14
12
2
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
http://wapo.st/1vQWx55
Posted in these groups: 
ISIS
ISIS
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 57
2
2
0
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!
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!
(2)
(0)
SSG Dwight Welsh
First of all Major,
I have served and been through SERE (more than 1 time).
As for ROE, it does serve a good purpose at time, BUT the issue is that it DOES NOT give the people on the ground the PROPER way to keep themselves safe.
By having to follow ROE and "wait for proper authority, based on ROE" to engage an enemy is dangerous and not wise in a FLUID live fire situation.
NO I am not saying we need to say WHO gives a rats A-- to the Geneva Convention or international laws, BUT we need to QUIT tying the hands of those on the ground by making things TOO complicated for them to be able to do their JOBS properly.
I have served and been through SERE (more than 1 time).
As for ROE, it does serve a good purpose at time, BUT the issue is that it DOES NOT give the people on the ground the PROPER way to keep themselves safe.
By having to follow ROE and "wait for proper authority, based on ROE" to engage an enemy is dangerous and not wise in a FLUID live fire situation.
NO I am not saying we need to say WHO gives a rats A-- to the Geneva Convention or international laws, BUT we need to QUIT tying the hands of those on the ground by making things TOO complicated for them to be able to do their JOBS properly.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I agree that ROE has not been ideal for you on the ground in the two theaters. Not arguing that one bit. But I am arguing that if send a carblanche force to battle ISIS with no restrictions than it will most likely have even further backlash. I agree you should be sent to a conflict with unreasonable constraints. If you are not able to do the job than you should not be there.
I believe if we do try to circumvent the rules to allow a non uniformed force to go over there to specifically engage in combat we are setting a precedent that usurps all the laws that are supposed to keep us from being unreasonably treated if in the hands of the future enemy. It is a painful thing sometimes to be the ones to hold the ethical high ground. At the end of the day that is what separates us as nation from those who do otherwise. If we take route then we are becoming no better than the people we are trying to suppress.
I believe if we do try to circumvent the rules to allow a non uniformed force to go over there to specifically engage in combat we are setting a precedent that usurps all the laws that are supposed to keep us from being unreasonably treated if in the hands of the future enemy. It is a painful thing sometimes to be the ones to hold the ethical high ground. At the end of the day that is what separates us as nation from those who do otherwise. If we take route then we are becoming no better than the people we are trying to suppress.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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/
http://www.special-ops.org/german-bikers-unite-dutch-comrades-fight-isis/
German bikers unite with Dutch comrades in fight against ISIS | World
    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:
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
They don't seem to be getting paid by the German nation state and that's the difference. If we were to legally classify them they are defacto foreign national insurgents. To paraphrase The UN qualifies a mercenary as an individual who is directed under nation flag to do combat duties that are normally considered combat arms, and that they make significant amount more money than a person in that countries military. Lets say E-5's make 40K a year, I would say making 165 is a little bit more than that and qualifies.
There are contractors flying predators and sky warriors for the Army. They are not allowed to enmploy the Hellfire, because they would then be considered an illegal combatant. Ergo they would be a merc in a GCS.
There are contractors flying predators and sky warriors for the Army. They are not allowed to enmploy the Hellfire, because they would then be considered an illegal combatant. Ergo they would be a merc in a GCS.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Because it violates international law maybe?
So I am country X and I don't like what the united states does. Maybe I want to attack America because of Furgeson MO. I am going to hire some civilians to come over the US and declare war. But not really, I am only using some guys I am paying a good salary to come over and start attacking Americans. Is that legal?
In a nutshell that is what we would be doing.
Contractors are loyal to the performance work statement, versus an oath. Contractors have no criminal restraints like the UCMJ. It is against international law that we ratified., If we violate such law than we are no better than the countries supporting insurgents.
If we were going to this why bot go all the way and have contractor sitting in an ICBM silo and launch a NUKE instead.
So I am country X and I don't like what the united states does. Maybe I want to attack America because of Furgeson MO. I am going to hire some civilians to come over the US and declare war. But not really, I am only using some guys I am paying a good salary to come over and start attacking Americans. Is that legal?
In a nutshell that is what we would be doing.
Contractors are loyal to the performance work statement, versus an oath. Contractors have no criminal restraints like the UCMJ. It is against international law that we ratified., If we violate such law than we are no better than the countries supporting insurgents.
If we were going to this why bot go all the way and have contractor sitting in an ICBM silo and launch a NUKE instead.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
CW4 Edward M.
If this was our fight, I would support it, but we all know what happened the last go around. I lost a couple of good friends that worked under that banner. If a well trained professional is hired by the government of Iraq (or any other for that matter) to act as mercenaries and take care of their domestic problems, by all means - a job is a job!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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....
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....
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google