from what I know, they do it pretty darned well.

Response by SSgt Craig Manns made Oct 22 at 2014 8:53 AM

2014-10-22T08:53:30-04:00

Freedom did not come free to this nation. It will not come free to the Middle East. We should be dropping copies of the constitution over there. If the majority of people over there want a democracy they need to fight for it. Right now I'm pretty sure they don't even know what a democracy is. One thing seems certain the majority of people in the Middle East place their religious views over any type of republic. Until they learn that religious freedom is just as important as their particular religious views we can expect more of the same over there. It will not matter how many bombs are dropped or how many boots are on the ground.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Oct 22 at 2014 10:08 AM

2014-10-22T10:08:21-04:00

If we are going to Merc up and do what needs to be done then I'm all for it. We used them in Iraq, but I would say that they need more than just some jeeps. I'd join up for a nice hefty pay check to go over and fight.

Response by CDR Chuck Gbur made Oct 22 at 2014 10:33 AM

2014-10-22T10:33:23-04:00

I am not opposed to this. The bigger question is "Why aren't they already?". Which leads to our strategy or lack there of. I don't believe that we, in the words of Sun Tzu are "appearing weak when we are strong" (Paraphrased). We are either truly weak and can't defeat them or we lack the will. Of course we have the ablility, so therefore we must lack the will. My true concern is the why part- what is POTUS's ultimate objective?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 12:36 PM

2014-10-22T12:36:07-04:00

In the and of the day the US will be on international public trail .

Response by Cpl Joshua Wehrman made Oct 22 at 2014 3:14 PM

2014-10-22T15:14:55-04:00

Not much we can do with the current ROE's so I for them having a go at it

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Oct 22 at 2014 3:15 PM

2014-10-22T15:15:11-04:00

Well shoot, if I were the CEO of a private security company looking to make billions, I would say the same thing!

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Oct 22 at 2014 3:30 PM

2014-10-22T15:30:03-04:00

I read this article this evening. Thought it may be relevant to the forum discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/verdict-expected-in-blackwater-shooting-case/2014/10/22/5a488258-59fc-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Blackwater contract security guards found guilty in 2007 shootings that killed, wounded 31 Iraqi...

The U.S. contractors killed 14 unarmed Iraqis in Baghdad in 2007, one of the most ignominious chapters of the war.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 3:38 PM

2014-10-22T15:38:57-04:00

Regardless of how specialized Blackwater is, this is a BAD idea on a number of fronts.

1. Contractors [retired SOF, SAS, etc.] will be viewed at henchman instead of saviors because let's face it, there are those in that community believe in getting the job done "at all cost" because their ROE is a little boarder than the US military coupled with a few "grey" areas.
2. If Blackwater is sent other there, how much will Congress or the DoD appropriate in funds. Will those funds be put to their use in operations or will these contractors pocket most it?

I'll just say those two because I don't want to go in on whether they'd get air/fire support, transportation for that matter real operational support [intel, commo, etc.]

Don't care how much expertise Blackwater has, they'd still need the gov't to support them and I don't think Congress, whether Democrat or Republican would cut a check for them to go in.

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 3:59 PM

2014-10-22T15:59:59-04:00

If our government believes it is in our interest or international interest to stop ISIS, but doesn't want to further demoralize the American public by using contractors, I see no reason why we couldn't let them do it.

If needed, we could even give them some degree of monetary and hardware support.

Hell, whoever takes charge of the country once ISIS is effectively crushed could be requested to give a small portion of their tax collection to the PMC for a few years.

They could even take further employment by training the new government/policy and assisting them.

I see potential in it, but I also don't know a ton about PMCs.

