Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
This piece of information is a “fact” in that it is verifiable as truth by outside sources besides the article in which it is listed. It may be corroborated by the very report presented before the United Nations which called for action in the Rwanda crisis. It may also be seen as a fact in that it is not merely a theory given by an expert or official but deals in dollars and cold hard figures, computed by the company quoting the cost of deployment as well as sighting the verifiable UN cost of deployment during the Sierra Leon crisis. This fact is variable by several outside sources, and may thus also be deemed as truthful and highly relevant.
Below is the complete article with the quote pertaining to this specific fact.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I would not go as far as to say that any of the rules pertaining to each of these groups is necessarily bad, but they may possibly be outdated or in need of a change in the light of modern shifts in cultural and societal norms. I would argue then that the basic belief that national military endeavors must be undertaken by a national force and not a private contractor is outdated and in need to change. The rule might be changed to allow more freedom for private military companies in an effort to lesson eh strain on the national military and avoid the loss of our enlisted soldiers. In this respect I would say that the proposed rule change would be a beneficial change while at the same time not completely negating the value of older established rules as being “bad” but merely as being outdated and in need of modernization.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
However this is not to say that sanctions would not also be employed. Sanctions would need to be employed in regards to punishing private military companies that either broke with the assigned orders or failed to meet oversight standards, or worse broke with the rules of international engagement. Sanctions would have to be swift and severe in order to avoid a public backlash at the first mistake caused by the use of private military companies. The sanctions would need to create a level of no tolerance for deviation from the state mandated orders and oversights, and would ultimately lead to the end of the private company if such orders were not followed. There may be no middle road with regards to these private companies, if they wish to have government funding then they must be strictly controlled and suffer drastic consequences if they deviate in any manner.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Why are these companies necessary? this question is the most basic and by far the easiest to answer. we need these companies in order to provide a means of protecting ourselves and those we love from those who wish us harm. we have reached an era in which large militaries and armies are successful only up to a certain point. at some time armies become bogged down in problems ranging from congressional approval due lack of financing or an inability to commit our own personal citizens to harm. these private companies allow for individuals who wish to be involved to protect and those in need and further fight those battles we are unable to fight for ourselves using our own national armies.
Private military companies also provide the public sector with eh ability to influence the cost of military engagements and thus lesson the burden on countries. for Private companies may now out bid one another another in an attempt to gain a job, decreasing the cost of military involvement.
private military companies also allow for countries to shield their young men and women harmful situations that may lack the public support to push for full scale involvement. thus protecting our own men and women while still allowing for military involvement.
one may also examine the causal story that is the push for peace. we live in a world unfair and cold and thus peace shall not come to us easily. instead peace must be fought for and in many cases men and woman must die in order for peace to prevail. in order that peace prevails we must then be willing to fight for it, and private military companies do just that, they allow for peace to be given a fighting chance in places that other wise may not be given such a chance.
Causal stories range from a need for further sources of protection to a need for peace keeping across the globe by small specialized forces. Which of these stories do i see as correct? and which does the world see as acceptable and correct? personally i see the need for private military companies arising from an inability of national armies to solve problems in smaller specialized areas of the globe. the populace however is yet to fully accept this idea of private military companies. as of right now private military companies are still looked upon with disdain and uncertainty due to a lack of general oversight. the public must still acclimate to private military companies, and in the future we shall have to see what the final view of these companies shall be.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Here we have the image of a young girl who was viciously maimed by a group of Sierra Leone rebels known as the Revolutionary United Front, or RUF. Sierra Leone like many African nations was home to a brutal civil war which ravaged the citizens of its borders for years and continues to impact them to this day. The RUF was known worldwide for their barbaric war practices and the atrocities they brought down upon the innocent civilians unfortunate enough to cross their paths. Whole villages were decimated as the inhabitants were butchered, raped or fled with nothing more than their lives and a hope to never again encounter this force of savages. This group however was subdued in 1995 for a short period by mercenary force known as Execute Outcomes, for two months the rebels were subdued to the point of enforcing a peace treaty complete with cease fire while government officials plotted their next step. Sadly after this two month period the government of Sierra Leone under UN pressure failed to renew the contract of executive Outcomes and shortly thereafter warring ensued.
