Private Armies: The Rising of the modern Mercenary

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
[video=youtube_share;frdY2lvUaP8]http://youtu.be/frdY2lvUaP8[/video]
Contractors flood into Iraq to give Al-Qaeda a run for the money
Published time: February 04, 2014 12:56
RT

Air Force, Al-Qaeda, Arms, Army, Iraq, USA
The rapidly developing Al-Qaeda incursion is forcing the Iraqi government not only to buy more American weapons and supplies, but also to payroll an army of mercenaries and private contractors, previously hired by the US Defense Department.

According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 5,000 specialists have been contracted by the Iraqi government. They are currently working in the country as analysts, military trainers, security guards, translators and even cooks. Some 2,000 of them are Americans.

“You have a situation where the government has become dependent on contractors,” Allison Stanger, a political-science professor at Middlebury College, told WSJ. “It's a real quantum shift.”

“The military task has, in fact, been outsourced in Iraq,” confirmed analyst Steven Schooner, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Washington’s relationship with Baghdad has undergone a major transformation. Officially, the US has just several hundred troops in Iraq and the US Defense Department does not contract private security companies to operate in Iraq.

Yet the major shift in US-Iraq relations now is that Washington is no longer allocating budget money on operations in Iraq. It is Baghdad that spends money on American weaponry, vehicles and equipment, while American defense companies are earning money in Iraq by placing military contractors there.

Private defense companies, such as Triple Canopy and Dyncorp International, have multibillion contracts in Iraq for years to come.

Washington is actively assisting the Iraqi government in fighting terrorism, supplying Baghdad with drones and is considering training some of the country’s elite military forces in neighboring Jordan.

An assault operation against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), a faction of Al-Qaeda currently occupying Fallujah, is promising to be a serious undertaking implying the use of the utmost in firepower, so Baghdad is buying $6 billion worth of military equipment from the US, including 24 Apache attack helicopters and nearly 500 Hellfire missiles.

The U.S. Army's AH-64 Apache helicopter (Reuters/Kim Hong-Ji)The U.S. Army's AH-64 Apache helicopter (Reuters/Kim Hong-Ji)

A group of top US lawmakers attempted to block the Apache deal, expressing concerns that providing Iraq with helicopters and other arms to help battle Al-Qaeda, would also mean that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki might use them against his rivals. But the deal has nevertheless been finalized and the first batch of helicopters is expected in Iraq soon, along with the Hellfire missiles. This also means that 200 more contractors will come to Iraq to ensure the helicopters operate properly.

In the meantime violence in Iraq is at a record high. Al-Qaeda militants are advancing in the country’s south and are staging regular terror acts. It seems the Iraqi government has little choice but to come down on the insurgency with deadly force.

History repeats itself
It is probably no exaggeration to say that the war in Iraq is as far from being over as it was in 2003, with two major differences though. First: in the absence of Saddam Hussein his troops have been replaced with Al-Qaeda mujahedeen. Second: the US regular army has been supplanted by thousands of contractors, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The rest remains the same: English-speaking mercenaries are expected to choreograph the storming of Iraqi cities defended by Arab-speaking fighters of Al-Qaeda, exactly as it was back in 2004 during the Battle of Fallujah. Today Fallujah, occupied by Al-Qaeda, remains the primary target for the Iraqi government forces to assault backed by mercenaries.

US troops entered Iraq in 2003 and officially withdrew from the country in 2011. At the peak of war there were 157,800 American military personnel in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman, Navy Commander Bill Speaks, reported that there are only 250 American troops in Iraq. These servicemen are either advisers assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation overseeing the US military interaction with Iraqi national forces, or Marine Corps security guards securing US diplomatic facilities.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (C) poses for a picture with U.S. Marines based in Baghdad during his visit to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad March 24, 2013. (Reuters/Jason Reed)U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (C) poses for a picture with U.S. Marines based in Baghdad during his visit to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad March 24, 2013. (Reuters/Jason Reed)

After the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq, the duty of protecting US interests in the country was relegated to thousands of contractors from the US Defense Ministry and other security agencies.

