A NICE Private Army

Most of the time when you hear about Private Armies its not very flattering. Ruthless warlords trying to topple legitimate governments, shady PM Cs protecting evil corporate interests, Mercs wtihout morals, etc.

Why can't a privately funded military force actually have nice PR for a change?

After all, there are people out there rich enough to fund their own military, and they can't all be assholes.

(Could this be some conspiracy by governments to make non-government forces look bad?)

OK, first and most important question - why would these hypothetical altruistic billionaires want their own private armies rather than, say, donating their surplus cash to charity?

^ The OP didn't say anything about altruism.

The reason for this hypothetical PMC could be anything from "That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more" to "I want it done 'right'" to... well, I'm sure there are other non-altruism reasons, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Probably not suitable to do so in this thread, but one could argue that taking out assorted assholes that for whatever reason don't get the attention of national armies can be of more use to humanity than giving to charity.

I think it comes down to the "power corrupts" aspect. Government-created armies have enough trouble with PR even in the most advanced countries and they invest enormous resources in oversight and in making sure that soldiers are trained to respect the rules of war, etc.

A private army has no such oversight. It's entirely up to the people funding it to keep it moral and ethical. Further, the people that it attracts are going to be those disposed towards violent solutions to problems but who aren't already employed in the police or military. This mentality ends up being self-reinforcing.

In short, while it's theoretically possible to have a private army that doesn't act like assholes, human psychology strongly indicates against it.

edited 20th Sep '12 7:34:09 AM by Fighteer

There are plenty of PMC's like that, it's just that you don't hear from them because they haven't really screwed up.

You're not going to get into the press unless you do something extraordinarily good, or anything bad. Triple Canopy is pretty much the PMC that I hold up to that high standard. Founded by Delta operators, and rather strict in their policies for hiring professional people, they've had a few scrape ups here and there, but they got treated kind of unfairly during a siege they underwent in Iraq.

Triple Canopy made up the bulk of a security team at a provisional government facility in Iraq, just a small compound where they had contractors who were there to build communications infrastructure in Iraq. There was one Marine corporal there as a military liason, a bunch of noncombatant contractors, and a team of like 8 or so Triple Canopy guys. All these TC dudes were prior military themselves, from the Marine Corps and the Army, but they ended up under siege with no real backup on the way, and the Marine essentially started following their lead and working within their team, because they had more legitimate military experience.

They handled themselves well in holding off the insurgents for hours until late in the night, and then mounting up in a convoy of vehicles there and making a mad dash out the gate together to the nearest US base. No casualties iirc. But all of a sudden the media started talking about the precedent it supposedly set that "Oh my god, a uniformed military member was taking orders from a security contractor!" without even considering the totality of circumstances.

There are a bajillion other nameless firms out there who fulfilled their contracts without making any mistakes. But who gets name recognition for not screwing up? Nobody in the PMC industry. All people think of is corruption at the supervisor level in Dyncorp, or all of Blackwaters many sins.

I recommend watching the documentary, Shadow Company. It offers an unbiased look into the world of security contractors, and has an interesting interview with a former member of Executive Outcomes. He discusses how he felt that they did a good job in Sierra Leone and Angola, where they were hired to come in and help those governments contain an insurrection(In Angola, UNITA didn't like the results of the election, and thus was trying to start a civil war. EO was hired to put them down and did so successfully) In Sierra Leone, they put down the RUF, a similar guerilla group that was acting against the lawful government. He stated that in both instances they were hired, showed up and contained the problem within the scope of their contract, and then left peacefully with no controversy, and that those operations were examples of exactly what a PMC should be used for in a lawful manner.

TLDR: Watch Shadow Company. It's on Youtube. Don't just make rash decisions and decide PMC's are a bunch of evil thugs without doing research.(Not accusing anyone, just a statement)

edited 20th Sep '12 8:44:01 AM by Barkey

Well, there's plenty of nice private armies in fiction- Military Science Fiction has plenty of them.

There's also The Dogs Of War, which has a sympathetic take on a realish example.

I don't have much against a PMC in itself. I don't like them existing, but I suppose that, even though war is dirty business, it's business all the same. If you seek to make a bit extra out of it without actually committing (war) crimes to do it, go right ahead.

Now, as for armies for personal use, I think we're crossing a bit of a line there. People that can afford such a thing usually have too much power in this world without such firepower, so I'd rather not think of what they'd do.

One big problem is that mercenaries aren't protected by the Geneva Convention, so they don't have as much of an incentive to play nice as regular armed forces.

To be honest, the Geneva convention doesn't protect anyone but the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does fuck all for coalition forces, and things wouldn't be any better for them if it did apply to contractors.

The big problem is that PMC's don't have the same level of resources as actual military in intelligence and reinforcements. Things like Fallujah happened because of bad intel and a disregard for security warnings about the area, as well as a lack of firepower, manpower, and resources that the US Military would have had in that situation. In this case it was a few SUV's with maybe one MG in the back and carbines on everyone else. No air support, no backup, hostile territory.

edited 20th Sep '12 10:45:18 AM by Barkey

I have less of a problem with most security companies than I do with their clients. I mean, PM Cs are a result of market forces. Who hires them, and what for? The government of Sierra Leone was better than the RUF, but still pretty shitty, and Triple Canopy can't turn away every employer with a spotty history or else they'd never get hired.

