Full Version: Private armys
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) | ||
Did he land on some bullets? |
One of my favorite quotes from a 7th Sea game seems apropos... After a guy was brutally sworded to death:
"This man is dead! What happened?!?"
"He slipped, sir."
"Slipped?"
"Yes, sir. Fell down some stairs, sir."
"Then why is he full of holes?!?"
"Very sharp stairs, sir."
A sniper is sitting in a masque and is taking out your men. An Armed drone is flying around and you want it to put a missile into the area where the sniper is. It takes 10 miniutes for you to get a no from higher up the chain of command.
You are a convoy and a truck is approaching you from behind, it is gaining. You fire a warning shot into the road ahead of it and it fails to slow down. You next fire a shot at the engine block but either miss or fail to stop the truck. You can't shoot the driver just for being a bit to close, by the time your allowed to shoot him he could have blown up the convoy. Blackwater puts a bullet in him as soon as he fails to stop.
The Rules of Engagement for Iraq are farked up, they care far to much about politics and appearances.
The only way to destroy an insurgency is to get the locals on your side. The insurgents are often their relatives so this is difficult (do you turn in your cousin to the Americans?). The only way ever shown to work is by making the locals fear you more than they love or fear the insurgency. To the point where if an IED goes off in a town and takes out 1 US solider you kill half the people in the town execution style. Should the US do it? No. Will lesser measures work? Very unlikely.
We are also failing to indoctrinate the children to love America like we should be. If you want the people to love you, shut down all schools and start your own. Failure of your kid to attended is a death penalty offense for both you and your kid. And they better be boarding schools. You keep the kids in school, indoctrinated and feed propaganda day after day for 18 years+ years. That is how you get a population that loves you more than the insurgency.
We spent nearly 40 years in Japan after WW2 rebuilding and indoctrinating the people. And now they are one of our closest allies and stronger supporters. Germany is similar.
You are a convoy and a truck is approaching you from behind, it is gaining. You fire a warning shot into the road ahead of it and it fails to slow down. You next fire a shot at the engine block but either miss or fail to stop the truck. You can't shoot the driver just for being a bit to close, by the time your allowed to shoot him he could have blown up the convoy. Blackwater puts a bullet in him as soon as he fails to stop.
The Rules of Engagement for Iraq are farked up, they care far to much about politics and appearances.
The only way to destroy an insurgency is to get the locals on your side. The insurgents are often their relatives so this is difficult (do you turn in your cousin to the Americans?). The only way ever shown to work is by making the locals fear you more than they love or fear the insurgency. To the point where if an IED goes off in a town and takes out 1 US solider you kill half the people in the town execution style. Should the US do it? No. Will lesser measures work? Very unlikely.
We are also failing to indoctrinate the children to love America like we should be. If you want the people to love you, shut down all schools and start your own. Failure of your kid to attended is a death penalty offense for both you and your kid. And they better be boarding schools. You keep the kids in school, indoctrinated and feed propaganda day after day for 18 years+ years. That is how you get a population that loves you more than the insurgency.
We spent nearly 40 years in Japan after WW2 rebuilding and indoctrinating the people. And now they are one of our closest allies and stronger supporters. Germany is similar.
You can't indoctrinate anyone to love your nation if your agents on the ground are sodomizing the children they are supposed to be indoctrinating.
You cannot convince anyone you are here to help if you unload your rifles into large groups of people because they "might have been suicide bombers."
And you know what?
Threatening people with death if they fail to attend 're-education camps'?
Yeah, that's exactly what'll get them to love you. Especially if you spout "LOVE AMERICA. AMERICA IS YOUR FRIEND. SERVE AMERICA." in their ears while simultaneously saying "YOU CANNOT LEAVE OR WE WILL KILL YOU."
You cannot convince anyone you are here to help if you unload your rifles into large groups of people because they "might have been suicide bombers."
And you know what?
Threatening people with death if they fail to attend 're-education camps'?
Yeah, that's exactly what'll get them to love you. Especially if you spout "LOVE AMERICA. AMERICA IS YOUR FRIEND. SERVE AMERICA." in their ears while simultaneously saying "YOU CANNOT LEAVE OR WE WILL KILL YOU."
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Tell me, mfb, which operating parameters are so bad that they justify hiring trigger-happy fucktards like Blackwater? |
i don't think we should be hiring trigger-happy fuckwads like Blackwater. i think we should be acting like trigger-happy fuckwads ourselves, albeit highly-disciplined trigger-happy fuckwads. i think the best way to accomplish what we want to accomplish in Iraq is to turn it into a police state where everyone is too afraid of US troops to say boo. in ten or twenty years, such a brutally-enforced 'peace' could eventually become actual peace. i think we're doing Iraq a serious disservice by staying there and not acting like disciplined but trigger-happy fuckwads, because we're giving Iraqis a(nother) reason to hate us, but we're not stepping on them hard enough to prevent them from trying to do something about it. their kids are going to grow up hating the US and thinking they can do something about it. so they're going to take 'terrorist' actions against US interests, and the US will sell AK-47s to some other bunch of punks to fight the 'terrorists', and the whole thing is just going to start over and spread further.
the US can't stomach doing actual hands-on oppression, of course. nobody can possibly believe that anybody in Iraq hates us or hates each other--that's just leftover emotional stress from living with that abusive bastard Saddam for so long. if we just give them enough hugs, they'll come around.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Tell me, mfb, which operating parameters are so bad that they justify hiring trigger-happy fucktards like Blackwater? |
Blackwater are neither trigger-happy nor fucktards.
