Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Farflame (U3345521) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2007

  Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?
  
  Are private security/mercenaries like Blackwater a risk to the stabilty of the Middle East?
  The more conflict there is the more money they can earn. Can they can enforce policies without full government sanction? Please discuss ideas opinions are of great interst to me.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 4th October 2007

  The US army has been for most of its history a representative of international corporations and in the servive of the international banking sector. It is not a army representing a specific historic nation but a collection of states that self-pronounce the word "nation" so often only to raise more doubt on how much a nation they are.
  
  Be it too harsh on the US all the above, even if more wrong than right, the introduction of private troops (that has been on for longer than people think) is nothing new under the sun. It will not be better it will not be worse for the rest - it will be merely financially more affordable for the US.
  
  Ethically there is going to be an improvement: better to fight for money and say it than to fight for money and pretend to fight for as-if ideals.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 4th October 2007

  "...Can they can enforce policies without full government sanction?..."
  
  
  No, I think they can't. They lack any moral authority.
  
  However, mostly, they are not asked to do this. They usually act as bodyguards or such like.
  
  In my opinion they complicate matters and cause resentment. They can behave with all of the arrogance and lack of local engagement that you might expect from foreign multi-nationals.
  
  Arms belong in the hands of the nation state, no other hands. When you study the establishment of nations one of the stock phrases that you may hear is that one of the definitions of a nation is the sole right to use legitimate violence (to enforce law, defend the state, etc). Private security takes this principle and tears it apart.
  
  How do you regulate them ? This is another problem. In a country like Iraq, where even the state's forces are infiltrated, having foreign armed forces, albeit small units, does not seem helpful.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Killfacer (U8855584) on Thursday, 4th October 2007

  obviously they lack any moral authority. It would create ridiculous contradictions. For example if a particular "private" security force was working in a certian area and was antogonising things it would create more business for itself. this is obviously a stupid contradiction.
  
  However to say that private companies have no good point would be unfair, obviously it brings more money into the areas and creates jobs. Im sure there are many more good reasons but i have to say personally i think its an appauling idea.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 4th October 2007

  Xcuse me... but what is this all about moral authority? Why US had any moral authority protecting Kuweit from invading Iraq and not done the same in Cyprus where it actually aided invading Turkey against a defenseless island? Why it did not have any moral authority in the case of Indonesian islands where it armed and consulted the Indonesian paramilitaries of how to sweep over 100s of islands? And why it did not have the moral authority to aid the Touchis in the Rwandan genocide but it had all the moral authority to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo?
  
  What is this all about moral authority? Moral authority has a country that fights for survival and/or to protect sovereignity. USA fights also (not to mention most of times!) simply for turning up its financial indicators or turning down the ones of possible competitors.
  
  So I think US would actually gain just a bit more "moral authority" in the case it was using directly private companies and not spending the lifes of wannabe-patriots of a non-existing nation.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 4th October 2007

  At the end of the day it matters little to the dead Iraqi, Afgani, Serbian or any other if the soldier that bombed him out of his life was "privatised" or "nationalised"... haha!

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 5th October 2007

  I think also the gradual employment of gradually higher numbers of mercenaries is kind of positive since it will raise further the costs of campaigns often to the point of annulation! Hence, it is kind of positive!
  
  ALso, people who are not bound by any moral/pseudomoral code but fight for money are most often brave/persistent/consistent in easy situations and chickens/non-persistent in difficult ones hence in the long run all that will be much more positive for the world.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 10th October 2007

  E_Nikolaos_E
  
  "Why US had any moral authority protecting Kuweit from invading Iraq and not done the same in Cyprus where it actually aided invading Turkey against a defenseless island?"
  
  Quite simple really.
  
  A - Botgh Turkey and Cyprus were allies.
  
  B - We did send troops (My old man was one of them)
  
  C - Given the attrocities and ethnic cleansing committed by the Greeks, they had no moral authoprity themselves, or are these the actions of those who lived on a 'Defenceless Island'?
  
  Don't make me laugh! The Greek Junta sponsored all the preceeding events!

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 10th October 2007

  Why US had any moral authority protecting Kuweit from invading Iraq and not done the same in Cyprus where it actually aided invading Turkey against a defenseless island?Β 
  
  Because the internationally recognized government of Kuwait asked for support and the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to oust Iraqi forces. The government of Kuwait then aked the US to stay on to guarantee their security. That's how they had moral authority to protect Kuwait. How they behaved in the past is completely irrelevant.
  
  And why it did not have the moral authority to aid the Touchis in the Rwandan genocide but it had all the moral authority to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo?Β 
  
  Perhaps you should be asking the French about Rwanda. The genocide was over before the US could have done anything to change the situation. The French, however, had a division stationed in Rwanda who could have intervened as soon as Chirac gave the order. Instead their sole act was to set up a "safe zone" for Hutu soldiers and war criminals to retreat to.
  
  What is this all about moral authority? Moral authority has a country that fights for survival and/or to protect sovereignity. Β 
  
  There you go Nik, that answers your question about Kuwait. Kuwait was fighting for its sovereignty and requested international help.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 10th October 2007

  Farflame
  
  
  It's nothing new.
  
  My old man was offered positions during the Rhodesian Civil war; I was offered big money in the early 90's...
  
  Mercenaries have been around since the beginning of war...
  
  I don't think morality should come into it, that is subjective, the problem is legitimacy of authority.
  
  Is it a bad think? Well, it seems to be a bad think in Iraq at the moment... But having come across Mercenaries over the years, some are highly trained professionals; some are blood thirsty amateurs who are a joke at best.
  

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 12th October 2007

  Mani : "...I don't think morality should come into it, that is subjective, the problem is legitimacy of authority...."
  
  Moral authority (which is somewhat different to 'morality') comes into the equation in two ways.
  
  Firstly, legitimacy and moral authority are intertwined. The war in Iraq is compromised partly because the UN did not directly condone it. This compromised the legitimacy of the war. War without legitimacy is seen by many as immoral and lacking the authority of due legal process.
  
  Secondly, armed elements of the state are less likely to see a personal commercial advantage in prolonging war. I do not know what goes on in the boardrooms of major security companies, but it is easy to see why they can be accused of not wanting conflict to end.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Fatnick (U1934486) on Friday, 12th October 2007

  In the mid 14th century, English mercenary John Hawkwood was allegedly greeted by two monks with the phrase 'Sir, God grant you peace.' quickly, he replied, 'God take from you your alms.' When the friars asked him why he had responded so harshly, he pointed out to them that just as they lived off alms he lived through war. Peace would be the ruining of him.
  
  I have no idea whether or not the above story is actually true, but even if it isn't it still as a neat summary of why mercenaries are generally a bad thing.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Killfacer (U8855584) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007

  Yes, that is exactly why mercanaries a a blight on society. And to the person who ranted at the idea of moral authority, even if you disagree with the U.S invasion of iraq, it does have a moral authority as it (agruably) didnt do it for the money.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007

  Killfacer
  
  There is no one 'Society'. The Societies where Mercinaries work and may be needed are not the same as our society, so you can't pass a sweeping judgement.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007

  Oh yes it did not do it for the money as in Afganistan... it did it for power and to contain Russia and China. So Iraqis have to die. Very moral. Bring in the 'mercies'.

  Link to this forum: Rise of private security/mercenaries i.e. Blackwater Good/Bad?

  Report message15

Back to top