PDA

View Full Version : Blackwater USA Offers a Brigade



Wraith601
22 Apr 06,, 01:20
Blackwater USA says it can field a brigade sized peacekeeping force to places like Darfur on short notice. What are your thoughts on this idea?

Blackwater Brigades (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453824.0319444444.html)

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 01:25
African soldiers with a professional officer corps and a small cadre of hard hitting well trained troops. That's the only way they can do this. The vast majority would be low pay dirt cheap African soldiers.

Wraith601
22 Apr 06,, 01:38
African soldiers with a professional officer corps and a small cadre of hard hitting well trained troops. That's the only way they can do this. The vast majority would be low pay dirt cheap African soldiers.

Very similar to the way the UN tends to run more and more peacekeeping operations.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 02:20
Only in Africa. This force would've been killed in Yugoslavia.

Parihaka
22 Apr 06,, 03:40
The vast majority would be low pay dirt cheap African soldiers.
without any of the baggage associated with white troops, but backup when needed.

gunnut
22 Apr 06,, 03:47
This definitely can work in Africa. It has worked once already.

There was a show on the History Channel talking about a mercenary outfit named Executive Outcome, based in South Africa, and their successful intervention to prevent a civil war from breaking out in Sierra Leone (or Angola? or some other African nation...can't remember well).

It was the same concept. They deployed 150 fighters supported by 150 logistic personnel to restore order and keep the peace, costing the neighboring nation who paid for the operation $20 million a year.

Then Kofi "the crook" Annan heard about it. He told "Free Willy" Billy Clinton about it and expressed his concern as to how UN would lose prestige if a small mercenary company can keep a civil war from happening. Billy put some pressure on and forced the withdrawal of the mercenary and replaced them with UN peacekeepers. Civil war broke out. UN was unable to keep the peace with 12,000 personnel at a cost of $1 billion a year.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 03:53
There's got to be some perspective here. Executive Outcome had a localized conflict; that of the diamond mines. The rebels took the fight to the EO's home turf and resoundingly got trounced. When the UN took over, the rebels had access to diamonds once again (as part of the peace agreement) and rebuilt from there.

When the rebels launched their offensive, EO would not have been in a position to repel it. The best that can be said was that they prevented the rebels from getting the needed diamonds to become strong.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 03:56
without any of the baggage associated with white troops, but backup when needed.
Just the tribal baggage that they bring along.

Parihaka
22 Apr 06,, 04:09
Just the tribal baggage that they bring along.
Yeah, but for some unfathomable reason that's acceptable.

Just like letting children starve to death is preferable to accepting human standard food supliments from a company that also makes dog food supliments.

I know it comes as no surpise to you given your experience, but killing children for political point scoring puposes still gobsmacks me.

gunnut
22 Apr 06,, 04:32
There's got to be some perspective here. Executive Outcome had a localized conflict; that of the diamond mines. The rebels took the fight to the EO's home turf and resoundingly got trounced. When the UN took over, the rebels had access to diamonds once again (as part of the peace agreement) and rebuilt from there.

When the rebels launched their offensive, EO would not have been in a position to repel it. The best that can be said was that they prevented the rebels from getting the needed diamonds to become strong.

I did not know that part of the history. I don't recall the History Channel show mentioned anything about the diamonds. Strange they would skip over a good part of the story. It's not like they have a dog in the fight.

TopHatter
22 Apr 06,, 16:31
I did not know that part of the history. I don't recall the History Channel show mentioned anything about the diamonds. Strange they would skip over a good part of the story. It's not like they have a dog in the fight.
It's all about what makes for good television more than dealing with annoying like facts like the diamonds. ;)

Just like the MSM. They aren't there to report the news. They are there to garner ratings for their parent companies.

Wraith601
22 Apr 06,, 16:40
There's got to be some perspective here. Executive Outcome had a localized conflict; that of the diamond mines. The rebels took the fight to the EO's home turf and resoundingly got trounced. When the UN took over, the rebels had access to diamonds once again (as part of the peace agreement) and rebuilt from there.

