mercenaries
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
The idea is to hire contractors to do the non-soldiering work leaving the US Soldiers free to do the fighting. These contractors will naturally be trained for combat as they are going into a combat zone, hence they are Mercenaries, but their main purpose is to do other things.
There have also been some calls to involve foreign troops to help internationalize the conflict. France, and Germany want us to meet their conditions first and pay for the effort, hence in effect we'd be hiring thier soldiers up as Mercenaries.
A better idea would be to hire some Mexicans individually as Mercenaries, they'll work cheaper than the French. I'm not so sure about Muslim troops, I don't feel we can trust them, they and their beards tend to get crazy ideas about Jihads and the like.
There have also been some calls to involve foreign troops to help internationalize the conflict. France, and Germany want us to meet their conditions first and pay for the effort, hence in effect we'd be hiring thier soldiers up as Mercenaries.
A better idea would be to hire some Mexicans individually as Mercenaries, they'll work cheaper than the French. I'm not so sure about Muslim troops, I don't feel we can trust them, they and their beards tend to get crazy ideas about Jihads and the like.
For the record, this isn't a bad idea.
What is a bad idea is having Mercenaries operating without an international convention on their employment, rules of operation, bonding, certification, and so on. As well as an appropriate International Court and Contract Oversight Officers.
The United Nations has been tacitly exploring the idea of using Mercenaries (professional soldiers loyal to their paymaster, the UN, posessed of high levels of competence and training in professional armies, and having no political agenda of their own) for some types of peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operations. Right now, if a major power doesn't come along, and even if they do, they're stuck with a mishmash of units, with different standards of equipment, training, and professionalism, each also toting its own ROE from its national command in addition to UN ROE (and they sometimes conflict, if they don't just handcuff the forces into ineffectiveness for fear of political repercussions). There are strong arguments that professional soldiers working on salary could and would make better replacements. Plus they could be setup in such a way as to deploy faster, with little foreign nation's debate once the UN had decided to act. This might have headed off some of the types of unpleasantness we've seen in Africa and the RimPac countries lately.
Mercenaries have been successfully used in several interventions, and have proven even more successful in some cases (cases where they are well organized, professionally led, and held to high standards of training and accountability) than national forces in the same conflicts.
OTOH, unregulated Mercenaries sometimes look like nothing more than brigands, guns-for-hire, and thugs.
So it isn't so much the idea that is bad as it is the implementation.
What is a bad idea is having Mercenaries operating without an international convention on their employment, rules of operation, bonding, certification, and so on. As well as an appropriate International Court and Contract Oversight Officers.
The United Nations has been tacitly exploring the idea of using Mercenaries (professional soldiers loyal to their paymaster, the UN, posessed of high levels of competence and training in professional armies, and having no political agenda of their own) for some types of peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operations. Right now, if a major power doesn't come along, and even if they do, they're stuck with a mishmash of units, with different standards of equipment, training, and professionalism, each also toting its own ROE from its national command in addition to UN ROE (and they sometimes conflict, if they don't just handcuff the forces into ineffectiveness for fear of political repercussions). There are strong arguments that professional soldiers working on salary could and would make better replacements. Plus they could be setup in such a way as to deploy faster, with little foreign nation's debate once the UN had decided to act. This might have headed off some of the types of unpleasantness we've seen in Africa and the RimPac countries lately.
Mercenaries have been successfully used in several interventions, and have proven even more successful in some cases (cases where they are well organized, professionally led, and held to high standards of training and accountability) than national forces in the same conflicts.
OTOH, unregulated Mercenaries sometimes look like nothing more than brigands, guns-for-hire, and thugs.
So it isn't so much the idea that is bad as it is the implementation.
And other places since then. Unregulated mercenary operations are about as dodgy as poorly regulated military operations or operations by irregulars.
I should have been more specific to say that the *general* use of mercenaries isn't such a bad idea, the specific use that the article mentioned may not have been so wise.
I should have also indicated there are some types of warfare mercenaries perform exceptionally well at and other kinds they aren't suited to.
