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
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
LTC Jason Strickland
SPC David S. - agreed: strategic move by Prince to keep the $$$ flowing his way. "The Power of Suggestion" just may prove successful for him...
(1)
(0)
Sgt Daniel V.
I dont think his play can be cosidered as anything more than a political stunt that he was probably handsomely rewarded for to undermine either the current or future administration. After careful thought about from a financial perspective he stands to gain just by the power of suggestion as mentioned by LTC. I do believe that Blackwater would be highly ineffective in terms of gaining and HOLDING ground against a semi indigenous force at best they could take out key targets and evac. There is a purely financial motivation here and this will be more costly than dollars and cents.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Military and civilian contractors should pullout and let them fight it out.
(2)
(0)
SSG Genaro Negrete
I like the notion. I doubt Iraq would come out on top on their front against ISIS.
(1)
(0)
MSG Floyd Williams
They either fight to win or perish, any kind of way it goes it isn't our problem.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Well shoot, if I were the CEO of a private security company looking to make billions, I would say the same thing!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
LTC Jason Strickland
Just so you know Capt Douglas Chilson, I'm not advocating for contractors to be our force against ISIS, I was simply posing the question for discussion.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google