Mercenaries: Old Dogs of War, or Something Else?

Since conflict has existed people have been willing to determine who they will serve dependent on one thing, money. Throughout the ages these private soldiers were referred to as mercenaries. In the modern era mercenaries are "technically banned by international law, (yet) mercenaries remain active in nearly every ongoing conflict. But...they lack cohesion and discipline". Traditionally mercenaries operated as individuals, former soldiers looking for their next pay cheque; however there has been a re-developing of these types of people which has made them relatively useful in the international scene. Although there are several arguments about why there is no place for them in the modern battlefield, mercenaries are finding more and more opportunities to play their part.

During this essay I will endeavour to discuss why there is a place for mercenaries on the modern battlefront. I will start by defining mercenaries, and discussing the development of this term. I will then move onto describing the modern battlefield, before looking at the arguments for and against mercenaries.

 

Defining mercenaries

"The private provision of violence was a routine aspect of international relations before the twentieth century". Private soldiers whose loyalties were defined by whoever would pay them have been around for centuries. From the first conflict, there have always been those willing to choose a side based on financial benefit. These private soldiers can be described as mercenaries .The word itself, according to Merriam-Webster, means "one
that serves merely for wages; especially: a soldier hired into foreign service". To most people the term mercenary conjures up thoughts of cold calculating killers hiring themselves out to the highest bidder, prepared to do anything for anyone so long as the price was right. Often referred to as "soldiers of fortune", they "ran riot over the Africa continent in the 1960's" and developed a fairly poor reputation for themselves. However in this modern age mercenaries have moved from a lone individual working on their own as a gun for hire, to employees of a professional corporation. The term in itself has been repainted with the public relations brush too, redefining them as Private Military Firms (PMF).

 

"Since the US President...announced the end of 'major combat operations' in Iraq in May 2003...security contractors have flooded the country". It was during this time period that the term PMF was brought to international attention. PMF's were used in post conflict situations as the coalition forces sought to restore democracy to the people and help re-build their countries. During the post-conflict phase of the war and the attempts to restore democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan a variety of civilian contractors, media personnel and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) were involved. However because of the intense nature of where they were operating there were no guarantees of security. This is where PMFs were used to provide the necessary security for these people. The PMFs were operating from two angles. The first was contracts from the US Defence Force. The second was contracts from individual organisations. The key difference is that they were either employed by a state to fulfil the states military obligations that the state was unable to, or to an organisation to fulfil their security needs.

 

The modern battlefield

Conflict over time has been a continually developing and evolving concept. To explain this evolutionary process there are 4 different types of conflict that we have gone through. The first phase of this process is institutionalised war. These wars can be divided into two categories, those prior to 17^th century, and those post 17^th century. Conflicts prior to the 17^th century were often fought between families, mercenaries, and other groups, the reason for which was often petty and personal including property rights and succession rights. However the 17^th century ushered in the development of state based warfare. The purpose of these conflicts was often territorial protection, advancement of diplomatic ties, and building an empire. The battle could only be described as choreographed as people attempted to kill one another in a prim and proper fashion. World War II signalled the next phase of conflict evolution; total war. Total war can only be applied to conflicts equal to the magnitude of World War II because of the huge loss of life (over 50 million people), the use of nuclear weapons, and the use of extremely inhumane tactics and the attempted genocide of European Jew's.

Post World War II until the early nineties was the next step, with wars of a third kind, or people's wars. These were often wars of liberation and independence, as civilians revolted against their colonial oppressors and sought independence once again. Probably the most famous of this was the Vietnam War which started between the Vietnamese and the French before the USA intervened. These conflicts often lacked territorial boundaries, and were lacking in traditional organisational elements such as uniforms and fixed bases. The current stage of this evolution (as opposed to the final stage) is the new wars. These wars are moving away from state centred conflicts, and are about different groups of actors coming together over an extreme ideology. They often occur in and around weak states. Examples of these include the conflicts throughout Africa and the older conflicts throughout Eastern Europe where politically extreme ideology's have unified groups of individuals and has seen them enter into horrifically brutal conflicts not against states, but groups of civilians, specifically Rwanda and Bosnia.

