Are mercenaries worth the cost?
Gary Loftis
October 08, 2007
“Mercenary” is a loaded word in the modern lexicon. Mercenaries are generally viewed with suspicion because they fight for money, not patriotism; but, as events in Iraq are unfolding, our real concern should be accountability and responsibility -- their accountability and our responsibility.
Blackwater is an international company that provides security services, ranging from personal protection to combat support. They are being charged by the Iraqi government with the unprovoked murder of 17 Iraqi civilians and the wounding of 27 others on September 16, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/middleeast/08blackwater.html?ref=middleeast). This incident is one of many involving Blackwater “contractors,” and it highlights why the USA should think long and hard about using military mercenaries.
Since Vietnam, a key element in US military operations has been “winning the hearts and minds” of indigenous people. Put more directly, part of every mission is to gain the trust and cooperation of civilians. The good will such efforts create not only helps pacify an area, but it also makes the area safer for our troops. The troops are trained to gain civilian trust, and they are accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for their actions.
Mercenaries have no such mission and no direct accountability to the US command structure. They are hired to perform a specific job. While they may generally do that job well, they are perceived by indigenous people as either US forces or US allies. In either case, their misdeeds and errors make US troops less safe by undermining the trust we have developed.
Not only do mercenaries lack accountability to our military commanders, the current situation highlights the fact that such contractors may lack definitive standing in our status of forces agreements. Such agreements define legal jurisdiction when problems arise during military operations.
The question has to be asked why we are using mercenaries in official US government activities in the first place. The answer is complex, but it may be simply stated in two words: “peace dividend.”
When the Cold War ended, our politicians were eager to cut military spending, so no opportunity to cut costs was overlooked. In the 1970s, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird introduced the “Total Force” concept -- the idea that active duty, reserve, and national guard forces should be lumped together when building war fighting plans.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Total Force became the excuse to relegate an increasing portion of the military mission to the reserve and guard, thus creating the appearance of a saving because fewer active duty personnel were required. The reality is that many reservists and national guard troops are now serving almost full time and there are not enough forces in reserve to handle the duties formerly performed by the reserve and guard. Hence the need for mercenaries.
We are paying mercenaries to perform combat-related duties, for which they have questionable legal standing and limited accountability. We are doing so because we do not want to commit the resources to raise and equip a standing military sufficient to perform the mission we require.
Can we really hope to sustain our freedom on the foundation of an armed force increasingly made up of men who will fight for the highest bidder?
© Copyright 2007, Gary Loftis. All Rights Reserved
Blackwater is an international company that provides security services, ranging from personal protection to combat support. They are being charged by the Iraqi government with the unprovoked murder of 17 Iraqi civilians and the wounding of 27 others on September 16, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/middleeast/08blackwater.html?ref=middleeast). This incident is one of many involving Blackwater “contractors,” and it highlights why the USA should think long and hard about using military mercenaries.
Since Vietnam, a key element in US military operations has been “winning the hearts and minds” of indigenous people. Put more directly, part of every mission is to gain the trust and cooperation of civilians. The good will such efforts create not only helps pacify an area, but it also makes the area safer for our troops. The troops are trained to gain civilian trust, and they are accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for their actions.
Mercenaries have no such mission and no direct accountability to the US command structure. They are hired to perform a specific job. While they may generally do that job well, they are perceived by indigenous people as either US forces or US allies. In either case, their misdeeds and errors make US troops less safe by undermining the trust we have developed.
Not only do mercenaries lack accountability to our military commanders, the current situation highlights the fact that such contractors may lack definitive standing in our status of forces agreements. Such agreements define legal jurisdiction when problems arise during military operations.
The question has to be asked why we are using mercenaries in official US government activities in the first place. The answer is complex, but it may be simply stated in two words: “peace dividend.”
When the Cold War ended, our politicians were eager to cut military spending, so no opportunity to cut costs was overlooked. In the 1970s, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird introduced the “Total Force” concept -- the idea that active duty, reserve, and national guard forces should be lumped together when building war fighting plans.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Total Force became the excuse to relegate an increasing portion of the military mission to the reserve and guard, thus creating the appearance of a saving because fewer active duty personnel were required. The reality is that many reservists and national guard troops are now serving almost full time and there are not enough forces in reserve to handle the duties formerly performed by the reserve and guard. Hence the need for mercenaries.
We are paying mercenaries to perform combat-related duties, for which they have questionable legal standing and limited accountability. We are doing so because we do not want to commit the resources to raise and equip a standing military sufficient to perform the mission we require.
Can we really hope to sustain our freedom on the foundation of an armed force increasingly made up of men who will fight for the highest bidder?
© Copyright 2007, Gary Loftis. All Rights Reserved
Print
Email
