# What is a Merc?



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2005)

Some people in several other forums are bring up the term "Merc" or "Mercenary" and making comments on what they are.  Some people are making comments to the effect that they "don't like Mercs".  There is a problem here when someone makes comments about things, but know nothing of which they are commenting on.  The question here is "What is a Merc?"  Where do we find Mercs?  Who can be a Merc?  How are they employed?  Who employs them?  How are they recruited?  What skill must they have?  What defines a Merc?

If you join the Foreign Legion of France or Spain, and get paid by that government, are you a Merc?  If you leave Nepal and join the UK Forces as a Gurkha, are you a Merc because you get paid by the Queen?  If you are sent to the Afghanistan to conduct security operations for the UN and are paid by the Canadian Government as a member of the CF; are you a Merc?

Think about it.  What is a Merc?

GW


----------



## BetterThanTheBest (23 Apr 2005)

mer ·ce ·nar ·y    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mûrs-nr)
adj. 
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain. 
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2005)

So with you technical description, is a Merc one or the other or both?

Are three quarters of the CF, the one's in it solely for the money, Mercs?

And I guess that makes members of the Gurkha Regiments and the Foreign Legions all Mercs?


----------



## P-Free (23 Apr 2005)

Mostly it's just a word thrown around by people to describe other people who have the parts to do things they'd never be able to do.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Apr 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And I guess that makes members of the Gurkha Regiments and the Foreign Legions all Mercs?


technically, yes. Institutionalized mercenary organizations. In fact, the Nepalese also hire Gurkhas to India. I forget exactly how the various involved nations got around the Treaties banning the use of mercenary forces over the centuries, however. 

As for the morality/legality of "today's mercenaries", well, like 'em (and I do) or not, they ain't a-gonner go away. Prostitution is illegal all over the world, too. That's worked well so far.


----------



## JasonH (23 Apr 2005)

Prostitution is also legal in places...

Likewise, Merc's are illigal in most places but a lot of countries use them.

The problem I had which I didn't think of until this thread and another is... how do you put them into a description.

We're gonna need examples to describe the merc's 'of today'.  For example... the green beret in Afghanistan who tortured those Afghans and is now sitting in a jail.
Than you have the merc's who tried to do a coup in what was it... somewhere in Africa I think.

Now there rotting in one of the worst prisons in the world.

Now you compare them to the contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Thats where the line blurs.  Someone please explain to me what the hell is the difference between the "Contract workers" (numbering some 15 thousand) in iraq and the Merc's who try to do a coup? (Aside from one which seems Morally right and the other being morally wrong.. if you can say maken a coup is wrong).


----------



## paracowboy (23 Apr 2005)

> the green beret in Afghanistan who tortured those Afghans


 Some pedantic semantics here (I just had to make it rhyme, sorry   ): primus - I wear a green beret. Soldiers who serve in the US Army Special Forces are just that, soldiers. They get touchy about being called a hat, mostly due to the media's mis-use of the term over the decades. 
secundus - Idema was not in the US Army Special Forces. He was CSS, not infantry. Those boys hate him for many, many reasons, all relating to his posing and lying over several years. Go to SOCNET and type his name into the Search feature. Page upon page of vitriol being spewed on his name, with accompanying curses bening placed on his family for generations to come.
(And I have no idea if my latin is remotely correct, but it sounds kinda cool, doesn't it?  ;D )



> please explain to me what the heck is the difference between the "Contract workers" (numbering some 15 thousand) in iraq and the Merc's who try to do a coup?


 as I understand it (necessary caveat), the Contractors in the various dark places of the world are employees of large security firms, and have very set guidelines on what they can/cannot do. You're there to act as personal security for a VIP, or run convoy escort, or guard the ladies dorm room (I'm angling for that job, personally). That's it. You're licensed to carry firearms and take defensive actions against direct attacks on yourself and whomever you are responsible for. It's no different than many Security firms here, just infinitely more dangerous, requiring a higher calibre of training, motivation, and initiative.

The Mercs attempting to carry out a coup (for example) are entirely different. Contractors are operating within the laws of their home nations, and the nation they are in. These guys are operating outside any laws. They are no different than the 'narco-mercs' seen everywhere in South America and South-East Asia.

Does that help at all?