According to the US State Department and Pentagon, it is estimated there were over 12,500 contractors in Iraq, working for the US government as of January 2013. By October, according to a quarterly report, their number had decreased to 6,624 specialists. Less than a quarter of them (1,626) were American citizens, the rest were Iraqis (2,191), with 2,807 civilian experts from foreign countries.

Bill Speaks said that the last major US Defense Department contract in Iraq ended on December 15 and now there are zero contractors in Iraq hired by the US Defense Department.

Where did all those contractors go? They are still in Iraq, maintains the Foreign Policy magazine.

The FP asked Triple Canopy, a huge private defense company and sanctuary for the US Special Forces veterans, for details and learnt that “Recently all US government agencies have reduced their reliance on contractors due to budget cuts and have de-scoped contracts across the board, including in Iraq,” the company said a statement.

“Contractors will continue to remain engaged in Iraq in the near future. However, the majority of these personnel will likely be working on commercial extractive and construction projects,” the company said.

Contractors from America's biggest defense companies are providing maintenance for the equipment and vehicles previously bought by the Iraqi government from the US, such as helicopters, C-130 transport aircrafts, surveillance planes, drones, communication equipment and more.

Over the years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there have been multiple cases of contracting fraud.

The US Congress’ Independent Commission on Wartime Contracting determined that at least $31 billion in US funding had been wasted due to “poor oversight, fraud, waste, and abuse,” said FP’s former US Representative, Christopher Shays, who used co-chair the Commission.

“When the military had to leave, it made us even more dependent on contractors for security,” Shays said, adding that “The one thing that's a given: We can't go to war without contractors and we can't go to peace without contractors.”

The US has allegedly spent over $200 billion on contractors in both Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade. Now that the US administration has transferred these expenditures to the Iraqi government, the American military industrial complex and private security companies are ready to make a fortune in Iraq.

