I hear their are allot “Mercenaries” serving in Iraq. Protection agencies so to speak. Their job is not simple and is extremely dangerous, but they get paid quite allot. They are an easy target for insurgents/terriorists in Iraq becasue of some restriction on types of weapons.
I think the term “mercenary” is no longer helpful when talking about guns-for-hire. The guns-for–hire industries has changed over the last ten years and has rebranded its self (don’t you love capitalism). They are now civilian contractors, security consultants or corporate security. The days of “Wild Geese” have long gone (well no won told Mr Mann) they now are openly employed by countries of good character :D. I think that mercenaries are illegal in the UN.
These security companies range from the very good to the wonabes and suicidal. They are being used by governments to do jobs that they do not want to do or have lost the skills to do. This probably led to the some of the problems at Abu Ghraib prison as most of the interrogators seem to have been civilian contractors with no particular control from the military. This is a problem particularly in Iraq when the contractors are not subject to military law or because the legal system is in ruin they are not accountable to civil authorities and so a law unto themselves.
As to the effectiveness of these people I could not say as we see very little of them and they do not like to have the media looking at them very closely. Some are doing well and are run on ethical grounds. The major US one would appear to be very competent (the name has slipped my mine, old age) with good working conditions and employee relations and support.
Iraq has become a magnet for unemployed soldiers who have a skill that is not very useful in civilian life. I would be very interested in the Russian opinion on this as I believe a number of ex-service men are working in the area.
Whats interesting about current militaries, epsecially the professional ones, in realtion to this mercenary theme is that they are reverting to the old 18th century system.
let me explain;
During the 18th Cen. armies were usually small 25-100,000 and they often contained a lot of mercenaries or troops not native to the country they were fighting for. Most armies of that era were probably anything from 25-50% mercenary/foreign in origin. We can see this happening today the British army contains large numbers of commonwealth personnel ,although i would stress they are not mercenaries but still come under the auspices of the foreign soldier fighting for a other nationality’s army. It’s also the same in the American army were large numbers of foreign troops serve in their armed forces.
Furthermore with reference to the campaign in iraq a further similarity can be seen as it was often the norm during the 18th Cen. to hire mercenaries for the duration of the campaign in order that you wouldn’t have to draw manpower from your own working population.
It’s true, history does repeat itself!
I knew several US Army soldiers with Filipino citizenship serving in the US ARmy Berlin Brigade back in the late 1980s.
They explained to me that once you had a Green Card, you could sign up.
Normally it takes 5 years for a Greencard holder to get an American citizenship, but if you are serving and willing to risk your @rse for your new country, you can become a US citizen already after three years.
Another thing is that the US Army usually only accepts soldiers with a foreign citizenship for the first three year enlistment. For the extension of your enlistment they´ll expect the soldier to become an American, not the less because after three years he is likely to become promoted and he will get access to military secrets.
Jan
I would not argue with you on recruiting foreigner to your own army, KGL, but I am more concerned with those who do not wear a uniform of a nation or come under its code of military law, no mater how vague that law may be. We are seeing a legitimisation of these forces and an acceptance of them (in the open) as a tool of foreign policy. They answer to no one except their employer, who may wish to turn a blind eye to their actions and who can say that their (neomercenaries) do not come under their law as they are not in their country. There are infect law less.
But surely they still come under the domestic law of their own country of origin, the domestic law of the country they are operating in and surely the geneva convention which applies to all combatants?
But surely they still come under the domestic law of their own country of origin,
No they do not come under their own countries law as it’s jurisdiction only applies to it own location, Quantanimo Bay comes to mind and the sexual tourism to the far east is an other which the government is trying to sort out. If the crime was not committed in this country we cannot prosecute, unless it is a war crime. The UK has a law, following UN convention I think, that is illegal for you to be a mercenaries, hence the rebranding.
the domestic law of the country they are operating in
This is one of the problems if the country they are in has a break down in law, them who is going to police them. The Iraqi government is not capable of investigating them let alone prosecuting them due to its own problems. They have at this stage a free hand in their activities.
and surely the geneva convention which applies to all combatants?
As they are not soldiers and are not part of the armed forces it does not apply. Again we go back to the US use of Quantanimo Bay as a president. Also it should be noted they do not have its protection.
So who controls and polices them?
Having read the relevant Articles of the Geneva Conventions, they seem, in the case of mercenaries, to be primarily concerned with A) defining what a mercenary actually is, and B) making it clear that a mercenary as defined has no protections under the Conventions.
The Conventions themselves are not concerned with policing mercenaries, more with putting them into a category that equates with the old term “outlaw”. I.E. someone outside the law/protection under the Conventions.
The Conventions explicitly state “they have no rights to be combatants”.
(Edited to add last sentence for clarification)
Am I right in my understanding that it is illegal for a UK citizen to be a mercenary? Would Mr Mann on his return to the UK face arrest?
So the question is, “are the security people in Iraq neomercenaries”. Or just gate guard for big companies?
Has any one any opinion on their competence?
From Wilkipedia :
Mercenaries and domestic law
[i]Some countries try to stop their citizens fighting in conflicts unless they are under the control of their own armed forces:
* In 2003, France criminalized mercenary activities as defined by the protocol to the Geneva convention for French citizens, permanent residents and legal entities. (Penal Code, L436-1 (
* In 1998 South Africa passed the "Foreign Military Assistance Act" which banned citizens, or residents, from any involvement in foreign conflicts except in humanitarian operations unless a government commitee gave its approval for a deployment. In 2005 the legislation was being reviewed by the government because of South African citizens working as security guards in Iraq during the Iraq occupation and the fallout of the case against Mark Thatcher for the "possible funding and logistical assistance in relation to an alleged attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea" organised by Simon Mann.
