Ex-Blackwater Chief Hired By The UAE To Build A "Secret Force"

[.Shane.]

Mercenaries are not an automatic bad thing.

IMO, they inherently are. They are paid to fight in a war they have no ideological interest in.


@Bugfatty, given their motivation, the FT's were not mercenary.

 

[ParkCungHee]

IMO, they inherently are. They are paid to fight in a war they have no ideological interest in.

Why is that worse then fighting in a war you have an ideological interest in?

 

[Patroklos]

IMO, they inherently are. They are paid to fight in a war they have no ideological interest in.

To serve those whom other nations see no profit in helping.

Liberia should be all thats needed to show mercenaries have a beneficial place in warfare. Forma can downplay the amazing success they had there all he wants, but the reality is the world did nothing and they stopped the problem.

They are really doing nothing different for warfare than security guards do for law enforecement.

 

[.Shane.]

And I bet they got paid too! They are foreigners sanctioned to fight by a foreign government in an official capactiy just like Blackwater here, there is no difference as far as the criteria Forma set up. Either way, they are bloodthirsty blood sport seekers.

They might not be seeking blood sport, but they are fairly despicable in my book according to this definition of mercenary:

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).[1][2] A non-conscript professional member of a regular army is not considered to be a mercenary although he gets monetary reward from his service.

Source

 

[Patroklos]

Private gain motivates anyone who has ever fought for anything. It motivates me, my family and countrymen protected from the outrages of a hostile world is very personally beneficial.

 

[Berzerker]

so we shouldn't thank you greedy bastards?

 

[.Shane.]

Private gain motivates anyone who has ever fought for anything. It motivates me, my family and countrymen protected from the outrages of a hostile world is very personally beneficial.

There's a distinction between the "private gain" that comes because we need to pay people who serve the nation and being paid explicitly to fight in wars/conflicts that have no bearing (sp?) on you, your family, or your country.

I'd wager its not your primary motivation at all. In fact, a lot of people in the military that I know and I think have read here as well have said that they could make more in the private sector (ie pilot for an airline) but they don't because the money is not why they serve.

Also, you have to think about why do countries need mercenaries? Why won't their own people fight?

 

[ParkCungHee]

being paid explicitly to fight in wars/conflicts that have no bearing (sp?) on you, your family, or your country.

But that's exactly what the flying tigers /were/.

 

[.Shane.]

But that's exactly what the flying tigers /were/.

In fighting the Japanese they were supporting a goal that directly affected their country. You'll note they weren't hired by Japan or Germany. While I can't say for sure, I'd wager whatever pay there was was more incidently. IE they weren't doing it for the money.

 

[Patroklos]

There's a distinction between the "private gain" that comes because we need to pay people who serve the nation and being paid explicitly to fight in wars/conflicts that have no bearing (sp?) on you, your family, or your country.

I'd wager its not your primary motivation at all. In fact, a lot of people in the military that I know and I think have read here as well have said that they could make more in the private sector (ie pilot for an airline) but they don't because the money is not why they serve.

You are defining gain as solely monetary, which is just defining the term so that it means what you need it to.

I would most definetly make more money in the private sector, but I would also leave the Navy if they paid me $0.00? Money is a good helping of my motivation.

Also, you have to think about why do countries need mercenaries? Why won't their own people fight?

Who said they won't? Perhaps they just suck at it and need professionals to even the playing field. Perhaps they find themselves in a situation where they do not have the time or resources to face a sudden threat? Perhaps the continent full of wealthy first world nations a stone's throw away cough: Europe) can't be bothered to help them out like in Liberia.

There are a thousand reasons why you might need a mercenary that are not "evil."

I ask again, in theory whats the differenace between a mercenary and a security guard in regards to doing a job normally within the sphere of a government entity. They both do it for money, are security guards evil?

 

[.Shane.]

Liberia should be all thats needed to show mercenaries have a beneficial place in warfare. Forma can downplay the amazing success they had there all he wants, but the reality is the world did nothing and they stopped the problem.

What Forma argues doesn't reply apply to me.