 

In the modern battlefield the role of the mercenary comes in two forms. The first role is direct action missions. Direct action missions are mercenaries being utilised to directly engage in contact with the enemy. This would mean that they were effectively being hired to be the soldiers involved in the conflict. The second role is that of post-conflict security. During my interview with an employee of a PMF he claimed that "you've got companies like US Aid, NGO's or the UN and they can't operate without some sort of security...it's a necessary evil to get the job done". In most post-conflict scenarios the areas are often considered to still be at risk to conflict flaring up which means that a lot of civilian contractors working on rebuilding the area, NGO's working on providing social services to the people, and media organisations providing coverage of the post conflict zone are in need of security. This is where mercenaries are being utilised either as contractors to state military to protect their civilian contractors, or to private media organisations like CNN or NGO's like Red Cross.

 

 

Arguments against mercenaries

On the surface mercenaries are expensive. Most contractors are earning 10 times what they would as a public solider, which begs the question of why? Why spend so much money on what the army should be able to provide. Given that the army's current role is to operate in conflict, surely we would be able to train them to operate in the post conflict zone too, or even have specialist divisions within the military to come in and provide the necessary security work that is required. In O'Hanlon's article on the Future of Humanitarian Intervention he specifically highlights the redefining of state based military to be more peace keeping and security focussed. Although he does not do this to avoid using private contractors, he does argue that "...some 10,000 to 20,000 specialized troops should be added (to the US Defence Force) – at a cost of about $1 billion a year, less than half of 1 percent of the (US) defence budget". O'Hanlon goes on to suggest "that is not too high a price to pay", which leaves you with the question U.S. Senator Carl Levin posed: "How is it in our nations interest to have civilian contractors, rather than military personnel, performing vital national security functions...in a war zone?"

 

According to Arthur S Miller (as quoted by Singer) "Democratic government is responsible government – which means accountable government...(the use of private firm's places) the influence over, and sometimes even control of, important decisions one step further away from the public and their elected officials." During the constant debates between the efficiencies of government departments and private organisations the area of accountability is one where government departments come out on top. Government departments are responsible to the public, and are held accountable by the elected officials of the public. Private organisations, on the other hand, are accountable to share holders, and at the end of the day are held accountable according to levels of financial success. The same can be said for the scenario of mercenaries or state military. In the case of mercenaries their levels of accountability and responsibility are far less than that of state military. This should be of concern for the public. Given the amount of resource being invested into mercenaries, they should be held accountable to the same standard and level of the military, however they're not.

 

One of the greatest elements working against mercenaries is the concept of patriotism. Because of the level of finance involved and business like nature of the industry it would be fair to say that mercenaries are about getting the job done for the least amount of cost, and for the highest profit. Although modern PMF's claim to work for reputable governments in fear of harming future contracts a "...high, single-shot payoff might prove too great a temptation". Conversely state military are looking to get the job done to the highest standard possible because they are representing their country. For mercenaries the work is about the money, it is just a job and the only person they are serving is the state or organisation willing to hand them their next pay cheque. However for state military they are in it to serve their country, which is evidenced when you compare the vast differences between the pay rates and working conditions. As a current employee of a PMF in Afghanistan put it "you can go over there serving for a tenth of what you get...with more risk for yourself, or you can go over with less risk to yourself and earn 10 times as much". For example a mercenary can earn up to ten times what they would earn as a soldier of the state, and are less likely to be injured or killed; which suggests that soldiers of the state are in it for more than the remuneration.

 

Arguments for mercenaries

The concept of mercenaries as a business industry has absolutely bloomed in recent times. Initially small groups of soldiers would form up after retiring from state military service and source themselves work wherever they could. Now there are multinational corporations specialising in providing security and other vital military skills to states and private organisations operating in post conflict zones. Given the level of power these states and private organisations are placing in the hands of mercenaries they have had to become far more professional in their approach to completing their tasks. The increase in the level of professionalism enables states like the USA and media organisations like CNN to utilise mercenaries to fulfil tasks efficiently and effectively instead of leaving the tasks up to state based military and local law enforcement. This was highlighted by Singer as he defined this transformation as mercenaries operating in a "modern corporate business form".

