Privatizing war

[Benton]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5824794424001/#sp=show-clips

Since everybody is looking the other direction, I don't think this is getting a lot of discussion. Or maybe people don't think it'll happen.

But I'm curious: how likely do you think it is in the future (near future) that we'll be outsourcing our war efforts? Have we gotten to the point where we don't really want to have any oversight, we just cut checks to contractors and they do whatever the objective is?

[Yojimbo]

The objective is control over oil. So, as long as there is oil in the Middle East and we want it, there will be war there.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

It will never happen, not in the United States anyway.

The thing about a countries military that you can not buy is Pride of Country, Loyalty and fighting for your loved ones against the enemy who wants to murder, rape and enslave. An all volunteer military is a very powerful thing to have.

Then there's the fact that a private army, bought and paid for by a country to do your fighting can and will be paid off by your enemy...contracts be damned, especially if that private army can gain much more for switching.

I can see using mercenaries for certain jobs with no connection to the country or government or contracting out security but not cutting checks to have a company fight your wars.

Although, since the United States is moving from an industrial economy to a service based economy, we may have too buy our security.

[GMDino]

(08-21-2018, 04:20 PM)Benton Wrote: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5824794424001/#sp=show-clips

Since everybody is looking the other direction, I don't think this is getting a lot of discussion. Or maybe people don't think it'll happen.

But I'm curious: how likely do you think it is in the future (near future) that we'll be outsourcing our war efforts? Have we gotten to the point where we don't really want to have any oversight, we just cut checks to contractors and they do whatever the objective is?

Would this mean that kneeling won't offend the military anymore?  

[Benton]

(08-21-2018, 04:32 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The objective is control over oil. So, as long as there is oil in the Middle East and we want it, there will be war there.

Understandable and likely in some cases, but maybe not in regard to Afghanistan. They've got oil, but not as much as some other countries. And for what we've spent there, it would be more cost efficient to buy every driver in the US an electric car... and still hand them at least $1 million.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-21-2018, 04:46 PM)Benton Wrote: Understandable and likely in some cases, but maybe not in regard to Afghanistan. They've got oil, but not as much as some other countries. And for what we've spent there, it would be more cost efficient to buy every driver in the US an electric car... and still hand them at least $1 million.

Wouldn't take a free one.  There's just something not right.

[Millhouse]

Extremely unlikely due to the MIC.

[Benton]

(08-21-2018, 04:53 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Extremely unlikely due to the MIC.

It's the same folks, just making more money and having fewer restrictions. 

Look at Blackwater. Their bread and butter was in training people to fight wars. Followed up by information assistance. Then it was security when military/police weren't enough. Now, they're lobbying for the next step.

[Millhouse]

(08-21-2018, 05:33 PM)Benton Wrote: It's the same folks, just making more money and having fewer restrictions. 

Look at Blackwater. Their bread and butter was in training people to fight wars. Followed up by information assistance. Then it was security when military/police weren't enough. Now, they're lobbying for the next step.

But Blackwater would basically be a mercenary army for all intent purposes for Afghanistan. They would work with the military, but arent part of the military. But really the MIC wouldn't like it, especially if it became a trend for the future because of the amount of money involved between the military and defense contractors that supply them their weapons, vehicles, planes, etc..

On a side note, Erik Prince who is in the video above and founder of Blackwater, is also the brother of Betsy Devos who is head of the Dpt of Education.

[Dill]

(08-21-2018, 04:20 PM)Benton Wrote: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5824794424001/#sp=show-clips

Since everybody is looking the other direction, I don't think this is getting a lot of discussion. Or maybe people don't think it'll happen.

But I'm curious: how likely do you think it is in the future (near future) that we'll be outsourcing our war efforts? Have we gotten to the point where we don't really want to have any oversight, we just cut checks to contractors and they do whatever the objective is?

I think that partial outsourcing of military missions is very likely to appear over the next 15 years or so.

It is astonishing the degree to which contractors have already taken over jobs formerly done by the Armed Services themselves--like guarding bases full of soldiers and Marines--though it is not clear they do it better.

There are duties that mercenaries cannot do. E.g. they cannot officially represent the U.S., say when civilians are accidentally killed and someone needs to apologize to the family. They cannot negotiate with foreign politicians and militaries in the name of the U.S.

