# Private Armies & PMCs on the battlefield and on peace operations.



## the patriot (23 May 2001)

Hello,

It seems that the trend is moving towards the privitization of "war".  Listed under Military Information of User Submitted Links are some sites of Private Military Companies.  What is actually happening is that Governments and the UN alike are contracting out these companies so that their armies are not responsible for things if they go badly during a mission (for example Somalia).  How do you feel about this trend?!

-the patriot-


----------



## Bloggins (23 May 2001)

Hmm, ‘scuse my ignorance, but could you give a couple of examples of govt‘s/UN contracting out to private firms for things other than support services?

And if anyone thinks that hiring a contractor is going to absolve them of responsibility if the contractor screws up... they have another think coming. Can you just imagine if it had been a bunch of mercs under contract to DND who pulled off all the nonsense in Somalia instead of the CAR? Man, then we would have seen some heads roll!


----------



## Harry (23 May 2001)

Yes the facts generally are there.  Keep in mind, inclusive of support functions, there are many aspects of military operations that we may not necessarily consider HARD military, but they are key to successful operational function and accomplishment that are contracted out and done so successfully.  Vinnell Corp is an example; they do a lot of overseas work for the US in the Gulf region and Middle East, such as Turkey.  We have Bombardier and ATCO Frontec.
www.vinnell.com 

Companies such as MPRI have provided direct military contract services for the US in the Balkans training certain military forces there.
http://www.mpri.com/channels/home.html 

Another company that provides discrete support to the US abroad is Dyncorp, read between the lines if you have to.
http://www.dyncorp.com/areas/index.htm 

For your reading pleasure you can explore the following link:
http://free.freespeech.org/napalm74/main.html 

An area that many overlook is air operations.  This is considered a prime military function; the CF has on numerous occasions used heavy lift from other militaries and private firms.  The United Nations does this as well, especially within Mission Areas.  Private contract air operations are the buzz of the day.  Rarely do you see military airlift in support of missions, unless the tasked nation provides their own, usually in support of their contingent.

There are numerous reports or purporting of private firms out there providing military contract services to the UN and in support of various national government foreign ventures. 

Some are true many are not.  But this move is based upon economic reasons, not some underlying motive.  Standing military forces are not cheap and if you only need this service once in a blue moon, why not contract someone.  Especially if that lucrative diamond interest, oh sorry, I digress.

There is a lot of good info out there, and if you wish to dig deeper, have fun.


----------



## Grunt031 (23 May 2001)

Those Croatians that 2PPCLI tangled with in the Medak Pocket were trained and advised by MPRI, of which a key member was General (Ret.) Carl Vuono, former US Army Chief of Staff.

About reading between the lines, just check out one of the shell companies of this DynCorp at http://www.dynmeridian.com/ 

Although this invasion by big business is kinda spooky, it is nothing new.  Selling ones military services is the second oldest profession in the book, next to selling ones body.  Hell, the Greek city states frequently hired cavalry, archers, and slingers from nearby lands to help support their citizen armies.


----------



## the patriot (5 Jun 2001)

Did some further digging and discovered an interesting site.  I‘ve come across the site of Armet Armored Vehicles.  They make different levels of ballistically shielded vehicles here in Canada.  It is my understanding that JTF-2 has used some of their products and furthermore, that Private Military Companies are procuring these vehicles for their operations as well.  Here‘s the link below.
http://www.aavi.com 

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (19 Jun 2001)

.......    did some deeper digging and found a few more companies of interest.

This people are Canadian based and do everything from Close Protection to consulting work for foreign militaries:  
Globe Risk Holdings

An extremely similar company with an international client base: Armor Group

These people are extremely professional, and know what they are doing: Military Executives For Hire

Apparently, quite a few of these companies in the field are hiring former Candian Armed Forces members.

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (30 Jun 2001)

For those capable of engaging in intelligent discourse,  I have a paper that I will link below all about The Medak Pocket.  It should shed some further light on Canadian involvement in the Balkans and what we were up against with MPRI.