----------



## Gager (23 Apr 2005)

I think there are multiple forms of 'Mercenary' soldier. A contractor is a mercenary, as is a foreign aux. unit attached to an Army, as is a counter-revolutionary working for a foreign government (Contra Affair) or say paramilitaries working in South America for cartels/groups. Part of the confusion I believe comes from the negative connotation the word 'mercenary' has, and because of this, words like 'contractor' are used. I'll admit when I first read this thread I thought of the movie the "Wild Geese" and the mercenary force trying to topple an African government.

I don't think mercenaries are defined by how they are constituted either. Security firms involved in conflict can be considered mercenary, even if they are contractors with different rules and procedures. The firm in South Africa, Executive Outcomes, was from what I understand, a legitimate corporation up until several years back, that was made up of former South African Defense Forces personnel, and supposedly, financed by the DeBeers Diamond Corporation. 'Security Firm' just sounds nice, but I believe its all mercenary, there are just different degrees of involvement that distinguish a firm like EO compared to say a firm in Iraq.

I don't think a Canadian unit, paid by the Government, yet working under or for the UN, would be considered mercenary, as they would be following orders to serve the UN, and not voluntarily doing it for profit.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Apr 2005)

"to serve the UN"? And what, pray tell, makes the UN legally able to field armies? Canadian soldiers, whether under UN mandate, or not, are not mercenaries because we serve our nation, in uniform, as outlined by our legal process. Don't ever confuse the UN with being some sort of legalizing justification for anything. Canada does not have to answer to the UN in order to launch our military, and we do not have to respond to the UN when they ask us to. 
And I, personally, have never served the UN. Nor will I ever. I will answer my country's call again, as I have in the past, but the UN can
actually, I won't finish that sentence.


----------



## Gager (23 Apr 2005)

'Serve' was a poor choice of words. I was trying to answer the initial question in the first post ("If you are sent to the Afghanistan to conduct security operations for the UN and are paid by the Canadian Government as a member of the CF; are you a Merc?") 

'Conduct for' was what I should have said. All else agreed upon.


----------



## enfield (23 Apr 2005)

Mercenary is a soldier motivated money, serving outside of his national armed forces.

Of course, that has all sorts of problems. Basically, accept that being a mercenary is not a bad thing, despite the mis-informed views in the media.

The Vatican Guards are mercenaries, heirs of a long tradition when Switzerland had nothing to export but soldiers. The Gurkhas are mercenaries - the Gurkhas in the British Army, the Indian Army, the Brunei Army, and who work for Gurkha Security Guards. The french Foreign Legion are mercenaries (even tho most of them are Frenchmen - and I don't think the Spanish take foreigners anymore). The Commonwealth citizens in the British military could even be considered mercenaries. The soldiers (European and South African) who fought in the Congo against the UN were mercenaries. Executive Outcomes were mercenaries. 

And the list goes on, and has all sorts of contradictions and confusions. 

Its an ancient and honourable profession, with its bad apples just like any other group. The concept of a 'national army' and a national soldiery is a relatively recent concept, and has in recent history come into conflict with the parallel notion of the 'professional soldier'. 

Since 1945, however, there was a definite move to make mercenaries illegal under international law - had a lot to do with the Colonial struggles, and various nationalist and socialist movements. Most nationalist struggles wanted to keep the professionals out of their wars, and most of the negative imagery of mercenaries came out of Africa between 1960's and 1980's. Hence, there are all sorts of provisions in international law banning mercenaries.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Apr 2005)

JasonH said:
			
		

> Than you have the merc's who tried to do a coup in what was it... somewhere in Africa I think.



There's kinda been a lot.  Here's a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#Mercenaries_in_Africa



			
				Enfield said:
			
		

> Its an ancient and honourable profession, with its bad apples just like any other group. The concept of a 'national army' and a national soldiery is a relatively recent concept, and has in recent history come into conflict with the parallel notion of the 'professional soldier'.
> 
> Since 1945, however, there was a definite move to make mercenaries illegal under international law - had a lot to do with the Colonial struggles, and various nationalist and socialist movements. Most nationalist struggles wanted to keep the professionals out of their wars, and most of the negative imagery of mercenaries came out of Africa between 1960's and 1980's. Hence, there are all sorts of provisions in international law banning mercenaries.



What if we look at it the other way: how is it that being a state (only) makes the use of force moral?

