A NICE Private Army

And despite all that, we still haven't destroyed the world yet.

I have a feeling that humans, while having a long history of abusing tech, also learns the boundaries and get a bit of self control rather quickly.

And I always cannot help but to see the irony of such statements being made on the internet.

edited 26th Sep '12 9:35:06 PM by IraTheSquire

But we came damn close in 1963.

And again in 1983.

I'm for developing of new tech, but I think we ought to put more thought into what we do, instead of scoffing away the risks in the name of progress.

...And I think we've gone Off-Topic.

edited 26th Sep '12 9:52:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn

OK, that's a good answer. So, hypothetically, a multinational company sets up a fixed facility in a stable country, but then there's a sudden revolt, coup, or outbreak of armed conflict. In response, the company has to hire/recruit its own armed militia in order to protect its property and employees.

So then the question becomes, what would the situation have to be like in order for the company to elect to invest the substantial additional resources necessary to continue operating, vs. choosing to abandon its facility altogether? The obvious answers would be that the loss of civil infrastructure would reduce expenses that could then be made up through additional investment by the company. But what would those be, and what other considerations would we have?

edited 26th Sep '12 10:08:45 PM by Lawyerdude

Yeah but normally that isn't the answer. When revolts happen, corporations normally ship everyone out on chartered flights. I haven't heard of any corporation (because this actually happens a lot) turn to go "oh hey let's use some PM Cs". Either they rely on the government dime to protect them with police/military, or they ship everyone out and tell the rest to go home and fend for themselves. There's nothing currently profitable enough to justify keeping office workers at work using PM Cs.

^

Happens in Africa all the time. Sometimes you can't just choose to relocate because of natural resources needed for that facility to function, so it has to be in a certain place, and that certain place isn't secure enough.

The type of places I'm talking about involve such a massive profit margin that the risk is deemed worth it, and when that profit margin is so large that the risk is worth it, you can shell out a million a year to hire a security team that is properly armed and experienced to deal with such things.

Another instance is where it isn't about the resources, but the amount of money invested into a permanent facility. If you've invested billions into a facility which is now under threat, a few million to make sure it is properly protected for a period of time where there is a limited threat is very reasonable.

It's all about scale, and if it's deemed acceptable to cut your losses to get away from the risk.

edited 27th Sep '12 9:55:15 AM by Barkey

The reasons wars accelerate technology development is motivational of management, nothing on the pointy end or the development end. The people in charge are willing to fling more money, on weirder subjects with less restrictions and red tape. So far, humanity has shown that it's not willing to let those restrictions slip otherwise in general. Hence, war for technological development.

Perhaps it is safer to say that certain technologies are developed at a faster pace during times of war. For instance, I don't think we would have had as much of a need for advanced unmanned aerial platforms and high level surveillance tools if we weren't so busy tracking down terrorists. It's interesting, the ways in which this sort of tech filters back into the private sector as the war itself winds down.

Not office workers, no, but other kinds of people. As Barkey said previously, hiring PMCs to protect resource extraction sites in areas with a less-than-ideal security situation is not exactly unheard of. NGOs occasionally hire a couple of "consultants" for their own safety. Another thing you have to remember is that guns-for-hire is only one part of the equation - the companies we think of as PMCs also do training, bodyguard details, advice on risk mitigation for individuals who travel to dangerous places, secure transportation, stuff like that. There was a guy who wrote a book recently, former SAS, and he was talking about how his first gig in the private sector was transporting diamonds for a sheik in some unnamed Middle Eastern country, just so that they wouldn't get stolen.

edited 3rd Oct '12 9:33:12 PM by HouraiRabbit

Well, as the topic is about "nice" private armies, what is your opinion on how nice PM Cs that protect these natural resource operations?

The reason I talked about office workers isn't because PM Cs were likely but because they are typically very casual and typically not evil (of course not entirely true better on average than natural resource operations).

I would say that for the companies that are looked at as being PMC's, they do more training than they do actual operations. Bodyguard firms tend to be pretty low key and professional.

It's the difference between a police office with a handgun in a city, and a soldier in full gear with a rifle in a warzone.

A PMC is just the end of the spectrum from a security guard in the united states, only the warzone version. At least in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Just my word about a "nice" private army.

A private army simply cannot be nice. Being a part of an army puts certain ideas into a person's head. That they have a sanction to KILL whoever it is that is designated as the "enemy" of the week. That they have a license to do whatever it is they have to in order to reach a goal.

Its a tangential excuse to let their Id run wild. In a group, well, you know what they say about a mob mentality. All of this together would make for one hell of a death squad.

Most of the people working for the current PMC's are most likely violent individuals who enjoy killing.

edited 4th Oct '12 6:16:38 PM by NickTheSwing

I'm going to guess that either you're not a regular reader on OTC, or that you're deliberately trying to troll Barkey.

Perhaps both. Although if he/she really wanted to troll @Barkley he/she should have added a jab at smokers somewhere in there.