Private Security Firms Tapped Ahead of Sochi as U.S. Prepares for the Worst
By Jennifer Booton
Published January 15, 2014
FOXBusiness
Sochi Olympics Security
REUTERS
Private cyber security and evacuation firms are being tapped this Winter Olympics to ensure the safety of the U.S. delegation following a series of bombings near Sochi that killed dozens of people.
While Russian authorities are using high-tech methods like drones to detect potential threats and deploying tens of thousands of troops to the region, the U.S. issued a travel alert for Sochi on Friday, reminding travelers that major events like the Olympics tend to be an “attractive target for terrorists” and warning visitors should “remain attentive regarding their personal security at all times.”
Travelers are being encouraged to buy private medical evacuation and/or repatriation insurance, which can cover injury, evacuation costs or death in the event of an accident while traveling overseas.
The U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) has held calls regarding security with the State Dept., and says it is working in tandem with local organizers and relevant law enforcement agencies to ensure the U.S. delegation and other Americans traveling to Sochi are safe.
“The safety and security of Team USA is our top priority and we will share the new alert with our delegation members,” USOC spokesperson Patrick Sandusky said.
Hiring Private Security
The anxiety surrounding the games has U.S. sports teams tapping the expertise of private security companies.
In November, the USSA once again brought on private crisis, rescue and evacuation team Global Rescue for its third consecutive Winter Olympics to boost security for athletes on and off the mountain. They have worked together since 2006, with Boston, Mass.-based Global Rescue conducting dozens of missions for USSA throughout their training efforts and at the Winter Games in Turin, Italy and Vancouver.
These Winter Games are being taken with extra precaution.
“This will be one of our larger deployments [for USSA] given the scale and the location,” said Global Rescue CEO Dan Richards. “Our planning with them began months ago.”
Among the preparation has been coordinating communication in the event of an emergency, identifying rally locations, putting into place a command and control plan, finding shelter-in-place locations and ensuring plans to evacuate athletes and their families can be executed effectively in crisis mode.
Global Rescue has had a hand in a number of major events over the past decade, including evacuating clients from Tahirir Square in Egypt during the Arab Spring uprising. It has more than 100 aircraft on contract around the world at any given time to assist with evacuations as well as personnel both on and off the ground with teams ready to deploy when necessary.
It’s not the only company of this type, but it is the only confirmed private firm working directly with a U.S. Olympic team at Sochi.
“We are crafting protocols and strategies they can use to deal with events that might occur while they’re in Sochi,” Richards said of USSA.
USSA wouldn’t comment specifically on its security detail, but a spokesperson said it maintains “close contact” with the USOC and “other agencies” on security.
Cyber Fortifications
Meanwhile, cyber intelligence officials are expected to continue working with private security firms to keep tabs on the record number of text, email, phone call and social media activity during the two-week games to try and intercept any potential plots that could endanger U.S. visitors.
Of course, their work likely began months if not years ago.
“As the saying goes, it's better to be ‘safe than sorry,’” said Dr. Lance Larson, CEO of security consulting firm Larson Corp. and an adjunct professor at San Diego State University. “Safeguards, cyber defenses put in place before an event, are much cheaper and more quickly implemented.”
Larson, who has worked with counterterrorism training at the FBI Laboratory and sat on a law enforcement intelligence and Department of Homeland Security Fusion Center task force, said the best opportunity for upcoming cyber security firms will be social media monitoring and analyses.
Scouring feeds from Twitter (TWTR), Facebook (FB), Google+ (GOOG), Instagram, Foursquare and Yahoo’s (YHOO) Tumblr for special keyboards like #Sochi plus an expletive may give “defensive personnel pre-warning to a potential real-world terrorist plot,” he said.
Geofencing, which allows cyber professionals to setup a virtual fence to monitor all social media posts from a specific geographic region, might also serve as a useful tool during the Winter Games.
Sponsors Quiet on Security
The Sochi Olympics’ biggest global sponsors have not said whether they are boosting security or taking extra protocols ahead of the game to ensure the safety of their customers and employees, though it would be highly unusual if they weren’t already in contact with the State Dept.
None of the top ten sponsors, including Coca-Cola (KO), McDonald’s (MCD), Procter & Gamble (PG), Dow Chemical (DOW), General Electric (GE), Panasonic, Samsung, Visa (V) and IT firm Atos, responded to requests for comment regarding security at Sochi.
However, Erich Joachimsthaler, CEO of global brand strategy consulting firm Vivaldi Partners, said he isn’t surprised.
“My recommendation for brands is to not run any messaging or communications before Sochi,” Joachimsthaler said. “If the inherent negative information (the risk of safety) can be framed positively, then it would have a positive effect, but I don’t know how to achieve that practically.”
Follow Jennifer Booton on Twitter at @Jbooton
Pentagon Recoups $283 Million in Supreme Foodservice Fight
By Danielle Ivory and Tony Capaccio Apr 17, 2013 4:02 PM ET

Photographer: Rich Clement/Bloomberg
U.S. lawmakers are scheduled to hold a hearing today on the multibillion-dollar dispute... Read More
The Pentagon has recouped more than a third of the $757 million in overpayments it says were made to Supreme Foodservice AG, a contractor in Afghanistan, according to an agency official.

The Defense Logistics Agency wants Supreme, based in Ziegelbrücke, Switzerland, to return the entire $757 million, Matthew Beebe, the agency’s deputy director for acquisition, said in prepared testimony for a hearing today in Congress. The company has claimed it’s owed $1.8 billion more than the $5.5 billion already paid under the contract to supply food and water to troops.

The military agency’s demand for refunds “followed six years of unsuccessful negotiations between DLA and Supreme over fair and reasonable rates for distributing food to hundreds of forward operating bases throughout Afghanistan,” according to a memo prepared by the Democratic staff of a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee.

The memo and prepared testimony were obtained by Bloomberg News in advance of the panel’s hearing.

The Defense Logistics Agency, which manages the contract, in March 2012 began withholding $21.8 million per month from Supreme, Beebe said. As of March 31 this year, the agency had recouped $283 million, he said.

