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
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
That makes no sense at all. Who is paying for that? Iraq / Syrian rebels with what money? Our foreign Aid?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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/
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2014-10-25-US-United-States-Islamic-State/id-0a86c9a622564e1db888fe44581dd781
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LTC Jason Strickland
LTC (Join to see), thanks for your reply - and I agree with you. Just so you're aware, my question was not to advocate for contractors fighting ISIS, but was merely posing the question to stir debate.
(0)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
Maj Conner, you make a good point, but isnt that what they were made to do in the beginning? take blackwater for example, granted they may be a bunch of trigger happy hooligans, but if our government isnt sending our military, whats the next best thing?Â
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
There is no next best thing, and that's part of what is wrong with our nation today. Either you're all in, or you're not. War never used to be a minimum-required committment, and we need to stop treating it as such. Shinsecki was absolutely right when he refused to back off on his position that the Powell doctrine must guide our efforts. Arguably, the worst thing that happened since 9/11 was our initial success implementing Tommy Franks plan in Afghanistan with a small SOF-centric force, because we've become wed to this approach that we should only conduct engagements with the smallest force possible. Our militaries greatness has always centered around the fact that we don't fight a fair fight. We used to bring as one-sided of an ass-whooping as we possibly could.
So what does that all mean? We need to stop waging conflict if we're not willing to commit the proper resources. That's how we got bogged down in Vietnam, and it's the reason the GWOT has waged so damned long. That also means no hiring private militants/mercenaries to do our dirty work on our behalf, otherwise, we'll continue to see a disgruntled public that will still somehow refuse to hold political leaders accountable.
Last thought... Left unchecked, the rise of private, for-hire militaries in my opinion would someday evolve into a greater threat to the free world in the future than ISIS is today. Let's just not even go down that road.
So what does that all mean? We need to stop waging conflict if we're not willing to commit the proper resources. That's how we got bogged down in Vietnam, and it's the reason the GWOT has waged so damned long. That also means no hiring private militants/mercenaries to do our dirty work on our behalf, otherwise, we'll continue to see a disgruntled public that will still somehow refuse to hold political leaders accountable.
Last thought... Left unchecked, the rise of private, for-hire militaries in my opinion would someday evolve into a greater threat to the free world in the future than ISIS is today. Let's just not even go down that road.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google