Here's an interesting idea (although it well could cause the statist do-gooders heads to explode):



> *Hired Guns*
> By Noah Shachtman 	 Published  	 06/26/2003
> 
> A consortium of mercenary groups has made the UN a deceptively simple proposal: give us $200 million, and we'll help bring an end to the war in the Congo.
> ...


----------



## JasonH (24 Apr 2005)

Great thread thus far and has made me understand this name more.  Thank you!  

And on a side note I think we're seeing the first seeds of Privatized military.  Look at all the contracts being handed out to places like Blackwater.  Over 15 plus thousand contractors are in Iraq right now alone.  And with high wages more and more troops are leaving the army and Special Forces (JTF-2 has had this problem documented).

What do you guys think?


----------



## KevinB (24 Apr 2005)

I'm just pissed the US State Dept stopped letting Canadians work in their contracts...

 The problem with Iraq and Afghan - is thet the US in running the war "on the cheaper" as far as deployed personnel go.   In addtion they are trying to rapidly restart the countries gov't and economy - thus needing thousands of armed security personnel for those tasks.

 Having taken PSD training I can tell you the basic troop is not cut out for those duties (heck half of them I would not trust with weapons aroudn VIP's...) so you have a niche that needs to be filled.   When you combine that with soldiers who are not paid a lot, and now can get a LOT of money and conduct a mission that they can be proud of, and know it is required.

 For example I have a few buddies in Iraq - makign anywhere from $450 USD to $950USD a DAY.   Now if you avg it oout to $700 a day your gettign about 21K USD TAX FREE a month - depending upon the companies employment/leave plan you can bank about 100k working 4 months with a 2month vacation...

Now whats not to like   ;D

Here's where I mention that some companies don't have medical support form the US Mil hospitals...   Some run soft skin vehicles.   Some hire VERY strange people. etc.

Anyway here a link to Triple Canopy one of the good US companies (unfortunately they can't hire anymore Canadians due to their State Dept contracts)

     http://www.triplecanopy.com/company/careers/open.php


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> "to serve the UN"? And what, pray tell, makes the UN legally able to field armies? Canadian soldiers, whether under UN mandate, or not, are not mercenaries because we serve our nation, in uniform, as outlined by our legal process. Don't ever confuse the UN with being some sort of legalizing justification for anything. Canada does not have to answer to the UN in order to launch our military, and we do not have to respond to the UN when they ask us to.



Although Canadians serving on UN Tours are paid primarily by the Canadian Government, they are also drawing a meager pay from the UN.  While on a UN Tour, those troops DO take orders from the UN.

Canadian soldiers Overseas Allowances and Danger Pays, etc., are also indexed.  In many cases those allowances increase with the amount of time one has spent outside of Canada.  With all the inquiries on these forums by young recruits wanting to go on 'Tour', then in a way, this is indeed 'mercenary'.


----------



## KevinB (24 Apr 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Canadian soldiers Overseas Allowances and Danger Pays, etc., are also indexed.   In many cases those allowances increase with the amount of time one has spent outside of Canada.   With all the inquiries on these forums by young recruits wanting to go on 'Tour', then in a way, this is indeed 'mercenary'.



Not to mention as soon the CF heard about the tax breaks now - a lot of "deadwood" came back to life looking to go overseas... Its amazing what an extra $3k a month will do for the motivation level  :


----------



## paracowboy (24 Apr 2005)

> Although Canadians serving on UN Tours are paid primarily by the Canadian Government, they are also drawing a meager pay from the UN.


 I know, I've received that pay.


> While on a UN Tour, those troops DO take orders from the UN.


No, we take orders form Ottawa. If our UN-designated overlord says "Do this", but Ottawa says "Don't", we don't. Often embarrassing the holy livin' bejaysus out of the line grunt, as he waves bye-bye to the Brit soldier he spent days training beside. (Yes, there's a story there, yes, I'm bitter about it.)



> Canadian soldiers Overseas Allowances and Danger Pays, etc., are also indexed.  In many cases those allowances increase with the amount of time one has spent outside of Canada.  With all the inquiries on these forums by young recruits wanting to go on 'Tour', then in a way, this is indeed 'mercenary'.


yes, we get extra pay, and it goes up exponentially. How-some-ever, even if we didn't receive these little tidbits, and the High-and-Mighty Potentates in Parliament ordered us in, in we would go. A merc would say "nope. And have another beer. We are Canadian citizens serving Canada under Her flag. Thus and therefore, we ain't mercs. (Now, I ain't denying that some amongst us have mercenary inclinations: the number of supposed 'broken' personnel that showed up for Roto 0 Kabul was mind-boggling. It was as though Jesus himself had walked through Petawawa healing the lame! Rather despicable, really. And I certainly enjoy that extra coin when I get to go, and it does factor into my willingness to put up with having an equal number of Captains to Corporals, but that's not why I go.)