Supreme Appeal

Supreme has appealed the agency’s demands with the U.S. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the case is scheduled to be heard in April 2014.

Michael Schuster, a managing director at Supreme, told the lawmakers today that the defense department’s audits of the company were “fundamentally flawed,” operating as if the contract was cost-plus, rather than fixed-price. Schuster said the “heart” of the dispute with the Pentagon came from this discrepancy.

Under a “cost-plus contract,” a contractor is paid for all of its allowed expenses.

In prepared testimony, he said that the Defense Logistics Agency had rapidly expanded the company’s responsibility weeks after awarding the contract in 2005. The changes required Supreme to “change fundamentally” its approach to working in isolated and dangerous Afghanistan, Schuster said.

“Although the military agency’s original solicitation said that only ’remnants’ of the Taliban were still active, Supreme had to build this network in an active war zone,” he said. More than 300 subcontractors for Supreme have been killed while delivering food to troops in Afghanistan, he said.

Chaffetz, Tierney

U.S. Representatives Jason Chaffetz and John Tierney, the Republican chairman and the top Democratic, respectively, of the House Subcommittee on National Security, sent a letter to Schuster last May, requesting documents related to the contract. The committee is now reviewing them.

“It is outrageous that the American taxpayer has been on the hook for over $750 million in overpayments to Supreme,” Tierney said in an e-mailed statement. “While I am encouraged that DLA has been successful in recouping a portion of these funds, I am deeply concerned about the federal government’s ability to collect once the contract ends.”

Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell said at a Dec. 7, 2011, hearing that the original Supreme contract was “an example of just how bad it can get.”

The contract wasn’t well designed or “well-thought out,” Heddell said.

Supreme earlier this month sued the Pentagon in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for awarding a $10 billion food contract to Anham FZCO.

Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and former member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, said “Supreme Foodservice gouged the taxpayer big- time.”

“The government offered to pay Supreme all its costs and overhead, plus a generous profit,” Tiefer said in an e-mail. “Instead of taking the government’s sensible offer, Supreme overcharged massively on the blatantly fictitious notion that it deserved a made-up and highly inflated ‘market’ rate.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Danielle Ivory in Washington at [email protected]; Tony Capaccio in Washington at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephanie Stoughton at [email protected]
It's a fact of war. Mercenaries have fought in conflicts since the first War.
In modern times they have grown more Sophisticated and Complex, in modern times the mission statements of what is still called derogatorily Mercenaries very widely and show no signs of decline. Private Military Contractors is a broad term, it can be used to cover entities that supply and provide food, maintain Logistics, Repair and upkeep for equipment, provide security for convoys/ Individuals/ facilities, gather and Analyze intelligence.
Often smaller then a standing army but cheaper to contact to then a standing army PMC forces In Iraq and Afghanistan have come to the fore front. In the gulf war the ratio of PMC's to soldiers was 1 for every 100 in Iraq in 2004 it was more like 10 for every 1.
the Outsourcing of combatants is not limited to the US either the BRitish have a long tradition of it. South Africa, Peru, the Dominican republic, Australia, Dubai and China all operate PMC's of varying different types. Not just ground forces either Naval and Air specialized Groups also operate world wide.
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Private military companies will continue to play an important role in current USA military operations in the Middle East. Contractor support on and off the battlefield is increasingly more visible and commonplace. Private resources assist the military in meeting global security voids created by recent political and economic restructuring and enable USA forces to address foreign policy goals with a reduced force structure. Moreover, complex technology currently utilized in the military requires manufacturers to provide training and maintenance support for their products. To enhance the new emphasis on efficiency, military plan¬ners now utilize the tools of business management and adapt outsourcing and planned production and delivery to meet their needs on the battlefield. I can see Private Military Companies in a support roll, but not taking on a major combat roll. With that said.

The first question one must ask is if monetary compensation is a sufficient motivator to ensure cooperative loyal troops? A military professional is much more likely to give his best energy to a cause if he feels passionate about it. The allure of money for military services often decreases when lives are at stake. Mercenaries are also less likely to accept the authority of a General than troops fighting for God, home and country.

