The guy that started Blackwater was a SEAL. He was a reasonably straight-up guy. A large amount of their money was made in training, VIP protection, and delivering supplies and support to soldiers and government officials. Basically he could get things done fast because he had no red tape at all. Someone asked him to do something and he did it. He was told by financial types, Jews in other words, he would have to sell off Blackwater at a loss to the financial groups or he would lose everything and since he knows the score he did. So Blackwater is owned by finance now.

I suspect that the people behind Blackwater, whatever they’re calling that company these days, are probably a bit less morally questionable than the financier types… At least, Blackwater made/makes no bones that they’re all about killing people for profit.

Thanks for the insights.

Do you mean Blackwater?

The current PMC world is a different thing than what I’m proposing, and I hadn’t really made that clear. The majority of the PMC companies are themselves pretty mercenary and entirely prone to backstabbing the hell out of their employees, leaving out to hang whenever expedient. Or, at least, the ones where you hear the horror stories from friends and acquaintances who’ve gone into that field. The good ones rarely get talked about, as with everything.

What I was proposing, vice the current morally suspect world of bait-and-switch, was more akin to the Condottieri traditions of Renaissance Italy, specifically John Hawkwood and his White Company. Hire mercenaries and be honest about it–If you want your regular troops to get experience of war in peacetime, which would be wise, give them brevets to serve with the mercs.

What I really loathe is the whole bait-and-switch deal we’re pulling right now–Recruit the kids coming in based on “defense of nation”, and then throw them to the wolves overseas in conflicts that have nothing to do with defending the US, just its overseas business interests. When the Kuwaitis offered to pay us all a bonus, that prick Bush turned it down, ‘cos we weren’t mercenaries… WTF? Dude, I don’t remember signing anything that said “risk life to put corrupt oil ticks back on top of their stolen country” when I enlisted to fight in the Cold War. What right did he have to send us off to fight in a morally ambiguous war for really morally ambiguous people and a very ambiguous cause, then turn down actual pay for doing what we were doing?

Hell, put the ‘effing Army on a for-profit basis. It’d be a lot more honest, and then you wouldn’t have to deal with the lovely job of telling some young wife and her kids that daddy done died to keep some Ayrab pricks on top of their misbegotten oil wealth.

Bitter? Yeah, I am. I really don’t like the realization that I’ve reached that I spent the majority of my adult life as a Judas Goat, in many important respects.

Mass national armies like our military establishment ought to only be used overseas for things like WWII, where there’s a clear existential threat, and total public support for it all. Want to do a Vietnam? No conscripts, and cash on the barrelhead. That kind of war is entirely antiethical to a citizen-soldier Army serving a Republic.

You want professionals? Fine; pay them. Be up front about it. Otherwise, stay at home and don’t go playing at war as we’ve done in Libya and Syria.

Does anyone have any insights into leadership qualities in security entities like Blackrock, which rumor says are fairly close to mercenary armies?

Of course, the Brits had to be forced to treat the Gurkhas decently, but… Their overall record is a lot better. The US just does not have the knack, for whatever reason–You’ll look long and hard for a version of the Arab Legion that the US military has fostered.

I’d just make the American version of the FFL something flatly recruited for what amounts to a fundamentally abusive purpose. American citizens only, and let the politicians explain why they’re killing them off overseas. Giving the crooked bastards “free” troops to play with would just encourage them and make it easier to go do stupid things in strange countries.

This is one of the genius ideas behind the French Foreign Legion.

The French considered it correct and right that a conscript could/should fight for the survival of the Republic, but not that he should fight to keep Algeria French, or to support the regime in Chad or wherever. For that you had the professional troops, like the Paras or the Marine Infantry and the French Foreign Legion.

So a conscript would not be deployed outside metropolitan France, (or at least NATO, i.e Germany), unless he volunteered.

The FFL is a very good facsimile of the Roman Legion, professional soldiers who served for the pay and the sake of it, and benefits/citizenship afterwards….

Fehrenbach’s entire book is basically a long argument on this issue; he builds the case from the first page, and he’s not entirely wrong. The politicians and senior military leaders were basically pulling a “bait-and-switch” on the citizens they gobbled up and sent to Korea. The later part of the Korean War was a bit of a travesty in this regard.

Personally, I fall into the category of “Person who does not believe in foreign adventures with conscripts…”. I don’t think that the US should really even have the “legions” that Fehrenbach imagined, simply because the politicians we have are incapable of being trusted with them. No troops with which to go adventuring with? No adventures.

It’s pretty much a proven fact–Give the assclowns usable military forces with which things can be done, and they’ll go find things to do with them. I don’t think we ought to be doing that. Republics which fall prey to the lure of foreign adventure eventually turn into Empire, and wind up being a lot less republic-y, which I think is a bad thing.

I’m really not a fan of the whole concept, to tell you the truth. Sure, now and again a republic can find itself needing “legions”, but those should not be allowed to become a permanent part of the system. I’d be more comfortable with them standing up mercenary forces on a for-profit basis, so that at least the troops would get paid well, and know from the outset that they were hiring on to go fight thankless fights far away from home. Pay well enough, and you’d get all the men you need. And, you’d also find out very quickly just how good the officers running such things really were, as opposed to the dregs that wind up manning peacetime forces like ours. If you actually had to attract your soldiers like a civilian company does, and effectively “recruit” based on your actual performance as a leader…? Yeah. You’re going to get good at that “leader” thing, or you’re gonna go bankrupt. Peacetime conventional military force? LOL… You can hide all your flaws as a leader and human being behind the UCMJ, and claw your way to the top, never once having actually demonstrated real pull-your-men-forward leadership.

Like the one GI said in Korea, “I can see myself fighting and dying for my country. But not for some shit hole [his words] place I cannot locate on a map.”

And he was right. Hard to disagree with him.