I'm personally wary of Private Armies, and would only use them as a last resort. I tend not to trust people who are mostly/entirely in it for the money (regardless of how professional they are), add in my paranoia about Military-Industrial complexes and I end up with a disdain for these groups.

edited 4th Oct '12 11:57:05 PM by DeviantBraeburn

The disdain for private armies has existed for a long time for a wide variety of reasons and the primary one is that they aren't under the control of a central authority. It's a very specific and acute jab at "monopoly on the use of violence". Because what happens when the government's contract with the mercs are up? Do they give up their guns? No. And what happens if the government can't pay up? In the olden days, the mercenaries would go on a banditry or looting spree, raping and pillaging to pay for themselves. Or what if it's not a government hiring them? What rules does a person who specifically chooses to ignore government authority run on?

Then the only places that they really work in today's world are lawless areas where you are trying to acquire natural resources. Well... why is it so dangerous? Why aren't locals welcoming to the operation? Why aren't they protecting it? Perhaps there's a civil war, or perhaps there's just sectarian violence. But then, is it right to be profiting from the resources then? You're simply taking it away from people who are too busy dying or fighting to stop you or put taxes on you or require you to pay royalties. Maybe, once they fix up their situation, they think it mighty silly for a foreign corporation to be extracting natural resources and not paying them for it. Afterall, it's not a foreign entities right to take natural resources from a sovereign nation (even if it faces civil conflict).

So, there's nearly no situations in which a private army can be nice. The best you ever get are PM Cs who pick up work for the US government and even then, if you don't agree with what the US government is doing then that private army is just another arm of a unpopular military campaign.

I am simply stating what has become evident through history. One cannot deny facts when presented them. Private armies tend not to follow rules set by governments, only following what their buyer tells them.

I agree with the vast majority of breadloaf's statements about such. For example, Xi / whatever they call themselves. Can we honestly say their motives in Iraq and what they did was good? No. No we cannot.

Though I am not trying to troll, Schadenfreude would be very welcome. So, basically, No, But Potentially Yes.

The A Team are nice guys. Though there's not that many of them :)

Triple Canopy would like a word with you.

It all depends upon the best practices and quality control put into place by a company like that. Some companies(Dyncorp) have a penchant for hiring shitty ex-military folk who have been discharged unwillingly from the military(not all, there are good people in Dyncorp) or Blackwater(Persuading the more reckless members of the Special Operations community into coming over to them with promises of a longer leash and better pay) or Triple Canopy, who are ran by former Delta operators, and specifically seek out people who display professional conduct and technical skill at their craft. There are other firms out there like Olive and GRI.

Just like with people, and just like with soldiers, there are good ones and bad ones. The bad ones get all the press, unfortunately.

In other words Nick, your blanket statement is patently false. You could have definitely made an argument about the morality of a private army existing in this day and age, but you are very incorrect in your statement about the mentality of each and every person in the industry(one that I have several friends in, who are not bloodthirsty baby killing douchebags)

Blackwater/Xi/Academi is the worst example of a Western PMC. Of course they got the most press about their actions, because they were the worst of the lot. You could say equally bad things about Crescent, who didn't necessarily do anything wrong but ran a sketchy fly-by-night operation that got their company destroyed and most of their operators killed.

Since Blackwater essentially got out of the business and went back to training, when was the last time anyone here heard bad press about PMC's? Shit, when was the last time a major story involving a PMC broke since Fallujah?

And on Fallujah, while I'm talking about it, that wasn't really a fault of the contractors involved. There was poor planning, and a lot of risk taken, and a foolish decision to place trust in a local by asking him for directions and thus making the insurgency aware of where their convoy was going. The Operators killed in Fallujah were not bad guys. They were all honorably discharged of their own free will, and got into the private sector. IIRC two of them were decorated SEAL operators. They made a mistake that got them killed. The Company is at fault for being pushy in making them do more with less for that contract, and not having the personnel or firepower that they were supposed to in the company policy. What happened in Fallujah was not provoked, it wasn't because they were Blackwater, and it wasn't because they were bad dudes. Those contractors fucked up, their company stretched them too thin and let them ignore US Army warnings to stay out of Fallujah, and the Insurgents made them a priority because they believed they were CIA. Al Qaeda and Insurgents specifically make CIA assets their highest priority, and security contractors look just like CIA agents on a mission.

You're making statements about an Industry that you haven't done any legitimate research on, only on your personal hearsay. It's ignorant.

edited 5th Oct '12 8:39:45 AM by Barkey

I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases it is exactly the same thing: since the CIA probably does use Private Intelligence Firms*

You would definitely be correct.

I am not entirely sure about how effective it is to respond to somebody who has confessed that they are a troll and a psychopath on their Contributors Page.

Even if they weren't with the Agency, the insurgents would still say they were because no one would be able to tell the difference. So sayeth Shadow Company.