I regret to say that I, Tim the Soldier, agree 100% with the QOAE on this issue.

These folks are living a dangerous life, and they wouldn't have it any other way. Now, they would be true mercenaries if they didn't care who they worked for or fought against as long as they were paid in U.S. dollars, and I don't think that is the case. Although those types of mercenaries exist, I don't believe Blackwater is looking for those types of "employees."

This truly is a situation that answers the question: "Who you gonna call?"

It's okay Tim. Get a cup of tea and rest. I promise to remind you later the reason you think I'm a nut. ;-)

The increasingly vile attacks on these people illustrate the trends in the thought process of modern leftism:

It starts out with bitter resentment of anyone who makes $100 million a year.

It progresses to bitter resentment of anyone who makes $100 thousand a year.

It progresses on to the belief that it doesn't matter if these people are killed..or even to applause for such killing.

It's increasingly easy to understand how the Soviet murders of the "Kulaks" (those who had three more pigs than their neighbors) came to pass.

Does it really concern no one that the US government is paying a private security firm for protection? Have we no interest in where this leads considering that private security firms are on the increase?

Does Blackwater only hire Americans? Is that why they can be called contractors? If they were Chilean would we still call them contractors?

Looks to me like a serious advance of corporatism. With private armies, what does that spell for the strength of nations as we have known it? There's enough out there on the use of private military companies in Gulf 1 and Bosnia to raise serious questions.

There's a lot more to this than 4 American civilians whose dead bodies were brutalized by an angry mob. Focusing on this is like focusing on one spot in a dot pattern.

Remember observer, it’s just fine with some Republicans to outsource to the private sector what we should be doing for half the expenditure through the public sector. It’s good for bidness.

Private security firms have always been around, this is nothing new and is no reason to be alarmed. Pinkerton has been around for a long time. Look up how they "worked" with strikers in the early 20th century. Now THAT is alarming.

I think it might be a good trend for the military to hire more firms for specialized tasks (e.g. small security, PR duty, etc.) and leave the heavy stuff to the military.

You would prefer to outsource the job to the governments and military of France and Belgium, Shep?

shep,

Private security firms perform an essential service. I do not want the government to have a monopoly on force. There is a name for such a government. It is called a police state.

I do not believe you are advocating a police state, shep. Do you believe that the security guard at the door of my office building should be replaced by a government employee? Should Rosie O'Donnell be allowed a bodyguard? Can the Pope hire mercenaries to guard the Vatican? You've made a complaint, now give us a policy proposal. I'll bet we can refine it into something quite workable.

Here's a start: I propose that there be a cap on Federal expenditures on private security firms both to prevent such expenditures from growing wildly out of control and to keep Congress informed about the exent of our reliance on such forces. I also propose that the age limits on service be relaxed, and that new branches of service be opened up to provide security for government buildings and personnel.

Furthermore I propose that city and county governments be encouraged to create and regulate local guard units like those in the National Guard, e.g., the Anchorage Regiment of the Alaska State Guard, to perform those duties formerly done by the National Guard, but which are stretching it now, as well as new local duties related to the war on terror. I propose that those units be entirely volunteer and entirely self-equipped, in the way that the state militias used to be.

That should provide plenty to chew on.

Yours,
Wince

No thanks, nathan, I just want to pay our troops enough so that they don’t have to bail to the private sector to receive decent treatment and provide for their families. I’d also rather have my tax dollars go directly into soldiers’ pockets rather than to line the pockets of corporate executives. But you should keep in mind that France and Belgium might be at least as loyal to American interests as multi-national corporations such as KBR Halliburton which will do business with anyone as long as there’s a good profit in it.

Amen, Rosemary.

It's as if we will only think that our soldiers, cops and fireman are noble if they are also poorly compensated. I for one would love to see a hunk of wealth reallocation from the pockets of Hollywood to people who are getting shot at to defend our country.

OK, Wince, here’s a policy proposal for you. I propose that when our leaders take us to war that they pay enough soldiers enough pay to do them and the job right and that they back that up with tax policy that reflects the costs and obligations of going to war.