* Under United States law (the "Neutrality Act"), an American citizen who participates in an armed conflict to which the United States is neutral may be subject to criminal penalties.
* Switzerland banned its nationals from serving as mercenaries in 1927 with the one exception being the Vatican Swiss Guard[/i]
(Links to French Penal code sections removed for brevity)
Since Britain isn’t mentioned on the list above, I assume we have, as yet, not made this illegal, but that view is based entirely on extrapolation of the above.
I do, however, believe I’m right in saying that Britain has, as yet, not ratified the UN "International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmfaff/922/2061319.htm
The above is a link to evidence given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs by Rt Hon Bruce George MP, Chairman, Defence Select Committee and Simon H Cooper, Post-Graduate Student, University of Leeds, concerning the development and regulation of PMC’s (Private Military Companies).
A touch dry, but fascinating.
Thanks I will save it for tomorrow. I have spent far too much time on the M2.
toodal pip
Good link reiver.
Not as dry as I thought.
The development of PMCs is directly linked to a global trend whereupon some Governments are increasingly looking to out-source military tasks to private firms for various different reasons.
I am a little concerned that they are using civie caterers in the first part in the same terms as mercenaries.
Nevertheless, a minority is engaged at the sharper end of US foreign policy. Indeed the decision taken by the Clinton administration to hire DynCorp, a US based company, to execute its unarmed Kosovo monitoring responsibilities illustrates the movement towards the privatisation of military activity. The reason for the American decision was twofold as Kevin O’Brien identifies. Firstly, the US Government did not believe it would be right to send highly trained yet unarmed personnel into a potentially dangerous situation and secondly, it ensured that US forces would not be exposed to a fragile security situation that was little understood or domestically supported.
Read and weep Ironman.
“privatisation is getting closer to the front line to the extent that the military’s monopoly in war-fighting is over.”
“Their poor human rights record, their lack of transparency, their engagement in arms transfers, their training in psychological warfare against civilians . . .and their use of people with track records of human rights abuse does not bode well for the upholding of international law.”
This is really the point. We are happy to use them but should we? Will they be used instead of soldiers because it is cheaper?
My concern would be that, when and if a PMC gets itself into trouble in a contracted-out war situation, would the employing Government, be it UK or US, feel obligated to send in regular troops to rescue a situation exacerbated by the private contractors?
Does the employing Government become liable before the ICC for actions taken by it’s employees, as it would be for actions taken by it’s military?
reiver
Remember that in many cases we are talking people who are not directly employed or controlled by a government. i.e. The US dish out reconstruction contracts to a US company, but won’t provide security for the contractors workforce. So contractor engages sub contractor, often not a US company, to provide security. Sub contractor trawls the usual places to find ex soldiers from lots of different jurisdictions.
Who has jurisdiction over whom? who is responsible for what? When these people leave theatre who knows where they have gone?
The whole thing is potentially messy as hell.
Of course it isn’t just the US that is doing this, that was merely an example. If they are British Citizens, or indeed citizens of most countries, and our courts cannot or will not prosecute them if they are naughty then the International Criminal Court shorty to be set up in Rome will be able to. Not so if they are Americans as the US didn’t sign up to the appropriate treaty.
Yes, I realise that Rifleman.
I was trying to project forward in time, particularly in light of the evidence mentioned earlier, and the statement that “privatisation is getting closer to the front line to the extent that the military’s monopoly in war-fighting is over.”
Looking at the link to the PMC we have (lost its location) they are doing patrols and VCPs in place of troops. This can not be right? They have ROE but who will ensure they are followed? As reiver has said what happens when the brown and smelly hits the fan? Can they/ do they have authority to call up fire support. On the ground who has precedence in command. In NI the police had overall command and I remember by OC being very narked that a PC could tell him how to use his troops (it never happened at the low level, but the authority was there). The PMC may have a contract to do the work but what happens if, A. they go bust, B. the work force down tools and go home (they have no commitment to work) C. go on strike, D. working conditions and training. We may find H&S a bind but it is there to ensure that we do not kill others or ourselves. E. what happens to you is you get hurt?
When it was one or two PMC doing security round oil wells or close protection it was fine now they are poaching troops and giving them little back up.
It will end in tears, I hope none of our guys get the short end of the stick. You only have to look at Mr Mann to see when it goes wrong the people who instigate it walk away and don’t look back. At least with politicians (spit) they are answerable (if the have the moral courage) for their actions in font of the country.
I had not realised how many KIA there had been of PMC, 241.
http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx
Some of the companies involved and you will see they have had casualties. We are not looking at small groups.
Ahhh hah hah. You have fallen prey to the ole’ media liberals slanting things eh? Do you not think for yourself? The USMC has the highest casualty rate because they are the ones put in harm’s way more than any other force because the USMC has the highest battle effectiveness of any military force in the world. If the Army were at the front more, then they would have the highest causalty rate. If it were Brits or Canadians doing most of the dangerous search & destroy, then they would have the highest causalty rate. You let the media think for you that time. 
I was not aware that the British army contains large numbers of foreign personel. Are they allowed to become British citizens? The practice of hiring mercenary forces goes back to early history. The Scots, for example, hired themselves out in quite a few wars in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and the Swedes hired Scots as mercenaries when they whipped the Danes and the Germans in the Thirty Years War.