6 ms·

American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be abolished.

by 394549 8y ago

CapitalistCartr 8y ago
We've had mercenaries since the Pharaohs of Egypt. Its as likely to work as abolishing prostitution, politics, or drinking.
- 394549 8y ago
  Mercenaries may always exist, but American ones don't have to. Participation in them should be made illegal, and all these private military companies should forbidden to operate until they find another line of business or liquidate themselves. If some former soldier or former general wants to become a mercenary, let him renounce his citizenship and go find a new home. The only military forces in the US should be explicit parts of official US military.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Its a curious job - murder for hire? I don't think it actually is legal in the US.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Given that the US is not, in fact, at war with Yemen, it doesn't seem to be legal outside the US for US citizens or people within US jurisdiction when doing any planning, etc., related to it; see, U.S. Code tit. 18, ch. 45, particularly §§ 956, 958, and 960. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  We've had extortion and murder as well, your argument doesn't really help. Modern nation states can 100% regulate themselves on the use of irregular forces - there are situations for them, and many not. They could be doing some enhanced security, some types of armed guards ... but not anything tactical, certainly not anything mission oriented or directed kinds of violence.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, they just need to be used for the right things. 'Enhanced security guards' are fine. Not mercenaries. And there need to be clear regulations.
- 394549 8y ago
  > 'Enhanced security guards' are fine. I don't agree with that. Didn't these mercenary companies start out as just "enhanced security guards?" It seems like once you allow them to operate in any capacity, the rot spreads until you have assassination operations like the one in the article. The only military career path for Americans should be within the ranks of the US military.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Maybe you are correct pragmatically, but I'm saying armed security guards are fine. You realize that some urban areas of the US are more dangerous than Baghdad? I have no problem with these guys as long as they are not doing military missions.
    - 394549 8y ago
      > I have no problem with these guys as long as they are not doing military missions. As far as I'm concerned, security of American assets and personnel in a conflict zone is a military mission.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "security of American assets and personnel" Post-war Iraq is not the same as a war zone, so protection of the civil service, bureaucrats, diplomatic corps, etc. I think can be done by some kind of other trained force. In fact, it might be better in some ways - soldiers are trained to have a very aggressive posture, a very 'lean in' kind of assertion. The 'killer instinct'. And it involves a lot of training in heavy weapons, assaults, recons, urban warfare etc. etc.. We don't need that for these missions. Because in any serious engagement they should be calling in the actual Army.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be abolished. It's Academi now (used to be Xe; hasn't been Blackwater for almost a decade.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- auntienomen 8y ago
  They can change their name as much as they like. No one's fooled.
TallGuyShort 8y ago
They're making massive amounts of money in this 17-year war in Afghanistan. Imagine all the freedom they must be pumping out to earn those paychecks.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
solidsnack9000 8y ago
What's the difference between a private military company and a really heavily armed private security company? If we can't clearly articulate this, we can't really ban these companies. When guards have to accompany a VIP into an unstable environment they frequently employee armored vehicles, armed helicopters and specialists like designated marksmen.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > and a really heavily armed private security company Most Western countries prohibit that form of organisation, too. Close protection is provided by State bodies ( the police and Royal Marines in the UK, for example ). So the question arises, why does the USA permit armed private companies at all?
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    Close protection for executives is provided by state bodies in the UK? What about when the executives travel?

American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be abolished.

by 394549 8y ago

American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be abolished.

We've had mercenaries since the Pharaohs of Egypt. Its as likely to work as abolishing prostitution, politics, or drinking.

394549 8y ago
Mercenaries may always exist, but American ones don't have to. Participation in them should be made illegal, and all these private military companies should forbidden to operate until they find another line of business or liquidate themselves. If some former soldier or former general wants to become a mercenary, let him renounce his citizenship and go find a new home. The only military forces in the US should be explicit parts of official US military.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Its a curious job - murder for hire? I don't think it actually is legal in the US.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Given that the US is not, in fact, at war with Yemen, it doesn't seem to be legal outside the US for US citizens or people within US jurisdiction when doing any planning, etc., related to it; see, U.S. Code tit. 18, ch. 45, particularly §§ 956, 958, and 960. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45
sonnyblarney 8y ago
We've had extortion and murder as well, your argument doesn't really help. Modern nation states can 100% regulate themselves on the use of irregular forces - there are situations for them, and many not. They could be doing some enhanced security, some types of armed guards ... but not anything tactical, certainly not anything mission oriented or directed kinds of violence.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

No, they just need to be used for the right things. 'Enhanced security guards' are fine. Not mercenaries. And there need to be clear regulations.

394549 8y ago
> 'Enhanced security guards' are fine. I don't agree with that. Didn't these mercenary companies start out as just "enhanced security guards?" It seems like once you allow them to operate in any capacity, the rot spreads until you have assassination operations like the one in the article. The only military career path for Americans should be within the ranks of the US military.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Maybe you are correct pragmatically, but I'm saying armed security guards are fine. You realize that some urban areas of the US are more dangerous than Baghdad? I have no problem with these guys as long as they are not doing military missions.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > I have no problem with these guys as long as they are not doing military missions. As far as I'm concerned, security of American assets and personnel in a conflict zone is a military mission.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "security of American assets and personnel" Post-war Iraq is not the same as a war zone, so protection of the civil service, bureaucrats, diplomatic corps, etc. I think can be done by some kind of other trained force. In fact, it might be better in some ways - soldiers are trained to have a very aggressive posture, a very 'lean in' kind of assertion. The 'killer instinct'. And it involves a lot of training in heavy weapons, assaults, recons, urban warfare etc. etc.. We don't need that for these missions. Because in any serious engagement they should be calling in the actual Army.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be abolished. It's Academi now (used to be Xe; hasn't been Blackwater for almost a decade.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
auntienomen 8y ago
They can change their name as much as they like. No one's fooled.

TallGuyShort 8y ago

They're making massive amounts of money in this 17-year war in Afghanistan. Imagine all the freedom they must be pumping out to earn those paychecks.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

solidsnack9000 8y ago

What's the difference between a private military company and a really heavily armed private security company? If we can't clearly articulate this, we can't really ban these companies. When guards have to accompany a VIP into an unstable environment they frequently employee armored vehicles, armed helicopters and specialists like designated marksmen.

dingaling 8y ago
> and a really heavily armed private security company Most Western countries prohibit that form of organisation, too. Close protection is provided by State bodies ( the police and Royal Marines in the UK, for example ). So the question arises, why does the USA permit armed private companies at all?
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Close protection for executives is provided by state bodies in the UK? What about when the executives travel?