Shep,

Interesting proposal. You want our politicians to destroy the economy at a time of war. Now I understand your support of Kerry.

Please read this for some disturbing reactions to Kos.

Rosemary,
Shep’s proposal would not cost us more. If (as has been said) most of these guys are former military people, and we are footing the entire bill for this current war, we wouldn’t have to find any additional moneys in the budget. It’s already accounted for...

Wince,
Monopoly on force is pretty much the textbook definition of sovereignty. By advocating that our government not have a monopoly on force, you are pretty much advocating that we turn our sovereignty over to someone else, or that our nation disintegrate. Why do you hate America enough to wish its destruction?

Rosemary,

Actually, that’s why I support Democratic presidents. They’ve proved their policies can create peace and prosperity and that they can do the simple math required not to saddle future generations with our selfishness excused by ideological puffery.

Besides Clinton, name a 20th century Democrat president that created peace and prosperity with policy.

Sure thing, Rosemary. As soon as you tell me which ones "destroy[ed] the economy" through rational fiscal policy.

During the 1862 Peninsula campaign, Gen. McClellan hired the Pinkertons to estimate Confederate opposition strength. It didn't work out too well - Pinkerton's people weren't military, and they produced estimates which were too high (and which McClellan redoubled for planning purposes), exacerbating McClellan's instinctive overcaution. But it does show we've been hiring "outside experts" to augment our military capabilities for a long time. I suspect Blackwell's people are far more qualified for their tasks than the Pinkerton's were for theirs.

(Pinkerton redeemed himself by assisting in organizing the Secret Service and acting as the USA's first "CIA" during the war.)

Rose, you did see my article, yes? That's exactly the point I was making. {g}

Tim, good on ya! :)

shep, I could kick myself and repost what I've already said, but I'm not going to. Check out the above link. I'm also not going to address that moronic crack about "outsourcing." It's beneath you.

What you obviously fail to understand is that those "contractors" are retired SOCOM operatives. You know, men who have put 20 or 30 years in uniform as a SEAL or Green Beret? They're done; they've put their time in.

And, as for "pay enough soldiers enough pay to do them and the job right," they do that. The men in SOCOM are among the highest-paid in the US Armed Forces, even counting the pay scales found among flag ranks. Special Forces personnel already make $60,000/year or more (including bonuses).

I know, shep, that you really aren't stupid. But sometimes you sound that way. I sometimes want to pound my head against a wall, because I feel like I'm talking to someone who wants to make 4+4=5, just because it makes the answer easier. Will you, please, learn something about how the military works before saying dumb things like that? Please?

Because, you see, it isn't just about the money. There's only about 5,000 Special Forces troops in the Army right now. It isn't because Congress is too cheap to pay them more; it's because the men who qualify for SOCOM are literally the best of the best. Go do a little research on what a man has to do to get into Navy SEALS, or the Green Berets. Hell, it's hard enough to qualify as a Ranger!

So we have a very, very tiny group to start with, and it only gets smaller as we go along. First, not all of these men will be willing to join the armed forces. Second, it should come as no surprise that at least some of them will leave the service due to some sort of injury or disability. Finally, at least some of these men have families, and they decide to return to civilian life.

I also have to point out that it isn't that easy to get money from Congress to pay the troops. Congresscritters traditionally prefer funding for "things you ride in." It's usually easier to talk them into starting a boondoggle program for a 21st century stealth fighter than it is to give the grunts a pay raise.

At least with the plane you get really neat pictures you can send to the constituents.

There's also a strong tendency to vote for a program that will channel funds back to the home district. A little pork never hurts the public image, and a lot certainly didn't. The classic case was the insanely expensive B-2, which had subcontracts in every state, as well as Puerto Rico.

So, yes, the armed forces are doing what they can to get these men to join, then stay. But not everyone re-enlists; in fact, the armed forces expect a certain level of attrition every year, and plan for it. It's inescapable.

This is why we have civilian contractors in Iraq today.

But I can see your response from here; it's already in one of your posts when you crack that "pay to do them and the job right and that they back that up with tax policy that reflects the costs and obligations of going to war." You're just setting yourself up for another chance to bash Bush.