But the big plus in their favor is that they reduce political resistance to the military option.  When we had conscription, politicians had to be very careful about proposing military actions, since conscription disrupted families and increasing deaths led to increasing protests--one of the reasons the Vietnam War was shut down.  When we went to an all volunteer military, that friction was lessened, but still there, and sorely tested during the Iraq War.  A mercenary army would do away with that friction altogether.  Cost and blowback would be the primary considerations in deploying mercenaries, with so few Americans having skin in the game. No one need worry about angry families demanding to know what their children died for.  No performance art protests with four thousand empty boots displayed on the DC mall or rows of plastic crosses if mercenaries die.

[Dill]

(08-21-2018, 04:39 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: It will never happen, not in the United States anyway.

The thing about a countries military that you can not buy is Pride of Country, Loyalty and fighting for your loved ones against the enemy who wants to murder, rape and enslave. An all volunteer military is a very powerful thing to have.

Then there's the fact that a private army, bought and paid for by a country to do your fighting can and will be paid off by your enemy...contracts be damned, especially if that private army can gain much more for switching.

I can see using mercenaries for certain jobs with no connection to the country or government or contracting out security but not cutting checks to have a company fight your wars.

Although, since the United States is moving from an industrial economy to a service based economy, we may have too buy our security.

Sounds like you, yourself, have been in the military and remember the patriotism military members often feel . . . but maybe several decades ago--before there were mercs crawling over FOBs in Iraq and A-stan?  

[NATI BENGALS]

Idk, depends what Russia wants us to do...

No but for real though. I could see the US gov paying a private company to build and operate our robot army. Should they? No.

But i didnt think the KBR employees working as lunch ladies serving me chow in Afghanistan should be making 4 times as much as me back in 2004.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-21-2018, 09:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Idk, depends what Russia wants us to do...

No but for real though. I could see the US gov paying a private company to build and operate our robot army. Should they? No.

But i didnt think the KBR employees working as lunch ladies serving me chow in Afghanistan should be making 4 times as much as me back in 2004.

Til they ain’t there. An army runs on its stomach. I kid. That’s a bit ridiculous.

[Benton]

(08-21-2018, 06:56 PM)Dill Wrote:  
But the big plus in their favor is that they reduce political resistance to the military option.   

I think that's the biggest thing.

There are several companies that profit off America being at war with somebody. They don't profit if we're not fighting or at least stockpiling. Defense contractor could barely afford their lobbyists during the 90s. 

But an outsourced army absolves politicians of having to answer questions like "why are we in Afghanistan when the terrorists aren't there any longer and we're spending $1.5 million per mud hut to disrupt the locals?" 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I don't think we're anywhere close to a point that the military becomes phased out, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the really giant corporations over the next decade(s) end up with their own privatized forces. Like Google, Walmart, Amazon, Disney, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, etc, as they continue to grow larger and larger and own more of the world with their tens-of-billion dollar company acquisitions.

They might ostensibly be called private security or whatever, but for all intensive purposes they will be a private military used to protect/seek the company's interests. Maybe they might even be private contractor companies that they acquire as well. I know Google went pretty hard into Robotics, and Amazon went pretty hard into drones, and it's really not a huge leap from there. If a company they own interests in has some destabilization or unrest, at some point they will become large enough that it will be more cost effective to protect themselves than to spread money around with lobbyists to seek government protection.




(At risk of sounding like I have a tinfoil hat on. It just seems like the natural current progression.)

[Benton]

(08-22-2018, 01:19 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I don't think we're anywhere close to a point that the military becomes phased out, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the really giant corporations over the next decade(s) end up with their own privatized forces. Like Google, Walmart, Amazon, Disney, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, etc, as they continue to grow larger and larger and own more of the world with their tens-of-billion dollar company acquisitions.

They might ostensibly be called private security or whatever, but for all intensive purposes they will be a private military used to protect/seek the company's interests. Maybe they might even be private contractor companies that they acquire as well. I know Google went pretty hard into Robotics, and Amazon went pretty hard into drones, and it's really not a huge leap from there. If a company they own interests in has some destabilization or unrest, at some point they will become large enough that it will be more cost effective to protect themselves than to spread money around with lobbyists to seek government protection.




(At risk of sounding like I have a tinfoil hat on. It just seems like the natural current progression.)

That doesn’t sound that far off. And a lot of our current military actions benefit some of those companies, either by presence stabilizing markets or companies that supply action military operations.