Response by SGT Scott Curtice made Oct 22 at 2014 6:24 PM

2014-10-22T18:24:05-04:00

I don't think their is a great option, I like our approach at the moment, and it will, I have no doubt, need to change, even escalate, but would like to see the countries in that region do the ground fighting. It seems many of them are very afraid of ISIS, unlike any recent troubles in the area in my lifetime. If that's not going to work, be effective, yeah the west, not just the US will need to be involved on the ground. We have military might like no other, jumping in with troops on the ground all the time isn't necessary, more risk to wait, yes, but we can overcome the risk by sheer force, intelligence, and strategy. The Cheney 1% rule is BS outside of situations where there is truly a true and present danger on a mass scale. All that being said, we haven't seen anything like ISIS at a level this organized militarily. We have to be prepared for to go all in if necessary, and if it is, I think the level brutality in the ground war will be unlike anything we've seen.
Sorry not really addressing the whole government troops vs contractors thing, I don't like the idea of contractor armies, fine with security, and even sub contracting non combat arms work, but I think the contractor armies situation is dangerous long term, cause it can only get used more and more, and get to the point out of our countries leadership's control.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 7:43 AM

2014-10-23T07:43:56-04:00

Absolutely not! Contracted armies on the battlefield is a dangerous precedent. It's a mistake we need to put back in Pandoras box. Their is far more potential for harm than good. Blackwater doesn't ever need to see a combat zone again in my opinion.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 24 at 2014 7:05 AM

2014-10-24T07:05:24-04:00

Should they lead the fight? No. Should they play a key role? Absolutely.

I fear that a senior echelon of DoD leadership is falling into the post Cold War paradigm- who remembers training for the Fulda Gap scenario in the last 90s even though that threat was no longer the most likely course of action?

Conflict has evolved, and how we prosecute it needs to evolve as well. Here is the opinion of one E7 in the Army about what that should look like:

1. Active military forces should be the lead and the core of any conflict- if we aren't willing to have men in uniform wearing "US" as the face and backbone of the fight, we shouldn't be in it.

2. There are no foreign conflict zones that should not have CIA and FBI personnel co-located with the military HQ.

3. With the need for a smaller military, contractors provide a solution for both subject matter expertise and personnel gaps in security, logistics, and intelligence. The DynCorp and Academic reps to the military HQ need clearances and a seat at the Command & Staff meetings.

4. Generals have no place on the modern battlefield and should be limited to 1 meeting by VTC every other week. The current system of reserving authorizations at echelons above corps for tactical actions and micromanagement of company-sized elements by senior officers is both demonstrably flawed from a historical standpoint and drastically reduces efficiency.

In the IC, the "us versus them" mindset hobbled us for 50 years. We do it today with contractors. Until people realize that "one team one fight" doesn't stop at uniformed personnel, we are going to have problems.

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Oct 27 at 2014 6:36 AM

2014-10-27T06:36:25-04:00

It appears the US has suffered its first noncombat casualty in the fight against the Islamic State. RIP USMC Sean Neal.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2014-10-25-US-United-States-Islamic-State/id-0a86c9a622564e1db888fe44581dd781

Associated Press

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Oct 27 at 2014 7:51 PM

2014-10-27T19:51:56-04:00

Military and civilian contractors should pullout and let them fight it out.

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Oct 27 at 2014 10:08 PM

2014-10-27T22:08:34-04:00

I wonder if a private company could seriously build the necessary logistical monster required to move and support it's employees for a venture of this size. The simplest answer seems to be a conglomerate of multiple companies adding their piece to the mobilization and sustainment puzzle.

Politically, how would we gain support for action like this? We may not be deploying troops, but these companies would still need some kind of agreement with the host countries to conduct their business.

I read Erik Prince's book, Civilian Warriors, and found it pretty interesting. At the very least, it was intriguing to see his side of all the accusations that had been floating around. Ultimately, I wonder if this type of action would turn into exactly what the rest of the world would see it for, the US sending in proxy soldiers only to turn them into scapegoats should things start to turn sour.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 15 at 2014 3:31 PM

2014-12-15T15:31:36-05:00

LTC Jason Strickland Sir I would say "contractors" (mercenaries) are less subject to normative judgements like "should." They have brought force into the economic realm, and economics only understands supply and demand. There is a demand for force to oppose ISIL and protect people and property of wealthy people and corporations.

To answer a revised version of your question: "WILL contractors battles ISIL?" Of course, and they already are.

Also, a really good book about contractors/mercenaries fighting in that region of the world in the aftermath of the Iraq wars: The Profession
http://www.stevenpressfield.com/the-profession/

The Profession | Steven Pressfield

Website of author and historian, Steven Pressfield.