If the administration doesn't raise the pay rates (and let's not forget the Congress, now. They have a lot to do with all of this) you'll bitch because he didn't. If he does raise pay rates you'll bitch because he's increased the deficit. And if he raises taxes you'll bitch because that "proves" that he shouldn't have cut them in the first place. No matter what this administration does, you'll find something to bitch about.

Let's not even mention the fatuity of "reflect[ing] the costs and obligations of going to war."!! Gee, shep, do you have a nifty MS Excel plug-in that the rest of us don't, that can predict the "costs and obligations, etc.?" That's really freaking impressive, considering that the are men and women who have spent their entire lives working on this stuff, that can't predict that ahead of time. That's why we have this saying: "the fog of war."

Shep,

I knew you couldn't do it!

As soon as you tell me which ones "destroy[ed] the economy" through rational fiscal policy.

You can't trick me. No Democrat had a rational fiscal policy. ;-)

Andrew Cory,

Monopoly on force is not the definition of sovereignty. The American government has always claimed sovereignty, yet has always allowed the use of deadly force in self defense. Monopoly on force is the definition of a slave holder. Why do you wish American citizens to cease being free men? Did you learn anything from that question? Yours was similarly useless to me. We can both play reducio ad absurdum and go with the ad hominem attacks. I'm trying to explore the problem. My questions were designed to show the broad range of private security services that corporations, people and governments employ.

It is my firm contention that a goverment monopoly on force is a key enabler for genocide. As such I hate the notion of such a monoploy with a white hot passion. I'm sure you don't support genocide. Are there any private security functions which you would support?

Yours,
Wince

Casey:
“Gee, shep, do you have a nifty MS Excel plug-in that the rest of us don't, that can predict the "costs and obligations, etc.?" That's really freaking impressive, considering that the are men and women who have spent their entire lives working on this stuff, that can't predict that ahead of time.”

No one can predict the future, Casey. But even a moron knows that it’s going to cost something and, if you’re already in a hole, the first thing you have to do is to stop digging. Well, perhaps not every moron.

Rosemary:
“You can't trick me. No Democrat had a rational fiscal policy. ;-)”

Coming from a Republican, that opinion means a lot ;-) Now can you give me your impressions of their honesty and integrity in office. Oops, sorry, gotta go. John Dean is on the air again.

shep,

I'm trying to engage you in something a little more useful than our usual partisan slugfest. Can we make this discussion be about policy and not people?

As regards the economic performance of Democratic presidents:

Roosevelt: C- Took a bad situation and made it worse, including saddling future generations with some of the most economically dubious ideas possible (Social Security, farm subsidies?), but at least made sure people didn't starve.

Truman: I don't know enough about his handling of the economy to grade him. Anybody?

Kennedy: A Tax cuts started the 60's boom.

Johnson: D Expanded the government in ways that hurt the economy and hurt poor folks. May have meant well. Bought lots of votes.

Carter: D Took a bad economy and made it worse.

Clinton: A Cut taxes to start the boom. Placed important limits on Johnson's programs so they harmed the economy and poor people much less.

Please take these unsupported opinions with as much salt as needed. Your paragraph:

"Actually, that’s why I support Democratic presidents. They’ve proved their policies can create peace and prosperity and that they can do the simple math required not to saddle future generations with our selfishness excused by ideological puffery."

This is really nice ad copy, but like most ads it bears no relation to reality. I'm going with a salt mine on that one.

Yours,
Wince

Locke:

Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death and, consequently, all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property [...]
-Second treatise of government (Chapter 1 argument 3)

But furthermore, The American Government does not have sovereignty, rather the American people have sovereignty “We the people [...]”, and delegate parts of that sovereignty to our State and National governments.

However, when it comes to personal use of force, I do not see you and I being so very far from one another on opinion.

Where we seem to be in disagreement is when the power to commit deadly violence gets organized. Specifically, I do not think that we are disagreeing on what is the law, but rather on what ought to be the law...

To answer begin to answer your question, let me preface by saying that I have grave concerns about the use of private security firms such as those hired for street patrol duty within the borders of the United States. They have many of the trappings of authority, but are not bound by the US Constitution. They have a better-than-normal ability to make life difficult for someone, without the constraints on that ability which we have decided are necessary to protect us from abuse...