The Medak Pocket

-the patriot-


----------



## centurion (1 Jul 2001)

While we‘re looking at the various aspects of peacekeepers, other than from the jaundiced eye of the Canadian media and the current political hacks in uniform, located at the puzzle palace on Col Bye Dr and the dweeb lemmings at Parlimentl Hill, here‘s a good one. This lengthy tome is a soldier‘s diary from the Airborne in Somolia. It comes from the other commando unit stationed there that was not involved in the overblown fiasco that has, totally and to the detriment of all personnel in uniform, painted us with a wide brush of loathing from the country we‘re sworn to gladly defend. It cuts straight to the chase and pulls no punches. It should be required reading for every journalism class in Canada to prove to the air conditioned remfs at CBC that there are two sides to every story. And their job is to report the news not to embellish, invent or slant it to curry favour and gain grants from the current politicos in Ottawa. Book mark it and go back to it in pieces so it can be appreciated, this guy should publish.

web page


----------



## Andrew (16 Dec 2001)

I apologize for bringing up an old forum but was just reading through it and for anyone who is interested there is a book out it‘s called "Fortune‘s Warriors" by James R. Davis. (author of "The Sharp End- a canadian soldiers story) He also works or used to work for Globe Risk(a private security advisor company).   

The book looks at what is exactly considered a mercinary, and explains alot about the privatization of military‘s and what there roles are in different countries like Sierra Lione ect ect...

Andrew   

The book is actually amazing some of the stuff it


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Dec 2004)

While watching the Manchurian candidate, a news broadcast made a comment in the backround which stuck with me and i found intersting.

This Manchurian company was using (or making?) a private army to help relieve American troops abroad in the war on terror.

Do you think this is a possibility for the near future?   I mean Iraq and Afghanistan are full of "private security" companies with tons and tons of workers. Many of which are ex military.   Could these companies start to make private armies to help relieved exhausted and over worked allied soldiers?   These companies have the money for it and I'm sure they can find "recruits"

Now by armies i mean groups of guys from company to battalion sized (or larger) that are equipped with serious military hardware and their trained to act and fight like an actual military formation. Some of these companies already have helicopters and armored vehicles right?   if one of these companies had a serious enough force maybe the US government would contract them out for protecting convoys or small towns and cities?   (Maybe they are already doing this heh)
Just something that got me wondering how far privatization will go.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Dec 2004)

Oh, I think you will see more and more of this as a way to get around the media showing the young soldiers coming home in a box.
Somehow the headline " Mercenary Killed" just won't sensationalize enough for their appetite.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Dec 2004)

I suppose there is a supply and demand market for such enterprises. It just seems off base in today's world, but then again the original RN were in fact Crown contracted "privateers." Do we really want to devolve to that level?


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Oh, I think you will see more and more of this as a way to get around the media showing the young soldiers coming home in a box.
> Somehow the headline " Mercenary Killed" just won't sensationalize enough for their appetite.



I can see it comming but do we realy want armed forces whos loyalties and motivation are, shall i say, questionable ( i.e. money) ??


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Dec 2004)

No, we do not, but....... :-[


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2004)

What you just described has already existed for thousands of years.   Remember the movies WILD GEESE and perhaps DARK UNDER THE SUN?   These guys were fictional accounts of actual people and events.   Mercenaries have existed since the dawn of civilization and before.   Companies such as Executive Outcomes have been in Africa and Asia for decades.   Pick up a copy of Soldier of Fortune and look at the 'classified ads'.   Those are real.

GW


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, we do not, but....... :-[



I would see it as ASD gonne too far myself.   Why not use the money to hire more soldiers for the "real" armed forces.........


----------



## gnplummer421 (23 Dec 2004)

Given the amount of money these guys are apparently offering in these "Security firms" the line up of intersted individuals will be long...but as someone pointed out, will the money factor interfere with the code of honour and integrity that most professional soldiers have.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I would see it as ASD gonne too far myself.   Why not use the money to hire more soldiers for the "real" armed forces.........



