Volunteers or Mercenaries?

[Commodore]

Just something that popped in my head that I thought might make for a good discussion:

As you all may know, the United States maintains an all-volunteer military. To ensure numbers don't drop too low, the government provides many incentives to encourage people to enlist in military service. These incentives are mostly financial ones and range from student loan repayment, to a steady paycheck, to guaranteed low interest rates for things like credit cards and car loans.

In light of these financial incentives, do you think an argument could be made that the US military is really an all-mercenary force? Yay or nay?

 

[El_Machinae]

Every time a service member touts the financial benefits of service, they're implicitly confirming the idea.

 

[warpus]

You can't be a mercenary if you are a citizen of the country which is sending you out to fight.

Right?

 

[Kozmos]

I think it depends on each individual soldier. Whether they are loyal to their country, to their unit or to themselves. I'm certain there are people who like to war because it's the thing they do best, others war out of perceived necessity (patriots?) and the rest are in it for financial and political reasons.

 

[Daw]

May it be a combination?

 

[Commodore]

You can't be a mercenary if you are a citizen of the country which is sending you out to fight.

Right?

Strictly speaking, you are correct. However, part of the definition of a mercenary is being motivated by personal gain. So if a citizen joins the military purely for the financial benefits, doesn't that philosophically make them a mercenary even if they are not legally classified as such?

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

Can we make the US Army mercenaries?

 

[Borachio]

Strictly speaking, you are correct. However, part of the definition of a mercenary is being motivated by personal gain. So if a citizen joins the military purely for the financial benefits, doesn't that philosophically make them a mercenary even if they are not legally classified as such?

Well, sure. But idiomatically the word mercenary can be applied to anyone who does anything purely for financial gain.

 

[Commodore]

Well, sure. But idiomatically the word mercenary can be applied to anyone who does anything purely for financial gain.

Of course. I was just seeing if CFC thought it could be reasonably argued that the US maintains a mercenary army and, in a broader sense, if any all-volunteer army is, as a practical matter, a mercenary army as well.

 

[warpus]

Strictly speaking, you are correct. However, part of the definition of a mercenary is being motivated by personal gain. So if a citizen joins the military purely for the financial benefits, doesn't that philosophically make them a mercenary even if they are not legally classified as such?

I don't think so, because the word "mercenary" seems to hinge on 2 points: that you do it for financial gain, and that you aren't a citizen of the country that is recruiting you. If either of those 2 conditions is not satisfied, the definition does not hold. Right?

 

[JollyRoger]

Refugees from capitalism.

 

[Hygro]

Can we make the US Army mercenaries?

so good

 

[Formaldehyde]

Every time a service member touts the financial benefits of service, they're implicitly confirming the idea.

Indeed.

This is why I am diametrically opposed to the military even advertising, much less visiting high school campuses. They should solely get their members from those who wish to serve on a voluntary basis with no additional financial incentives. The military shouldn't be the last alternative for those who can't find employment elsewhere.

They should also be heavily scrutinized to reject anybody who is bigoted or racist in the least. The last thing we need in the military are those who are trying to exact revenge for 9/11, much less those who serve in combat zones.

 

[Phrossack]

Just something that popped in my head that I thought might make for a good discussion:

As you all may know, the United States maintains an all-volunteer military. To ensure numbers don't drop too low, the government provides many incentives to encourage people to enlist in military service. These incentives are mostly financial ones and range from student loan repayment, to a steady paycheck, to guaranteed low interest rates for things like credit cards and car loans.

In light of these financial incentives, do you think an argument could be made that the US military is really an all-mercenary force? Yay or nay?

Depends on your perspective. Compared to Blackwater/Xe/we'll-keep-changing-our-name-because-we-want-to-escape-our-terrible-reputation, or the Landsknechte, or the vast majority of soldiers before the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries in the West, or a great many soldiers in African states, the US Army is motivated pretty heavily by patriotism, not a desire for that sweet, sweet Army private paygrade. But compared to medieval Italian city-state militias, Boer kommandos, Rojavan peshmerga, or perhaps the Imperial Japanese Army, pay and benefits are significant factors, and American soldiers effectively fight for money.

There are some more troop types throughout history who blur the line between soldier and mercenary. Take the Gurkhas. Many fight for the UK, and they receive payment, but they usually aren't from the UK. They're Nepalese. But they don't fight for just anyone; they only serve Britain.

 

[trader/warrior]

A military or paramilitary are entities permanently "attached" to an institution or organization, mercenary entities have no such allegiance and contract themselves out to the highest bidder. I don't think the motivations, incentives or lack thereof for the individual soldier really matters (though I suppose you could have lone contracted mercenaries, that's not the norm AFAIK, you could also consider any non-forced soldier to be a mercenary in a way but this makes it all a bit meaningless), incentives like pay, rape and pillage were very often the reason people joined what are considered non-mercenary armies throughout history.

Blackwater are mercenaries even if they are Americans working for the American state
French foreign legion is not a mercenary group even though they are incentive-based foreign soldiers

My initial thoughts.

 

[Formaldehyde]

A lot more people would just skip the military training step required at Blackwater, etc. if they could and go right for the 6 figure incomes. But the US government wouldn't pay them that much without all that training and experience.

 

[Zelig]

Neither, they're government employees.

 

[civvver]

I think the main difference in modern times is whether you're a government employee or a contractor. Contractor's are the mercs, government employees are the standing volunteer army.

 

[Daw]

Wait, don't employees have contracts?

 

[chijohnaok]

Wait, don't employees have contracts?

Most employed people in the United States do NOT have contracts.

Highly compensated/high level executives in corporations will often have a contact.
Middle and lower level management, and line employees do not typically have contracts.

You could make the arguement that union emloyees "have a contact" but in that case, the contract is between the employer and the union. The individual union employees do not generally have a signed contract between the individual and the employer.

Workers who are 'contractors' for a corporation/company will generally have some sort of contract.