It seems that way because people are latching onto the entire "mercenary" angle and giving them more scrutiny than they're giving everyone else, because bashing mercenaries is cooler than bashing soldiers and cops is.
If the Army was scrutinized as well to the same degree that Blackwater is, one would probably find that the Army is responsible for far more civilian deaths and far more unjustified shootings.
One person gets scared, thinks he sees a gun, and opens fire. The others think they're being shot at and they fire to. It happens everywhere. It happens in military units and police departments. And they should be screwed up the ass for it.
The problem is that no one is ever screwed up the ass for it. Police are given the benefit of the doubt if they actually believed that they were acting in self-defense. Soldiers are given the benefit of the doubt if they actually believed that they were acting in self defense. Blackwater is not given the benefit of the doubt.
Arms smuggling?
They gave weapons to a disenfranchised minority group so that they could defend themselves and their people against genocidal depredations, a task that the US Army and Iraqi government did not consider a priority.
If helping oppressed minorities defend themselves against genocide is a crime, then we'd better start putting people on trial for saving Jews from Nazis during WWII.
GODWIN'S FREAKIN' LAW, PEOPLE.
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Tell me, mfb, which operating parameters are so bad that they justify hiring trigger-happy fucktards like Blackwater? |
Dude! Welcome back, but cut down on the crap you can't back up.
Tell me...
How the hell does any of this Iraq crap relate to SR?
Is it a new rule of the internet that all conversations must eventually devolve into Iraq debates?
How the hell does any of this Iraq crap relate to SR?
Is it a new rule of the internet that all conversations must eventually devolve into Iraq debates?
Private armies and mercenary-type operations are related to Shadowrun in many ways.
It relates to SR due to heavy use of private police forces, corporate armies, and mercenaries in SR canon.
The issue of whether mercenary armies are inherently more or less abusive than national armies are is of particular importance.
I am of the opinion that mercenary units are inherently more ethical than national armies are for two reasons. First, being private companies, they are driven by a rational desire to make profit rather than by the blind jingoistic patriotism that justifies the most egregious abuses of occupied populations and militarism in general. Second, a soldier in a national army has no legal option to avoid duty if he feels that his orders are immoral, unethical, or simply unreasonably dangerous. A Mercenary, on the other hand, being an employee of a private business, can choose to terminate his employment at any time should he disagree with the actions of his teammates or his superiors.
These two facts essentially ensure that a mercenary unit will engage in fewer acts of blatant genocide, rape, murder, and torture than a national army will. However, lesser oversight and a different chain of command will mean that mercenary actions may not be properly aligned with the larger political strategies of a national or paranational employer and the small mistakes of a mercenary company may be intentionally amplified by the national military in order to make the mercenaries look bad and draw attention away with egregious institutionalized abuses by the national army.
Which means, in a mercenary SR campaign, the PCs can expect that a great deal of shit will be shoveled on them no matter how impeccably they act.
For example, a soldier in the national army might rape a young boy to death and then convince his commanding officer to blackmail the boy's father into blaming it on the mercenary unit, as probably happened in an aforementioned allegation against Blackwater.
The issue of whether mercenary armies are inherently more or less abusive than national armies are is of particular importance.
I am of the opinion that mercenary units are inherently more ethical than national armies are for two reasons. First, being private companies, they are driven by a rational desire to make profit rather than by the blind jingoistic patriotism that justifies the most egregious abuses of occupied populations and militarism in general. Second, a soldier in a national army has no legal option to avoid duty if he feels that his orders are immoral, unethical, or simply unreasonably dangerous. A Mercenary, on the other hand, being an employee of a private business, can choose to terminate his employment at any time should he disagree with the actions of his teammates or his superiors.
These two facts essentially ensure that a mercenary unit will engage in fewer acts of blatant genocide, rape, murder, and torture than a national army will. However, lesser oversight and a different chain of command will mean that mercenary actions may not be properly aligned with the larger political strategies of a national or paranational employer and the small mistakes of a mercenary company may be intentionally amplified by the national military in order to make the mercenaries look bad and draw attention away with egregious institutionalized abuses by the national army.
Which means, in a mercenary SR campaign, the PCs can expect that a great deal of shit will be shoveled on them no matter how impeccably they act.
