Contractors should battle ISIS?

Stupid idea promoted by cowardly politicians.  When deadly force is the last resort against our enemies, the United States of America doesn't call upon mercenaries.  We have the best Armed Forces in the world.  Give us a clear and legitimate mission (NOT nation-building with unwilling Muslims), empower our leaders, and get out of the way.  Problem solved!

Don't need American boots on that ground, not our fight.

I strongly disagree. Not only could they provide everything the military does in terms of hardware, logistics and personnel, almost certainly do it better, faster and cheaper. May I remind all present of Executive Outcomes, the first international private military company that the UN had disbanded because they were too powerful (overthrew two African nations in a few short years). But as I said earlier, not profitable and a poor investment because Iraq is full of Iraqis. [for the record, I too worked as a contractor]

We should pull out of mid east let them regroup and then go in and take them all out

funny how you guys miss a key point of the Geneva convention...must be a war between two sovereign states...last I heard ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist entity is not a sovereign state.....I may just be a lowly former Inf NCO but i do know how to read.

Seems like a moot point really. If ISIS were to take prisoners, whether they were US Armed Forces or Contractors, is anybody under the impression that they would abide by the Geneva Conventions?

You can actually get around the "legality" by hiring contractors, then officially integrating them into your armed forces, similar to the Gurkhas or French Foreign Legion.

SSG Jason Hopkins
Except if we put personnel on the ground to deal with this issue, we would be violating a sovereign states boarders with a de-facto military. That is an act of war, and the sovereign state would have a legal grievance. I doubt Al Asad is going to allow our boots on the ground. Lets say Mexico is fed up with the cartels operating int the US and they want to hire their contractors to deal with it without our permission. They come over hear to do it. That's legal isn't huh? Essentially that's what you are advocating.

LTC Paul Labrador
That's true. However, they become members of the French armed forces where an official uniform and are directly under the control of the french military. The contracting is set up in the US we are not directly under the control of the military. We have a certain set of requirements that are spelled out in contract vehicles such as the Performance Work Statements (PWS). A PWS is a blanket document spelling out the duties of the contract on how many personnel must be hired and what tasks must be adhered to. Another document is the Task Order, or TO this is a document that pays for a specific task to be done. Then there is the Enhanced Contractual Requirement, or ECR that basically is a mini PWS alots funds to hire additional personnel if needed to carry out a task.

As a contractor we don't work directly for a military commander as employees. Our contract spells out our tasks and the military commander or other designated government official may validate our performance as to meeting contractual criteria. However they do not have sole control to task at wuill without going through a company program manager that is assigned to carry out the contract.

If we were to embed a contractor force then that sort of negates the whole argument that our official military is no longer involved in the conflict. What would be the point of such actions other than having now a super soldier that is getting compensated well beyond the counter parts? If money is the reason SSG Hopkins want this because he does not get paid enough by Uncle Sam? Wouldn't the real answer be to train the force better and compensate appropriately without having to pay for overhead and other expenses?

MSG Brian Allen, I agree that extremely restrictive ROE put US forces in a no-win situation.

I agree, ROE is crazy and what has caused us many losses, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. And any nation we fight for should pay the entire cost out of there assets even if it takes them years and years of payments. or When we win, the territory becomes US territories.

Agreed as well. But, given our current military and political climate, we likely won't ever operate under a realistic, effective ROE. Hence the Mercs..

i just don't see that same political climate that you refer to being the one that sends in the mercs. to run wild and root out all ISIS.

Do you guys even know the definition of mercenary? It is someone who is hired to fight n a foreign military. I am a contractor, I am not a mercenary. I am hired by the state department to provide services for my country. So if we are mercenaries because we get paid for doing this then Soldiers are mercenaries because they get paid also. How many soldiers would stay around without a pay check, I know that in my 17 years of service as an infantryman I would not have stayed without a paycheck. So when you call us mercenaries it is extremely disrespectful. Especially considering that I served 5 tours as an infantryman in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also dont "run wild" we have our ROE also and in most cases these "mercs" ar much more professional that the soldiers I served with.

Oh and not to mention that we have marksmanship and PT standards that we actually stick to.

i don't agree with your assessment at all. I worked with a contract firm which I will not name on this site. I conducted AT/FP exercises at my base as part of my wing staff job. We did an active shooter scenario. We were exercising if we could apprehend the Red Force player before he got off base. Well he did and the reason was that said contracting company had it their PWS that they did not have themselves in unreasonable harms way to apprehend a dangerous person. It is not always as you say. BTW I am also a contractor for the government not doing OCO I know and understand that realm fairly well. Also I have done oversight as reservist with contractors that are not in my company for another unit.

This comment doesn't make any sense, nor it's relevance to what I said there. The only thing I can ascertain is that you're upset because the Red Cell contractor "cheated" (because you know terrorists follow the rules too) and got away, and that you have also contracted but not doing HTP/PSD work so don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to Blackwater, its personnel or it's mission.
I don't know why I'm even bothering. All I've gotten out of this thread is that there are far too many senior NCO's and field grade officer with internet access and don't know how to use Google. I'm out

No I was not upset at all that the red cell got off base. I was the exercise director and the red cell was working for me. That was what they were supposed to do by instructions. The Contractor guards at the gate were supposed to stop the guy, they did not. It was their contract performance statement that did not require them to go above beyond to defend the base.