When the rebels launched their offensive, EO would not have been in a position to repel it. The best that can be said was that they prevented the rebels from getting the needed diamonds to become strong.


By prevented the rebels from controlling the diamonds they kept them in check.

Still this could work in certain cases, provided you can overcome the legal and political issues.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 16:48
Of course but it has to be kept in perspective. There was no way 150 men could do the job of 2000 (the Indian and British battalions that finally destroyed the rebels in open combat) although there were 10,000+ African troops that ran.

OE kept the rebels in check. Indian and British soldiers killed them. There lies the big difference.

Wraith601
22 Apr 06,, 16:51
Of course but it has to be kept in perspective. There was no way 150 men could do the job of 2000 (the Indian and British battalions that finally destroyed the rebels in open combat) although there were 10,000+ African troops that ran.

OE kept the rebels in check. Indian and British soldiers killed them. There lies the big difference.


The big question is can African troops be expected to fight reliably solely for money? I suppose you'd be able to pick and choose the best from all over, but still the best troops in Africa, excluding South Africa, is pretty low speed compared to Western or Indian troops.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 17:16
The Nigerians before the Brits left were on par with any in the British Empire. The Eygptians were the British main strength in that region. They both had since long declined since neither were willing to spend the money and effort as the British did in raising their regts.

All this says is that the people are capable but would a mercenary outfit spend that kind of money and effort in producing a real professional brigade? I highly doubt it.

Wraith601
22 Apr 06,, 17:27
The Nigerians before the Brits left were on par with any in the British Empire. The Eygptians were the British main strength in that region. They both had since long declined since neither were willing to spend the money and effort as the British did in raising their regts.

All this says is that the people are capable but would a mercenary outfit spend that kind of money and effort in producing a real professional brigade? I highly doubt it.

If the market was big enough establishing a permenant "boot camp" facility to train Third World troops up to a reasonable standard to serve in these private brigades could be feasible. Of course there's the issue of oversight and the political fallout of what are essentially private armies.

It kind of reminds me of the ideas for an "American Foriegn Legion" some people have been flotaing for a few years.

American Legion (http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_012104_Foreign,00.html)

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 17:36
If the market was big enough establishing a permenant "boot camp" facility to train Third World troops up to a reasonable standard to serve in these private brigades could be feasible.

And there in lies your problem. 3rd world national armies would always underbid you and there's no way you can muster the kind of expensive force that 1st world national armies can deploy.

Ray
22 Apr 06,, 18:06
It may surprise you but quite a few Third World troops can teach the First world troops of how to take on international wars and peacekeeping!

In fact, India has and is training US troops! ;)

And India is third world!

Sir Micheal Rose and many others visited India before they took over their operations in Bosnia and elsewhere.

Therefore, generalisation may not be the correct way to push a point.

And what I learn from the WAB is that there are certain Third World nations which are even better since they use the force multipliers called Jinns! :eek: :tongue: :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 18:13
It may surprise you but quite a few Third World troops can teach the First world troops of how to take on international wars and peacekeeping!

In fact, India has and is training US troops! ;)

And India is third world!

Oh come on, Sir, the Indian Army is hardly a 3rd World Army. You're different than Western Armies but hardly any less capable.

TopHatter
22 Apr 06,, 19:30
Oh come on, Sir, the Indian Army is hardly a 3rd World Army. You're different than Western Armies but hardly any less capable.
Agreed, even a civilian puke like me knows that. ;)

Ray
22 Apr 06,, 20:03
But some are better.

They have Jinns. :tongue:

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 06,, 20:18
Sir,

Maybe someone should tell them to lay off the Gin instead. Personally, I prefer scotch.