Nonetheless, I think that they can be a useful augmentation to normal police. They allow citizens to add protection to themselves without draining the resources from the normal police. Even without paying for it, society as a whole derives benefit which outweighs the damage to society as a whole (described in the paragraph above)...

As for private security used inside a building (malls, offices, etc) by entering a private area, you agree to behave by certain rules. The public police should not be expected to enforce private laws, and since the jurisdiction of the private security does not extend past the building itself, the danger to the public at large is minimal...

So, to answer your question, I am ok with private security to the extent in which they
1) do not interfere with my basic rights as an American
2) free actual police for other duty.

Has anyone mentioned Boba Fett yet?

I know technically, the Fett-meister is a bounty hunter and not a mercenery, but he is just so cool.

Required reading on this subject from Tucker Carlson in the March Esquire. I hope this link works...
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=366991

Andrew Cory,

Thanks for your reply.

I think we are very close. Private security companies are less constrained than the police in terms of the Constitution, but private security firms can be sued for many more reasons than the police. The police have fewer restrictions on deadly force. Private security firms cannot detain you for as long as police can. In general, the police, especially when allied with an aggressive prosecutor, can do much, much more to ruin your life than a private security firm.

Yours,
Wince

According to the Geneva Convention, the Majority of Blackwater doesn't even TECHNICALLY qualify as mercenaries. Paraphrasing, residents of the combatant nations cannot be classified as mercenaries. Most of Blackwater's folks are, as has been noted, retired U.S. military special forces, i.e., U.S. residents.

Interesting how often certain politically active folks are "definitionally challenged", isn't it?

Thank God we have ex-military commandos protecting Americans' butts over in Iraq and elsewhere. I think this is a most admirable occupation for those who are ex-military either through choice or due to age requirements who still want to serve their country. Furthermore, I have a big problem with the millions actors and actresses (and singers and musicians) make when they evince such contempt and loathing for the values and interests of the people and the culture that succor them.

Thank you for the post, Rosemary - this has been eating at me for days. I don't like the term "mercenary" but thank God for them.

Shep,

This ones for you straight from the mouth of the head honcho over there at Blackwater.

Oh Yeah, and for you too Casey because you don't seem to like the term 'outsourcing'.

"If they are going to outsource tasks that were once held by active-duty military and are now using private contractors, those guys [on active duty] are looking and asking, 'Where is the money?'" Gary Jackson told Franklin.

The Geneva Convention doesn't have a precise definition for today's mercenaries with the exception of the . There is an interesting report on the use of mercenaries in the private sector. There is recognition that private military companies are indeed using mercenaries and that these companies essentially operate below the radar, i.e. international law. If the merc. does something, the security firm is not held to any liability.

From a United Nations report to the General Assembly

"view is generally shared by the first meeting of
experts — that one of the new forms of mercenary
activity is that which takes place through private
security companies that hire out military services,
using mercenaries for that purpose. The fact that
international legal texts do not refer to this modality..."

"Clearly, international rules refer to States, not
enterprises. Consequently, such enterprises can claim
that they are not responsible for unlawful acts with
which States alone can be charged. Thus, if an
enterprise hires mercenaries who commit human rights
violations, the enterprise is not responsible and the
violations go unpunished."

"The third point concerns payment which is,
without any doubt, the defining factor of mercenary
status and activity. Mercenaries, particularly those who
are hired to participate in combat or to train those who
are to make up battalions, columns or commando units
are typically individuals who have been in the military
or who have received military training, and above all
who are former members of special commando or
parachute units and have experience in the use of
sophisticated weapons. The mere fact that it is a
Government that recruits mercenaries, or hires
companies that recruit mercenaries, either in its own
defence or to provide reinforcements in armed
conflicts, does not make such acts any less illegal or
illegitimate. Governments are authorized to operate
solely under the Constitution and the international
treaties to which they are parties. This point of view
should be taken into account in a broader legal
definition of mercenaries."