For example, a soldier in the national army might rape a young boy to death and then convince his commanding officer to blackmail the boy's father into blaming it on the mercenary unit, as probably happened in an aforementioned allegation against Blackwater.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| It relates to SR due to heavy use of private police forces, corporate armies, and mercenaries in SR canon. The issue of whether mercenary armies are inherently more or less abusive than national armies are is of particular importance. I am of the opinion that mercenary units are inherently more ethical than national armies are for two reasons. First, being private companies, they are driven by a rational desire to make profit rather than by the blind jingoistic patriotism that justifies the most egregious abuses of occupied populations and militarism in general. Second, a soldier in a national army has no legal option to avoid duty if he feels that his orders are immoral, unethical, or simply unreasonably dangerous. A Mercenary, on the other hand, being an employee of a private business, can choose to terminate his employment at any time should he disagree with the actions of his teammates or his superiors. These two facts essentially ensure that a mercenary unit will engage in fewer acts of blatant genocide, rape, murder, and torture than a national army will. However, lesser oversight and a different chain of command will mean that mercenary actions may not be properly aligned with the larger political strategies of a national or paranational employer and the small mistakes of a mercenary company may be intentionally amplified by the national military in order to make the mercenaries look bad and draw attention away with egregious institutionalized abuses by the national army. Which means, in a mercenary SR campaign, the PCs can expect that a great deal of shit will be shoveled on them no matter how impeccably they act. For example, a soldier in the national army might rape a young boy to death and then convince his commanding officer to blackmail the boy's father into blaming it on the mercenary unit, as probably happened in an aforementioned allegation against Blackwater. |
Hyzmarca, I suspect your position is a little too black-and-white. National armies around the world vary greatly in discipline, code of ethics and scrutiny before admittance. While some armies do fall within the parameters of your description, I don't think they all do. As well, if a soldier truly disagrees with government policy and what he is told to do, 'conscientious objection' doesn't necessarily lead to a firing squad in all armies.
Similarly, private security outfits, or mercenaries, also may adhere to the strictures you outline to varying degrees. And whereas an individual may quit because he can't abide by the objectives of the firm, the firm will be able to replace him with someone who does. So the firm's behaviour stays the same.
In SR, I'd need to think where a corporate military unit or a mercenary unit would fall in your categorization scheme.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| First, being private companies, they are driven by a rational desire to make profit rather than by the blind jingoistic patriotism that justifies the most egregious abuses of occupied populations and militarism in general. |
well, if we're talking ethics, PMCs have at least as much interest vested in promoting conflict as any nation, since PMCs profit directly from conflict.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Second, a soldier in a national army has no legal option to avoid duty if he feels that his orders are immoral, unethical, or simply unreasonably dangerous. A Mercenary, on the other hand, being an employee of a private business, can choose to terminate his employment at any time should he disagree with the actions of his teammates or his superiors. |
a soldier in most first-world national armies will have any number of options available, and a soldier in a fly-by-night PMC might have very few, depending on the contract he signed.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| However, lesser oversight and a different chain of command will mean that mercenary actions may not be properly aligned with the larger political strategies of a national or paranational employer and the small mistakes of a mercenary company may be intentionally amplified by the national military in order to make the mercenaries look bad and draw attention away with egregious institutionalized abuses by the national army. |
it can also mean just what it sounds like--that a PMC can run wild and get away with murder (literally) because nobody's there to see them do it.
historically, mercs are mercenary in their outlook (oddly enough!). if a battle can't be won, or even if it can't be won without serious loss of life and resources on the part of the mercs, they'll withdraw. right now, there appear to be a lot of PMCs that are, for lack of a better word, professional. they fight the engagements they are contracted for, to the death if it comes to that. they don't, as a general rule, tend to stray outside of their contract (eg raping and pillaging). as PMCs become more commonplace, that will change because the class of soldier that many PMCs will be recruiting will be lesser.
as for blind jingoistic patriotism, while it's certainly true that it very often promotes unethical and immoral behavior in occupying troops, in this particular case it tends to actually help curb such excesses. the US, for better or for worse, has an image of itself as "the good guy". that mental picture doesn't include looting, raping, unprovoked violence, and so on. along with fairly rigid supervision and command, that mental picture is what's keeping such incidents to a minimum in Iraq and Afghanistan.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
a soldier in most first-world national armies will have any number of options available, and a soldier in a fly-by-night PMC might have very few, depending on the contract he signed. |
It's not really much of an option to leave when the company has your passport and won't provide even the slightest assurance or assistance in actually trying to leave a war zone. Nor would the military(ies) in country necessarily (if at all) be inclined to be anything more than indifferent towards your plight.
I've read that at least one of the four Blackwater contractors killed in Fallujah back in '04 hated being there, but had less than zero chance of being able to actually walk out without, you know, finding himself isolated and alienated in the hinterlands of Iraq.
| QUOTE (martindv) |
| I've read that at least one of the four Blackwater contractors killed in Fallujah back in '04 hated being there, but had less than zero chance of being able to actually walk out without, you know, finding himself isolated and alienated in the hinterlands of Iraq. |
one more advantage of staying in the regular armed forces then. if you don't like it, you can be court-martial'd, convicted, then sentanced to leavenworth to make big rocks into little rocks.
Which is at least not Iraq.
...*ouch*... 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.