If a local government brings in Mercenaries to fight a counter insurgency against foreign funded rebels, it can be quite successful.
If the UN or another international body hires mercenaries to provide facility security, escorts for food convoys, or to help bring warlords in an area to heel (or violators of ceasefires etc), then they could potentially be quite effective.
I don't think Mercenaries will be a more effective fighting force than the British Army (which in most limited-war situations I rank as just a bit better than the US forces, principally due to a different ROE and training emphasis for OOTW).
However, for something like the UN, they could be *much* more effective than a mishmash force composed of some former eastern-europeans, a few african units, and a mix of RimPac units. Just the heterogeneous nature is bad enough, but language barriers, different training standards, and different equipment and having N + 1 ROEs all simultaneously applying (N being how many different nationalities are present) plus the chain of command nightmares.... all of that means in this kind of case, Mercenaries could be a much more coherent, rapid, and effectual response force.
Mercenaries which were regulated under international convention, paid and organized and overseen from first world countries, would have the loyalty to their paychecks and their desire to stay out of jail and the public eye to keep them in line. Oversight would insure scrutiny and insure that war or civil crimes were addressed.
A Mercenary doesn't tend to have an ideology other than pragmatism (at least the force as a whole lacks a common one). This is not true of many national or ethnic forces. Usually, this ideology is less than a useful component.
A Mercenary unit also wants to keep working for some period of time. Proper oversight and regulation as well as setting high standards would serve to insure that the unit's managers and shareholders would be sure the unit adhered to the 'Mercenary Code'. Units that did not would be disbanded, fined, and their directors possibly prosecuted, as well as officers and members. Additionally, members who wanted repeated employment would need to keep on the good side of the Bonding Authority so getting blacklisted would be a bad idea.
I don't claim to know what they want, I wasn't gifted with a telepathic affinity. However, the second part of your statement is very true and not nearly so much a point of opinion.
Wasn't Rome doing what at the end? Employing Mercenaries? It was doing that at the beginning, middle and the end. In fact, almost every major nation that has ever been around has used some form of Mercenary at some time.
I have served in the Armed Forces of my country. I took an Oath and served for a paycheck and that Duty. The Mercenary would do the same thing, only his Oath would be to his Unit or his Company. But he'd be bound by the same conventions. And unlike the members of a national force, he'd have a strong incentive to remain as apolitical as possible.
And these operations have been demonstrated to sometimes be very cost effective versus employing your national army as governments (and the Army is a chunk of that) don't always manage money efficiently but a business (the Mercenary one) will tend to encourage just such fiscal responsibility.
As I've said, if all the world could have the Canadian, or Australian, or some US or British armies, there'd be no issue. But much of the world depends on other far less politically, technologically, operationally, or ideologically reliable forces. For many of the types of problems we have in the real world that require a small commitment of troops very early on to head off major crises, and where these troops have to be pros and we don't want to drag international realpolitik into the situation, Mercenaries make an ideal resource.
Don't think "hired gun" (though it is true in the root case) but rather think "professional military consultant". Much of their work may be cadre, training, or leading small counter insurgency actions by the locals. Sometimes small commando or striker tickets.
FlightCommanderSolitude
SOC-13
Can you explain wtf "cadre" means? Thanks!
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
"Cadre" usually means 'Training Cadre'
Your core troops (veterens of the last war your nation fought perhaps) your professional warriors who set the bar for the rest of your army to follow.
One can argue that national armies are Mercs in the pay of their own nation. Certainly professional soldiers do a lot of things becuase it's their job to to them. And while there may be a few rich dilletants in their nations' militaries who don't cash their paychecks... I sincerely doubt they are very common.
Call them Mercs if you like. but it really sounds like someone is proposing an actual UN Army.
not national troops seconded to the UN but an actuall UN Forces. Perhaps not a bad idea.
(hides from the 'black helicopter' crowd.)
Your core troops (veterens of the last war your nation fought perhaps) your professional warriors who set the bar for the rest of your army to follow.