Ray
22 Apr 06,, 20:20
Sir,

Maybe someone should tell them to lay off the Gin instead. Personally, I prefer scotch.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

troung
23 Apr 06,, 02:27
This definitely can work in Africa. It has worked once already. There was a show on the History Channel talking about a mercenary outfit named Executive Outcome, based in South Africa, and their successful intervention to prevent a civil war from breaking out in Sierra Leone (or Angola? or some other African nation...can't remember well). It was the same concept. They deployed 150 fighters supported by 150 logistic personnel to restore order and keep the peace, costing the neighboring nation who paid for the operation $20 million a year. Then Kofi "the crook" Annan heard about it. He told "Free Willy" Billy Clinton about it and expressed his concern as to how UN would lose prestige if a small mercenary company can keep a civil war from happening. Billy put some pressure on and forced the withdrawal of the mercenary and replaced them with UN peacekeepers. Civil war broke out. UN was unable to keep the peace with 12,000 personnel at a cost of $1 billion a year.

A TV show made with interviews from only one side, which left out other conflicts to try and paint a certain picture.

-{SpoonmaN}-
23 Apr 06,, 04:59
I don't trust mercs, there's something about someone who fights for money over ideological committment that I can't dig. After all, how can you expect one to die for money when they won't be around to enjoy it?

Ray
23 Apr 06,, 07:20
I don't trust mercs, there's something about someone who fights for money over ideological committment that I can't dig. After all, how can you expect one to die for money when they won't be around to enjoy it?

It is a psychological thing.

There are people who love a good scrap, a good fight.

It is like, why are serial killers serial killers?

Because gruesome as it maybe to others, the serial killers get their adrenalin pumped by the very act of killing and subjugating a person to his psychopathic kink!

Wraith601
23 Apr 06,, 19:58
I don't trust mercs, there's something about someone who fights for money over ideological committment that I can't dig. After all, how can you expect one to die for money when they won't be around to enjoy it?

To be fair, many soldiers are motivated largely by the monetary benefits of their jobs, certainly not all but lots of them are.

sappersgt
24 Apr 06,, 01:02
I don't trust mercs, there's something about someone who fights for money over ideological committment that I can't dig. After all, how can you expect one to die for money when they won't be around to enjoy it?

Some DO fight for the money. 2-5 years wages (depends on where you're from) for a 3-6 month deployment is not a bad deal. When the chips are down most soldiers fight for their comrades rather than any ideology, including the one you enlisted for.
There is also the satisfaction of doing something you are good at. Soldiers are usually limited to where the can practice their chosen profession. If you don't like the the armed forces of the country you live in you're SOL. The only other choice would be a foreign legion (spanish or french) or become a citizen of another country. PMC's also have the appeal of not having a 3-8 year enlistment.
As for enjoying the money, well no one ever EXPECTS to die. :)

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 06,, 01:07
Rumours has DynaCorps looking for 400 shooters, preference for SF. 90 days on, 30 days off with $15K per month when working, $11K per off month.

The type of people going for these jobs are adrendeline junkies. I know one who rather be in Iraq than home with his newborn child.

sappersgt
24 Apr 06,, 01:20
Rumours has DynaCorps looking for 400 shooters, preference for SF. 90 days on, 30 days off with $15K per month when working, $11K per off month.

The type of people going for these jobs are adrendeline junkies. I know one who rather be in Iraq than home with his newborn child.

As a former adrendeline junkie I can sympathise. I don't need the money but for a second you DID make me think about it. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 06,, 02:48
Asking for 400 shooters ain't exactly asking for a bn with officers and sgts who knows the job. I think twice on what they're asking.

However, this effectively price BLACKWATER out of fielding a peacekeeping brigade. The good people would be over in Iraq.

Wraith601
24 Apr 06,, 02:56
Asking for 400 shooters ain't exactly asking for a bn with officers and sgts who knows the job. I think twice on what they're asking.

However, this effectively price BLACKWATER out of fielding a peacekeeping brigade. The good people would be over in Iraq.

Since PMCs prefer Special Ops types, wouldn't recruiting former/retired Regular Force officers such as yourself make more sense?

