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

[.Shane.]

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

You know, I was considering how to thoughtfully reply to some of your other points, but then I see this reply and I'm not sure what the point is.

Just curious, what's the point of posting to you? Is it just sport to argue w/ people until you can make some kind of over-broad, unfair reduction (I could just as easily make some snarky summary of your PoV)?

I just don't get what the value or interest is in posting for some people who just end up in these kind of negative death spirals where, if I was a different poster, at this point we'd just rip into each other worse and worse until everything was locked/infracted.

Sorry, but, if comments like what I quoted are what I should expect, I'm done.

@PCH, I'll reply to your comments later, they're reasonable and if I have energy, I'll reply, but ftm, I'm done w/ the topic. Need to balance the checkbook and play catch w/ my boys.


Moderator Action: Dear me:

As someone who goes on about improving the tone of OT and, more importantly, being in a position to help police the environment, the reply was inappropriate. If I could infract myself, I would.

Patrok, I apologize for replying as I did.

 

[Patroklos]

Ah, I misunderstood him.

How our these UAE personnel mercenaries?

 

[BuckeyeJim]

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

So can't mercenaries! If a mercenary isn't up for the job, he can quit and stop collecting a paycheck. If a soldier defects he will be brought up for treason, imprisoned, and even executed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ah, I misunderstood him.

How our these UAE personnel mercenaries?

I think you could make an argument either way regarding the use of the word "mercenaries" in this situation, but the statute would apply either way that argument fell.

 

[Singularity]

This reeks of a desperate attempt at shoring up authority against your own population. Good thing UAE has plenty of oil so they can keep doing it without being bothered too much by western powers.

 

[Patroklos]

You know, I was considering how to thoughtfully reply to some of your other points, but then I see this reply and I'm not sure what the point is.

I suspect you won't address the other points because you don't want the retreat from you hard position that mercenaries are always evil.

You backed yourself into a corner, I simply made that clear.

Just curious, what's the point of posting to you? Is it just sport to argue w/ people until you can make some kind of over-broad, unfair reduction (I could just as easily make some snarky summary of your PoV)?

The only person who made an over board and unfair reduction is you"

"Mercenaries are always evil."

If having to defend that position bothers you, perhaps you should change it?

I just don't get what the value or interest is in posting for some people who just end up in these kind of negative death spirals where, if I was a different poster, at this point we'd just rip into each other worse and worse until everything was locked/infracted.

Or you could just support what you stated, which you have failed to do.

You made a very clear statement about something very serious, all I have done is pointed out the flaws in your logic using real examples that contadict your position.

Sorry, but, if comments like what I quoted are what I should expect, I'm done.

If retreating into personal insults like you have done above is all I can expect from you, we can assume you are a.) wrong and proven thus by honest debate and b.) not interested in serious discussion of your position in the first place.

As it stands you have made a statment:

"Mercenaries are always evil"

Defend. It appears as of right now you can't or won't, but regardless of which one it is you are being disengenous in your charactarization of my replies. YOU are the one not participating in constuctive debate, not me.

 

[Berzerker]

being a merc aint evil, killing people for some dictator is...

 

[Formaldehyde]

For the few Fiying Tigers who ostensibly did it solely for the money and who got portrayed that way in the Hollywood movie? No doubt they were just like any other mercenaries motivated by money. For those who did it for other reasons? Not so much.

They didn't call it the American Voluntary Group for nothing. These military pilots were recruited by and got explicit permission from the president to leave the service for this specific reason.

Flying Tigers was the popular name of the 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force in 1941-1942. The pilots were United States Army (USAAF), Navy (USN), and Marine Corps (USMC) personnel, recruited under Presidential sanction and commanded by Claire Lee Chennault; the ground crew and headquarters staff were likewise mostly recruited from the U.S. military, along with some civilians. The group consisted of three fighter squadrons with about 20 aircraft each. It trained in Burma before the American entry into World War II with the mission of defending China against Japanese forces. Arguably, the group was a private military contractor, and for that reason the volunteers have sometimes been called mercenaries. The members of the group had lucrative contracts with salaries ranging from $250 a month for a mechanic to $750 for a squadron commander, roughly three times what they had been making in the U.S. forces.

Calling them mercenaries is disingenuous at best.

 

[Commodore]

Can someone explain to me why mercenaries are "inherently evil"? From what I've seen of mercenary operations, they are more professional and more skilled than any government army on the planet. Sure, they have done some bad things, but so has every government army. With that said, why are mercenaries judged more harshly than their government counterparts?

It seems to me that mercs are the logical choice for nations with a lot of cash but poor armed forces. Face it people, mercs are just plain better than goverment troops and this will make them the soldiers of choice in future conflicts.

 

[Singularity]

Another obvious difference is that China was at war at the time of the Flying Tigers. UAE isn't. What purpose will this force of foreigners fill I wonder, what's their real mandate?

 

[Berzerker]

kill people for some dictator

 

[Patroklos]

kill people for some dictator

More seriously, how do you feel about cops who are paid for their services off duty. You understand that cop hanging out near the grocery checkout line is not on the government dime, right?

