America's Greatest Ally in Iraq

[Osman Ghazi]

Most people probably think of Britain as being America's most valuable ally in Iraq because they are the country with the second-most amount of troops. But 'private sector security consultants' (or mercenaries for short) actually top the GB's 9000 troops with a whopping 15,000 personnel in the country. They have been used in increasing numbers as of late due to the fact that they carry a much lower political risk (they aren't ever counted in the casualty numbers).
Por ejemplo, in Columbia, there are 400 U$ troops, but there are also 400 mercenaries in U$ pay that they don't ever have to talk about. I'm just wondering what everyone thinks of the growing use of mercenaries in world conflicts.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I think that mercenaries are a perfect fit with the American capitalist model. Mercenaries are purely voluntary, highly professional individuals who are a good fit with both the economic and military concerns of the USA. More privatization of certain smaller military concerns would allow US forces to concentrate on the bigger things, as well as acheive cost efficiencies with regards to "the light work".

Post-liberation securrity work would be an ideal task for such firms, but full scale war-maiking such as invasion, field combat, urban combat, or defense should still be conducted mostly by the major military branches, possibly with mercs in the supplemental role.

[Osman Ghazi]

First of all, I can barely believe that you have the cojones to quote yourself.
Secondly, mercs cost about 2-10 times as much as a normal soldier so I don't see how it is cost-efficient, except when only used for short periods of time. However, considering that U$ troops will be in Iraq for quite some time, it is entirely un-cost efficient.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Well, I would like too see such figures for cost. Also, we must examine the cost of benefits, training, housing, and GI bill, etc. for you average soldier, as well as the return that a given soldier provides.

Are these Mercs as good as valuable as commissioned officers, or are they more like rent-a grunt? The differences should be considered, especially within a cost-benefit analysis.

And yes, the self-quote was bold, indeed.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, the simple fact is that the mercs are almost always trained by the U$ military. So, they train them, which costs a butload of cash, then they pay the company even more than it would cost for the average GI. In one article I read, it said that some of them are paid up to 100k per year for long-term security jobs as opposed to a GI's 10k or whatever.

[Capitalist Imperial]

training them as a soldier is a seperate transaction, as they also got the benefit of the soldier at the time. Also, factor in housing, benefits, financial aid, food, training, etc, and I bet the cost of your average enlisted could be at least 100k

[j]

The problem I see, to butt into this debate, is the profit making incentive. It may be cost-effective for the US to use mercenaries. However, mercenaries are employed by the private secotr whose motivation is for profit. What are the ties between these private sector companies and those that make decisions on war? I don't know the answer to this question but I feel that it is relevant to ask.

Also, what are the implications for the US military if mercenary use is increased? Will private companies eventually out-bid the US military?

Conisdering the horrific incidents of the past week with mercenaries, is it true that mercenary lives will not be counted in a casualty count? In my opinion, while I completely disagree with the war, those four mercenaries died in service to our country and deserve similar respect as our military soldiers.

j

[Osman Ghazi]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 12:16 AM
training them as a soldier is a seperate transaction, as they also got the benefit of the soldier at the time. Also, factor in housing, benefits, financial aid, food, training, etc, and I bet the cost of your average enlisted could be at least 100k
Are you really so naive to believe that? The U$ spends (as of 2003) 276 billion on all military expenditures. They have 130,000 troops in Iraq alone. That is just the Army. Also, they doesn't include the tanks, helos, subs, carriers, destroyers, bombers and all those other nice gizmos. I would be surprised if the average GI cost the U$ 50k.

[Shredder]

Private sector military contains within it the germ of the destruction of capitalism as we know it. Currently, the bourgeois of any given nation share a state military--and that's the only thing keeping them from physically destroying eachothers' capital in the name of competition. Just another of a million reasons why capitalism must have a state.

[Hiero]

Arent alot of mercenaries just criminals anyway, i have heard alot about the south veitnamese armies in the Vietnam war alo being criminals.

[Misodoctakleidist]

CI, doesn't it worry you that people in the US have private armies?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:21 AM
CI, doesn't it worry you that people in the US have private armies?
So did the Romans. Mercenaries have always been around.

Actually, you guys should be very joyful about this. Mercenaries give you the opportunity to protect yourself against western imperialist agressors without having to have an army.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:08 AM

So did the Romans. Mercenaries have always been around.


Thanks for pointing out the romans had mercenaries that has made my day.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 7 2004, 12:07 PM
Thanks for pointing out the romans had mercenaries that has made my day.
Good. Maybe now you don't have to be so "surprised".

[Osman Ghazi]

Rome's mercenaries are widely believed to have been te cause of it's downfall, as soldiers stopped serving the empire and began to think of themselves as serving their generals. Then the generals decided to make themselves Emperor which started a series of bloody civil wars that destroyed Rome. We can only hope that America will face the same fate.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:08 AM
So did the Romans. Mercenaries have always been around.