If you are the one they are shooting at, they are "real" armed forces. War making would no longer be an extension of politics, it would be an extension of economics. Quite a paradigm shift, maybe its already happened. Profit taking has no place on the battlefield in the 21st century. Profits are addictive and generally shareholder driven and bank financed. We have enough of that in the world right now without privatizing the battlefield.   What price is to be paid for an increase in profits?


----------



## aesop081 (24 Dec 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> If you are the one they are shooting at, they are "real" armed forces. War making would no longer be an extension of politics, it would be an extension of economics. Quite a paradigm shift, maybe its already happened. Profit taking has no place on the battlefield in the 21st century. Profits are addictive and generally shareholder driven and bank financed. We have enough of that in the world right now without privatizing the battlefield.   What price is to be paid for an increase in profits?



I was not using the word "real" in that sense......having been shot at a few times myself, i know quite well how "real" it is.  I agree with you that profiteering has no place on the battlefield, that leads to wars with no "just" aim.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2004)

> I can see it comming but do we realy want armed forces whos loyalties and motivation are, shall i say, questionable ( i.e. money) ??



We are seeing american soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanastan taking leave of the army and heading over as civilian contractors. I've read a few articles whre our Canadian JTF are suposidly quiting the CF and heading over to these companies as civilian contractors.

I realise mercenaries have been around as long as we've had soldiers probably. I was curious about the possibilities of large forces of mercenaries being used by the US government or US government friendly organiations to perform what are traditionally Military operations. Possibly equipment with armored vehicles, maybe even something crazy like artillery.

For example, if the US army is planning on taking the town of "name" and removing all the terrorists from it, instead of using  3000 marines, 1500 marines would be used in conjunction with 2000 "soldiers"/contractors from "name" organization which will be paid X million dollars for the "contract".

In the larger scale of things, US forces would completly move out of a specific area (to be used elsewhere) where a contract is given to a company to hold and secure a city including conducting patrols and other traditionally army tasks. ie driving around in armored humvee's or conducting foot patrols.

Money spent on civilian armies means less operations for american soldiers, less urgent need of body/vehicle armor (due to less demand), less american soldiers in body bags being sent home.  If X company sends their civilian soldiers to help liberate and secure X town, then that company gets first dibs on reconstruction deals.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2004)

As has been pointed out, mercenary armies have been around since the dawn of time. Read the "Anibasis" for a thrilling account of how 10,000 Greek mercenaries were recruited, marched into the heart of the Persian Empire, and then had to fight their way back out after their employer was killed. The Italian City States of the 1400-1500 time period routinely hired armies of various sizes, and many units/formations/regiments started in the distant past as mercenaries, such as the Cossacks,the French Foreign Legion or the Gurkha's.

Even in our history, the French, the British and the Americans were quick to hire local tribes of Indians (Native Americans) as scouts, shock troops or "special forces" (able to carry out missions line troops could not). While not mercenaries in the strict sense of the term, both the LdSH and the PPCLI were raised and equipped by private individuals for use by the Crown.

Mercenaries fell out of favor in early modern times since they were unreliable and not fully subject to control by the Crown (whichever Crown happened to hire them). The same objections to mercenaries in the past apply today (they are people after all, and subject to the same motivating factors as anyone else). Large scale use of mercenaries in combat operations will probably not happen for a long time, since it will be expensive, but I might forcast platoon or company sized formations being hired for D&S jobs around bases, depots and the like.

We have seen large scale support of third parties, such as the Contras and the Muhajadeen in the 1980s, planning OP STORM in the 1990s and support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the Afghanistan campaign. This might actually be the wave of the future, small investments in men and equipment, low political cost at home, and potentially big gains in theater.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Dec 2004)

Just to give you guys an idea of the money private guys are making - I've been told that US Special Forces NCO's close to their 20-year retirement are being offered $100,000 USD bonuses to resign - and yet the military is still hemorrhaging to the Private side.   And why not?   You get to practice the profession you're good at and you can basically call your own shots - all without the annoying "government policy" thing to jerk you around.

