Mercenaries Third Largest Force in Iraq

[a_unique_person]

Demon, I assume that you would like to see Iraq developing into a state characterised by some form of representative democracy and the rule of law.

How, in your opinion, do the current attacks on the coalition forces contribute to the creation of a mutually agreed constitution, the formation of stable political parties, a relatively trustworthy police force, an honest judiciary and the embedding of the basic freedoms we enjoy in the liberal democracies?

Whilst I would agree with you that the invasion was a gross error of judgement it has destroyed an appalling dictator and the coalition forces are well able to prevent another tyrant from taking over as long as they remain in the country. Don't you think that their presence should be seen as an opportunity for Iraq rather than as a threat to its existence?

It recalls to mind that joke about asking for directions in New England, the first thing you are told is, "you can't get there from here".

Ditto Iraq in it's current situation. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and it will all turn out for the best, but, going on current events, I can't see it.

 

[Nikk]

It recalls to mind that joke about asking for directions in New England, the first thing you are told is, "you can't get there from here".

Ditto Iraq in it's current situation. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and it will all turn out for the best, but, going on current events, I can't see it. [/QUOTE

I know the joke, the version I am familiar with is set in Ireland.

I agree that Iraq is likely to turn out badly but there are a large number of Iraquis who claim to want a stable representative democracy and there is still a chance that we can help them to create it.

Needless to say every time the coalition kills Iraquis using overwhelming force, however justified that response may be, we create new enemies whose hatred and desire for revenge outweighs rational calculations concerning a stable political future.

Of course we could just kill everybody and give the place to the jews. That would work.

 

[Nikk]

Nikk: "Don't you think that their presence should be seen as an opportunity for Iraq rather than as a threat to its existence?"

If I can presume to jump in here, that's only for the Iraqi's to decide. And they are. Respect includes the allowing of people to make their own mistakes.

I agree of course that the Iraquis must decide their own future but I would like to see that decision taken by political representatives freely and fairly elected rather than by armed militias.

Needless to say this may be a completely unrealisable objective.

 

[demon]

Kodiak:"Getting paid to fight is not profiteering. Killing enemy combatants is not murderous. Iraq was not defenseless. The lies - they just keep a'coming..."

Hmmm.
US Number One military power in human history against Iraq.

No Navy.
No Airforce.
No.... WMD.
Leader has effective control of only 1 third of country.
Army at (according to US DoD figures) 1 third of strength of 1991 and composed mostly of conscripts.
Nation has been bombed on a weekly basis for twelve years -without reply. To quote the UN Under Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari the effects of the 1991 bombing, were 'near apocalyptic'. 'Iraq has for some time to come been relegated to a pre-industrial age', 'but with all the disabilities of post-industrial dependency on an intensive use of energy and technology.' (New York Times, June 3,
1991)

Then subjected to the most medievally vicious sanctions regime in history.

Yep, I know who I'd back.

 

[demon]

Nikk, you write:-
"How, in your opinion, do the current attacks on the coalition forces contribute to the creation of a mutually agreed constitution, the formation of stable political parties, a relatively trustworthy police force, an honest judiciary and the embedding of the basic freedoms we enjoy in the liberal democracies?"

Well, the attacks on either civilians or troops from "coalition partner" countries seem designed to bring about the collapse of the "coalition"; the attacks on US troops are to force a withdrawal. The Iraqi resistance has smart leaders, they know the effect of returning body bags on US public opinion in an election year.

Genuine democracy is not compatible with foreign occupation - it just isn't. So, the answer to your question of how does the uprising contribute to the establishment of democracy is that ending the foreign occupation of Iraq is a prerequisite for the establishment of democracy.

"Whilst I would agree with you that the invasion was a gross error of judgement..."

I don't think the attack on Iraq was "a gross error of judgement", very much the opposite infact (for those who concocted the whole fraud I mean). I call it a war crime, the supreme war crime according to the Nuremberg tribunals.
That`s why I have serious problems with those who talk about the use of force and who has the legitimate right to use it and to what degree. That question might be better directed at the US than at a resistance movement. Why do people (I`m not directing this at you, but generally...individuals/media etc), think those resisting US occupation should use less violence than the US used to invade and occupy the country? Supporters of this war argue that civilian casualties are "a price worth paying" to get rid of Saddam. Is this sort of cost/benefit analysis something only the US can do? Might not the Iraqi resistance have a similar view - that the loss of their own lives and those of their countrymen is a "price worth paying" to end foreign occupation?