Actually, you guys should be very joyful about this. Mercenaries give you the opportunity to protect yourself against western imperialist agressors without having to have an army.
The romans also had slavery and dictatorship, what's your point?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:08 AM
Actually, you guys should be very joyful about this. Mercenaries give you the opportunity to protect yourself against western imperialist agressors without having to have an army.
Mercenaries also manage to become mass murderers. The U.S. employment of mercenaries to send to Iraq, especially Colombian mercenaries, is very worrying to me. I fear this action might turn Iraq into El Salvador, with death squads running around torturing, murdering, and mutilating the bodies of tens of thousands of people, and targetting Human Rights workers, universities, labor unions, etc.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+Apr 7 2004, 03:05 AM--> (Osman Ghazi @ Apr 7 2004, 03:05 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 12:16 AM
training them as a soldier is a seperate transaction, as they also got the benefit of the soldier at the time. Also, factor in housing, benefits, financial aid, food, training, etc, and I bet the cost of your average enlisted could be at least 100k
Are you really so naive to believe that? The U$ spends (as of 2003) 276 billion on all military expenditures. They have 130,000 troops in Iraq alone. That is just the Army. Also, they doesn't include the tanks, helos, subs, carriers, destroyers, bombers and all those other nice gizmos. I would be surprised if the average GI cost the U$ 50k. [/b]
Sir, it is you who is naive enough to believe that it only costs $50,000 per year to recruit, train, equip, and maintain an average US soldier.

Most of the $50K you speak of will be eaten up in base salary alone. Add in a housing allowance, and you are pretty much at 35-40k average, often times you are already at 50k if the soldier has children.

We still haven't added recruitment costs

or continued training costs

or costs to equip (with the worlds best, most expensive gear)

or costs to maintain, feed, and provide medical care

or overhead

and this is all assuming peacetime. Costs skyrcoket once a soldier is mobilized.

Osman Ghazi, it is obvious that you are a pathetic, stupid, and trite leftist. Your business accumen leaves much to be desired (oh, that may be because you are Canadian. You guys really aren't good for much of anything except piggybacking on American success). As a matter of fact, your overall cognitive ability and analytical style are pretty much sub-par. You don't even have a grasp of some simple fundamental concepts.

It is no surprise, though, coming from a leftist or a Canadian.

[Osman Ghazi]

Ouch, you really hurt my feelings with that dazzling rhetoric of yours but the argument you made doesn't make any sense and is completely inconsistent with military expenditures. The U$ has at least 250,000 regulars so a cost 100k each doesn't fit with the 276 billion dollar expenditure on the military. Trust me, my dad was in the Navy and they only actually pay you about 15k. So no, it isn't feasable to have a soldier cost 100k a year.

Also, I'd like to add that Canadians, while we may not own so many guns, have about 4 times the intellectual capacity of the average American. Also, we invented insulin and 5-pin bowling, so there.

[Capitalist Imperial]

4x the intellectual capacity? Ha!!! Maybe in hockey, comedians, and bad beer, but that's it!

While I respect that you father was a sailor, I have to say that I work in the credit/finance business and used to work in San Diego, probably the single largest military town in the USA. I regularly saw both Navy and Marine paystubs every singe day, and believe me, it was way more than 15K for most everyone. Also, my brother is currently in the US Navy, and his pay is significantly higher than 15K (but not yet 50K)

Good Job on insulin.

As for 5 pin bowling, I understand that you guys can only count up to one hand, so you had to take a few pins away.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 07:35 PM
As for 5 pin bowling, I understand that you guys can only count up to one hand, so you had to take a few pins away.
Burn :wacko:

[Osman Ghazi]

As for 5 pin bowling, I understand that you guys can only count up to one hand, so you had to take a few pins away.

Aside from the fact that it doesn't really make any sense, this was a rather witty remark. That is where America shines; it's all dash and no substance.

I still don't see how it could be possible to spend that much on soldier's salaries and still only spend $276 billion total. Is your brother a grunt, or an officer?

[Capitalist Imperial]

He's enlisted.

We have dash and substance, sir.

Shall I run down the list of relevant conttributions to the world?

I would say that the us did more for the world in the last 100 years than everyone else did in the previous 500.

[Louis Pio]

I would say that the us did more for the world in the last 100 years than everyone else did in the previous 500.


Hahaha. Ok this is a good example of american nationalism. Btw even the idea of putting it like that is just very very stupid. I know some people like to measure everything with other things, because they can't judge things for what they are.

[BuyOurEverything]

I actually agree with most of what CI has said. Mercenaries do fit perfectly with the American capitalist model. However, does it bother you at all that what you are advocating is killing people for money? Also, if the US government can hire mercenaries, why can't CEOs? Do you see any problem with private citizens controlling their own private armies?

[j]

BOE--Exactly my point. When you privatize things like the army your motivation no longer becomes the safety of a nation, but the almighty dollar. That is the biggest problem, regardless of how many thousands of countries in the history of the world have used them!!

We need to remove focus from the dollar to the people. If we can do that in capitalism--OK--if not???????????????????

j