As many have been apt to point out, this is nothing new - the cycle of state-controlled vs privately-controlled armed forces has been a constantly oscillating curve.   We're only apt to be uneasy of the mercenary because the paradigm with which we view armed conflict is a largely Westphalian one - a viewpoint that sits on the peak of the curve (the state-controlled end) that has dominated the last few centuries (through its origins in the Peace of Westphalia, nationalism, universal service, the nation-state, and Industrial Total War).   Were this Feudalism.ca or LombardRepublic.ca, we'd probably be in the "trough" of the curve, explaining the virtues of our private forces.

Martin Van Crevald elaborates on this in detail in his Transformation of War - he basically asserts that we are moving away from the "Clauswitzian Trinity" of State, Citizen and Soldier to something more like a Feudal arrangement.   Whiskey601 stated that:



> War making would no longer be an extension of politics, it would be an extension of economics.



I'd say that war is still an extention of politics - war is always an extention of politics (competing power structures); you just have to ensure your defintion of politics is loose enough   .

However, the key is that politics is no longer monopolized by the state, thus the recourse to armed conflict (politics by other means) exists for sub-state actors.

The result?   As stated above, the breakdown of the Clauswitzian Trinity.   We may very well see, as Ghost pointed out, the rise of the modern day _Condotieri_ who will outfit and lead their private battalions of soldiers-of-fortune and offer their services to the highest bidder (who may or may not be a state actor).   As well, we may see the increasing irrelevance of legal structures regarding combat (Geneva Conventions, LofAC) which are built around the Westphalian edifice of state supremacy (and legitimacy).

Hell, even the sub-state guys are getting involved in this.   I've seen grumblings by professional soldiers that the biggest concern in Iraq is that the Iraqis, who are tactically deficient and lacking in combat skills, will start to import Chechens and Afghan Mujihadeen who are experts in the business - thus giving the drive of the insurgent fighters the proficiency required to start hammering out tactical successes (a bad thing for us).

The kicker is that none of this will be new - history has a knack for revolving in cycles.   What was old is new again; _plus ce change, plus ce la meme chose...._   Oh well, at least we know we are in a growth industry.

May you live in interesting times,
Infanteer


----------



## KevinB (25 Dec 2004)

Todays Private Military Contractors are not quite the 60-70's Merc's - The majority of the Private Security Firms have contracts with the US State Dept and the troops have a specific mandate.

   I woudl hardly call one signing to protect a US embassy worker, local gov't offcial or even an oilfield worker to be in the same character of those hired or drug out of bars to fight for a cuase he or she had no idea in.

As well todays PMC's have above average military training (in general) than the unskilled majority did of that day...


At the current status quo - I would not be too concernd - as those who are hemorraging out of the TierI and II groups are ethical amd moral men.

Should the need for bodies increase hundrefold then the recruiters woudl have to be less and less picky - hiring thugs and petty theives like days of old to work under experienced "officers"


----------



## aesop081 (25 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'd say that war is still an extention of politics - war is always an extention of politics (competing power structures); you just have to ensure your defintion of politics is loose enough   .



"War is a continuation of political intercourse interspersed with the use of other means" - Clauswitz, On War


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2004)

Thanks, I thought it was Noam Chomsky who said that one....


----------



## Bert (25 Dec 2004)

Private armies or security forces exist or may exist primarily because
national armies are unable or unwilling provide the security to maintain
unhindered commercial operations.  Governments and business
share many common interests but it ends at the micro level and
in that private armies cannot replace national armies.

Governments maintain military forces and deploy them in instances
of geo-political conflict (or proxies), humanitarian concerns for
extended periods, usually for broad reasons.  Private security forces
are deployed  by organizations with specific concerns usually for the
protection of assets and the ability to maintain unhindered operations.
It wouldn't be viable for oil conglomerates to maintain security forces
capable of altering the nature of a region.  Both types of security 
forces may be similar, but their management has differing objectives.


----------



## bossi (25 Dec 2004)

Darn - I was wrapping presents and missed this discussion ...

In another thread discussing Canada's role in monitoring the elections in Iraq there's a news story which states that civilian contractors will be used to protect the monitors - thus, it would appear that Canada has already bought in to the idea of using expendable resources instead of deploying our armed forces.