There are a number of Private Security Firms in Iraq and in other countries. They are not all Americans. The ones who got killed in Falluja last week just happened to be Americans.

If they were Philippine or Bosnian, British or South African or Chilean, would anyone be as outraged and thank 'God' for them?

There is a detailed discussion of the nature of and reasons for private contracting of military services posted at Grim's Hall, a blog which I found, oddly enough, thru the Tartan Day Gathering of the Blogs.

shep, nice dance job. You managed to slide by my entire refutation of your lame position about the "scandal about mercenaries," as well as that nitwit crack about "outsourcing." (NB to observer: I objected to shep's sarcasm about the GOP's supposed addiction to outsourcing, not the term per se.)

You also didn't answer my question about predicting costs, etc. All you say is "everyone knows it's going to cost something." Well, no shit, sherlock.

Please excuse my sarcasm, but you have (yet again) raised an issue, then ignored it to your own convenience when someone provides an effective refutation. There is, in fact, no way to predict the costs and effects of any given war. None. After I point this out, all shep can do is imply that the advocates of this war are "morons."

Sorry if I'm coming on a little strong, but I think you are not even trying to develop an ethical discussion about this. As far as I can see you are happy to engage in cheap shots, and posturing, as opposed to real conversation. In fact, you managed to ignore the entire post.

Ok. I'm getting pissed. I'll have to think about dropping thread...

observer: do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about? Really?

(and again, yes, I'm being rather short with people, but I believe that if you're going to voice an opinion on something, you are obliged to learn something about that topic first)

I repeat: see my first post here, as well as the link to a post on my blog. Follow it to StrategyPage, and do some research on the web. Ask your friends in the Army, Marines, etc., about this. The vast majority of the men employed by firms like Blackwater are former members of the US armed forces. They're professionals of the highest caliber. There are very simple, very good reasons (see above) why we don't have enough of them to go around, and why it is useful to have civilian security firms in Iraq. If nothing else, any resource that allows us to utilize soldiers on military operations, as opposed to projects such as escorting food convoys, has a positive effect on our force structure.

To start with your first post: the United States is not paying any private company for "protection." As I stated above, using active duty soldiers as security guards or convoy protection is a waste of resources. The private companies also provide valuable services while training Iraqi police and army recruits how to be honest professionals. Again, while Special Forces is very good at liason with foreign groups, there are more important responsibilities for them now than convoy protection, personal security, and organizational security (note how the UN cut and ran after a few casualties).

And, while you are pissing your pants about possible Chilean agents, please advise me on how many non-US operatives have been hired by Blackwater, etc.?

Not to mention that these are not private armies. Christ! How many times do I have to tell people that before they start listening!?

There are UN rules about that stuff that even the US (usually) observes. The fact that you keep maundering on about (inaccurate) details displays your ignorance of the basic facts of the process.

Next post: nice job on the partial quote. It's obvious from the grammar that there's more to that. Besides which that quote doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before. Blackwater hires former military personnel. No shit, sherlock! (yes, I'm still pissed!) Or do you have a basic comprehension problem?

The men hired by Blackwater are former Army; former Navy; former Marines. Do you UNDERSTAND that yet?

Actually, some folks think ex-British SAS are the best "catch," but that's another story. :)

As for that nitwit UN quote: like I give a fat rat's ass. Those idiots put Libya on the Human Rights commission.

I repeat (again!): read my original post on my blog. Or ask someone who knows what they are talking about. True mercenaries work for the highest bidder. End of fucking story.

And as for your your "what if, what if?" maundering, dredge up some numbers on how many non-NATO "security" personnel there are in Iraq.

And yes, I do thank God that ex-SAS or Royal Marines are in Iraq, fighting the good fight, and I'll miss every one of them like I miss my own brother.

Casey:
“Please excuse my sarcasm, but you have (yet again) raised an issue, then ignored it to your own convenience when someone provides an effective refutation.”

