From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:43:28 -0500
Subject: Mercs in Spaaaaace
Allan said: May I point out that mercenaries used as soldiers throughout history has been a mixed bag, success wise? Dying for your country is one thing, dying for a paycheque is something else. I'm far from convinced that mercenaries in UN pay would work. [Tomb] Yes, they have. Some have been incredibly effective and loyal, others have been a right royal threat to whatever nation they were hired by. But one has to look at the way these units were formed, how they were lead, the rules (or lack thereof) they operated under, their motivations, how they were paid, the precautions taken by the hiring states, etc. Most of these factors differ from what we're now seeing the UN talk about. What they're talking about today is professionally recruited, trained and led formations, operating under international conventions, receiving a gauranteed paycheck* from a stable international power (and note there is no easy way for them to seize the source of this revenue), and possibly facing the wrath of the international community (and real militaries) if they do anything untoward (as well as Tribunals and loss of future work). We're not talking about homeless hire-swords who are going to seize a city-state because the Prince was dumb enough to let more of them into the state than he had gaurds and no one would do anything to stop it. We're not talking about poorly trained rabble that might melt away at the first sign of a conflict, that might just as well pillage and rape the people they are supposed to help, etc. We're not talking about formations led by generals out to become Princes. And we're not talking about people operating beneath international scrutiny. Nor about a unit afraid it won't get paid as long as it does its duty, even if things don't work out. These are _huge_ differentiations in almost every aspect. About the only aspect of the similarity of today's plans to historical mercenary usage is the fact both got paid and both were combat capable. Otherwise, things diverge. Private Military Corporations (PMCs) with boards of directors and shareholders who are subject to International Law, Missions which automatically have UNMOs accompanying them, PMCs that know they'll get paid so they don't have to worry about seizing diamond mines, etc. to gaurantee a paycheck, PMCs that know that their boss is the International Community through the UN, and PMCs that are headquartered mostly in G8 countries with recruiting, training, auditing, etc (including, I shouldn't be surprised in the future, probably ISO audits on how they do their business) - these are not your Great Grandad's Bands of Freebooters. The UN isn't talking about just hiring _anyone_. And quite frankly, even if some of the people or units were less than perfect, they'd still be better (in most cases) than widespread genocide or ferocious famine, which is some of the types of situation they'd be used to head off. Tomb * - Note, I'm not unaware the UN may have paycheck-delivery issues. This is one of the points that has to be addressed obviously for the concept