One can argue that national armies are Mercs in the pay of their own nation. Certainly professional soldiers do a lot of things becuase it's their job to to them. And while there may be a few rich dilletants in their nations' militaries who don't cash their paychecks... I sincerely doubt they are very common.
Call them Mercs if you like. but it really sounds like someone is proposing an actual UN Army.
not national troops seconded to the UN but an actuall UN Forces. Perhaps not a bad idea.
(hides from the 'black helicopter' crowd.)
Well, in some ways, I consider myself lucky I live in Canada.Originally posted by secretagent:
Not telepathic. Just an educated guess. Consider yourself very lucky that you live in Canada. Your prime minister probably has an IQ in excess of 90. SOTB, down USA way, we ain't so lucky senor[/QB]
I live in a country that is still a reasonably okay place to live despite having an ineffective opposition movement and consequently a run amok government, a PM (not counting Mr. Martin yet) who is like a little god king, and corrupt beyond my ability to put into words, and a replacement who'll end up being acclaimed while the only reasonable opposition is having civil wars.
Oddly, you know things are going somewhere strange when the Green Party starts sounding like a reasonable option to vote for.
I love this country, but I'm starting to hate what it is becoming.
GWB may not be the brightest spark, but I think he'd have to work some to be as integrally evil as our current head of government.
However, I think we should take any such discussions off list since we'll get this shunted to Random Static otherwise.
The ObTrav here is evening having a gov't type of 4 doesn't mean you're going to like any of your options or it is going to feel less like a dictatorship.
Yep. Training, but not necessarily just that. They can be operational stiffeners too as some training is stuff like active patrolling for counter insurgents and helping manage local units in combat.
Well, with one minor exception:
Most nations have a tax base (the UN doesn't, per se) and most nations soldiers would work directly for that nation, whereas what I'm talking about is the UN employing corporations to provide military services so there is still a one step removed. But essentially you have the point.
Just remember that the negative connotation to the term mecenary is very modern. Before the modern nation-state many soldiers were mercenaries. The Scotts in particular had a reputation as good soldiers in europe because they faught as mercenaries for many armies. Similarly, the Swittzerland began it's short rise to power in europe because of the quality of their soldiers, which they sold to the highest bidder in the Italian Wars (the Swiss Guard in the Vatican is an historical legacy of this). The modern national army is a product of the Napoleonic Wars. Before then, armies were in personal service of the soveriegn, and often baught and paid for, rather than serving out of a sense of cuase.
Quite right.
And if they did have a cause, it was often related to the leader, not to any larger concept of nationhood. It was personal loyalty, though usually that only in companionship with food and pay, sometimes loot.
Ob Trav:
Since the ineffable Larsen Whipsnade, Esq, has said we think about the Empire from a modern mindset when perhaps a more appropos mindset would be one from the days of Imperial Courts (paraphrased, perhaps even correctly...), then perhaps we should consider that Mercenaries make as much sense in the OTU as they did in similar historical contexts with competing Imperial Systems....
All soldiers are, in some sense, mercenaries. Most armies won't function if they don't get paid, and I extend this even to volunteer forces.
The Romans employed many Auxillia. In the end, the training they gave some of these auxillia, they regreted (if I recall, some German or Thuringian gave them a good beating but he was a former Auxilliary who'd fought with them). But on the whole, this turned out lots of moderately useful troops for them.
The downfall of the Roman Empire had a lot of factors involved in it, and the use of Mercenaries would at best have been a very small one. They used Mercenaries at other times, when they were strong and ascendant, and it was not a problem then.
The Romans employed many Auxillia. In the end, the training they gave some of these auxillia, they regreted (if I recall, some German or Thuringian gave them a good beating but he was a former Auxilliary who'd fought with them). But on the whole, this turned out lots of moderately useful troops for them.
The downfall of the Roman Empire had a lot of factors involved in it, and the use of Mercenaries would at best have been a very small one. They used Mercenaries at other times, when they were strong and ascendant, and it was not a problem then.