Now, will I go free-lance when my 20 is up (or when m'dear, darlin' little wife realizes she can do better and dumps my chubby ass)? Oh, hell yeah!


----------



## meni0n (24 Apr 2005)

But then don't the reserves kind of fit into the mercenary description? They get to choose the tasking to take or not to take and they get to choose the contracts and tours.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Apr 2005)

Doesn't the definition of mercenary require that you are a Canadian serving in another nation's armed forces?  PSD companies are not armies, they are not in Iraq to fight the war, or  conduct offensive operations,  how would employment in a PSD company make you a mercenary?


----------



## KevinB (24 Apr 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Doesn't the definition of mercenary require that you are a Canadian serving in another nation's armed forces?   PSD companies are not armies, they are not in Iraq to fight the war, or   conduct offensive operations,   how would employment in a PSD company make you a mercenary?



BINGO!


 I never knew you where so smart Brit, are you sure those are blonde roots   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2005)

Then again, we do tend to use "mercenary" quite liberally in common language......"He has mercenary business practices."


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Apr 2005)

What really pisses me off about the whole mercenary topic is people making comments about how dishonourable they are and how they have no pride in their country and especially how they only do it for the money.

What world are you living in?
Ever see what happens when a troops pay gets a little screwed up?  Guess what they are more likely to say;

a. Thats alright, I joined the army to protect canada, i dont care about money, to the glory of the queen!
b. Jesus christ i didnt get paid this week! im so screwed i live my life pay check to pay check i need to go see the clerks!

Lots of people join the Canadian Forces for patriotic reasons but trust me, the money is right up there with the reasons.

People making comments and passing judgement on "mercenaries" is in the same boat as them making comments about working along side special forces. Their opinion is formed through word of mouth and the media, not hands on experience.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Apr 2005)

Actually, I DO hold mercenaries in distain.

A mercenary as I define it is someone who serves in the armed forces of a nation PURELY for the purpose of monetary gain, with no regard for any other limiting factors. If the Taliban offered a better pension plan and stock options, and you decide to jump ship, join the Taliban, and fight against your own countrymen then yes, you are deserving of contempt. I believe this is the original reason why mercenaries were and still are held in low esteem. Not sure what any of this has to do with security contractors in Iraq though. 

Hey, some people still think Iraq was behind 9/11. People are stupid, whaddyagunna do?


----------



## PJ D-Dog (24 Apr 2005)

meni0n said:
			
		

> But then don't the reserves kind of fit into the mercenary description? They get to choose the tasking to take or not to take and they get to choose the contracts and tours.



I really don't think you want to go down that street.  If reservists were mercenaries, they would be getting paid the full regular force wage and then some.  I would caution you to not paint the reserves with that wide "do what you want in uniform" brush.  Talk to reservists before you make general comments about what they can choose.  They are also very limited in what they can't choose to do.  Reservits are limited in what they can and can't do due to the structure in which they are forced to serve.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## enfield (25 Apr 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> PSD companies are not armies, they are not in Iraq to fight the war, or   conduct offensive operations,   how would employment in a PSD company make you a mercenary?



But they're armed, they kill people, they meet objectives, and they are definitely fighting for one side. They are usually paid by the US, whether the military or State Dept or through US-funded contractors. I would say they are most definitely there to help fight the war. How are they not mercenaries?

Britney; do you hold the Vatican Guard in disdain? Or the Gurkhas? They're mercenaries. I don't think the Gurkhas are fighting for God, Queen Elizabeth, democracy, freedom, or to defend their homeland. They fight for money, and the intangible benefits that come with soldiering.

But again, 'mercenary' isn't a bad thing. It just generally means fighting outside your nation's army. 

I think very, very few people fight purely for monetary gain. But, many are willing to go where the monetary gain is greatest to do the same job. Joining the Foreign Legion (or Fijians in the British Army) is not the path to riches on any scale.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Apr 2005)

> But they're armed,


 Because they are security personnel.


