Private Military Corporations

**USSWisconsin** · 26 Jul 11,, 19:57

Originally Posted by Red Seven

Generally, one acts within the law, the other does not. I think it's important to remember that PMCs are usually hired for facilities protection or individual close protection, in a defensive role with authority only to use weapons in self-defense or to defend the life of their principal or innocent people. Mercenaries, on the other hand, are hired to fight or to lead troops in combat, or to take part in offensive or violent acts that may or may not be legitimate. The only offensive role for PMCs that I am aware of are those of individuals, or groups of individuals, contracted by CIA or the military--usually former SOF people with unique skills--who accompany paramilitary operatives on missions which may require them to use deadly force. That's the exception, not the rule.

It may interest you to know that back in the early days of the Medellin Cartel, some former SAS NCOs were providing training for cartel bodyguards and soldiers. That is an example of mercenary work.

I am in favor of this role for PMC's

**Mihais** · 26 Jul 11,, 20:01

Formally the military justice seems harsher.However I was told of cases where contractors put a gun at the head of a idiot colleague.Swifter and harsher (and more unofficial)you can't find.

If those that told me the stories lie or exagerate I do likewise.I can't verify them.They are surely exceptions,even if true.

Red Seven made a clear distinction between mercenaries and contractors.What he says is what the industry says and what some researchers also consider.That distinction deserves some popularization.

**Red Seven** · 27 Jul 11,, 13:49

There are ethics involved, believe it or not. In the 60's and 70's certain African states were actively hiring mercs, mostly Brits, Germans and French in the 60's with Americans getting more into the picture in Rhodesia--post Vietnam--in the 70's. It was gun money. The merc business was regarded as shady at best. The image persists. Some of the PMC contractors early on in OEF seemed to have a bit of an identity crisis regarding their role. Maybe it was too much of an adjustment to make the transition from door-kicker & trigger puller to the more passive security mode...maybe some PMCs were hiring young, less experienced combat vets to ride gun-run on convoys...but better training has resulted from past mistakes. Most former professional warriors who become contractors are concerned with the ethics of their decisions, the legitimacy of their mission. Money is obviously an incentive but honor is something professionals will always covet.

**ace16807** · 27 Jul 11,, 17:44

Originally Posted by Red Seven

There are ethics involved, believe it or not. In the 60's and 70's certain African states were actively hiring mercs, mostly Brits, Germans and French in the 60's with Americans getting more into the picture in Rhodesia--post Vietnam--in the 70's. It was gun money. The merc business was regarded as shady at best. The image persists. Some of the PMC contractors early on in OEF seemed to have a bit of an identity crisis regarding their role. Maybe it was too much of an adjustment to make the transition from door-kicker & trigger puller to the more passive security mode...maybe some PMCs were hiring young, less experienced combat vets to ride gun-run on convoys...but better training has resulted from past mistakes. Most former professional warriors who become contractors are concerned with the ethics of their decisions, the legitimacy of their mission. Money is obviously an incentive but honor is something professionals will always covet.

Regarding the image of PMCs as a result of the multiple stints in Africa, are you talking about those in/close to the industry or the public at large? I'm under the impression that prior to high profile events in Iraq in the last decade, most of the public wasn't even aware of the existance, let alone the use of PMCs/mercs.

**Mihais** · 27 Jul 11,, 18:20

I presume you mean Africa in the 90's.The older guns for hire weren't corporate,unless it was some cover company.Mercs in Africa even today aren't corporate.What idiot would do something as that openly?
Fact is the press and the UN went over the top in the effort to smear the first modern PMC,the EO.They've done a stellar job in Sierra Leone.Can't allow such ''horrible'' men show that there is a better way than the usual fvck-ups of the international community.
Then you have the Simon Mann affair in 98.Another great opportunity to take a shot, like Sandline's fiasco in Papua.

The public was led to believe that these were some exotic as well as shady characters.The industry,like every other has all sorts of individuals,more or less posers and there is a competition aspect.Some were in the know and rejected the unfounded accusations,others were thrilled the competition got one in the behind.
No doubt there were idiots and idiotic actions.But like everywhere else in a pioneer bussiness,you get all sorts of men.The chaff is getting separated from the wheat,like R7 said.

**Red Seven** · 27 Jul 11,, 21:16

Originally Posted by ace16807

Regarding the image of PMCs as a result of the multiple stints in Africa, are you talking about those in/close to the industry or the public at large? I'm under the impression that prior to high profile events in Iraq in the last decade, most of the public wasn't even aware of the existance, let alone the use of PMCs/mercs.

"Most of the public" doesn't know sh*t about anything...But the general impression back in the 60s and 70s among those who did know about such things, was that mercs had very little ethical conscience, hence the word "mercenary" used as an adjective to describe an attitude. Mercs back in the day were not "outsourced" to handle jobs the military didn't want to do, they were recruited and contracted to do jobs the military couldn't do without hiring them.

**Mihais** · 27 Jul 11,, 21:52

Originally Posted by Red Seven

"Most of the public" doesn't know sh*t about anything...

But,but,Sir,they have the right to know

**Durian10** · 28 Jul 11,, 18:20

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I am in favor of this role for PMC's

I agree with you Sir, the role of a PMC is much more favorable compared to a merc, even though some people think PMC and Merc are the same, i believe they are two different things (in my opinion)

*in addition*
Blackwater Worldwide as of today has set up office in Subic Bay Manila, Philippines to hire PMCs

**Alcibiades** · 29 Jul 11,, 00:08

Having been both a soldier and a PMC, I can say that I think the competence level is very high for the most part. You get your nugs in any line of work and contracting is no different. For the most part those ones are weeded out though. I will say one thing, the early days of that kind of work being like the wild west are over. There is so much oversight and so much money involved that NO ONE wants to get fired or lose a contract. It's good work, full of good people for the most part, it's got a bad image.

**~~Red6~~** · 02 Jan 12,, 16:58

They serve a vital role in modern warfare where we're there to nation build.

As we bring a place onto it's feet do you really want soldiers protecting sites owned by private corporations, local VIPS... etc? Think of these private security operators like Blackwater, Dynacorps, etc as nothing more than super selective, high trainied, well equipped, bad ass security gaurds that you see at any firm, school etc in the US, Europe or elsewhere. They simply work in a far higher threat environment and are better paid, equipped, trained and far more selective on who they take. Can a major political figure in a place like Afgahistan or Iraq completely trust his own body gaurds? What happens to the local economy or infrastructure if we let the locals tear apart the power grid for its copper, if we let them interupt the oil supply.. etc?

These private military operators serve a vital function in the "nation building" phase. They don't have the firepower of the "big army" but they are in a unique position legally, can stick around after the big army leaves, offer more stability/continuity, and they can be used where if you had a US soldier paid for by US tax dollars, it would raise a brow- i.e. defending something that has a pure economic value.