OT: Privatized War

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Yeah, even though we all know their mercenaries now the media still says "civilian contractors". I also wonder why those Japanese civilians were there. Do I need to put quotes around civilian? Were they just being stupid? Were they putting pee pee in our Cokes?

[AMF]

Well, the Japanese do an awful lot of NGO stuff - aid work, mostly. And, given that they have few if any "security" type consultants in Japan, I suspect they're just the run of the mill aid worker types.

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
Yeah, even though we all know their mercenaries now the media still says "civilian contractors". I also wonder why those Japanese civilians were there. Do I need to put quotes around civilian? Were they just being stupid? Were they putting pee pee in our Cokes?

[Krsqk]

Well, I found this little quote surprising:

"Each private firm amounts to an individual battalion," said one U.S. government official familiar with the developments.

A battalion? That's quite a bit of firepower. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining the market demand for several battalion-sized private "security" forces (i.e., mercs). Somehow seems a bit too much like something I'd d/l from Baen.

[edit]I meant I have trouble seeing the demand that led many someones to say to themselves, "Self, you have much goods laid up for many years. Life will be boring now, so why don't you go recruit a bunch of old SpecOps personnel who still wanna fight and start your own mercenary battalion!"

[ May 03, 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

[sachmo]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
Private security could be turned into the new governments army. In the meantime, the US army needs to back them up!

I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.

[AMF]

Wouldn't they be "governed," albeit perhaps less strictly, by the ROE for the theater? I'm just thinking that it'd be awfully weird if they were allowed to go into theater and weren't briefed on the ROE in place, since that is a theater level decision and they'd be responsbile to/hired by the Combatant Commander, no?

Originally posted by sachmo:
I don't agree. Since these security troops have basically no rules of engagement, the US military should stay as far from them as possible, lest they be dragged into the inevitable public relations nightmare that these mercs will find themselves in.

[geoschmo]

The question isn't whether they are aware of the standing ROE for the theater or not. The question is to whom are they responsible if they violate it. Since they don't fall under the military chain of command, how do you punish them if they commit illegal acts? Who has jusrisdiction? The CPA? The local authorities?

We've seen this week even soldiers under military command can do some really monumentally stupid things. We really need to be sure everyone there exercising authority is subject to some responsibility.

As far as the private security firms becoming the core of a future Iraqi military, I am pretty sure that would be highly illegal. Their preseance now is a bit of a gray area. They don't fit the legal definition of mercenary according to the UN because they are not a third party but actually citizens of the US and, at least theoretically, under the control of the US. If they transition under the direct authority of the Iraqi government, then they become Mercenaries in name as well as deed. Unless they all become citizens of Iraq first.