A small force of Western officers leading decently trained and equipped African troops could have some utility. I wouldn't think SEALS or SAS operators would thrive in such a force as well.

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 06,, 03:22
Problem with retired officers is that we're no longer sharp in the fast thinking, high stress, no 2nd guessing environment, especially more so when the people under you ain't up to the standards you're use to.

You would have to recruit an entire staff in order to have any effective usage for those lesser trained troops.

indianguy4u
24 Apr 06,, 03:31
What are the chance that US army wanting some of the mercenaries to do their dirty (sinister) work like assasinating rebel leaders, destroying their fortress etc? (in iraq)

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 06,, 03:34
What are the chance that US army wanting some of the mercenaries to do their dirty (sinister) work like assasinating rebel leaders, destroying their fortress etc? (in iraq)
The mercs have far less firepower than a regular USArmy platoon.

lemontree
24 Apr 06,, 06:09
This definitely can work in Africa. It has worked once already.

There was a show on the History Channel talking about a mercenary outfit named Executive Outcome, based in South Africa, and their successful intervention to prevent a civil war from breaking out in Sierra Leone (or Angola? or some other African nation...can't remember well).

Sandline (of Lt. Col Tim Spicer) was there too. They had a 600 man battalionish force. They were paid through diamond mining rights that were inturn sold to diamond conglomerates in the UK/Antwerb region.

If this force comes into being, it will be one great money churning machine.

Wraith601
24 Apr 06,, 17:18
What are the chance that US army wanting some of the mercenaries to do their dirty (sinister) work like assasinating rebel leaders, destroying their fortress etc? (in iraq)

THat's what special ops and the CIA are for.

Ray
24 Apr 06,, 22:30
Since PMCs prefer Special Ops types, wouldn't recruiting former/retired Regular Force officers such as yourself make more sense?

A small force of Western officers leading decently trained and equipped African troops could have some utility. I wouldn't think SEALS or SAS operators would thrive in such a force as well.

There will be a total clash of ethos and culture and it will be a failure.

The British are not in synch with the Americans in Iraq and you want westerners leading Africans!

Wraith601
25 Apr 06,, 04:57
There will be a total clash of ethos and culture and it will be a failure.

The British are not in synch with the Americans in Iraq and you want westerners leading Africans!

British led Indian troops beat Rommel. If given enough time Western officers can mold any force to their will. That's the whole purpose of SF units, to train and in many cases lead indigenous units. US advisors practically commanded their Iraqi units until recently and they had a good bit og succes in several missions.

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 06,, 05:04
A big difference in people, money, and effort.

Wraith601
25 Apr 06,, 05:09
A big difference in people, money, and effort.

True, but a force intended for stopping future Rwandas and Darfurs is not the same as a force designed to fight the Wehrmacht or battle Iraqi insurgents.

I personally dislike idea fo other reasons.

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 06,, 05:15
Remember what you have to do with Rwandas. You have to be ready to shoot teenage pregnant mothers and be able to stop right after that. In alot of ways, it's a hell of alot tougher then shooting bad guys who are shooting back at you.

SalemPoor
25 Apr 06,, 05:24
"I personally dislike idea fo other reasons"

I personally am very uncomfortable with the privatization of the military, whether it is for peace keeping in Dafur or avoiding utilization of the draft. The only correct resolution if for the OAU to get off of its ass and start to take charge over the continent.

Western forces as peace keepers in Africa is just a militarized version of welfare.

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 06,, 05:36
Rwanda was a disaster in many ways including for the OAU.

Blademaster
25 Apr 06,, 05:46
It may not match the effectiveness on a cost for cost basis against 1st world armies but one thing it will do that the 1st armies cannot do. It will force and foster a more awareness among the African countries to do something about their own problems.

The way I see it: The only way Africa can move forward is when Africans would stop blaming others and start looking at themselves for solutions and move forward.