And yes, Saddam was a very brutal ruler but you know, bad as he was, he didn't destroy his country's water purification plants denying clean water to millions; he didn't destroy sewerage treatment plants so causing epidemics; he didn't litter his country with DU which will be taking lives long after he's gone. Yet we did all that and much much more, supporting him when he was at his most brutal and then wreaking down a terrible punishment of sanctions when the Iraqi people were at their most vulnerable because of the above - who's the bigger villain?

"Don't you think that their presence (i.e. US troops) should be seen as an opportunity for Iraq rather than as a threat to its existence?"

Most emphatically no.

 

[subgenius]

Any thoughts on who is more likely to pack it in and go home, a mercenary, or a regular soldier?

 

[The idea]

Then subjected to the most medievally vicious sanctions regime in history.

What? France didn't veto the sanctions?

 

[Virgil]

Any thoughts on who is more likely to pack it in and go home, a mercenary, or a regular soldier?

the merc...he is the only one that can.



virgil

 

[The idea]

The Iraqi resistance has smart leaders, they know the effect of returning body bags on US public opinion in an election year.

Maybe you should nominate the Iraqi resistance for a Mensa Award for Political Smarts.

 

[demon]

Subgenius:
"Any thoughts on who is more likely to pack it in and go home, a mercenary, or a regular soldier?"

I know who I`d back to go running home first.

"The U.S. has gone too far down the road of privatization when it comes to military support services. There are certain levels of discipline, risk, and discretion that one can expect from a person who has agreed to wear the uniform of their country that one cannot necessarily expect from a person or entity who is performing a similar task for a fee. Lieutenant General Charles S. Mahan, Jr. has asserted that there were points during the current Iraq war when the refusal of contract employees to go into harm's way deprived U.S. troops of fresh food, showers, toilets, and other basic services for months at a time." (William Hartung, " Bombings Bring U.S. "Executive Mercenaries" Into the Light", March 2003).

And while we`re at it, some Machiavelli, for those who enjoy their Kodiak moments and get all fuzzy at his incisive military "philosophies".

"Mercenary forces are useless and dangerous, and anyone whose state is based on mercenary arms will never be either well established or safe, for mercenaries are disunited, ambitious, lacking in discipline and untrustworthy. They are brave in the company of friends and cowardly in the face of the enemy, they are neither God-fearing nor loyal to their fellow men, and they prevent ruin only so long as they are not challenged. In times of peace you will be robbed by them, in times of war by the enemy. The reason for this lies in the fact that there is no desire or reason to remain in the field besides a measly stipend, which is hardly sufficient to induce them to die on your behalf. They are well disposed to be your soldiers so long as you do not declare war, but with the coming of battle they either take flight or desert" (Nicolo Machiavelli, "The Prince", Ch. 12, On the Different Types of Army and the Question of Mercenary Troops, 1513).

Some people never learn.

 

[subgenius]

Nice juxtapose of then and now.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[Virgil]

Subgenius:
.
Lieutenant General Charles S. Mahan, Jr. has asserted that there were points during the current Iraq war when the refusal of contract employees to go into harm's way deprived U.S. troops of fresh food, showers, toilets, and other basic services for months at a time." (William Hartung, " Bombings Bring U.S. "Executive Mercenaries" Into the Light", March 2003).

.

there goes his career. Mr. Rumsfeld wants privatiztion. if you speak out agains the boss you career opitions tend to shrink. I wonder if the contractors were still paid while or soldiers went without.

demon thanks for the quote!

Virgil

 

[subgenius]

I bet that Lt. General is a.....................................liberal.

 

[The idea]

The Iraqi resistance has smart leaders, they know the effect of returning body bags on US public opinion in an election year.

The leaders of the Iraqi resistance should all change their names to "Wile E. Coyote." Not only will that make it impossible to identify them by name, but it will allow each of them to think, "Wile E. Coyote, you super genius you..."

 

[Doubt]

Originally posted by demon

I know who I`d back to go running home first.

"The U.S. has gone too far down the road of privatization when it comes to military support services. There are certain levels of discipline, risk, and discretion that one can expect from a person who has agreed to wear the uniform of their country that one cannot necessarily expect from a person or entity who is performing a similar task for a fee.

