An important source on the use of mercenaries, or private military companies (PMC), to use the current respectable euphemism, is the March, 2002, paper by Lt. Col. Eugene Smith, "The New Condottieri and U.S. Policy: The Privatization of Conflict and Its Implications." (link is a *.pdf file) Smith writes:
Sovereigns initially turned to the use of PMCs [mercs] when they lacked the requisite means to accomplish their desired ends. These organization reprsented a convenient means to over come the strategic mismatch. Countries are again faced with circumstances in which they lack the required means to complish the desired ends. Despite the historical reasons for their evenutual suppression, Private Military Corporations ... once again represent a convenient means to accomplish desired ends.
Although he belabors the point about whether PMCs are really mercenaries, the distinction is largely semantic. Part of the "convenience"of using mercenaries is that they can be more easily funded and directed outside Congressional oversight. Think that might occur to any of the veterans of the Iran-Contra affair that this Administration brought back into the fold?
And what happens in situations like Iraq where the opposition equates private mercenaries with the occupying forces, perhaps accurately so? If they get out of control and commit atrocities, will our troops wind up paying the price in retaliation from the enemy?
It puzzles me, though, how people can argue that these PMCs are cheaper than conventional national militaries. Because the ones in Iraq are paid a lot more than US soldiers are.
No comments:
Post a Comment