In terms of Liberia, I'm not familiar w/ it nor do I have time to become so. But, for discussion, I'll go along w/ the idea that mercenaries led to a positive outcome there. To that, I'd say "so what". Just because there's one (and I'm sure a few others) example of a positive outcome doesn't make it morally acceptable. It's not. That whole "ends not justifying the means" thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

In fighting the Japanese they were supporting a goal that directly affected their country.

The invasion of China had no practical effect on the United States, any more then any conflict can be justified as "effecting the united States"

You'll note they weren't hired by Japan or Germany.

Because Japan and Germany had competent pilots that weren't inclined to steal from them. Why would they hire less qualified American pilots?

 

[Patroklos]

What Forma argues doesn't reply apply to me.

In terms of Liberia, I'm not familiar w/ it nor do I have time to become so. But, for discussion, I'll go along w/ the idea that mercenaries led to a positive outcome there. To that, I'd say "so what". Just because there's one (and I'm sure a few others) example of a positive outcome doesn't make it morally acceptable. It's not. That whole "ends not justifying the means" thing.

In summary: Mercenaries are evil. Except when they are not. When this happens we will ignore it so that they can always be evil.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

And yet they all manage to deal with these "revolts" without calling in mercenaries to kill their own citizens. The only time that actually seems necessary is when it is a brutal authoritarian regime in some hopelessly backward country that doesn't even trust its own military and police. And most of the time, the victims are merely expressing their dissent to that very same regime.

What is the functional, meaningful difference in calling up police or your local military, and calling up mercenaries! Absolutely nothing. Especially when the regime is brutal and authoritarian.

Instead of paying mercenaries to put down revolts against unpopular politicians, they use their own people against their brethren! There's still a cash payout too. Pardon me if I'm disgusted either way...

 

[Patroklos]

Also, I should note the operations I referenced were in Sierra Leone, not Liberia.

Is should be noted that the same outfit ended the Angolian Civil War. When the UN took over, it started again, just like Sierra Leone...

I will also note that in both those cases the government forces and the mercenaries were not the ones brutally murdering civilians by the thousands, but rather the rebels they were fighting. I am not sure why Forma holds up the likes of the RUF or UNITA over EO or Blackwater given those facts.

 

[JollyRoger]

The OP claims this is illegal, I would like him to substantiate these claims.

Here ya go:

In furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States, the President is authorized to control the import and the export of defense articles and defense services and to provide foreign policy guidance to persons of the United States involved in the export and import of such articles and services. The President is authorized to designate those items which shall be considered as defense articles and defense services for the purposes of this section and to promulgate regulations for the import and export of such articles and services.

As prescribed in regulations issued under this section, every person (other than an officer or employee of the United States Government acting in an official capacity) who engages in the business of manufacturing, exporting, or importing any defense articles or defense services designated by the President under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall register with the United States Government agency charged with the administration of this section, and shall pay a registration fee which shall be prescribed by such regulations.

Except as otherwise specifically provided in regulations issued under subsection (a)(1) of this section, no defense articles or defense services designated by the President under subsection (a)(1) of this section may be exported or imported without a license for such export or import, issued in accordance with this chapter and regulations issued under this chapter

Any person who willfully violates any provision of this section or section 2779 of this title, or any rule or regulation issued under either section, or who willfully, in a registration or license application or required report, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, shall upon conviction be fined for each violation not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/2778.html

 

[Bill3000]

What is the functional, meaningful difference in calling up police or your local military, and calling up mercenaries! Absolutely nothing. Especially when the regime is brutal and authoritarian.

The police and military can defect, as we've seen.

 

[Patroklos]

So can contractors. The simple fact is they are both government sanctioned personnel operating in an offical capacity. They should each be judged on what they do, which in the case of both includes a lot of good and some bad.

Here ya go:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/2778.html

Formal thinks mercenaries are illegal period.

 

[JollyRoger]

Formal claimed mercenaries were illegal period. Your link is irrelevant to his claims.

My link goes to providing defense services (as defined by the executive branch) to foreign parties. If you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. corporation and you fail to get a license, you can face civil and criminal penalties under this law.

Now that this low-life is living in the UAE, does the US still have any control over his illegal training of foreign mercenaries as they did in the past?

This statute directly answers Forma's question & the answer is yes.

 

[Bill3000]

Formal thinks mercenaries are illegal period.

Forma said "illegal training of foreign mercenaries"