 

The most common role of the mercenary in current times is that of security. Mercenaries are used to provide security in conflict zones, above and beyond what local law enforcement agencies are able to provide to non-military personnel like the media, NGO's, and civilian contractors. By using mercenaries to provide this additional level of security the military forces working within the country are able to utilise their time engaging the enemy and helping to restore order while being released from the job of "babysitting" civilians, a job which an employee of a PMF described the US Army found "annoying" because they "get in the way". This enables state funded military to focus in on utilising their skills and resources to fulfilling the task at hand, and not being side tracked by keeping an eye on civilian workers.

 

During the Cold War both the USA and the United Soviet States of Russia (USSR) invested trillions into the development of their armed forces in preparation for a massive militaristic confrontation that would ultimately never occur. Because of the perceived threat and the volume of resources poured into the development of these state based militaries both states were left with excess volumes of equipment and personnel; and ultimately huge annual expenditure to keep these maintained. As a result both states had to significantly downgrade their personnel and sell off excess equipment. This meant that all of a sudden both countries had huge volumes of former servicemen and women dropping out of work and looking for new careers. Naturally the effects on the economy were detrimental and this is an example where mercenaries could have been utilised to limit over-expenditure. Had both the USA and the USSR had mercenaries they could call on to employ should a conflict occur then it would have enabled both states to invest less in building up their stock piles of weapons and trained service people.

 

The United Nations (UN) is frequently cited as being ineffective and unproductive in the context of entering into conflict scenarios and putting a stop to them. This is quite a problem because according to O'Hanlon "American Presidents, UN Security Councils, and western publics will almost always want to do something when thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people are dying as a result of war". Quite often the UN falters because one of the Security Council permanent members (USA, France, Russia, England, China) will veto any action because of their states own interests in the conflicts, for example sale of weapons to the side of the conflict that the UN will not be supporting. In this scenario states own interests and foreign diplomacy hinder the UN from being able to make a positive difference before conflicts get out of hand. This is where utilising mercenaries could make an improvement. The UN would be able to avoid utilising troops from states, and instead use those with no political or diplomatic ties. The reasons this would be successful would be because of the avoidance of "public debate or legislative controls, and...undertake...a much more rational foreign policy". This has been tried before by states and it was very effective as 140 mercenaries were able to clear out an entire country of rebels. However this example is often referred to in a negative light because the currency the mercenaries received their payment in was conflict diamonds. I personally believe that this needs to be overlooked as a part of the wider picture, given the success the mercenaries had on behalf of the state.

 

As I have highlighted there are concerns around mercenaries' levels of accountability, the cost of hiring them, and their motivations for doing the job. However I believe that the modern battlefield provides huge opportunities for states, private organisations, and NGOs to utilise mercenaries in a productive capacity. In conflict scenarios mercenaries are able to be utilised to greater affect because of their limited diplomatic ties. The post-conflict environment mercenaries are able to be utilised to provide protection on behalf of states, private organisations, and NGOs as they are attempting to rebuild the country. This enables states to release their military from the security detail and to allow them to focus on protecting the state instead of individuals. It also enables private organisations and NGOs to operate in dangerous post-conflict zones with the necessary level of security that they require. Mercenaries have a dark past, however their recent corporatisation coupled with the changing face of the modern battlefield provides justification for their use in pivotal roles in either conflict or post-conflict environments.

State Sovereignty

Should we be able to impose our views upon the sovereignty of another state? (This question is in the context of North Korea, the state that likes to have, er, ah, male appendage measuring competitions with other nuclear powers).

 

The liberal perspective on this issue suggests that we need to be continuing with the diplomatic process, and that our continued threats (which are rapidly turning into bluff's) are going to take an effect. Logically you would think that the entire world telling you that you are wrong and that your states attempts to secure itself through the use of WMD's would be enough for you to stop and assess the situation, instead of infuriating the world by putting a WMD on a launch pad, symbolically suggesting that you've had a rather ass day and that you want to be left alone.

 

However the realist perspective suggests that military action is the only option. With NK developing the abilities to turn it's state into the facilitator of WW3 then we need to be going in there, guns blazing, and removing the current leadership & their weapons, and replacing them with democratically elected people.

