Is anyone else worried about PMCs?

[Bast]

So, just doing some random reading and found this article and this jumped out at me:

Today, at 38, Prince, chief of Blackwater USA, has a real army — or at least the makings of one, with weapons, aircraft, armored vehicles and a thousand or more battle-hardened security personnel.

And it goes on.

Prince, intense as always, isn't backing down: "If the government doesn't want us to do this," he said at last week's hearing, "we'll go do something else."

Like what?

I'm not sure if these companies should even exist. I thought it was the government's job to provide national security? I'm all for a large national military. But I'm not sure about private companies having their own armies.

Now I realize there's already a thread on Blackwater and Iraq. But this is more about PMCs. Please enlighten me, why do they even exist? Should they exist? I'm not comfortable with armies being under the control of private citizens or groups of citizens.

more

 

[aaglo]

Please, explain PCM.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

In principle, there should be no private military contractors whatsoever, though in practice if they're limited to cooks or janitors inside war zones I don't really see the harm. Actual combat troops though, from PMCs, should be banned by law. You're organizing a private military which is inherently tied into politics. It just reeks of potential for a coup d'etat, or at least a private military organization having too much say in government. When you have a powerful corporation that depends on continual conflict for profit, it will lobby for ongoing conflict, and that's inherently immoral.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm not sure if these companies should even exist. I thought it was the government's job to provide national security?

I suppose that they don't exist to protect America or fight wars. They exist to protect their clients in high risk areas.

Are we against all forms of private security or just against what ever is in the news lately?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

BS. When you hire them to "provide security" in a war zone, they're going to be fighting wars because they're going to be using their weapons on enemies of the American nation-state. If a PMC employee is "providing security" for an American diplomat in Iraq, and he comes under attack from insurgents, he's fighting the war just as much as any soldier in the Army.

 

[Bugfatty300]

BS. When you hire them to "provide security" in a war zone, they're going to be fighting wars because they're going to be using their weapons on enemies of the American nation-state. If a PMC employee is "providing security" for an American diplomat in Iraq, and he comes under attack from insurgents, he's fighting the war just as much as any soldier in the Army.

I don't see that as inherently bad.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Well, guess again.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Oh I forgot. Coups and political corruption aren't committed by "national" armies. Just private ones.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You didn't read what I said. PMCs depend on perpetual war for profit. Thus they're going to lobby for perpetual war. A standing national army doesn't make a profit, and defense industries don't need a war to maintain profit margins, they make profit simply by supplying and ensuring maintenance of equipment. Just look at how much maintenance time is required per flight hour for modern military aircraft. PMCs on the other hand have no raison d'etre if there isn't a war being fought. That makes them dangerous and immoral.

 

[Kozmos]

I see no problem. War is a business like any other.

 

[Jawz II]

Please, explain PCM.

PMCs dude, not PCM.

PMCs as in Porn Midget Couriers.

A highly controversial topic to some, they came to be from the hustle and bustle of california's booming porn industry. You see, in the mid 90s the internets opened all kinds of possibilties to sexual diviants of all kinds and they really started crawling out of the wood work and rallied around certain fetish porn sites ran by certain dubious charachters.

Within his booming industry, Midget Pornstars (AKA Porn Midgets) were in high demand (to satisfy the Midget Fetish Market) and since they can't reach the pedals in cars, they themselves can't drive, and taking cabs would easily wipe out their daily earnings (Los Angeles is a huge city!) and these porn "stars" really needed to go from movie set to movie set in different parts of town, the more serious studios started providing courier service for their vertically challenged stars.

The studios decided to use the PMs small size to their advantage and employed young couriers, who would deliver their stars on mopeds. The other studios soon followed suit.

I belive the question here is, is it ethical to deliver people (remember that is what they are, despite the whacky looking wobbly heads!) in modified pizza bags (used by pizza couriers!) in speeds in excess of 50 Mph?