The second relevant question requires a consideration of the complex relationship between the social, economic, and political aspects that contribute to military capabilities.

The third critical question that policy makers must consider is far-reaching and more difficult to assess. Does the current extensive use of private military companies ultimately benefit the nation’s society and its citizens?
 

solarz

Brigadier
The term "mercenary" is misleading in the case of American private military contractors. Mercenary is not just taking money to fight in a war, it also means taking the side of the highest bidder. I seriously doubt American PMCs will take the side of Iran or North Korea, or even Russia, regardless of the amount of money offered. And by taking side, I mean actually being loyal to that side and not simply take the money and betray their employer.

So really, American PMCs are just a part of the American MIC, except they lease soldiers instead of selling hardware.

This means that PMCs are not really in a position to significantly influence geopolitics.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I came across this article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The British security firm G4S is set to rake in massive profits thanks to crises in Mali, Libya and Algeria. Recognized as the world’s biggest security firm, the group’s brand plummeted during the London Olympics last year due to its failure to satisfy conditions of a government contract. But with growing unrest in North and West Africa, G4S is expected to make a speedy recovery.

The Jan. 6 hostage crisis at Algeria’s In Amenas gas plant, where 38 hostages were killed, ushered in the return of al-Qaeda not as extremists on the run, but as well-prepared militants with the ability to strike deeply into enemy territories and cause serious damage. For G4S and other security firms, this also translates into growing demands. “The British group (..) is seeing a rise in work ranging from electronic surveillance to protecting travelers,” the company’s regional president for Africa told Reuters. “Demand has been very high across Africa,” Andy Baker said. “The nature of our business is such that in high-risk environments the need for our services increases.”

If Algeria’s deadly encounter with al-Qaeda was enough to add then North African country to private security companies emerging African market, Libya must be a private security firm paradise. Following NATO’s toppling of the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and his brutal assassination in Sirte on Oct. 20, 2011, numerous militias sprung up throughout Libya, some armed with heavy weapons, courtesy of Western countries. Initially, such disturbing scenes of armed militias setting up checkpoints at every corner were dismissed as an inevitable post-revolution reality. However, when Westerners became targets themselves, ‘security’ in Libya finally became high on the agenda.

Many private security firms already operate in Libya; some were even present in the country before the former Libyan government was officially overthrown. Some of these firms were virtually unknown before the war, including a small private British firm, Blue Mountain Group. The latter was responsible for guarding the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which was torched on Sept. 11 last year. It later emerged that the attack on the embassy was preplanned and well-coordinated, resulting in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. It remains unclear why the State Department opted to hire Blue Mountain Group, as opposed to a larger security firm as is usually the case with other Western embassies and large companies that now vie to reconstruct the very country that their governments conspired to destroy.

The lucrative business of destroying, rebuilding and securing has been witnessed in other wars and conflicts spurred on by Western interventions. Private security firms are the middlemen that keep local irritants from getting in the way of post-war ‘diplomacy’ and the work of business giants.

When a country eventually collapses under the pressure of bunker busters and other advanced weapons, security firms move in to secure the realm as Western diplomats start their bargaining with the emerging local elites over the future of the country’s wealth. In Libya, those who contributed the biggest guns were the ones that received the largest contracts. Of course, while the destroyed country is being robbed blind, it is the local population that suffers the consequences of having brute foreigners with guns watching their neighborhoods in the name of security.

It must be said that the new Libyan government has specifically rejected Blackwater-style armed contractors – as in having boots on the ground – fearing provocations similar to those that occurred in Baghdad’s Nisour Square and similar killing throughout Afghanistan. The aim in Libya is to allow smooth business transactions without occasional protests provoked by trigger-happy foreigners. But considering the deteriorating security in Libya which has been created by the systematic destruction of the central government and its entire military apparatus, a solution to the security vacuum remains a major topic of discussion.

