Why can't the UN hire a merc outfit, like, let say, Executive Outcomes, to take care of Lybia?
It would be cheaper, and it would not cost in western lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes)
Executive Outcomes has been gone for a while, I thought. The best mercenary type groups seem to be made up of former members of western armies.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 19, 2011, 01:15:24 AM
Executive Outcomes has been gone for a while, I thought. The best mercenary type groups seem to be made up of former members of western armies.
Sure.
The point is, EO remains the classic tale of unreasonable hatred of mercs getting in the way of killing rebels.
Something that just came to my mind: are white South-Africans "Western"? They share culture, language, heritage, economic system with us. The only thing that used to set them apart was their open racism, but then Slargos is "Western" too.
For one thing Seeb, the UN is only supposed to be in the peace-keeping business, not the peace-making business.
Because according to current western thought mercenaries are pure evil and must never be employed, no matter what.
Wild geese tend to be westerners as well. Mercs have the bad reputation in the west because they are considered unreliable, i.e. never willing to fight to the death. They have a bad reputation in the south because they constantly are used to overthrow governments.
As far as I'm concerned that unless we expect the personnel to fight to the death to overthrow Ghaddafi etc. I have no issue with mercs since they obviously have the skills (Mark Thatcher's escapades not withstanding) if Mercs operate in a clear chain of command with the same rights and obligations as regular soldiers and command and control is transparent.
I don't think it is immoral or illegal to use mercenaries per se, but I'm pretty sure Western democratic governments have laws against outsourcing government functions and services to people with a criminal record or who committed crimes - and a strong presumption for any established mercenary band is that they did commit crimes in the past (e.g. when serving dictators and the like).
Quote from: Viking on June 19, 2011, 02:43:59 AM
Mercs have the bad reputation in the west because they are considered unreliable, i.e. never willing to fight to the death.
I don't think many professional soldiers in Western armies are willing to fight to the death either.
Mercenaries? We don't need that scum.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 19, 2011, 02:43:59 AM
Mercs have the bad reputation in the west because they are considered unreliable, i.e. never willing to fight to the death.
I don't think many professional soldiers in Western armies are willing to fight to the death either.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. - Patton
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2011, 01:30:02 AM
For one thing Seeb, the UN is only supposed to be in the peace-keeping business, not the peace-making business.
This is a big thing. For one thing, nobody is really interested in granting that kind of power to the UN. Second you'd get the shrieks of "colonialism!!!!!11oneeleven", from the usual suspects.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2011, 01:30:02 AM
For one thing Seeb, the UN is only supposed to be in the peace-keeping business, not the peace-making business.
There can only be peace defeating either Kaddafi or the rebels.
What is the UN trying to do in Lybia? Keeping the current frontlines fixed?
If the goal is to take out Kaddafi, and since none of the countries involved are willing to employ their own ground forces, why not outsource the campaign?
I guaranty you it would be cheaper and quicker.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 19, 2011, 02:43:59 AM
Mercs have the bad reputation in the west because they are considered unreliable, i.e. never willing to fight to the death.
I don't think many professional soldiers in Western armies are willing to fight to the death either.
Define "western armies".
All infantrymen I have served with have always been aware that the might come a day when you have to fight to the bitter end.
The "fight to the death" is not a choice you make, but a choice that is forced on you.
It is ussually a combination of the enemy being more resorceful than ussual and your chain of command understimating the enemy capabilities and concentration of force and materiel.
And then, surrendering to the kind of foes we are fighting these days is not really an option.
You are dead either way, so better to go down fighting than being beheaded on Al-Jazeera.
You gotta be considering your career after you're done with the line infantry, Siege.
Siegeline International? :hmm:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 19, 2011, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 19, 2011, 03:32:15 AM
Mercenaries? We don't need that scum.
+1!
I forgot the corresponding pic...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-mockery.com%2Fminimocks%2Fempirestrikesback%2Fbounty-hunters.jpg&hash=ebbff5458ff68973cbd895c50cf8e854629f30b0)
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 02:26:34 PM
And then, surrendering to the kind of foes we are fighting these days is not really an option.
You are dead either way, so better to go down fighting than being beheaded on Al-Jazeera.
Indeed.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 02:16:59 PM
What is the UN trying to do in Lybia?
Who are you talking about? Who is the UN?
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 19, 2011, 02:43:59 AM
Mercs have the bad reputation in the west because they are considered unreliable, i.e. never willing to fight to the death.
I don't think many professional soldiers in Western armies are willing to fight to the death either.
Stop being stupid Marty. Every solider who is going into a combat zone knows he or she may be killed in fighting. They would prefer not to be killed or wounded, but they accept the fact that it may happen to them. This is very much the willingness to die while fighting.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 02:26:34 PM
And then, surrendering to the kind of foes we are fighting these days is not really an option.