Sorry buddy, but I didn’t read anything in you post that refuted my point(s) at all: 1) Certain Republicans have a predilection for outsourcing government services that, perhaps, shouldn’t be outsourced, 2) we often don’t get a better tax-dollar value by doing so, and 3) if we can afford to pay a private contractor to pay former US military soldiers a very good wage, plus profit, we could retain and pay our U.S. Army or Marine soldiers better than we are. I’m not sure what about those ideas you object to, other than the fact that it doesn’t reflect well on Bush and like-minded Republicans as well as their anything-but-government ideology, but you didn’t offer “an effective refutation” of any of them.

I have no problem with private contractors hiring retired soldiers, or anyone else, to do security work. I also wish Godspeed and a safe return to those who get hired. But I do have a problem with contracting for contracting sake, especially when it represents a windfall for a corporation and a rip-off of the taxpayer. And also with the double-standard it suggests, since the government pays for both the private and the public soldier, that somehow the public soldier is worth less. Considering your relationship with people who would probably like to remain an American soldier but simply can’t afford to be anything but a private mercenary, perhaps you’re arguing with the wrong guy.

You know Casey, I have not even the slightest clue, so I'm not sure why you bothered to get so tied up in knots.

My questions are bigger than the immediate situation as I am concerned to where this will lead.

I can only find so much information or listen to so much news. If none of it can be believed to even some extent than all blathering is just that and ulitimately pointless. And of course, I read what you wrote. Since you know some of these guys, I can appreciate where you're coming from, but it doesn't change my questions.

I just 'heard' and 'read' that the second largest force after the American army is Private Security Companies [more than the troops the British sent.] I just 'read' that the growth of Private Security Companies has exploded in the last 8 years.
I have no clue. Nada. Zilch.

All YOUR blog does is give me a reason why these guys are working for Private Security Companies IN Iraq [and looking a whole lot different than the local bank security guard]. I don't see why this is some kind of refutation of a mercenary status. Does that make ALL mercenaries bad? or good?
I don't have the answer to that. You obviously don't like the word 'mercenary' as it has lots'o bad connotations. That these guys had previously served in our military doesn't change the fact that they are now working for Blackwater, DynCorp, or any other PMC. If they are prevented from re-enlisting and one can use that as justification - fine. The bigger question is why. If they could reenlist, would they? Jerry Zovko was 32. I really don't have a clue. He doesn't have 20 years in so it's not that. I would be better informed if I could find out why he couldn't reenlist and found himself working for Blackwater.

What I quoted from the UN General Assembly report is to make the point that they have some questions themselves. They freely admit that the nature of the use of mercenaries has changed and that perhaps broader definitions should be applied. The whole report is very very long. Should I have quoted ALL of it?

Do YOU know the nationality breakdown of Blackwaters' security force? I didn't pull Chilean off the top of my head. I have 'read' that they've been recruiting these guys for service in Iraq since February and begun training them right here in North Carolina.
And Balckwater is not the only PMC operating in Iraq. Plus, Blackwater is not only operatingin Iraq. So?

As far as private armies go; again, I am projecting questions about where this will lead especially when I read a quote from Blackwater's head honcho:

"Gary Jackson, the president of Blackwater, envisions a day when any country faced with peacekeeping duties will simply call him and place an order. "I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world," he told me."

So why don't you argue that PMCs are a good thing for the Pentagon, for our government, for our nation to rely on, now and in the future instead of focusing on the fact that these are good guys who served this country's military and can't be called mercenaries because of their former status? [the latter appears to me to be your argument.]

The argument that they wish to serve and being paid for it isn't a bad thing if movie stars can make oodles of money should also carry over and make the profession of prostitution legal too.

These are all murky waters where absolute definitions are difficult. As the UN admits, they are clear on only one definition,
"The third point concerns payment which is,
without any doubt, the defining factor of mercenary
status and activity."
I'd be hardpressed to find out if Blackwater wasn't the highest bidder anyway; to use your definition.

So relax. Other people see some things that you aren't looking at or maybe you don't even like the way they're looking at it. I'm not upset with you and can even understand your points.

Hi.

