Private Military Corporations

**Wayfarer** · 23 Jul 11,, 08:41

What is your attitude towards Private Military Corporations?

From a soldiers perspective, do you think of them as competent in what they do?

Do you expect the military to lose ground to PMC's as a provider of defensive/offensive capabilities (perhaps maybe not the larger powers, but smaller ones as well), considering that they are more cost effective?

**Mihais** · 23 Jul 11,, 09:21

So far the term military corporation is rejected by the industry.Military means combat ops and that is frowned upon,at least in public.
If you ask me,they have a grand future ahead.Even if they turn 100% merc,we need those.There is a scramble for resources going on,so PMC's will be needed to fight our proxy wars and secure the needed puppets.Can't do that under the flag.Too un-PC.
Of course,peacekeeping ops,prevention of genocides and other less lucrative activities fit well.And I think it will require such things before the public will become innured to their presence.But with public support or without it,they're here to stay.

There is also a dissolution of the traditional state in process.It happened before and of the effects is the outsourcing of violence.The era of 100% national army is only 200 years old.Before that violence exercised by private individuals for private reasons was not illegitimate.

I buddy of mine,older and more experienced told me that at least now,the PMC aren't private,aren't military and aren't companies.Given the experiences of A-stan and Iraq I think he's right,for now.

**Wayfarer** · 23 Jul 11,, 10:00

Originally Posted by Mihais

So far the term military corporation is rejected by the industry.Military means combat ops and that is frowned upon,at least in public.
If you ask me,they have a grand future ahead.Even if they turn 100% merc,we need those.There is a scramble for resources going on,so PMC's will be needed to fight our proxy wars and secure the needed puppets.Can't do that under the flag.Too un-PC.

Considering the cost of the current overseas operations, and a leaner U.S emerging out of the economic recession(s) ahead, I think you may be onto something.

Of course,peacekeeping ops,prevention of genocides and other less lucrative activities fit well.And I think it will require such things before the public will become innured to their presence.But with public support or without it,they're here to stay.

Perhaps in America, but not over here. When the public gets one whiff of contractor wrongdoing, they will be out.

There is also a dissolution of the traditional state in process.It happened before and of the effects is the outsourcing of violence.The era of 100% national army is only 200 years old.Before that violence exercised by private individuals for private reasons was not illegitimate.

What areas specifically? If anything, the state seems to be shoring up its protection and becoming larger and stronger in terms of legal powers and powers invoked in the name of national security to justify actions.

Many armies special forces units are struggling to retain soldiers due to the disparity in pay levels between the army and the private industry.

I buddy of mine,older and more experienced told me that at least now,the PMC aren't private,aren't military and aren't companies.Given the experiences of A-stan and Iraq I think he's right,for now

Why??

**Mihais** · 23 Jul 11,, 12:08

When you have a virtual monopoly there is no capitalism.When you work with the government,for the government there is no private.When you don't have a chain of command and regulation you aren't military.

Which states?We aren't talking here about 1st and 2nd worlds,although a case could be made even in their case.We're talking failed states,although another case could be made these weren't states in the first place.State or no state,trade has to go on and it does.That needs some sort of security.Look at Libya now.The oil is untouched by the dissolution of the state.Congo is always at war,but there's no reason to stop mining.
Security isn't provided by some national army or police,nor by UN blues berets.It's some local guns for hire.

**Red Seven** · 23 Jul 11,, 14:02

In general the reputable US/UK firms are competent enough, have a thorough vetting process and stay in their lane...most are run by former "quiet professionals." Notable incidents with DynCorp, BW, AGI and others may have shaped negative public opinion but helped, I think, in the long run, to define limits and set standards. Unfortunately, as Mihais has touched on above, lucrative markets have attracted firms that are less than reputable and the defining lines of what constitutes a legitimate PMC or PSC have become blurred. Yes, you have big professional firms licensed by DoS in OIF and OEF...and then you have hundreds of other markets worldwide where "PMCs" are nothing more than hired thugs with guns. But those of us who were involved in the industry during its formative days can attest to the enormous amount of legitimacy it has acquired since the 1980s, at least here in the West.

**Mihais** · 23 Jul 11,, 14:25

R7,I haven't heard of problems with western operators,even with those in remote hellholes,like Central America or Africa.However,the natives tend to be in the hired thugs category.Since you're the veteran,however,I'd value your opinion more than my hearing.
Ain't grand to be a pioneer in something?

**USSWisconsin** · 23 Jul 11,, 15:16

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

What is your attitude towards Private Military Corporations?

From a soldiers perspective, do you think of them as competent in what they do?