*snip*

"Mercenary forces are useless and dangerous, and anyone whose state is based on mercenary arms will never be either well established or safe, for mercenaries are disunited, ambitious, lacking in discipline and untrustworthy. They are brave in the company of friends and cowardly in the face of the enemy, they are neither God-fearing nor loyal to their fellow men, and they prevent ruin only so long as they are not challenged. In times of peace you will be robbed by them, in times of war by the enemy. The reason for this lies in the fact that there is no desire or reason to remain in the field besides a measly stipend, which is hardly sufficient to induce them to die on your behalf. They are well disposed to be your soldiers so long as you do not declare war, but with the coming of battle they either take flight or desert" (Nicolo Machiavelli, "The Prince", Ch. 12, On the Different Types of Army and the Question of Mercenary Troops, 1513).

Some people never learn.

Some people never learn the context of the era they are quoting.

Bolding by me.

Two points of clarification here.

The General did not say which type of contractor he is talking about. Those that carry guns or those who do such things as drive trucks.

During Machiavelli's time, mercenaries were a near universal element. They were everywhere and worked for anyone. Many were employed with great success. But if the conflict looked hopeless, they were gone. Most of those mercenaries never knew the people they were fighting for. They often were not even allowed to enter the cities that hired them. They had no connection to their employer other than the gold they received. Any military force employed and treated in such a way will not form any bond to those that hired them.

Employment of modern mercenaries often doesn’t follow the renascence pattern. Many are employed by their own country and even those that are not are often used to protect non-military contractors. If a bond forms between the mercenaries and those that they protect, they will most likely do their job, even if there is a serious risk to their lives.

The German landsknecht were a good example of how mercenaries were used during Machiavelli’s era.

http://www.st-mike.org/groups/german/

After 1500, when Maximillian allowed them to hire out as mercenaries units, they became the most sought after as well. The Landsknechts fought in virtually all of the major European conflicts from 1482-1660. They were employed by Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I of England, Louis XI, Francis I and Henri II of France, and, of course, Maximillian I, Charles V, Ferninand I, and Rudolph II, and Maximillian II of the Holy Roman Empire.

They were renowned for their fierceness and professionalism, but they were also known for their drunkenness, brutality, and loyalty to only their commanders and the money provided them. The saying "Landsknechts are as good as the gold you pay them, and last about as long as the beer"< is a modern Renaissance Festival axiom, but it is accurate neverless.

Note: The cited page has an image that does not do justice to the swords used by the landsknecht. They are very large and designed to hack the heads off of their opponent’s pikes.

 

[subgenius]

Doubt, the thread has degenerated, in part due to the pages of dispute over whether the Fallujah victims were mercenaries. Privatization has become part of the discussion. I think there's overlapping issues. Particularly with respect to the committment of regular service vs. contractors.

Are you disputing the comments of the Lt. Gen. regarding the problems created when the contractors failed to fulfill the contract?


"Many are employed by their own country and even those that are not are often used to protect non-military contractors. If a bond forms between the mercenaries and those that they protect, they will most likely do their job, even if there is a serious risk to their lives."

Several serious qualifiers there, no?

Many, even, if, most likely, even if, serious.

Again, I, at least, am not saying, it is all good or bad, but I think its good to understand, and hopefully address the issues, rather than deny they exist. Maybe the issues identified through the ages can be resolved.

I am, however, coming to more of a feeling, that most of these functions (military and support....I believe everyone is important in such a struggle), should be performed by people dedicated to their country only, and motivated only by patriotism.

Creating this attitude is perhaps our greatest challenge. I think its well worth acheiving. Monetarily, politically, socially, morally.

 

[subgenius]

And if they're so much better than our forces to protect Bremer, for instance, why are we now in the position of having to retaliate for their deaths?
Who's protecting who?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by demon:
Nikk, you write:-
"How, in your opinion, do the current attacks on the coalition forces contribute to the creation of a mutually agreed constitution, the formation of stable political parties, a relatively trustworthy police force, an honest judiciary and the embedding of the basic freedoms we enjoy in the liberal democracies?"

Well, the attacks on either civilians or troops from "coalition partner" countries seem designed to bring about the collapse of the "coalition"; the attacks on US troops are to force a withdrawal. The Iraqi resistance has smart leaders, they know the effect of returning body bags on US public opinion in an election year.

Genuine democracy is not compatible with foreign occupation - it just isn't. So, the answer to your question of how does the uprising contribute to the establishment of democracy is that ending the foreign occupation of Iraq is a prerequisite for the establishment of democracy.

"Whilst I would agree with you that the invasion was a gross error of judgement..."