----------



## KevinB (25 Dec 2004)

Probably hired from an outfit called John's Trout Farm...


----------



## Boydfish (25 Dec 2004)

Private armies might offer a reasonable cost foriegn policy option for second and third tier countires looking to exert influence beyond thier own borders.

For example, barring a major shift in public opinion and support, neither Australia, Canada and New Zealand will be able to maintain and/or deploy a corp level even divisional level expeditionary force.

On the other hand, if they organized a consortium force, of sorts, to provide that foriegn expeditionary capability, they could pool their resources to do exactly that.  For the most part, the consortium would be a "framework" until a specified contract from one or more of the client nation states tendered said contract.  In practice it would be a sole source contract, but you could hypothetically see Merc-Mart bidding against McSecurity Contractors bidding on who will service the Roto 957 to Bloggistan.

The sole source nature of the contract would include things like a regular payment to maintain that framework and contractual assurances that formation equipping and ramp-up times would be maintained.  For example, if we use the example of Merc-Mart and the Canadian, Australian and NZ governments, Merc-Mart would agree that they'd keep/maintain/store a full divisional equipment set of US/NATO standard equipment in exchange for proportional funding from each of the three governments to offset the purchase price as well as the maintenance costs.

Note that is just the equipment; not troops on hand to run/exercise with them, just the kit.

If any of the three governments then wants to exercise a foriegn policy option such as sending up to a divisional sized force to Bloggistan, they pay for the human resources costs to Merc-Mart to staff the stored divisional set.  Likely this would be done via a combination of methods, including using sub-contractors, recently releases from US/NATO forces and even "home grown" trainees(Ex. People who agree to complete a basic training package, with perhaps annual refresher courses in exchange for them being given first offers for sub-contracts on contracts.).

Just my two cents.


----------



## pbi (27 Dec 2004)

I can't see this progressing too far in the US: IMHO the military simply holds such a vital and important, almost mythological, role in the US vision of itself in the world and of its own history, to see mercenaries or PMCs given much more than the sort of "security force" jobs they have now. As well, the Armed Forces and their various "friends" in the US represent a very powerful lobby which IMHO would be quick to react to any attempt to seriously "cut in" on military core business such as fighting. Even the extensive use of contractors for support services (such as KBR here in Afghanistan) has provoked some concern, just as it has in our own forces. A much more likely scenario (and one that might arguably have already occurred in some places in the past...) would be for the US to support a client state or movement that in turn hires mercs or PMCs (or whatever...) to do the dirty work.

Cheers.


----------



## Crazy_Eyes (29 Dec 2004)

Ok, this is above my level...and I'm trying to understand it the best I can so dont flame me too bad, the way I see it, wouldn't this be too much of a security risk?? Arming civilian "companies" with modern military equipment and training? I mean whats to stop them from turning tail? Would they be under Military Law?? I mean if a civilian doesn't have to "serve" any fixed time with a private military organization, whats to stop them from going in getting trained then walking away with that training? Just my 2 cents, I hope it makes sense, and you dont have to adress it if you dont want too, but I'd appreciate it for my own knowledge. Thanks


----------



## Infanteer (29 Dec 2004)

Crazy_Eyes said:
			
		

> Ok, this is above my level...and I'm trying to understand it the best I can so dont flame me too bad, the way I see it, wouldn't this be too much of a security risk?? Arming civilian "companies" with modern military equipment and training? I mean whats to stop them from turning tail? Would they be under Military Law?? I mean if a civilian doesn't have to "serve" any fixed time with a private military organization, whats to stop them from going in getting trained then walking away with that training? Just my 2 cents, I hope it makes sense, and you dont have to adress it if you dont want too, but I'd appreciate it for my own knowledge. Thanks



Funny, the city-states of Italy asked the same questions 700 years ago....