 

However we have to find a balance (there it is again, the "balance" cop out). So my question is what is that balance? Because at the moment on the realist vs liberal continuum we are so far down the liberal continuum we are just about falling off. What we need now is symbolic action. This can be in the form of mobilising US troops in the south pacific, sending UN naval forces into the region so that they are ready for rapid deployment, or dusting off our sky hawks and doing some patrolling of the coast line!

 

Because when it comes down to it we've been bluffing. Caught with our pants down. Pissing around telling them off over the telephone while they've been running around pulling the fingers to us & not listening.

 

Another perspective on the actions of NK, and out of the context of this question, is that they are currently in the process of a military show of strength as their current leader's health is being questioned. I mean look at Cuba. Castro got crook and the whole country has started to ease up a little. So in the context of NK maybe they are doing this as a counter-defensive measure to suggest to states that they still have the ability to scrap it out with the best of them.

 

North Korea provides a classic example of a maverick state, led by a mad man prepared to do whatever it takes to lead North Korea to being the best state ever. Given NK's inability to deal with the world in a civil manor, it's time we took it to them. I don't mean blow them up, but just scare them into thinking that actually we're quite serious about protecting ourselves, and that if they keep getting smart, we'll smash them.

 

This is Rich the right-wing neo nazi (yes I was called that this week) signing off.

MP Expenses...what’s the problem?

Before I get into this I just want to say one thing, the only reason you're hearing about this now is because I've been tired. See what happened was Saturday evening I was on the couch, in and out of consciousness after a rather glorious 4-1 defeat over Marist, and my grandfather started ripping into the MP's. Normally it's at that moment in time I would enter into the fray and we would be locked into rigorous debate for the next hour. However I didn't have the energy to rouse myself from the rather enticing slumber that occurs most Saturday afternoons. So, as a result, it's been on my mind all week and if I didn't say something I would explode!

 

In this week's political headlines there has been a whole lot of hoo-ha about MP's and their expenses. Whether it's the alleged abuse of the housing supplement system, the travel perks for spouses, or other relevant expenses, it seems to be a wee bit over the top.

 

If you've sat under a rock for the last week and are unaware of what's been happening here are some links for you to have a read:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/2703883/MPs-expenses-revealed
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2723021/Details-of-ministers-expenses-review-unveiled
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/on-the-house/2482175/Lets-have-a-look-at-MPs-expenses
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2724489/Heat-on-ministers-to-repay-expenses
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/2706055/MPs-attribute-higher-expenses-to-remoteness
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/2720545/Editorial-Ministers-expenses

 

Since National started their term as the leaders of Aoteroa (I forgot about Maori language week so there is my attempt to make up for it) and the recession took full flight there have been calls for all MP's to be more transparent in terms of their spending. Most of this came on the back of those muppets in Britain, busted using expense accounts to pay for porn, which translated into a media field day, and given that one of the mass media's role is keeping the government accountable then it makes sense that they would jump on this band wagon. As a result, all of the party's have come forth with information about their expenses. Fortunately our MP's have been a bit more onto it and their hotel indiscretions are yet to be paid for out of the public coffers, however their levels of housing allowances and the use of travel for spouses and children has been highlighted as potential areas for debate.

 

As it stands our MP's currently have access to housing allowances to allow them to run two homes or places of residence, 1 in their electorate & 1 in Wellington. This is because they obviously need to reside in both places. They need to be in their electorate to keep on top of the local issues, as well as Wellington as that is where they can bring forth the local issues. As a result MP's are frequently travelling and spending time in different area's. For ministers, most of the time they need to be in Wellington, however for opposition MP's or those without ministerial portfolio's they are able to spend more time at home. Given the stress that this causes the government has made provisions to support our MP's with housing allowances to help them cope with financing two houses. They have also provisioned for all the necessary travels for their spouses to be able to be with them, and their children.