I find it interesting that Traveller d20 Mercenaries roll d10s for their stamina points while Army Characters get only d8s. I wonder why that is? Traveller uses three different types of "Fighter" Characters: Mercenaries, Army, and Marines. In D&D, most armies are composed of Warriors and Fighters, with rangers, paladins, and the occasional barbarian thrown in. rangers and paladins have powers though, so they are fighters+.
Truely. In the context of the 3I, Mercs make perfect sense. The Imperrium has a strong interest in having a military force, regulated by the 3I, available for member worlds to solve internal disputes and localized conflicts.
The 3I knows that a Merc corp is not going to risk it's license by violating the Imperial Laws of War and will react very strongly to any force that does.
Professional Mercs also give the 3I a handy route for indirectly influencing the outcome of a variety of local issues in which it cannot be seen ot intervene overtly.
Many of the larger Merc companies are either owned, partly owned or extensively supplied by Imperial Megacorps. Megacorps that are either partially owned by the Imperial family or have a vested interest in the Imperium.
Mercs in the 3I know where their loyalty truely lies - it's with the system.
Lastly it provides a 'safety valve' for these types of local conflicts - allowing them to be fought out with professional hired troops well before things build to the point where the locals are going to go on a complete ramapage against each other. Professionals tend to go after legit military targets - amatures go after women and children with machetes.
It's definitely in the Imperium's best interest to ensure that local conflicts can be settled with hired guns and to make that option financially more appealing than maintaining standing armies.
just my cr0.02
--michael
How are they hired? I think there would be starports-or whole worlds-whose primary industry centers around the mercenary market. There would be a business infrastructure surrounding this. Bankers to provide loans-even insurers perhaps if any will take the risk. There would be brokers negotiating mercenary contracts, landlords specializing in giving billets, merchants specializing in carrying the mercs and so on. There would even be a gambling industry for betting on the prospects of various units(perhaps a morbid thought, but plausible given the situation).
The world would be swarming with spies. The future political stability of a whole subsector can be estimated in part by watching the market here. Every political player will be watching carefully. When the price goes up it will indicate tension rising somewhere. Everyone who thinks they might be involved will immiediatly start bidding wildly, if only to make sure the other side doesn't get the units in question. Sometimes this bidding war will go so far that the would-be-beligerents decide it will cost to much money. Sometimes a richer power will simply try to outbid a poorer in the hope of winning without firing a shot. And sometimes a big megacorporation, or the Imperium will use it's money to manipulate a conflict for it's own purpose. And of course sometimes the bidding war will be a prelude to a shooting war. However suprise attacks may be harder because of the difficulty in hiring without being caught.
However brokers would have a "code of honor-confideniality". And there would be mercenary counterespionage agencies available to delay the knowledge of the contract.
Campaign possibility: The players are Imperial Agents sent to secretly watch the Merc Market. Of course there is someone who doesn't want them snooping around. Actually there are a lot of people who don't want them snooping around. But is something different from normal?
The world would be swarming with spies. The future political stability of a whole subsector can be estimated in part by watching the market here. Every political player will be watching carefully. When the price goes up it will indicate tension rising somewhere. Everyone who thinks they might be involved will immiediatly start bidding wildly, if only to make sure the other side doesn't get the units in question. Sometimes this bidding war will go so far that the would-be-beligerents decide it will cost to much money. Sometimes a richer power will simply try to outbid a poorer in the hope of winning without firing a shot. And sometimes a big megacorporation, or the Imperium will use it's money to manipulate a conflict for it's own purpose. And of course sometimes the bidding war will be a prelude to a shooting war. However suprise attacks may be harder because of the difficulty in hiring without being caught.
However brokers would have a "code of honor-confideniality". And there would be mercenary counterespionage agencies available to delay the knowledge of the contract.
Campaign possibility: The players are Imperial Agents sent to secretly watch the Merc Market. Of course there is someone who doesn't want them snooping around. Actually there are a lot of people who don't want them snooping around. But is something different from normal?
Similar threads