 

[Berzerker]

I have no problem with cops doin side jobs

or "mercs"

 

[Singularity]

Can someone explain to me why mercenaries are "inherently evil"? From what I've seen of mercenary operations, they are more professional and more skilled than any government army on the planet. Sure, they have done some bad things, but so has every government army. With that said, why are mercenaries judged more harshly than their government counterparts?

It seems to me that mercs are the logical choice for nations with a lot of cash but poor armed forces. Face it people, mercs are just plain better than goverment troops and this will make them the soldiers of choice in future conflicts.

The concept of not trusting your own citizens to defend your nation is the problem. Usually I would presume that someone fighting for the safety of their own family and friends would be better suited to serve as a soldier compared to a foreigner who goes from paycheck to paycheck. There's something extremely undemocratic and authoritarian about the whole thing - and in my book that equals evil.

 

[Berzerker]

The Magnificent 7 were not evil

 

[Patroklos]

The concept of not trusting your own citizens to defend your nation is the problem.

This may be the case sometimes, but we have discussed many cases thus far where it is not the case.

Usually I would presume that someone fighting for the safety of their own family and friends would be better suited to serve as a soldier compared to a foreigner who goes from paycheck to paycheck.

Skill and motivation make a good soldier, you are only accounting for one of those factors.

There's something extremely undemocratic and authoritarian about the whole thing - and in my book that equals evil.

Only because you are ignoring the part of the narrative that contridicts your conclusion.

 

[Commodore]

The concept of not trusting your own citizens to defend your nation is the problem. Usually I would presume that someone fighting for the safety of their own family and friends would be better suited to serve as a soldier compared to a foreigner who goes from paycheck to paycheck. There's something extremely undemocratic and authoritarian about the whole thing - and in my book that equals evil.

But doesn't a government have a duty to its people to aquire the best soldiers for the defense of the nation? If mercenaries are better than the nation's current armed forces, shouldn't that government hire those mercenaries?

 

[Singularity]

This may be the case sometimes, but we have discussed many cases thus far where it is not the case.

Isolated mistrust is obviously acceptable. Not trusting them to a point where you can't trust a single national to function in a whole military unit is not.

Skill and motivation make a good soldier, you are only accounting for one of those factors.

So, why not have mr. Price train national soldiers to this role? Other nations have conducted security checks for their soldiers for hundreds of years. Then you would have both skills and motivation. It seems people have forgot that there is an existing national military in the UAE where they could recruit nationals to be trained for this force. It can't be that hard can it?

Only because you are ignoring the part of the narrative that contridicts your conclusion.

I read the narrative. And an entire force of 800 foreigners to be used both internally and extrenally in peacetime can't be ignored. What is acceptable about that? The Arab monarchs leading the UAE can't trust their own population, why should the population trust them?

 

[Patroklos]

There are not too many governments hiring mercenaries as outright replacements for their soldiers. Rather, they are usually hired for training purposes.

If you are trying to improve the skill and professionalism of your soldiers, who better do do it than an ex-SAS or Ranger? These are skills like any other and are valuable, there is nothing wrong with sharing them.

Now you may have a problem with whom mercenaries do buisness with, but how is that different from any other for profit entity?

 

[Patroklos]

Isolated mistrust is obviously acceptable. Not trusting them to a point where you can't trust a single national to function in a whole military unit is not.

Please point to the nation that is in such a state.

The only instances of this I can think of in recent history is Angola and Sierra Leone and in both the government was being defeated by atrocity commiting rebels because the national troops were simply outclassed or were having their families machetted to death. the mercenaries ended the wars.

So, why not have mr. Price train national soldiers to this role?

Why are we suggesting these UAE personnel are not soldiers? If they are hired by and operate with the sanction of the government in question, how are they any different from a normal soldier?

I can see an arguement for not allowing foreigners into your armed forces, but you have to do that with the knowledge that this is common place worldwide.

Other nations have conducted security checks for their soldiers for hundreds of years. Then you would have both skills and motivation.

Security checks are irrelevant. The issue was not realiability, but raw skill. You can have the most reliable rag tag army or peasant farmer volunteers you want, 9 times out of 10 they are going to get rolled over by any trained force.

Conversly, you can have the most well armed and trained group of soldiers in the world, but if they are not reliable they will melt away as soon as things go south.

Mercinares are hired for either purposes or availability or skill, realiability is all up to what you ask them to do.

I read the narrative. And an entire force of 800 foreigners to be used both internally and extrenally in peacetime can't be ignored. What is acceptable about that? The Arab monarchs leading the UAE can't trust their own population, why should the population trust them?

The fact that they are foriegners is irrelevant. The US military has thousands of non citizens serving in its ranks.

I don't know why they need them, and I don't care. Until they actaully do something wrong you may as well claim the French Foreign Legion is about to overthrow France. I am also curious why you think an 800 person goverment entity is going to counterweight a 75,000 strong Union Defense Force.