Mercenaries aka Independent Contractors: Question for Debate

[MilitantDanny]

People seem to forget that PMC's ONLY protect things. There is no offensive operations being conducted. It is no more than high threat bodyguard work to put it very generally. I don't think the term Mercenary is used correctly at all, and is intentionally used by critics to put a negative light on the job and spin the publics opinion to their outlandish viewpoints. I've been doing this for two years, and I would not sign on for something that would dishonor myself or my country for any price.

[GuamIsGood]

Foreign warriors have been payed to fight for governments for a long time. This question is perfect because this situation is unique. Never before has an empire payed (non-military) its own civilians to fight seperate from the volunteer army. No oversight!

[jnadel]

Also, for clarification, the purpose of my question is simply to find out if the privately contracted soldiers would be included in the candidate's Iraq withdrawal plan, nothing else.

[Wally4363]

The PMC's can stay in Iraq or elsewhere as long as they please. Of course they are backed up in most cases by the American military so I would think it would be a suicidal decsion to stay if the military leaves. I know I would.

[jnadel]

While a volunteer army's loyalty is to the country, because there's honestly not much fiscal benefit to the soldier, an independently contracted soldier's loyalty is to the money that they receive for doing this job. On the other hand, I do believe that at some times the (volunteer) army really isn't a free place and I do believe that's a flaw.

[Obinjess]

I happen to personally know contractors as well as work with some. Their loyalty is not to money, but to their country. The only difference between them and regular military is their chain of command. These people simply want to serve their country in a different way under a different set of rules. It's more than what many others are doing.

[jnadel]

I appreciate all the comments everyone's left and I think the discussion that's been sparked is a good one. However, I need to contribute my two cents. In fact, I'm still undecided on the issue of the utilization of a privatized force. I did want to mention that some may say the mercenaries loyalty is to the money, not the country or the fight.

[HiveRadical]

They will realize that ultimate freedom is not aquired or maintained alone, AND that ultimate freedom is not found through compulssion to duty.

It's quite possible that the ultimate defender of freedom is the truely <b>INDEPENDENT contractor</b>.

[HiveRadical]

Real freedom combined with personally enforced morals is the ultimate tools for creating the ultimate, and ultimately loyal, freedom fighter. The freest of men will realize what is at stake, what they have, and all choices with regard to engagement in battle, and the terms of that engagement. Thusly they will be the most motivated to balance between disciplin and innovation, between autonomy and unity.

[HiveRadical]

Such a principle is what lies underneath a 'volunteer' army. If the choice is made by the individual to loyalty, if the contracts are in their terms, then that's the ultimate manifestation of personally directed destiny.

[HiveRadical]

In a way George Washington's armies were 'privatized.' He had to go through each battle and convince each of the soldiers to remain with him. Much has been leveled about the instability of a privatized army. I think that only stands when the privatization is partial. When the war becomes the personal choice, in totality, of the individual then you have the best chance at an innovative and fiercly loyal fighter.

[Stealth3]

Good question.  But want to bet they won't ask this one? They will ask bullcrap questions like "Who is your favorite dog?"

[Wally4363]

You are better off being in the dark on this one son. We may decide to quit using contract military people and just draft your young butt to do the job for a lot less money. Some things are better off left alone. Roger That?

[jnadel]

Wally, thanks for your comment. I apologize if my debate question was misconstrued. I attempted to make no assertion as to whether the utilization of contracted soldiers was a good or a bad thing. All I'm asking is if these soldiers would be included in the candidates Iraq withdrawal plan. Thanks.

[HiveRadical]

I have to say that regardless the attempt, even if successfull, to make no assertion on the morality of the contracted soldiers a whole underlying current of your message, it being implicit in the asking, is that they are not the correct course. The last mention of leaving Americans in the dark on this rather portrays your view.

I've seen no cover-up on this.