PMC (Private Military Contractors) or are they?

C

CanadianCombat

Active member
Just a quick point I want to bring to the table here. I have been doing some research on a few topics lately, PMC'S (Private Military Contractors), Mercenaries, and Civilian Military/Security workers. I just recently watched two documentaries on these subjects "Shadow Company" (I highly recommend this one) and "Iraq For Sale". Both of these videos seemed to view PMC's as modern day Mercenaries, whether this is a good thing I don't know. Most people view mercs as money hungry warmongers fighting without a cause, but if we look at the way mercs helped stabilize Sierra Leone in 1995 and later help form democratic elections in the country,but as soon as they left all hell broke loose again. But then we have problems in Iraq with gun toting PMC's shooting up what ever seems worth their while. So to me it doesn't really seem like they are all money hungry warmongers fighting without a cause and doing horrible things (for the most part). So my questions to you readers and forum scanners is What are your views on PMC's, Mercs and other private military Organizations? Do you think they are a bad thing or good? Do you think that they should be given rights within the Geneva Convention like regular soldiers? Are they helpful to most causes or a negative feature in a war? and finally How do the regular soldiers feel about them?
 
In my opinion they should not be granted the protections of the Geneva Convention, as they are not Soldiers, they are Mercenaries and outlawed by Conventions.

I believe they are only in it for the money, because if they loved their Nation they would fight at the rate paid the Military.
 
There are some real cowboy operators out there. Seems to be a growth industry especially as the world seems to be in such a chaotic state.
 
Gator said:
In my opinion they should not be granted the protections of the Geneva Convention, as they are not Soldiers, they are Mercenaries and outlawed by Conventions.
Click to expand...
I not sure but I think Soldier of Fortune magazine had an article on mercs and it said that they were not covered by the Geneva Convention or the Articles of War.
 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Click to expand...
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

There you have it
Not many rights there and I personaly agree that it should stay that way as well.

Here's some more reading on the subject as well:

44/34. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use,
Financing and Training of Mercenaries
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm
 
So they are more likely to fight to the death rather than be captured.

Not that capture was ever an option considering the inhumanity of our current foes.
 
Being a mercenary may not be the most morally upright thing to do. However, if a former soldier wishes to use the skill set that he has acquired to "cash in", regardless the risk, that is their choice. If there wasnt a need for these private contractors, there wouldnt be so many of them.
 
CanadianCombat said:
Most people view mercs as money hungry warmongers fighting without a cause, but if we look at the way mercs helped stabilize Sierra Leone in 1995 and later help form democratic elections in the country,but as soon as they left all hell broke loose again.
Click to expand...

Sierra Leone was covered by Combat & Survival magazine for nearly ten years ago where they put the spotlight on the usage of mercenaries in the conflict. The glorification of the life as mercenary overshadowed the fact most of the mercenaries were South African and former soldiers / security personell of the apartheid regime.
 
^^^ Executive outcomes... too bad they're gone. With aabput 600 professional soldiers they were able to go in, establish and maintain a peace with less than two months on the ground. The relieving force of thousands of "official" troops from neighboring governments couldn't replicate their results even with 10 times the amount of boots on the ground. In a third world country like any sub-saharan African country or places like PNG professional, private security forces are man for man, dollar for dollar more efficient and the way to go.
 
^^^ Which in turn raise the question of the quality of the soldiers from the neighbouring countries and how the western tax payers money was spent.
 
sunb! said:
^^^ Which in turn raise the question of the quality of the soldiers from the neighbouring countries and how the western tax payers money was spent.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I like sunb! have seen "peacekeepers" from different countries make a mockery of everything we have tried to achieve.
I will not get into a pissing match about what nations did what, where or when, suffice it to say some were below par as a peacekeeping force.

As for how the money was spent..I don´t even want to dig in that crap.
That´d just make me more pissed off.
Some people do very much with very little to go a long way to help others, some just help themself.
Human nature I guess.
 
Srebrenica?? Somalia??? Coite de Voire???? I'd say that in the last half of the century as much good as harm have been done by "peacekeeping" troops from national armies. Whereas the few times PMCs have been used they have been resounding success stories. I think the way the GC deals with "mercenaries" is antiquated and needs to be updated to resemble modern realities.
 
 
bulldogg said:
Srebrenica?? Somalia??? Coite de Voire???? I'd say that in the last half of the century as much good as harm have been done by "peacekeeping" troops from national armies. Whereas the few times PMCs have been used they have been resounding success stories. I think the way the GC deals with "mercenaries" is antiquated and needs to be updated to resemble modern realities.
Click to expand...

I agree with you bulldogg, I've seen fresh 19-20 year olds straight out of conscription service for service abroad - and I was stunned by their lack of confidence and will to react when the situation called for immediate action. Older and experienced soldiers should be called in for peacekeeping duties in cooperation with PMCs to fill the gap of not present units (ie security, surveilance, etc)

The word mercenary has been abused by the Norwegian media for over a decade when Grenadier is the correct term for the soldiers spoken of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top