 

So given the good intentions behind all this, why the heck are we getting upset over large expense? We're talking about the people that are in charge of running our country, how dare we, the public which they serve, ask them to undertake this task, and then tell them that we expect them to not be spending to the depths they are and to sacrifice their relationships with their families. I would hazard a guess that most of our MP's are rather keen on the idea of being able to serve their country in the way they do, however having their families with them is not so much an added perk as it is a necessity. Aside from the obvious reasons of helping keep a family together, an MP who is able to do their job with their family by their side has less on their mind than one who is living in a different city to their family (assuming the MP and their spouse are still together). At the very minimum we have to recognize that these expenses are worth it because it means our MP's are going to be more efficient because they are less likely to be concerned about family issues.

 

One of the MP's under the thumb for this is Deputy Prime Minister Bill English. Mr English is married with 6 children. He is the MP for the Clutha-Southland electorate and is entitled to accommodation support because of this. He has been claiming $1000 per week for the costs of renting the house which he and his family have been living in, however the house is owned by the English family trust. He has also claimed $23,000 for electricity, cleaning and other related costs for living in the house. To also put this in perspective his salary is $276,600 per annum, and his wife also works as a GP (although whether or not that is full time is yet to be disclosed). Although the case can be made that Mr English is utilising the system to pay his mortgage off his Wellington house, who are we to say that's wrong? Sure the bloke is earning a more than healthy living between himself and his wife, and they're already in a rather healthy state of affairs financially, but why should the system not benefit him? Should an MP for the opposition who is earning less be entitled to more? This is sounding a lot like communism to me. The poor bugger is merely being picked upon because he's well off, and considering he's our Deputy Prime Minister, as well as Finance Minister, why are we complain? We're in the middle of the recession and the guy in charge of leading us out of it is doing well for himself... thank goodness! If he wasn't ,there would be cause for concern here because if he can't manage his own finances, can he be trusted with the country's?

 

I guess what the English example has highlighted is that this system has the potential for being exploited (for the record the previous entitlements for accommodation were unlimited, now it's capped at $700 per week, which is quite limiting for a family of 8). However before we start going after the MP's for screwing the system, I'd rather we stopped and had a bloody good look at our welfare system. I love the fact that we live in a country that has the ability to support people when they get themselves into financial trouble, I also like the new reforms that are focusing on getting people off welfare and back into the community. However where I struggle is when I hear comments from 16 year old girls that "we should just get pregnant to get more dole", to be honest that scares the hell out of me. Not only are 16 year olds contemplating getting pregnant for the sake of money, they're going to end up responsible for a child and with atrociously low levels of intelligence as evidenced by their thought process in the first place they should not be allowed their child. The other thing that gets me is when I drive past state houses in Porirua, Newtown, Riccarton, Manauka, they all have one thing in common, copious amounts of satellite dishes. How the hell can they afford Sky TV when they're living off funding from the government? If you are unemployed and can't get work give them some funds to get by, but not enough to live a comfortable lifestyle that won't encourage them off of it!

 

If we're going to start pointing fingers and aiming for communism, let's start with those feeding off the welfare state and enjoying luxury goods, before we get to the people who loyally serve this country and are trying to lead us out of not so nice economic times.

Game Day!

For all of you who have never played competitive sport let me help you discover what game day is like. It is the day upon which you mentally prepare for; all week. It is the day you focus your training and physical strength towards; all week. To put it simply; it’s the pinnacle of your week. When game day arrives you have to “get in the zone”. “The Zone” is the place from which you want to compete. It means you are well prepared in all areas, mentally, physically, and spiritually. You are ready to run onto that field, dive into the pool, launch from those running tracks with the three key areas of your life charging. However for most Christians, this day doesn’t often come around.

As you may have figured out, I like sport. Sport analogies work for me, however I wasn’t the only one to use sporting analogies, the apostle Paul utilised them throughout his letters to the Church and compared the Christian life to a race. So at least this is all biblical! The pinnacle of my sporting endeavours was playing water polo for Canterbury. I was 15 years old and I was in the zone. I’d been playing really well, and was just charging. I went to the trials and was named 1^st non-travelling reserve, and was a bit gutted but I knew that as the youngest guy there my chances were limited. However the 2^nd youngest player in the team had a chip on his shoulder, and didn’t turn up to the final trial session, and opted to go drinking instead. So, as a result he got cut, and I was elevated! WOOP WOOP! I don’t think you could wipe the grin off my face! The training was intense, 2 mornings a week on top of my school training, and the other commitments life brought. However it was all worth it. When we went to Australia we nailed it. Our team won all of our games bar 1, and the team we lost to was stacked with Australian representatives. I came back glowing, I felt like I’d achieved something significant, that I was a part of something, and that I’d do it all again and train twice as hard for the exact same results. However these feelings of elation, and excitement, and success are not only reserved for representative sports people, Christians can experience this too.