Mercenaries

Private security firms are essentially mercenaries who offer services to spare Western governments the political cost of incurring too many casualties. While they are often based in Western cities, many of their employees come from so-called Third World countries. For all involved, it’s much safer this way, for when Asian, African or Arab security personnel are wounded or killed on duty, the matter tends to register, if ever, as a mere news item, with little political consequence, Senate hearings or government enquiries.

Mali, a west African country that is suffering multiple crises – military coups, civil war, famine and finally an all-out French-led war – is the likely next victim or opportunity for the deadly trio: Western governments, large corporations and of course, private security firms.

In fact, Mali is the perfect ground for such opportunists, who will spare no effort to exploit its massive economic potential and strategic location. For years, the west African country has fallen under political and military Western influences. The year 2012 represented a text-book scenario that ultimately and predictably lead to Western intervention that finally took place on Jan.11, when France launched a military operation supposedly aimed at ousting armed Islamic extremists. The military operations will last “as long as necessary,” declared French President Francois Hollande, echoing the same logic of the Bush administration when it first declared its ‘war on terror.’

But as inviting as the Malian setting may seem, it is equally intricate and unpredictable. No linear timeline can possibly unravel in simple terms the crisis at hand. However, all arrows point to large caches of weapons that made their way from Libya to Mali following the NATO war. A new balance of power took hold, empowering the ever-oppressed Tuareg and flooding the country with desert-hardened militants belonging to various Islamic groups. Two symmetrical lines of upheavals developed at the same time in both the north and south parts of the country. On one hand, Tuareg’s National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) declared independence in the north and was quickly joined by Ansar Dine, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MOJWA). On the other hand, U.S.-trained army captain Amadou Haya Sanogo made his move in the southern part of the country in March, overthrowing President Amadou Toumani Touré.

The Malian storyline developed so rapidly, giving the impression that there was no other option but imminent confrontation between the south and the north. France, Mali’s old colonial master, was quick to wave the military card and worked diligently to enlist west African countries in its war efforts. The plan was for the intervention to appear as if it’s purely an African effort, with mere logistical support and political backing by their western benefactors. Indeed, on Dec 21, the UN Security Council approved the sending in of an African-led force (of 3,000 soldiers) from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to chase after northern militants in the vast Malian desert.

That war was scheduled for Sep. 2013, however, to allow France to form a united western front and to train fragmented Malian forces. But the militants’ capture of the town of Konna, close to the capital Bamako, has reportedly forced France’s hand to intervene in Mali and without UN consent. The war which was waged in the name of human rights and Mali’s territorial integrity, has already sparked outcries from major human rights organizations regarding crimes committed by foreign forces and their Malian army partners. However, what seems thus far as an easy French conquest has left other western powers licking their chops over the potential of having access to Mali, which is unlikely to have a strong central government anytime soon.

On Jan 25, the African Press Agency's page on Mali was filled with news items about eager Western involvement in solidarity with the French war buildup. It ranged from “Italy to send aircraft to help transport troops to Mali” to “Germany pledge aid to Africa for Mali intervention.” All calls for political dialogue, especially as ethnic strife is likely to devastate the country for years to come, seem to fall on deaf ears. Meanwhile, according to APA, the UK is offering help to Mali in finding a ‘political roadmap’ aimed at the security of the ‘political future of the West African country.’

As France, the U.S. and EU countries determine the future of Mali through military efforts and political roadmaps, the country itself is so weakened and politically disfigured beyond any possibility of confronting outside designs. For G4S and other security firms, Mali now tops the list in Africa’s emerging security market. Nigeria and Kenya follow closely, with possibilities emerging elsewhere.

From Libya to Mali a typical story is forming, coupled with lucrative contracts and massive opportunities of all sorts. When private security firms speak of an emerging market in Africa, one is to safely assume that the continent is once more falling prey to growing military ambitions and unfair business conduct. While G4S is likely to polish its tarnished brand, hundreds of thousands of African refugees (800,000 in Mali alone) will continue their endless journeys into unfamiliar borders and unforgiving deserts. Their security matters to no one, for private security firms have no room for penniless refugees.