Triple Canopy tends to stay within the American foreign policy sphere of influence as a rule. They don't really seem to go for the obscure blood diamond type contracts.

Region depending, the U.S. military counts as an employer with a spotty history.

Guess that's a YMMV kind of thing.

For a PMC, pretty much any contract for the US Government counts as a good contract, because they always pay the bills. From their POV a spotty employer is one who might not pay you when it's over.

Oh yeah, my bad. Was referring to in terms of human rights abuses.

...how often do people not pay PM Cs? That seems like a bad idea. At least according to the plot of Mercenaries 2.

That assumes that the mercenaries in question have bargaining power. As mentioned, mercenaries don't have the sheer resources of a national military, so they often get hired as cheap cannon fodder. See also, the sub-Saharan mercs used in Libya by Gaddafi.

Contracts in Africa and the Middle East frequently end up that way if the people giving the contracts are local warlords or militias. Actual companies and first or even second world governments tend to be good for their money.

Seconding the recommendation on Shadow Company. If you have time and cash to spend (the publisher is based in South Africa, so long shipping times), try and get your hands on a copy of Executive Outcomes: Against All Odds, which is the memoir of the company's founder Eeben Barlow. It's really a fascinating read.

edited 20th Sep '12 3:32:34 PM by HouraiRabbit

Heres the nicest private army I've ever heard of.

Sorry, they aren't an army anymore. Just some sort of living display of what used to be an army. Good history though.

Side Questions:

What do you think it takes to actually own, and run a Nice Private Army?

I know Bill Gates on average has about $4 million in interest from banks just rolling in DAILY (not counting patents, stocks and appreciation of real assets in terms of profit) so he's probably got enough to fund a private army right?

Or is $4 million a laughably small amount when it comes to Private Army Budgets? Nice or not.

Also, think YOU have what it takes (if you had the cash) to run a PMC without turning all Darkside?

edited 20th Sep '12 7:22:13 PM by Natasel

Ok, did anyone else read the subject line and think of That Hideous Strength?

(Which pretty much sums up my thoughts on most private armies, by the way.)

Edit: So I clicked the link for The Space Trilogy, and it led me to the page for ... The Screwtape Letters. I don't know what's going on, but this should be fixed.

edited 20th Sep '12 8:03:02 PM by BokhuraBurnes

Barkey's got it right. Hence why fictional settings like the setting of Full Metal Panic wherein there are "private military groups" that have a higher level of military technology than standing armies. For example, the US Navy's only advantage over Mithril in the Pacific is that Mithril only has one big submarine/carrier, while the US Navy has a fleet. Another would be Gundam 00 whereas Celestial Being has a much better energy provider for their mobile suits (longer operating hours, longer range, faster movement), which also has the side effect of making them invisible to radar.

edited 20th Sep '12 9:13:37 PM by entropy13

Dang, you beat me to it. I'm delighted I wasn't the only one to catch that, though.

Bill Gates could easily field a private army(and a nice one at that) with only a portion of his income(I.E. not savings) The thing is, he would be hard pressed to make it more profitable than it actually cost him.

Blackwater in Baghdad honestly had the ideal sort of PMC setup that would be allowed. Heavily armored cars,(Pumas◊ I believe) and air support from marksmen on Little Bird◊ choppers. Their main strength was in having highly experienced ex-military types who were well equipped and well trained for a light infantry role.

Anything past this, talking about tanks and harriers and shit is in the realm of fantasy for a PMC. I do remember a guy in Shadow Company, however, who was a south african pilot with a Hind helicopter gunship that he flew as a contractor, fully armed.

Now back to the whole Bill Gates thing, 4 million could essentially buy all of your gear and a years wages for a platoon strength team of soldiers(around 44 soldiers)

If I wanted to set something like that up as a little personal protection group, I'd get them armored cars of a class that you could drive on American streets(I wouldn't take them to other countries in things like that, so think up-armored suburbans or something) with a sidearm and a mixture of shotguns and AR's, with a few designated marksmen using a 7.62 battle rifle, probably an M14. Then get a few helicopters for flyover service and to carry the marksmen around. Though that means also hiring pilots.

Essentially it's hard to make a profit consistently with a contract business like that, or rather it's hard to keep consistent employees, as contracts come and go. Being able to pay people salaried would be much preferable to keep those team bonds that martial professions require and to retain employees.

100k a year base salary, bonuses for certain duties. Full benefits, keeping them on retainer.

edited 21st Sep '12 9:00:12 AM by Barkey

What about for NON-profit?

Things like Saving the Whales (with stealth attack subs), Preserving the Rainforest (with Guerilla Commandos) or Fight Against (insert cause here) with Your Private Army!

Seriously though, if Hippies would actually go to war for their beliefs, it might actually make the world a better place.....irony?

1: If hippies went to war for their beliefs, and one of their beliefs is that war is a bad thing, that seems kind of dumb and counter-productive to me.

2: Most of the time, if a billionaire feels the need to have a private army, it's because they're involved in something where violence is or might be required to protect their interests and they don't want to involve the authorities. And most of the time it's because what they're involved in is shady as hell. Hypothetically, someone with an enormous amount of wealth could organize a paramilitary force and put it to some kind of good, but that's not a super common occurrence, and so far the bad PR has been pretty well earned.