The Mercenary Problem
Filed under: Iraq — marc moore on September 28, 2007 @ 8:34 pm CEST
In reference to American para-military contractors in Iraq, Paul Krugman at the NY Times writes: “mercenaries, whom Machiavelli described as ‘useless and dangerous’ more than four centuries ago”, saying that mercenaries are back in vogue once more. More:
As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”
And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They’re heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they’re private employees who don’t answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly.
A family acquaintance who has been to Iraq in such a role foreshadowed the recent Blackwater fiasco months ago and, judging from previous comments, would not find much to dispute with Krugman’s take:
We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn’t get out of their way.
What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.
For example, Mr. Singer [Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution] reminds us that in 2005 “armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines.” The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a “trophy video” on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in “joy-ride shooting” of Iraqi civilians.
Krugman goes on to question the relationship between military contractors, political capital, and, of course, money - all interesting points.
But the real issue is the absence of accountability and the lack of control the real U.S. military has over their hired guns.
That these independent soldiers are under-prepared and under-armed is demonstrated by Peter Singer’s new report that says, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”
It’s hard to argue with Machiavelli.
1 Tully
September 28, 2007 @ 9:11 pm CESTThree points. First, I do not consider Krugman to be a reliable source. Second, Pete Singer* is a nutburger, and I don’t consider HIM to be a reliable source. Third, Paul Krugman using Pete Singer as a source is an exponential multiplication of unreliability in my book.
I have to get past all of that to even consider whatever claim it is that Krugman’s making. Sorry, never got that far.
[*–Yes, I consider people who advocate and justify infant euthanasia and sex with animals as being ethical practices to be nutburgers. Your mileage may vary.]
2 Mike C.
September 28, 2007 @ 10:08 pm CESTMachiavelli described mercenaries as “useless and dangerous” because they could and often did turn on those they hired and seize control of the state (and, if they didn’t, they would have to be bought off at an exorbitant price). That isn’t a concern with Blackwater employees in Iraq or many other mercenaries in the modern world. There may be other legitimate concerns in using such people, but not the ones that Machiavelli worried about. It would be dishonest to suggest otherwise.
3 Patrick
September 29, 2007 @ 4:22 am CESTThe Peter Singer quoted here is a different guy:
http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/fellows/psinger.htm
4 marc moore
September 29, 2007 @ 6:18 am CESTWikipedia’s entry on Peter W. Singer.
IOW, he’s definitely not this guy!
5 marc moore
September 29, 2007 @ 6:24 am CESTMike, you’re right - Blackwater’s not going to take over the kingdom or anything. But pointless killing of Iraqi civilians isn’t what they’re there for either.
Which is why, exactly? Because they’re good hands and the armed forces don’t pay enough to get them there? Because they can play outside the rules?
Those are valid reasons. If it’s something else then I’m not sure I understand.
6 Mike C.
September 29, 2007 @ 9:55 pm CESTI’m simply saying that the objections Machiavelli had to mercenaries are not relevant to modern mercenaries. Machiavelli lived during a time when mercenaries were a total substitute for standing armies, not merely a supplemental force. Mercenaries back then were foreigners (an Italian city-state might rely on Swiss, Prussian, or French mercs, for instance), not citizens of the same nation or city-state. Renaissance mercenaries hired by one city-state could be potentially bought off by a better paying rival city-state. The mercenaries of that era were about evenly matched with regular armies. That isn’t the case today: Blackwater would be wiped out in short order if they made the inconceivable attempt to go up against U.S. Armed Forces.
Yes, there are other concerns such as the legal gray area modern mercenaries inhabit. Another concern, one that leads me to oppose the use of mercenaries, is that our military spends a handsome sum training Special Operations troops, snipers, and others with special skills only to have them leave in a few short years for better paying careers in the private sector rather than remaining on with military. The private sector doesn’t have to pay for the bulk of their recruits’ training. They get to start out with a skill soldier, sailor, or marine unlike the military which much test to weed out those who can’t hack it in Special Operations training or sniper school. It’s the taxpayers that end up taking the bullet.
Still, Machiavelli’s concerns are not relevant here.
7 Vigilante
October 2, 2007 @ 5:20 pm CESTSo, Mike, Assuming another New Orleans scale disaster, how many Blackwater personnel to supplement diminished national gaurd would you find acceptable?