Mercenaries

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Vern_S:

( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

They aren't recruited to fight any more than a security gaurd is recruited to shoot someone. They're recruited to protect "nouns". This may involve fighting, just as a bank guard may be required to use lethal force during a bank robbery - but it isn't the point. In fact, if a BW PSD has to fight, something has gone wrong in the threat assessment, planning, or execution of the work. Of course, those videos make the internet.

I don't really have a problem with mercenary work - it's an old profession, and sometimes has good outcomes. Note that the Pope has been protected by mercenaries for centuries. But BW and their ilk don't fit the bill.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by acrashb:

They aren't recruited to fight any more than a security gaurd is recruited to shoot someone. They're recruited to protect "nouns". This may involve fighting, just as a bank guard may be required to use lethal force during a bank robbery - but it isn't the point. In fact, if a BW PSD has to fight, something has gone wrong in the threat assessment, planning, or execution of the work. Of course, those videos make the internet.

I don't really have a problem with mercenary work - it's an old profession, and sometimes has good outcomes. Note that the Pope has been protected by mercenaries for centuries. But BW and their ilk don't fit the bill.

I don't see how present Vatican Swiss Guard differs from what you said in your first paragraph.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I don't see how present Vatican Swiss Guard differs from what you said in your first paragraph.

It doesn't much, but you said "present" while I said "centuries" - they certainly acted as mercs in days gone by.

On a more game-oriented note, simulating BW and the like would require at least engine re-coding.

Scenario: walking through some market, hostile fire comes from out of nowhere. The PSD does a cover-and-evacuate while the CAT team raises havoc.

Having our pixelated guys grab, cover, and shove the VIP back into a waiting armoured limo is surely not included in the present set of tac-AI rules or existing coded animations. I expect that other things, like guns firing out of the windows of a civilian-vehicle convoy while speeding up to blow through a hit are also not simulated.

OTOH, if you want to simulate actual mercs, just put reg forces in with limited heavy weapon systems (tanks, arty, air). Use quality ratings to simulate either well-trained mercs or a ragged bunch of desperate losers who somehow got a job. Then mod the uniforms to be less uniform.

[Stolly]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Don't professional soldier and mercenary mean the same thing? Some one who fights as a career, and in return for payment.

Modern merc groups (e.g. Sandline) do work very closely with their national government (Sandline went in instead of the British Army for example to Sierra Leone, because politically more feasible, and that was an offensive action)

Our soldiers swear an oath to Queen and Country, mercenaries do not. Our soldiers most certainly are not in it for the money, mercenaries certainly are.

The British Army was very much involved in Sierra Leone, the SAS took apart their armed rabble in double quick time.

[Vern_S]

Yes, I did not want to get into a long dissertation on this subject and I posted what the Geneva Convention dictates as "Food for Thought". Obviously a lot of people have thought about this issue and have opinions they wanted to voice. Debate is healthy and thus far this has been a civil meaningful discussion and since we still have 5 more days until release of SF what the hell.

There is a big difference between providing security in peacetime and providing security in a war zone.

In a peacetime setting a security guard is bound by the Rule of Law set forth by the established government and he is accountable for his actions. If his actions are unjustified then he/she is prosecuted in accordance with local Laws.

In a war zone martial law is in force and in the past Military Police were used in a security function to do what Blackwater and many other PMC's are doing right now. The MP's were protected under the Geneva Convention as lawful combatants and were held accountable under their countries military code of conduct for their actions, the UCMJ for US Forces. At some point these duties are slowly transfered to the local provisional government and there law enforcement personnel who are in turn accountable to the provisional government for there actions.

The big question concerning a PMC is who are they accountable to for their actions? The UCMJ? The Laws of Iraq's newly established government? If they wound or kill someone what oversight is there for that action. If the incident is in question who investigates and holds the contractor accountable or prosecutes in the case of an unjustified action? Can they take any action with impunity?

Mercenaries have a bad reputation due to the fact that they can act with relative impunity in a conflict as long as the enemy doesn't capture them, in which case the Geneva Convention deals with the issue by not protecting mercenaries under it's rules for the conduct of war, considering them unlawful combatants.

PMC's are here to stay and as more and more militaries around the world downsize they are going to take up more functions then just security in the future. Maybe even offensive actions. They need to be accountable to some authority for their actions. There has to be some kind of oversight for their use.

More food for thought...

[Matthias]

i am sorry but the defence that some people have raised of blackwater sound like biased employees of Blackwater!

"There only there for defensive actions!"

this argument is not valid, the fact is there hired for money to be there, makes them mercenaries, defensive/offensives don't matter, there still "killing" other people for money.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Matthias:

there still "killing" other people for money.

As already addressed, they aren't there for killing people, they're there to protect "nouns".

Orginally posted by Vern_S:

The big question concerning a PMC is who are they accountable to for their actions?

It's an interesting question which the industry would like addressed, so that they could work in a more clear legal framework - which they think would grow the industry.

In a failed or failing state, they can't be accountable to the host state. Some PMC's with US DOD contracts are accountable to the DOD (which also sets training and other standards), but I don't know the framework - is it UCMJ or just contract language?

You might be interested in the documentary "Shadow Company" that talks about these among other issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Company

[Vern_S]

As civilians the UCMJ is not applicable. They are not on US soil and as you mentioned the host state is incapable. I have watched Shadow Company on You Tube as well as many other tidbits from journalists to congressman concerned with the issue. I've read a multitude of info for and against the use of PMC's. It all boils down to accountability... At the moment there does not appear to be any and that is a scary situation.