No what I am saying is that you made a statement that only contractors would be willing to go out of their way defend their principle. You claim they are more professional than the military. You did not take an oath or bound by one as a contractor. You are only bound by what company agreed to in a Performance Work Statement. When you are on military status you took an oath to give up your life for the defense of the nation. As contractor you are required to do what is on the PWS.

I am pointing out where contracting can have constraints and that it is not this golden egg you are making it out to be.

MAJ Dallas D., you speak truth!

I don't think forming a mercenary force is the answer to our anemic response to fight the ISIS threat.

Colonel, Sir Absofuckinglutely!

I am a contractor and I subscribe to no such oath in that capacity! I only do what my Performance Work Statement mandates. If we were to do this than we should shut down the military because we would no longer have a purpose.

When on orders my job is to do what is good for the nation, When at work as a contractor my job is to do what is good for my company!

Well said, COL Vince Lindenmeyer, Ph.D. (Retired)!

Colonel:

Sir,

AWC covered in some detail the value that “contractors” bring to the table and that they have proudly served in ever military war this nation has been in.

The powers to be are saying “contractors” for no other reason than to provide their own political cover. Using “contractors” in this case is nothing more than our politicians and very high military leaders not having the gonads to make the tough call, task the military, support the mission, own the results. ----- That is a PERIOD.

Political correctness is tearing our country apart from the inside out. PC is also running amuck within the ranks of our military leaders. The very leaders that should be telling our politicians the truth, not sugar coating it, nor lying or changing it into something that it is NOT. There seems to have been a change in the absolute trust that we had and need in our military leaders. The trust that they will ALWAYS tell it like it is straight up no BS. Trust that they will faithfully fulfill their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Trust that they will ALWAYS do what is right by those they lead. Trust that they will do these even at their own peril, if need be. These are issues that are as real as any foe in the field and by writing and posting a “position statement” will not correct them. This trust must be earned, again!

Respectfully

SSgt (Join to see), I agree with your synopsis...the military will have to clean up the mess eventually.

Hi, Corporal Radzinski.

If Blackwater could do that within reasonable ROEs, then let them. But how do we ensure that they follow what we, as USM, determine to be reasonable ROEs? We either bring them so far into our circle of control that their ability to operate as mercenaries is inhibited, which would hamstring their effectiveness, or we turn them loose, and accept the fallout for doing so as a cost of waging war.

Blackwater isn’t answerable to us or the UCMJ. They answer to their stakeholders, like any other business.

There’s a place for mercs in warfare. Disrupting enemy operations by engaging supply chains, comes to mind. They work on the periphery of normal CONOPS, in conjunction with a larger strategy, by forcing enemy commanders to commit resources to engage contract forces. Privateers or corsairs did that between the 16th and 19th centuries. But to go after primary leadership targets is outside their scope.

Except if we the United States Hire them do you honestly think the average Arab is going to give two shits whether or not they are a private contractor vs a uniformed serviceman. If they go running rampant through the countryside there will be more backlash and not less. That's the whole reason why the profession of arms is secured by internal laws. Doing combat as a civilian under the flag of a nation state is not legal under those laws. Not only that there would be no denying it as we would on paper as the US government would have the contract with the performance work statement or PWS outlining what the tasks would be. If we did not put reasonable constraints in that contract, call it ROE if you will there could most definitely would get international backlash.

Is this the can worms we want to open? Because any country can now attack its neighbor with the use of hired hands. What is there to stop unreasonable abuses of such a system putting hundreds of years international law into jeopardy.

That whole prosecution was a political witch hunt. The men were cleared of wrongdoing a couple days afterward by the DSS RSO's who managed them and reviewed ROE/EOF incidents for the teams. The follow on investigation began weeks later by federal agents unfamiliar with crime scene analysis in a war zone, in a nation with a chronically corrupt and dishonest people, who are socially encouraged to lie especially if it bears fruit. Then the case was dismissed for a multitude of legal justifications, but the prosecution brought the case forward again, stiffening charges in some cases to ensure it proceeded. Dozens of other team members were disqualified by the courts as defense witnesses, evidence was withheld until the last minute from the defense, the prosecution was allowed 70 witnesses (30 of them culturally deceitful Iraqis) and the defense only 4, sealed statements were admitted as evidence when they shouldn't have been, and the government used a legal enactment only applicable to contractors working under the DoD not the DoS. Did I mention three of them were charged with "using a machine-gun in the commission of a crime"? Yeah, that was one the weapons charges. Think what you will about contractors, but these were all military veterans who were railroaded over politics.
There have been soldiers and Marines charged similarly for doing what they had to to protect themselves and the men they serve with, don't think this couldn't happen to you as well.

There are always atleast two sides to every story. I apprecaite your insight on the other side of this story SFC Benjamin Varlese.