----------



## Crazy_Eyes (29 Dec 2004)

Please forgive me, my knowledge of history isn't that great and I'm unsure of what your referring too, maybe pm me about it, thank you


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2004)

Citizen soldiers are one of the core elements of western civilization, and when the nation, state or empire deviates too far from the ideal of citizen soldiers, that is usually when it falls, from the dying days of Imperial Rome, when few Romans cared to man the Legions, to the Italian City-States of the 14-1500's. One of the reasons Europe of the Middle Ages was so unstable was the disconnect between the fighting men and the ideal of citizenship (despite our image of knights in armour, most fighters were either mercenaries, or peasants and serfs "press ganged" into the battle).

Since the Government chooses to send us out in support of other people's values, either the UN in "peacekeeping" or PSO missions, or to support American foreign policy (ISAF, OP APOLLO, OP PALLADIUM; not bad for a bunch of "morons"), we are becoming the mercenary troops of this century. At least we still retain a fearsome military reputation, somewhat like the Swiss, who were using weapons and tactics developed in the 1300's well into the 1500's, yet their appearance on the battlefield was often enough to shake the resolve of "bigger and better" opponents. (Too bad we don't get a cut of the spoils).


----------



## pbi (29 Dec 2004)

The reference is to the problem that confronted Renaissance-era governments (including the Italian City-states) that made use of mercenaries in place of, or in augmentation to, their own forces. While these mercenary forces were often made up of very skilled and well-armed soldiers and leaders, they were in it for the money, and were notorious for saving their own skins or changing sides based on financial considerations. The advantage to them was that they offered governments a "turnkey" deal: no need to raise, train, equip and maintain a unit: just "rent" it.

Other civilians were employed on the battlefield as well: up until around the middle of the 19th Century, it was not uncommon for some or all of the transport, artillery haulage and supply services to be provided by civilian contractors. In fact, there is an (apocryphal) story that one of the functions of fusilier units, originally raised to guard the artillery, was to discourage civilian artillery haulers from buggering off when things got hot. The formation of permanent military CSS branches in Western armies was to a great extent a result of the realization that these civilian contractors could not be relied upon.

Now, it seems, that the US and Canada are once again resorting to similar practices: hopefully without the bad results that originally led to the militarization of these functions centuries ago. Cheers.


----------



## Freedom_Rider (29 Dec 2004)

Crazy_Eyes said:
			
		

> Ok, this is above my level...and I'm trying to understand it the best I can so dont flame me too bad, the way I see it, wouldn't this be too much of a security risk?? Arming civilian "companies" with modern military equipment and training? I mean whats to stop them from turning tail? Would they be under Military Law?? I mean if a civilian doesn't have to "serve" any fixed time with a private military organization, whats to stop them from going in getting trained then walking away with that training? Just my 2 cents, I hope it makes sense, and you dont have to adress it if you dont want too, but I'd appreciate it for my own knowledge. Thanks



From what I have read and heard about "Private Armies", most of them are better equipped than the regular government forces.

I have a friend who flies helicopter for a company under contract to the American government. He is  currently in Iraq.
The personal side arm he carries ( suplied by the company he works for) is an Ingram Mac-10.
He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia Convention in the late 40's).


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

Freedom_Rider said:
			
		

> I have a friend who flies helicopter for a company under contract to the American government. He is   currently in Iraq.
> The personal side arm he carries ( suplied by the company he works for) is an Ingram Mac-10.
> He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia Convention in the late 40's).


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2004)

Freedom_Rider said:
			
		

> From what I have read and heard about "Private Armies", most of them are better equipped than the regular government forces.
> 
> I have a friend who flies helicopter for a company under contract to the American government. He is currently in Iraq.
> The personal side arm he carries ( suplied by the company he works for) is an Ingram Mac-10.
> He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia Convention in the late 40's).



Unless he is flying an Apache and lands at a base guarded by a coporate Battlegroup equipped with M-1 tanks and M-2 IFVs, I would hardly say "Private Armies" are better equipped in any way than the Government forces.

Terrorist cells are actually a good comparison to PMC's, they exist at the sufference of a sponsoring government, and are constrained to remain limited in size and overall effect due to the relatively limited resource base they have to draw from. Government Armies have continental to global reach, and have the resource base to remain in the field until either the job is done or the government has enough. Armies plan campaigns with "branches and sequels", while PMCs and terror cells can perform limited operations over an extended period of time, or expend their resources in a single spectacular operation.