This could very well explain why Gaddafi's standing army was being decimated by untrained rabble. Private military contractors may very well have played a role in key battles.
 

advill

Junior Member
We should be wary about the use of "private armies". Whatever one might think, they are still independent operators and are not within the control of their respective National Armies or Defence Ministries. The greatest fear now is Al Queda " and their associated private armies e.g. JI from South East Asia etc. A good number of these international or regional "volunteers" are fighting in the M.E. inc. Syria. When they return after the conflicts have ended, they will cause very serious trouble to their respective countries where they came from, as the are Extremists/Terrorists, and have battle experiences.

Private military companies will continue to play an important role in current USA military operations in the Middle East. Contractor support on and off the battlefield is increasingly more visible and commonplace. Private resources assist the military in meeting global security voids created by recent political and economic restructuring and enable USA forces to address foreign policy goals with a reduced force structure. Moreover, complex technology currently utilized in the military requires manufacturers to provide training and maintenance support for their products. To enhance the new emphasis on efficiency, military plan¬ners now utilize the tools of business management and adapt outsourcing and planned production and delivery to meet their needs on the battlefield. I can see Private Military Companies in a support roll, but not taking on a major combat roll. With that said.

The first question one must ask is if monetary compensation is a sufficient motivator to ensure cooperative loyal troops? A military professional is much more likely to give his best energy to a cause if he feels passionate about it. The allure of money for military services often decreases when lives are at stake. Mercenaries are also less likely to accept the authority of a General than troops fighting for God, home and country.

The second relevant question requires a consideration of the complex relationship between the social, economic, and political aspects that contribute to military capabilities.

The third critical question that policy makers must consider is far-reaching and more difficult to assess. Does the current extensive use of private military companies ultimately benefit the nation’s society and its citizens?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Lets cover this point by point Mirage.
Point Zero, In Conflict Although questionable In conflicts PMC's have in fact operated offensively.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That said it's not a activity that is frowned on by the UN convention on mercenaries
Article 1 of the Convention has the following definition of a mercenary:
1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

That said politics is a fluid thing and things change rapidly. PMC's based in or operating out of or for major powers would likely be well regulated, well Groups form or contacted to smaller less stable nations would likely be more open to Illicit operations. Mercenaries are not Restricted to western nations, In many ways this definition boarders into the militants fighting on both side of the Syrian/Iraq Conflict. Fighters there are known to have come in from Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, all over Europe even Canada and the America's.

Monetary gain is emphasized a lot but it's not the only reason some people do such. Remember the majority of Armed PMC's are in fact Former military personal. The choice to Change form national to Commercial is not necessarily solely for money. That's not to say the money is bad a good PMC makes way more money then a regular grunt. For those former Military turned PMC there has to be other more personal reasons for there choice, and the larger A PMC becomes the more important it is that it establish a professional and reliable image. The larger they are the more established they are they become a brand. Take blackwater for example. they established a relationship with the US government and reached the level of become a virtual standing army. Yet when that image became tarnished they changed the name Becoming Xe. latter they changed it again as they reorganized there operations becoming Acadami. Blackwater became a Brand, Like Phillip Morris although I am pretty sure someone will now rebuke me., but you can't say that Phillip Morris never killed anybody.
now If they suddenly changed sides what would happen to a large PMC? Censure, Search and seizure, prosecution the scandal would ruin the business for a smaller fly by night affair? that is where I would worry about it. at the individual level? I would worry but for the bigger affairs they vet there people to try and keep the "Mercenary Mindset" out of the game. About being less likely to accept orders from a General, A larger PMC would be contracted they are specialist assigned to perform set duties. Generals command regular Armies, PMC's are not regular Army. They are contracted on and only need worry as to there mission.

Point two, Across the World Military capability is more common then we like to think. Particularly in failing states. Military. There will always however be limits to how complex or powerful a PMC could become. Highly expensive military assets like Carriers, Bombers, Long Range Ballistic missiles, real WMD would be difficult to access.
We live today in a unstable period, The "Interesting times" the Chinese viewed as a Curse. Although States contract to PMC's the majority of there users are industry. Mining, Fuel and farming in destabilized countries, or those with weak security and high risk.