> they kill people


 when they, or their principle, are endangered. Because they are security personnel.


> they meet objectives


 One objective, actually. To keep their principle alive. Because they are security personnel.


> they are definitely fighting for one side


 True. Their side. Their principle's side. Because they are security personnel.


> whether the military or State Dept or through US-funded contractors


US based contractors, perhaps. Not necessarily US funded or even US sanctioned. But, even this can be a stretch, as there are a number of outfits from other nations than the US. The UK and South Africa, come to mind.


> I would say they are most definitely there to help fight the war.


Then, you would be mistaken. Because they are security personnel.
How





> are they not mercenaries?


Because they are security personnel.
Try talking to/with some of these guys, and then tell me what they do for a living. I do, and it's enlightening. Entertaining, too.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Apr 2005)

> Britney; do you hold the Vatican Guard in disdain? Or the Gurkhas? They're mercenaries. I don't think the Gurkhas are fighting for God, Queen Elizabeth, democracy, freedom, or to defend their homeland. They fight for money, and the intangible benefits that come with soldiering.



Since paracowboy answered the rest of your points for me already......

I should be more clear, The part I find distainful is when one values money more than principles. I don't think you could say that about the Swiss Guard (who are more of a PSD outfit than a real army anyway) or the Gurkhas. What is a Gurkha other than a Nepalese who is trained by the British Army to be  British Soldier? They wouldn't really exist without the Brits, so theyt're really no different than any other Brit Regiment. I think the same for the Foreign Legion. THey may have been mercenaries at one point, but it's not much more than regimental history today, since they have bee institutionalized to the point where they are no different thananother part of the national army.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

So they're just well armed bodyguards then?  I remember James Davis hashing out a list of definitions in his book.

Anyways, I think we are arguing over semantics here.  I think the arguement is grounded upon the fact that mercenaries (in the traditional Mike Hoare conception), personal security guys, and guys who head to other national forces all have the same thing in common - they are marketing the skill at arms.  Whether it is conducting offensive operations (attacking guerillas on behalf of a client) or defensive operations (running a convoy or protecting your principal), the fact is that they've brought these skills to a market where they are required.  As Enfield said, *this isn't a bad thing in itself* (some idealists like to think so, but that is their problem); Iraq is a good example of where private "men-at-arms" (hopefully this term won't put peoples backs up) are used in a fairly reactive way.

Of course, to an Iraqi who doesn't like the Americans in his country, these guys are hired foreign civilians running around with guns and protecting officials they don't like at all - so in their eyes, they are mercenaries.  However, we are all dirty kuffars to them anyways....


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2005)

Just a side thought:


----------



## Infanteer (29 Apr 2005)

A thought about what?

I don't see how propaganda from the Arab/Israeli conflict has anything to do with a topic about mercenaries.  ???


----------



## Younghusband (12 May 2005)

Here is an interesting set of articles about some of the more famous mercs in the 90's. particulalrly those that worked for EO and Tim Spicer:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/

Happy reading!


----------



## Sergeant295 (26 May 2005)

These in days when heaven was falling,
The hour in which earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
Took their wages and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended,
They stood and earth's foundation's stayed,
What God abandoned they defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.

Whatever we think a merc is, foreign member of the army, French Legion, private security they do a job that sometimes even a professional soldier wont do and I saulte them for it.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (31 May 2005)

I suppose it would be too simple to define a mercenary as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to money, and a soldier as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to country?


----------



## paracowboy (31 May 2005)

Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> I suppose it would be too simple to define a mercenary as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to money, and a soldier as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to country?


nah, that don't work. Look at Rhodesia. Yanks, Brits, and Canucks all fought the Communists there, DESPITE all three nations actively working against the Rhodesians.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2005)

Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> I suppose it would be too simple to define a mercenary as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to money, and a soldier as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to country?



Sure doesn't, especially when you consider that many soldiers in the CF don't place their highest loyalty to their country (it may be the money, or it may be to their unit, etc, etc).


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (31 May 2005)

I would argue then that the 'soldier' who places his loyalties to money is in fact a mercenary, and not a very bright one, as there are far better ways to make money. 