Do you expect the military to lose ground to PMC's as a provider of defensive/offensive capabilities (perhaps maybe not the larger powers, but smaller ones as well), considering that they are more cost effective?

I am not a soldier - I have only a civilian perspective.

What is your attitude towards Private Military Corporations?
I am concerned about the events that were in the news in Iraq, with BW contractors killing civilians while employed by my country.

Do you expect the military to lose ground to PMC's as a provider of defensive/offensive capabilities (perhaps maybe not the larger powers, but smaller ones as well),
I am concerned about this possibility.

Do I consider that they are more cost effective?
No, IMO the actual cost is much higher - Most concern is for the reduced accountability - serving military is subject to Military justice and command - contractors have, and have demonstrated the use of - more loopholes and escape paths from justice.

I would prefer to see military personal conducting military operations.

**Mihais** · 23 Jul 11,, 16:22

Not worse than what regular military did,so what's the fuss about it?Both were the exception from the rule and both were punished.

**Chunder** · 23 Jul 11,, 19:13

PMC's are subject to the laws or lack of which in the countries in which they operate.

The greatest PMC was the East India Company. Basically when they cocked up the British Govt stepped in.

You can see the effect of what more or less amounts to PMC's in Mexico.

I.E a very complex topic.

**Double Edge** · 23 Jul 11,, 21:20

Originally Posted by Red Seven

In general the reputable US/UK firms are competent enough, have a thorough vetting process and stay in their lane...most are run by former "quiet professionals." Notable incidents with DynCorp, BW, AGI and others may have shaped negative public opinion but helped, I think, in the long run, to define limits and set standards. Unfortunately, as Mihais has touched on above, lucrative markets have attracted firms that are less than reputable and the defining lines of what constitutes a legitimate PMC or PSC have become blurred. Yes, you have big professional firms licensed by DoS in OIF and OEF...and then you have hundreds of other markets worldwide where "PMCs" are nothing more than hired thugs with guns. But those of us who were involved in the industry during its formative days can attest to the enormous amount of legitimacy it has acquired since the 1980s, at least here in the West.

How does a layman distinguish between the two ?

**Mihais** · 23 Jul 11,, 21:41

If they have Eotech's on their rifles,ESS ballistic glasses and 5.11 hats,they're the good guys.If they have my daddy's AK bought on black market with 80$,chew on khat and fire the weapon hommie style while trying to rip off reporters or humanitarian aid workers,they is bad

I can't say I'm wrong above,only that I'm joking( a bit).On a more serious manner,you look at who pays and for what job.If you can't find out or what you find is a bit in the grey area(99% are grey) you resort to the above criteria.The pros may kill innocents by accident.The idiots will do it for fun.Hence its a more humane choice to cheer for less victims.

btw,I recommend this book http://www.amazon.com/Just-Warriors-...ks&ie=UTF8&qid Absolutely superb,IMO.

**Red Seven** · 26 Jul 11,, 16:54

Originally Posted by Mihais

If they have Eotech's on their rifles,ESS ballistic glasses and 5.11 hats,they're the good guys.If they have my daddy's AK bought on black market with 80$,chew on khat and fire the weapon hommie style while trying to rip off reporters or humanitarian aid workers,they is bad

Or Tactical Tailor and Oakleys, and your satire is dead on. Except for Central America, where you can tell the bad guys by their cowboy boots...

**Red Seven** · 26 Jul 11,, 19:24

Originally Posted by Double Edge

How does a layman distinguish between the two ?

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.

**gunnut** · 26 Jul 11,, 19:38

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

What is your attitude towards Private Military Corporations?

Do you mean "mercenaries?"

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

From a soldiers perspective, do you think of them as competent in what they do?

I'm not a soldier, nor have I ever served. However, I would believe that mercs are either 1. very competent and professional, or 2. anything goes. Maybe even both at the same time. Seriously, what laws and rules do they follow once employed? What are the guidelines for their actions? Rules of engagement?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Do you expect the military to lose ground to PMC's as a provider of defensive/offensive capabilities (perhaps maybe not the larger powers, but smaller ones as well), considering that they are more cost effective?

Mercenaries will supplement national militaries. They always have and always will.

**USSWisconsin** · 26 Jul 11,, 19:55

Originally Posted by Mihais

Not worse than what regular military did,so what's the fuss about it?Both were the exception from the rule and both were punished.

Of course it is just my opinion - I agree both military and PMC's have committed criminal acts - and it isn't the norm - it is an exception. When military does it there is military justice - which IMO is more strict, can be swifter and has fewer limits (they can shoot or hang a criminal, sentence them to bread and water, put someone at a weather station in northern Alaska for a long time, etc).