Could this young girl have kept her leg and her childhood innocence had executive outcomes been allowed to continue their mission of defense in there? Would countless people still have their lives today if the RUF had been continually confronted by executive outcomes? What is the price we are willing to pay for the perception that international peace keeping forces are able to quell the rebels of the world?
Would you be able to tell this young girl that her leg was taken in the name of International cooperation and a promise “to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest” (U.N. Charter)
Was it in the common interest for her leg to be taken from her?
You decide, and when you do, tell her your answer.
Monday, October 5, 2009
In regards to my issue of the privatization of international fighting forces framing would be a necessity, in which the media would play a pivotal role. Consider it if you will a massive public relations scheme whose sole purpose is to express to the public just how efficient and responsible it would be to privatize some of our military excursions. The public should be shown that through employing private forces money would be saves as well as human lives. The market would drive this media love affair in an attempt to promote the privatization of war in order to keep military companies lucrative so they may pay for add space. These privatized companies would also show the easier side of military conflict as there would be no large number of casualties, but instead efficient quick decisive victories. The market would drive the framing of this issue, while the polis would be conditioned by the framing of the market.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
First let us tackle this idea of freedom in regards to the military organizations themselves, and their apparent lack of oversight in their dealing and exploits in foreign battleground. Freedom in this case is not carte blanche to decimate a country in the process of achieving a goal, freedom would mean that they have the ability to move without the hindrance of a large military company and are allowed to possibly bypass hostile situations which may require the attention of national armies, allowing them to focus on their specific mission and avoid becoming embroiled in larger issues. These units would have the freedom to basically stream line their excursions to execute their goal and then leave the area.
In regards to those who contract these private armies freedom must viewed as the ability to choose a small private specialized force to achieve a highly specialized purpose or goal. The nation must be given the freedom to choose the best contractor for this operation as well as possess the freedom of regulations to allow the hiring of third party forces for military ventures. Freedom in regards to the nation then may be seen as a market freedom, the freedom to choose the best offer for the most efficient outcome, yet at the same time allowing for proper oversight so as to see that these privet companies do not overstep their bounds and go outside preset guidelines, the private companies may not be free to do as they please.
Lastly let us address the freedom of those that these armies are believed to be protecting. The polis if you will, either it be of the country that has hired the contractors, or that of the country into which the military action is taking place. Human life must be given a top priority in all military operations. Human rights must be provided for on all sides of the issue. The freedom of the contracting nation’s polis must be upheld while at the same time allowing for the freedom of those individuals in the areas of conflict. For both these groups I chose to see freedom as the right to live life free and unhindered by forces outside their own country or political sphere, meaning their cultures and lives must be given consideration, and only in an effort to protect the greater good may their be infringement upon social norms and rights. (Yes “greater good” is extremely vague, but that would require several pages of explanation, so for the present and in the theme of keeping this a blog and not a fully fledged paper I shall return to it at a later date.)
Overall there is no clear cut definition of freedom that may fit this topic ideally across the board; each aspect must be highly compartmentalized to allow for the optimal and fair outcome. In some case this means allowing for the freedom of the market to take control, while in others the freedom of the polis must be accepted.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Security, is it truly obtainable? Or is it merely the illusion of protection provided by a fragile bloated bureaucratic system on the verge of collapse? There are those who would attempt to argue that our own personal security may not be obtained through military measures on massive international scales, rather on our home front in a more privatized individualistic fashion. How can we truly secure the American populace while at the same time not alienating ourselves from the world around us?