You are dead either way, so better to go down fighting than being beheaded on Al-Jazeera.
How do you guys deal with the possibility of capture? I imagine every soldier knows what happens to American soldiers in the hands of the insurgents.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2011, 04:37:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 02:26:34 PM
And then, surrendering to the kind of foes we are fighting these days is not really an option.
You are dead either way, so better to go down fighting than being beheaded on Al-Jazeera.
How do you guys deal with the possibility of capture? I imagine every soldier knows what happens to American soldiers in the hands of the insurgents.
Very simple. There is no possibility of capture.
Every time we run into combat is victory or death.
There is no middle ground.
But then, there is always the possibility that you might get wounded badly, fall incouncious, while being overrun by enemy combatants.
If that happens to me and I wake up in their hands about to be beheaded in front of a video camera, I shall go down blaspheming islam and calling for other western men to pick up my gun and continue fighting the endless war.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 02:16:59 PM
There can only be peace defeating either Kaddafi or the rebels.
What is the UN trying to do in Lybia? Keeping the current frontlines fixed?
If the goal is to take out Kaddafi, and since none of the countries involved are willing to employ their own ground forces, why not outsource the campaign?
I guaranty you it would be cheaper and quicker.
There are already mercenaries on the ground fighting for Kaddafi. And the Rebels also employ foreign mercenaries. What more do you want? Sending mercenaries with a US banner?
First of all, it would be illegal unless approved by the Congress, I'm pretty sure.
Second, mercenaries are unereliable for general combat operations. If they were reliable, Afghanistan and Irak would have been pacified long ago.
Mercenaries are good for a very precise operation, clearly defined in its mandate and time. Protect person X from airport to hotel for the duration of the stay. Rescue captured prisoner in some place and bring him/her back to extraction point.
Using mercenaries to "depose a dictator" is way too complex. They need coordination with the Rebels and with the NATO command, they need to be held accountable for their actions if they overstep their boundaries (like killing civilians) and they need to be accepted by everyone else fighting there.
Besides, I believe the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they are not only less effective than regular troops but also cost more.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:30:26 AM
I don't think many professional soldiers in Western armies are willing to fight to the death either.
Define "western armies".
All infantrymen I have served with have always been aware that the might come a day when you have to fight to the bitter end.
The "fight to the death" is not a choice you make, but a choice that is forced on you.
It is ussually a combination of the enemy being more resorceful than ussual and your chain of command understimating the enemy capabilities and concentration of force and materiel.
And then, surrendering to the kind of foes we are fighting these days is not really an option.
You are dead either way, so better to go down fighting than being beheaded on Al-Jazeera.
What you say is true, but you have to understand that many non-Westerners are as confused as Marti as to what motivates soldiers in the West. Non-Western armies like Poland's have lots of conscripts who are coming from a society that is backward enough that the soldiers aren't able to contemplate abstract concepts like consequences of actions, so they readily surrender because that seems the thing to do at the moment. There couldn't be a Polish Shughart or Gordon because to be a Shughart or Gordon would require abstract thinking skills.
You know, I actually wonder how soldiers are viewed in Eastern Europe. For decades soldiers were conscripts expected to serve a regime that oppressed their own people. However, today soldiers are no longer expected to die invading the West or shoot at democracy protesters.
Eastern Europe isn't worth thinking about.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:28:38 AM
I don't think it is immoral or illegal to use mercenaries per se, but I'm pretty sure Western democratic governments have laws against outsourcing government functions and services to people with a criminal record or who committed crimes - and a strong presumption for any established mercenary band is that they did commit crimes in the past (e.g. when serving dictators and the like).
Of course, Western democracies also have a presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
Quote from: dps on June 20, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:28:38 AM
I don't think it is immoral or illegal to use mercenaries per se, but I'm pretty sure Western democratic governments have laws against outsourcing government functions and services to people with a criminal record or who committed crimes - and a strong presumption for any established mercenary band is that they did commit crimes in the past (e.g. when serving dictators and the like).
Of course, Western democracies also have a presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, but do remember, the Western democracy itself is presumed guilty until it does something else it is presumed guilty of.
Quote from: dps on June 20, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2011, 03:28:38 AM
I don't think it is immoral or illegal to use mercenaries per se, but I'm pretty sure Western democratic governments have laws against outsourcing government functions and services to people with a criminal record or who committed crimes - and a strong presumption for any established mercenary band is that they did commit crimes in the past (e.g. when serving dictators and the like).
Of course, Western democracies also have a presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
But only Western democracies. Don't hold Marti to our standards.
Quote from: Zanza on June 19, 2011, 01:29:38 AM
Something that just came to my mind: are white South-Africans "Western"? They share culture, language, heritage, economic system with us. The only thing that used to set them apart was their open racism, but then Slargos is "Western" too.
Indeed, they are Western.