I don't think the attack on Iraq was "a gross error of judgement", very much the opposite infact (for those who concocted the whole fraud I mean). I call it a war crime, the supreme war crime according to the Nuremberg tribunals.
That`s why I have serious problems with those who talk about the use of force and who has the legitimate right to use it and to what degree. That question might be better directed at the US than at a resistance movement. Why do people (I`m not directing this at you, but generally...individuals/media etc), think those resisting US occupation should use less violence than the US used to invade and occupy the country? Supporters of this war argue that civilian casualties are "a price worth paying" to get rid of Saddam. Is this sort of cost/benefit analysis something only the US can do? Might not the Iraqi resistance have a similar view - that the loss of their own lives and those of their countrymen is a "price worth paying" to end foreign occupation?

And yes, Saddam was a very brutal ruler but you know, bad as he was, he didn't destroy his country's water purification plants denying clean water to millions; he didn't destroy sewerage treatment plants so causing epidemics; he didn't litter his country with DU which will be taking lives long after he's gone. Yet we did all that and much much more, supporting him when he was at his most brutal and then wreaking down a terrible punishment of sanctions when the Iraqi people were at their most vulnerable because of the above - who's the bigger villain?

"Don't you think that their presence (i.e. US troops) should be seen as an opportunity for Iraq rather than as a threat to its existence?"

Most emphatically no.

demon,

You've failed to reconcile your views about liberators and collaborators with the situation in Northern Ireland. Fine, I'll draw my own conclusions from that.

 

[demon]

"You've failed to reconcile your views about liberators and collaborators with the situation in Northern Ireland. Fine, I'll draw my own conclusions from that."

Draw whatever conclusions you like.

If she (Jean McConville), was an informer, she was a legitmate target...she made herself part of the conflict and took a side. I`m sorry if you refuse to accept this reality...it happens all the time in conflicts throughout the world.
If she simply comforted a dying soldier, then her killing was an abomination. In that case, I'm actually being more charitable than most armies in the world (inc the US and UK) where "giving aid or comfort to the enemy" is an offence punishable by imprisonment and even execution. If she simply gave comfort, then I think her death was wrong. If she actually gave aid to an occupying force then, again, she brought her death on herself. It is, I concede, a difficult distinction.

If the IRA are correct, then -brutal as it sounds- the women brought it on herself and her children by collaborating with an occupying force.

If the IRA are wrong, then they killed someone in error and should apologise. Armies do that all the time and it is an unfortunate reality of war. You could make a case for saying that those who kill in error during war should be prosecuted but, to avoid hypocrisy, you should apply that to all armed forces, including those of the state. In which case, a great many US and UK troops should be in the dock right now.

It`s always the IRA eh? Why didn`t you use a Loyalist example of terrorism? Or a victim of State sponsored terrorism?
Like you I`ll draw my own conclusions.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by demon:
If she (Jean McConville), was an informer, she was a legitmate target...she made herself part of the conflict and took a side. I`m sorry if you refuse to accept this reality...it happens all the time in conflicts throughout the world.
If she simply comforted a dying soldier, then her killing was an abomination. In that case, I'm actually being more charitable than most armies in the world (inc the US and UK) where "giving aid or comfort to the enemy" is an offence punishable by imprisonment and even execution. If she simply gave comfort, then I think her death was wrong. If she actually gave aid to an occupying force then, again, she brought her death on herself. It is, I concede, a difficult distinction.

If the IRA are correct, then -brutal as it sounds- the women brought it on herself and her children by collaborating with an occupying force.

If the IRA are wrong, then they killed someone in error and should apologise. Armies do that all the time and it is an unfortunate reality of war. You could make a case for saying that those who kill in error during war should be prosecuted but, to avoid hypocrisy, you should apply that to all armed forces, including those of the state. In which case, a great many US and UK troops should be in the dock right now.

So do you believe that the IRA is a legitimate army, and that it's "struggle" was a legitimate war of liberation? If so what do you base this on?

It`s always the IRA eh? Why didn`t you use a Loyalist example of terrorism? Or a victim of State sponsored terrorism?

The IRA does not recognise the democratically elected government of this state. The IRA murdered people in my name. The IRA murdered members of the police force responsible for my security. The IRA murdered democratically elected parliamentarians in this state. The IRA conspired with the Nazis during WWII. The IRA is behind who knows what amount of organised crime in this country. The Loyalists are scum, but they don't have the potential to effect me in the way the IRA do.

State sponsored terrorism? Surely in your world no such thing exists? Wouldn't this just be an example of the state liquidating beligerants? Like you said yourself all's fair. Tough, but fair?