Security is necessary in a world of constant change and upheaval. One must look for protection from a multitude of sources, whether they are international or domestic, physical or financial, we all seek shelter from something, this need for shelter and protection thus necessitates a body able to give such support and care. The ability to provide such protection from physical harm relies on our country’s armed forces and their diligence in protecting the citizens which look to them for assistance. Yet in providing this protection from physical harm are they unintentionally embroiling our country in a fiscal debacle that could leave our generation finically unstable for generations to come? War is expensive, as it has always been, yet many times war is accompanied by an increased need for goods and services, to be provided by the national populace, yet in the case of our most recent military conflicts, none required massive arms build ups or increased production of goods. It seems we have continued with our business of war while letting its perceived products fall by the way side. What good is a war if not to bolster our economy and strengthen our national industries? Should a war not unify the country behind one common purpose or goal? Or should it merely fracture it into differing political and ideological groups all bent on their own agenda? Have we not already de personalized and striped war of its fiscal benefits? Leaving nothing more than the dry shell of democratic freedom behind as the resounding reason for war?
If we are bent on continuing a policy of military conflict we must go about it in a manner conducive to a changing market. We must open the door for private groups to offer their services for a modest price, competing with other such groups, driven by the market mentality to offer the best service at the most reasonable price. If people cry for smaller government and smaller military intervention let us give it to them in the form of a small specialized, privatized industry. Let us offer security to the polis through the privatization of armies driven by the market!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Efficiency and the military have always seemed to be at odds with each other. Whether due to increased troop deployments or unspecified time frames, it seems that our military has not always been the model for efficiency, if efficiency is measured in regards to using the given input for the most output, and that output being something positive.
In regards to my specific issue of contracting out our military needs to private companies in order to achieve both an efficient cost and resulting outcome several aspects must be taken into consideration. First the outcome must be deemed fiscally efficient as well logistically efficient. By this I mean if we can pay a private highly trained fighting force to liberate a small terrorist compound for 10 million dollars when it would cost us no less than 15 million in logistics, troop transfers and other odds and ends needed to insert a specialized force into a hostile area, with the end result being the same in both situations, then it would be fiscally efficient to use the private security over our own. Second we would need to prove that not only is the private method fiscally and logistically effect but morally as well, for when dealing with any military situation public support always seems to hinge on an emotional undertone, such as discerning what is morally acceptable. For this reason one would have to show that even though the company was a private organization they would still be subject to all the rules and regulations which national military forces must abide by, that way lessoning humanitarian concerns and clearing the way for an unobstructed private military excursion.
The driving force behind this privatization and outsourcing of military operations would need to be a happy combination of both the market and the polis. The market through competition would drive the cost of the operations down due to outbidding by companies. While the public exposure and successful PR spin would allow the polis to feel substantially involved in that any private operation would still be under the oversight of the national government, which should be in the simplest terms, an extension of the polis. Therefore through the successful manipulation of both the market and polis could one successfully outsource military operations to private companies.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
yet on the other side of this argument we have that nagging question of accountability. if we are selling the rights to protect our country tot he lowest bidder what type of quality are we getting for our money? with our own armed forces we are able to provide a military service with a regimented structure of oversight as well as a strong code of engagement, right? the outsourcing of military support can do nothing but degrade the and infringe upon the established moral code by which our military functions, how could know that these private forces would not be violating national and international human rights in every conflict that they were deployed? the lack of national oversight would be far to great a risk to take in order to create a fighting force which is both cost effective and tactically efficient!!
Can an equitable outcome be found? who is int he right? what is fair....? Should the market dictate our actions, causing us to outsource tot he lowest bidder? or should the polis win, with their calls for international human rights and the continued stringent oversight of all military endeavors? Is their a fair and equitable answer? or will the political system merely repeat itself and move to support the cause with the largest amount of support? whether that support be the public outcry for human rights, or the financial backing of powerful companies such as Blackwater and other privatized military, or security forces..... we must wait and see.