Rhodesia (late 1979)  is an interesting and complicated subject, but for the sake of arguement I will see if I can get around it by saying that decisions of state i.e. 'intervention' in Rhodesia do not directly bear on the loyalties or motives of the soldiers sent.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2005)

Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> I would argue then that the 'soldier' who places his loyalties to money is in fact a mercenary, and not a very bright one, as there are far better ways to make money.



Ok, but then you've muddied your definition, as mercenaries may exist in their nation's standing armies.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (31 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ok, but then you've muddied your definition, as mercenaries may exist in their nation's standing armies.



I don't see how. "a mercenary as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to money, and a soldier as a combatant who's highest loyalty is to country?" in no way excludes the possibility of mercenary types, as defined, existing in national armies.


----------



## dutchie (31 May 2005)

Why try and separate absolutely the term 'soldier' and 'mercenary'? Too me the term mercenary is short for mercenary soldier. The core job is roughly the same (I am referring to true mercs, not PSD guys). The motivations behind their choice of trade, while distinguishing them from 'regular' soldiers, does not change the fact that they are professional 'men-at-arms', the same as you and I. 

Guys doing stints in personal protection detail are merely doing a really dangerous body guard job. Does the fact that it is extremely dangerous make them mercs? If they are mercs because of their duties, and not the danger level, then celebrity body guards are mercs by that definition. Obviously, PSD is not mercenary work.

On a side note, my mother is engaged to a former merc. He is a British citizen, was briefly in the Brit paras (I've seen documents from his Brit army pension), and then did some merc work in Africa. He has ties to South Africa (has a house there) as well as Seychelles (another house). I noticed that there are some connections between Brits, South Africa, Seychelles, and various African wars involving mercs. I am pretty sure he's not feeding me lines, as his stories line up with what I know of the Congo conflict, and he certainly wasn't bragging. Interesting stuff, let me tell you. It was kinda strange listening to stories where the UN was the enemy. Talking to him definitely changed my mind about mercenaries. They are not the souless, immoral, greedy, unintelligent animals some would have you believe.

Anyhow, that's my take on it.


----------



## paracowboy (31 May 2005)

> They are not the souless, immoral, greedy, unintelligent animals some would have you believe.


I've known a few, and I fully agree. Sometimes, in order to do what you know to be Right, you have to break the rules, or go against your own government.


----------



## Reccesoldier (31 May 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> They are not the souless, immoral, greedy, unintelligent animals some would have you believe.



If they were I wonder how safe the Pope would feel?  ;D


----------



## Horse_Soldier (31 May 2005)

Heck, if we're going to get hung up on semantics, let's call 'em freelancers - it harkens back to the days of olde,when nights were cold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer
Describes it best: self-employed soldiers working on contract rather than being "employees" of a particular "corporation" i.e. army
That would pretty much rule out calling the FFL or the Ghurkas mercs - or the Swiss Guard for that matter  ;D.


----------



## Mineguy (1 Jun 2005)

I work with guys here in Sudan (demining) who have worked in the Angola war as part of the south african specail forces so ive seen the slant on that from their side as well..but to them who are trained proffessional soldiers it again is just making a living and they didnt work for dictators nor do they hold any such view as that being an ok thing to do.

I think from what i always see the whole dirty slant on the word mercenary comes from the media and the lack of information mixed with the bad stories about certain individuals in that line of work, that goes along with the confusion and lack of truth out there regarding the word and what it means. Its always as was said before, confused that the foreign legion are mercenaries etc same thing.

For example regarding former Yugoslavia, I have many freinds who are full members of www.cfiva.org (if you really take the time to read the story you might have a different view presented for once) who the media from the start in 91, mostly at the propaganda of the serbs (and its amazing that the first UN in zagreb employed dutch volunteers from 118 bde as their bodyguards in zagreb in 92 but you wont hear that ever mentioned) were labelled as mercenaries and croatia who had an arms embargo slapped on them had to disband the some of the only trained personel helping to keep their units of volunteer civilains alive and combat effective to stop the serb advance. Nobody was getting paid more then the wages of the soldier of the Croatian army (80DM a month)and if they were then i guess you could say they were a real mercenary but they were few and far between and didnt stick around long...so nobody could say they were receving a mercenary payment as such. Alot of it is pure horsestuff from uniformed individuals or people with an agenda and it really angers true volunteer veterans. Its not always about money.

Two Canadians are listed on the page rememberance section although there were probably more and several other canadians served with honour and with big combat results as volunteers , not mercenaries.


----------

