topmaul said:
Remeber the Red Ball Express what if we had contracted that out? Yes the military has shown it can do the job. Maybe we would have won the Second World War faster if we had contracted it supply and logistics?
Perhaps this question could be answered if we start with "What if we had an all-volunteer military throughout WW2?". As I said, it's not 1942 anymore.
Going cheap is why we have not won the war!
I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole (reasons for/against or strategies to "win", etc.) .
for Christ Sake, you win a war with overwelming force not screwing around trying to fight on the CHEAP.
I agree whole heartedly.
I could tell you about weapon systems that do not work because contractors place profits ahead of national security.
Although they typically fall under the same heading, Defense contractors and Security contractors are a bit of a different animal. IOW The former AF weapons tech working for Raytheon is a different situation than a former SEAL deciding not to re-up and instead work for Aegis, protecting Americans in sandy places, in a Personal Security Detail.
You may be a contractor for all I know we have a disagreement it depends on what side of the fence your on.
I'm a small businessman that happens to know and shoot recreationally, and train (SD wise) with some of these "mercenaries". I've met these men. I
know these men. I am proud to call some "friend". I think that's why there's a bit of a disconnect between us.
a man carrying a weapon in a combat zone is a legal or illegal combatant would you agree?
When dealing with the Diplomatic Security Services, not at all. The DSS has a set of ROE that does not include "Find and close with the enemy, and destroy his capability to fight war". They are, however well-armed enough to deal with the threats of violence against DoS employees and dignitaries in a
defensive role. In other words, think of them as the Secret Service for mid-level .gov bureaucrats. :wink:
A man carrying a spatula in a combat zone could not be described as an illegal combatant or even a combatant.
You've never tasted my cooking. :twisted:
A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention."
Security contractors don't quite meet the definition of Mercenaries. The 1977 Protocol 1 Addition to the Convention was pretty specifically aimed at the situation in Africa (i.e. Executive Outcomes). Further, although the US is a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Convention, we have not signed onto the Protocol 1 Addition you have quoted above.
MAX: I deleted much of what I was going to respond with to you, simply because my getting angry at your words is silly, So I won't address exactly what you wrote. Instead, I will leave you all with this, and try to make a graceful exit from this contentious topic:
Most, if not all, of these "mercenaries" are former military with time in-theater (Iraq and Afghanistan).
When they came home wearing their uniform, we called them
HEROES.
Their loyalty and patriotism to the United States was just as strong when they make the decision to leave the military life, but go back to the Sandbox. They fight the GWOT working for an American company, on contract with the United States of America, to protect American government employees, and the foreign dignitaries that the American government has promised to protect.
They make that decision for a variety of reasons, and yes: one of those reasons is pay. Making a better life for your family, paying off the minivan, helping to buy the house your wife always wanted, whatever.
That is the American way.
We do these men a HUGE disservice by pigeonholing them as "mercenaries", impugning their character, claiming they are some "Shadow Army".
B!tch about the system all you want, but walk a mile in their shoes before you judge the men.