Besides South Africa, can you name one African country that has a capable military force?

Wraith601
25 Apr 06,, 05:48
It may not match the effectiveness on a cost for cost basis against 1st world armies but one thing it will do that the 1st armies cannot do. It will force and foster a more awareness among the African countries to do something about their own problems.

The way I see it: The only way Africa can move forward is when Africans would stop blaming others and start looking at themselves for solutions and move forward.

Besides South Africa, can you name one African country that has a capable military force?

Egypt has First World tech but I doubt htey have traingin or budget to use it effectively.

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 06,, 05:49
Within the confines of their regions, Eygpt, Lybia, and Nigeria.

Blademaster
25 Apr 06,, 06:11
Nigeria and Libya?

I don't think so. We had Nigeran troops along with Indian troops in Sierra Leone and they failed big time and miserably. Remember how the Nigerian officers made fun of Gen. Jetley?

Libya? well they have rusting equipment and they have not conducted field exercises in a long time.

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 06,, 06:18
Alongside us, they are a walking disaster. Beside their neighbours, they can give more than a bloody nose. The question is can they stop once the blood lust is tasted. We can.

gunnut
25 Apr 06,, 07:39
Anyone can fight well if he really wants. The difference is in motivation, professionalism, and discipline.

Lunatock
25 Apr 06,, 17:32
Blackwater USA says it can field a brigade sized peacekeeping force to places like Darfur on short notice. What are your thoughts on this idea?

Blackwater Brigades (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453824.0319444444.html)

My first thought is binny's latest message was for his flunkies to go to Darfur with the intent to kill UN Peacekeepers...but he kinda left out mentioning a possible Blackwater presence there.

As a wise(ass) man once said. Hehehe...oops!

Officer of Engineers
25 Apr 06,, 17:36
BLACKWATER ain't there yet.

Lunatock
25 Apr 06,, 17:40
BLACKWATER ain't there yet.

That's why I said "possible presence". Peacekeepers aren't there yet either. OBL just called for foreigners to go there and kill the latter.

troung
25 Apr 06,, 18:44
How is this brigade going to peacemake in the Sudan? There is no peace to keep. Will this unit engage the Sudanese military and militia on Sudanese soil? What would the forces goals be? RoE?

As of today there are plenty of mercs in the Sudan... fighting for the government...

Lunatock
25 Apr 06,, 19:49
How is this brigade going to peacemake in the Sudan? There is no peace to keep. Will this unit engage the Sudanese military and militia on Sudanese soil? What would the forces goals be? RoE?

As of today there are plenty of mercs in the Sudan... fighting for the government...

Don't ask me. I'm just a civi that's crass enough to go with being thought of as a professional photographer. :cool:

troung
02 May 06,, 18:51
Asking the others as well...

Well more like throwing something out there...

Sanctified
11 May 06,, 05:01
I did not know that part of the history. I don't recall the History Channel show mentioned anything about the diamonds. Strange they would skip over a good part of the story. It's not like they have a dog in the fight.

Actually, it seems that some of the producers do have a dog in the fight--- the fight for public opinion.
The History Channel and it's magazine, bends over backwards to be politically correct even when isn't germaine to the story, there is definately a leftist slant over there and it shows.

astralis
11 May 06,, 08:48
history channel as leftist? don't think so, buddy. you think r lee ermey would be on a LEFTY channel? :biggrin:

sappersgt
11 May 06,, 18:39
history channel as leftist? don't think so, buddy. you think r lee ermey would be on a LEFTY channel? :biggrin:

LOL Au contraire! Ermey's projected far right image does not necessarily reflect his personal views. I mean after all he IS an actor. A good one. I can most assuredly say that he is a gentleman. :biggrin:

Sanctified
13 May 06,, 04:45
history channel as leftist? don't think so, buddy. you think r lee ermey would be on a LEFTY channel? :biggrin:

Actually, I've been to one of their studios in The Peoples Republic of Connecticut.