While an individual employed as a mercenary or PMC might have better personal kit than a line infantry soldier, in the bigger scale of things, it is immaterial unless this guy is superman as well.


----------



## Morpheus32 (29 Dec 2004)

I think people are really taking this a bit beyond what is actually happening overseas.  In Iraq, various companies and individuals have hired private security firms to secure individuals, facilities and infrastructure.  If you want to draw comparisons, we have "private" security companies doing the same thing in Canada.  Brinks is an example.  The difference is there is no Brinks in Iraq so the company is bringing them in to the do the job.  The same goes for personal security teams.  We have companies in Canada that do the same.  In Iraq, they are armed with small arms and the like.  Blackwater is employing a helicopter but notice it is not armed.  The person in the back is armed but the helicopter is not a gunship.  So the sky is not falling, the difference is that private companies are taking on the security issues for their own reasons which by the nature of business are profit based.  So it is really not that big a leap.  We have similar private infrastructure here in Canada including armed security guards.  So really it is not a big deal.

Jeff


----------



## KevinB (29 Dec 2004)

Triple Canopy has a 160th SOAR MH-47E on attachement (crewer by 160th pers)
  Some Pigs...


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2004)

Freedom_Rider said:
			
		

> From what I have read and heard about "Private Armies", most of them are better equipped than the regular government forces.
> 
> He also carries a sawed off Remmington 1100 shotgun, loaded with Frachet shells ( banned by the Genevia   Convention in the late 40's).





Excuse me for biting here....

I think you ar talking out your arse pal, like which private army can be better equipped than a professional military force?

What's your experience, and where do you draw such information from??

Its Flechette!  : Anyone who would carry a MAC 10 for starters, is about as poorly equipped as you could get, shy of a butter knife.

I smell fresh BS here. MAC10 in .45ACP? Hummmmm.

I have fired this SMG .45, and the MAC11 both in 9mm and .380 extensively back in the late 1970s (courtesy of the Roosevelt County Sheriff's Department, Montana, USA). Its a crap outdated open bolt firing weapon (even then, its claim to fame was John Wayne in McQ c.1971), and I doubt it very much if anyone would even want one of these things, especially in theatre these days.

I had personally examined weapons captured from Sandline by Australian forces, when this 'private army' tried to 'take' Papua New Guinea back in the mid-late 90's. I remember a close look at what I believe was a Chi-Com make of an RPG7 (ther were a few others). It was new, and had never been fired, even when I took of the plastic protective furniture off, there was not 1 gram of propellant residue, and still wpn was smothered in preservitive, too much infact to even fire!

I know, I know, I should not have even responded.

Regards,


Wes

PS - ya, I stole the flag and had to raise it too ;D


----------



## Bartok5 (30 Dec 2004)

Morpheus hit the nail on the head.  Good to see you here Jeff!

As for the rest, let's just say that opinions vary.  I tend to side with KevinB and Wes.  The former because I share many of his opinions, and the latter because we are like brothers from way, way back.  Those personal investments aside, they speak the truth.  

There is nothing "mercenary" about doing a security job overseas.  If there were, literally hundreds of Canadians would be out of work world-wide - NOT including Iraq.  Some of you kids need to dig your heads out of your arses and do a bit of research.  There is nothing new about the private security opportunities in Iraq.  Check out the diamond mines in Sierra Leone or the Democratic Republic of Congo.  How about oil facilities in Saudi and Kuwait?   The list is endless.  

And for the "Rambo's" lurking on-line, only the qualified need apply.  The companies that are worth signing onto don't recruit off of Canadian Armoury floors.  This isn't Commissionaire work....


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I was not using the word "real" in that sense......having been shot at a few times myself, i know quite well how "real" it is.



Yes, I know you have been.  I didn't mean "you" personally ... Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2004)

Of course there is nothing new to the private side of the business.   The Indian Raj was sustained on a "company" team.   I was just trying to suggest that perhaps a historical pendulum that has always been swinging may be coming away from it's latest swing (if you want to believe authors like Van Crevald   )....

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------