The last question should be taken case by case. Sometimes a PMC has been of benefit sometimes more trouble then there worth.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
PMCS: THE END OR THE BEGINNING?
APRIL 17, 2014 CLAUDE BERUBE LEAVE A COMMENT
This feature is special to our Private Military Contractor (PMC)’s Week - a look at PMCs’ utility and future, especially in the maritime domain.

The National Intelligence Council’s report Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds released in December 2012 revealed trends, game-changers, and potential worlds that have relevance to maritime security. Two of the four mega-trends identified were individual empowerment and diffusion of power. Two game-changers will be a governance gap (or previously suggested maritime security shadow zones) and the potential for increased conflict. It suggests one potential future of a “Non-state World” in which non-state actors take the lead in confronting global challenges. If this is the future, where the power of traditional states erodes or collapses and individuals and illicit organizations are super-empowered, private maritime security companies could be far more employed than they have been in the past decade...
The Center for International Maritime Security is running PMC week this Week, Even if you have little intrest in Global PMC operations This particular Cactical should get a read.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In a week-long operation in June 2010, 6 vessels were attacked and robbed over a 130-mile span while in a nearby strait armed security contractors kept watch for the pirate threat.1 The same waters have played host to a “sophisticated syndicate…deploying speedboats from motherships” with raiding parties able to “board, rob, and disembark a vessel with fifteen minutes without the bridge knowing.”2 The location was not the Somali coastline or the Bab el-Mandeb, but rather 4,000 miles to the east, among the Anambas Islands and the Singapore Strait.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
The problem with PMC is that they sometimes hired ex soldiers and special forces guys that had a head case history or disciplinary problems when they were professionals.
 
Erik Prince was looking to work for the PRC?
Introduction quoted below, transcript and video at original link.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Erik Prince in the Hot Seat: Blackwater Founder Under Investigation for Illegal Mercenary Biz
MARCH 25, 2016
STORY
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In a major new exposé, The Intercept has revealed that the Justice Department is investigating Blackwater founder Erik Prince for possible money laundering, ties to Chinese intelligence, and attempts to broker military services to foreign governments. Prince is currently the chairman of Frontier Services Group, an aviation and logistics firm specializing in shipping in Africa. But documents obtained by The Intercept show that Prince has also set up shell companies to offer paramilitary services to at least a half-dozen African nations, including Libya. Both the United States and the United Nations have imposed a series of restrictions on military dealings in Libya. Prince is also suspected of attempting to open Chinese bank accounts to move money for his Libyan associates. As part of its investigation, The Intercept obtained an internal slide presentation showing Prince’s private force would operate in Libya for the stated purpose of stopping the flow of refugees to Europe. Prince has also long been interested in raising a private military force to battle Islamic militant groups in a variety of countries. We spend the hour with The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill and Matthew Cole, the reporters behind "Erik Prince in the Hot Seat." "In a lot of ways, Erik Prince is like a Mafia don," Scahill says. "He has been able to avoid any criminal charges against him personally for activities that his companies have engaged in. … Whether or not the U.S. government will actually seriously go after him is still to be seen." Scahill is the co-founder of The Intercept and author of the best-seller, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army." His most recent book, "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield," is out in paperback, and his film "Dirty Wars" was nominated for an Academy Award.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think people have missed a big difference here.
A mercenary is an individual or a small operational unit that sells its services direct to the client; usually the one that is the highest bidder (As Solarz and others have mentioned).
A PMC however is not an individual, but a Corporation, that sells services to the Client and who pays a salary to its military operatives.

The Danger that I see from the PMC is not so much the operatives per ce, but the fact that these are indeed private armies in Corporate Entities and that these Corporations will be owned or at least controlled by a wealthy individual.
This really is to me, the modern face of Feudalism and a very unhealthy turn of events.
Especially when rival wealthy Individuals own their own rival PMC's.
 
Top