There have been 3 PM fatalities already, and one very ugly traffic incident involving a midget, a police horse and a demolished moped. The poor PMC lost his life, while the PM had to be removed surgically from the horses hind quarters, and the horse had to subsequently be put down. The PM soon left the industry and hasn't been seen since.

 

[Phlegmak]

I see no problem. War is a business like any other.

War is a business, but it's a business that the world needs less of.

 

[Verbose]

PMCs = Hello Thirty (or a Hundred) Year Wars!

Nice too see Eric "Condottiere" Prince keep up that Great tradition of a Wallenstein or a Piccolomini!

 

[Ecofarm]

I say no more private security. Not domestic, and not foreign. We should immediately disband Wells-Fargo, Brinks, and all of those other fascist bastards! If a research team, company executives, or any other civilians have any reason to enter dangerous places, they should just have to take their chances and go without protection. After all, shouldn't we give assassins and terrorists a sporting chance!? Of course, the research teams and executives cannot arm themselves, because then they might resemble a PMC.

/sarcasm


Once again, I think the real question is: "should the government hire PMCs"?

 

[MobBoss]

PMCs have always been around. Its just that Blackwater and others have gotten far more visibility during the Iraq war lately.

Am I worried about it? Not really. Although, I dont think the USA should spend the money on them that it does when our own soldiers should be doing those jobs. There isnt really a lot of love between our soldiers and the PMCs. Soldiers tend to resent them since they are doing essentially the same job at about 1/3 of the pay.

 

[IglooDame]

Once again, I think the real question is: "should the government hire PMCs"?

Indeed.

PMCs have always been around. Its just that Blackwater and others have gotten far more visibility during the Iraq war lately.

Am I worried about it? Not really. Although, I dont think the USA should spend the money on them that it does when our own soldiers should be doing those jobs. There isnt really a lot of love between our soldiers and the PMCs. Soldiers tend to resent them since they are doing essentially the same job at about 1/3 of the pay.

And with less inherent accountability, as everyone seems to have belatedly figured out.

And when used domestically (a la Katrina), they're effectively a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

[Merkinball]

There's only one reason why they exist.

It's politically correct.

You guys say, "these are jobs that American soldiers should be doing." Okay, very well, whatever. Guess how many more American soldiers you're going to have to put on the ground? The only reason they are there is to keep the number of uniformed soldiers as low as possible. That makes whatever is going on there more politically friendly to the eyes of the citizens. Instead of 200,000 servicemen and women, there's now 160,000. On top of that, it keeps numbers within the armed forces down.

I don't know what the exact number of mercenaries are in Iraq, but I do know that more than 1000 of them have lost their lives. Which suggests that they easily number in the thousands over there. Thousands of armed forces members that are home here instead.

 

[Elrohir]

Where do you guys draw the line? Just say no private security companies at all? Or no private security companies that operate overseas? (Or here, or whatever) I'm curious as to how you are supposed to curb this "problem" without causing an even more serious problem in doing so.

 

[Kozmos]

War is a business, but it's a business that the world needs less of.

Let the market decide.

 

[IglooDame]

Where do you guys draw the line? Just say no private security companies at all? Or no private security companies that operate overseas? (Or here, or whatever) I'm curious as to how you are supposed to curb this "problem" without causing an even more serious problem in doing so.

With regard to PMCs used overseas, it's relatively easy - if soldiers are getting certain allowances for being in an area where they get shot at frequently (I'm not sure in Iraq whether it is combat pay or hazardous duty pay), then all security for official US interests/personnel must be provided by DoD employees.

In a domestic environment it is a little trickier, but perhaps could be similar except the tripwire could be a declared disaster area, or just that PMCs are at least under the same restrictions as federal DoD personnel with respect to the Posse Comitatus Act (which sadly has been getting eroded over the past couple decades anyway) and more restricted as far as enforcing US law and employing police powers within the borders of the US.