Now before all my non-believers out there switch off, can I ask you to hang in there? Because this is as much for you as it is for believers. To the non-believers I want to apologies on behalf of the church. Fairly audacious, and something that the Pope would have more of a “right” to do, but as a young and zealous Christian I want to apologise for the way in which we, as Christians and the church, have failed you.

James 1:27 (NLT) says

“Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you”

This is where the Church and Christians have got it wrong. We have developed a culture that is all about training. On Sunday we train with our squad, we get together with the rest of the Church and we train. During the week we train at least once (sometimes more) with our specialist team (like a life group) and then a few times a week (hopefully more) we train on our own through our own devotions. However most people don’t put this training to use in the context of the aforementioned scripture.

As the Church we need to get back to game day. We need to start mentally, physically, and spiritually preparing for game day and findings ways in which we can care for orphans and widows. As it stands there are a lot of fantastic faith based organisations doing a lot in the world, which is awesome and power too them. But I believe that we have used this as an excuse to sit back and not have game day, we sit on the sidelines and support instead. However game day doesn’t have to mean you’re in full time ministry. It can be as simple as mowing the lawns for your next door neighbour, it can be as easy as adopting a single parent family and providing them with support, it can be as easy as coaching a bunch of kids sport.

The Rock’s vision of “Transforming Lives by Giving Ourselves Away” perfectly sums up the game day mentality that the Church and Christians need to adopt. This is the way it needs to be going forward, i’ve told you why, and i’ve told you how, so when’s game day for you?

Change for the sake of it

I’m currently sitting in Wellington Airport on Good Friday after two of the craziest weeks of my life. On top of the usual carnage of lectures, work, and sporting commitments I had to pump out 2 assignments last week, and this week I had an exam on Wednesday, followed up by 2 assignments (1500 words and 2500 words respectively) and another exam on Thursday. Needless to say it was “Richie’s 24 hours of madness!” So the break couldn’t have come at a better time, two weeks off...and what’s the goal? Finish 2 assignments to get on top of next semesters work load...Oh Goody!
Anyway while I was pumping out these assignments I came across a thought: “Do politicians aim to create change for the sake of statistics? Or are they truly doing it for the benefit of little Jonny?”

In the last election John Key campaigned on getting our living standards up to acceptable standards, so that we were on par with our neighbours and other OECD countries. Although I recognise that this is a good thing, is he doing this because he knows that as a society it’s the numbers that count? Because even if our quality of life is better in NZ than it is in the USA, how many of us will ever truly be able to experience?

Don’t for one second get me wrong, goals of alleviating poverty, improving our quality of life, and cutting down hospital waiting lists are fantastic, but i’d, love to know the motivations behind them. The problem is, politicians only see the numbers. None of them are living anywhere near the reality of poverty, or being stuck on a public hospital waiting list, or living a lifestyle short of upper class, so for them all they see is the numbers. They don’t see Mr Anderson, a 65 year old man from Manurewa who’s in need of hip surgery and has been waiting for over 4 years now and is daily loosing mobility, they don’t see the Miss Aroha, a 23 year old single mum working 2 jobs and struggling to provide for the needs of her 2 children and her sick mother. For them they see that there are a certain % of the population are living below the poverty line, and that our hospital waiting lists are in crisis. For them their motivation is making change, but for the sake of the numbers, and for scoring political points. Would we have continual bickering over how best to govern if our MP’s were living out of the realities impoverished New Zealanders live in? Would Bi-Partisanship become more common as pathetic differences and historical squabbles are put aside for the sakes of Mr Anders, and Miss Aroha.

Call me cynical, but it’s a good question to ask.