I think of mercenaries as being in five categories:
(1) Soldiers that work for pay (not conscripts) but only work for one state. Examples, the BEF (regarded as "mercenaries" by German conscripts in WWI), Australian soldiers in Vietnam (regarded as "mercenaries" by the Communists].
(2) Soldiers in a regular armed force that work for pay for another state or organization, with the full support of their own government. Examples: Gurkhas, UN contingents. (Of course Gurkhas can also be seen as category 1 fight-for-pay soldiers, just bound by treaty, and they are certainly at the top level in quality.]
(3) Soldiers that work for pay at arm's length from a government. Example: modern American mercenaries. (These are typically veterans, they work for large firms, and for both practical and genuinely patriotic reasons they won't work against the interest and policies of their own country. They may be "deniable" though.)
(4) "Dogs of war" who fight for pay, period. Example: Mad Mike Hoare. (These can be good or bad. The problem is, if you're relying on them and it turns out you've hired a bad lot, that's very bad.) Also, and most famously, the Swiss. (Still good enough for the Pope, though these are so well vetted for Catholic loyalty that they are probably less open to other offers than would be normal for category 1 troops.)
(5) People who fight in foreign wars for personal and ideological reasons rather than for money. Examples: crusaders, including both the flower of western chivalry paying large amounts of money to do the right thing for Jesus, their souls and their fellow Christians; and murdering scum who only wanted to "crusade" as far as the nearest Jews, in order to kill and rob them. Or, foreigners fighting with the RAF in the Battle of Britain: new crusaders in the best possible sense. Or useless dorks lobbing up uninvited in the Balkans, hoping for the thrill of "proving themselves" and perhaps actually killing someone. You get all sorts here, the best and the worst.

I don't have a prejudice against mercenaries at all. I want to know: "what kind of mercenary are we talking about?" Since American mercenaries recently killed in Iraq were obviously good, I mourn them.

On the whole, I agree with Machiavelli that dependence on higher-number mercenaries is generally a bad thing, though the fault is often not exclusively on one side. Example: Carthage's war against its unpaid mercenaries. But, it's very much a case by case thing. Hannibal did just fine with his fight-for-hire boys. The French Foreign Legion is famous because it deserves to be. You can say that they, and the Pope's Swiss guards and so on, are special cases. But that's my point. This is all about "special cases."

In regard to Americans: the Americans have never insisted that only American citizens can fight for America. Rather, they do it the other way round: Americans can only fight for America. (Though I can't remember any Americans getting in trouble for helping the British fight the Luftwaffe.) American contractors in Iraq who were not American citizens (e.g. Brits) would not seem to me to be a great departure from American tradition, or an ethical problem.

Of course I invite comments from people more informed as to how things currently work as to whether this is a reasonable way to structure one's thoughts about soldiers that fight for pay.

Mike's got a good point.
Now, Han Solo, he was a mercenary. At least, at first he was.

Oh, and shep? You love to apply that "costs and obligations" to military excursions...why don't you try applying that to Democrat platforms like universal health coverage, welfare, gun control, not privatizing social security (I'd wager you have no clue of the manner Bush is actually proposing to change things, other than that since it was proposed by a Republican, it must be bad), etc.
Democrats are great about not considering the costs and obligations of their proposals. If they ever were honest about those C&Os, they wouldn't have to advocate raising taxes on the rich or fight against a straight 17% flat tax rate.

nathan,

Actually, I think that Democrats are pretty honest and transparent when it comes to estimates of policy proposals. Certainly more so than we just saw with the administration’s portrayal of its Medicare reforms. Likewise, with the unspoken costs of its unwritten Social Security privatization. And nothing is more dishonest in current fiscal politics than to claim to love smaller government and defund it through tax cuts but not make corresponding cuts in program that prove your integrity and seriousness.

Know what I thought when I heard about Fallujah? "I'm glad that none of them were women... I wonder if J. knew them." I have a friend in Iraq who hires mercenaries... yes, that's actually a job, human resources for mercs... and every morning she straps on her Glock to head to work. What are they doing? They're protecting the oil pipelines and shipments, which (you probably realize) are the key to restoring Iraq's economic security.

Her company hires people to do a job that the US Armed Forces do not perform, and should not have to. Some of the people they hire are from the region, Iraqis and Kurds and the like. And I think people like that *should* be paid for the job they do, because it entails high risk and it needs to be done.