Private Army legality...fight ISIS?

Writer's Block · Oct 11, 2014

CarlMc said:
At the end of the first four crusades, the fighters went home, their task done.

Yeah, but that was a long time ago and an era when even the professional soldier had other work to look forward to. We are living in a world today where there are people who never reacclimate after going to war. I can see a force made up of people who have no interest in "going back home".

Think of a non government organization with benevolent intent, so benefiting governments will not likely get in your way.

If it is a non government organization, who runs it? Who selects its targets and missions? From where does it derive its authority to operate?

People worry all the time about UN troops coming in and helping seize control of the US, for example. Certainly, by that standard, a UN run group would not be viable. A corporate one, a la the "private contractors" so common today has the same issue of being able to trust them. In fact, even more so.

On top of that, what if one government (say, POTUS) gives them a mission then is voted out of office at the next election. Do they finish the mission, or not? What if the new POTUS doesn't support the same ideas and wants it called off?

If benevolence turns to malevolence, then governments will likely change their minds.

Again, depends on who is running it. If the agency running it is the one who turns it on a given country, its malevolent intent may be found desirable by the only structure the force takes orders from.

UN definition of mercenary:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm
Note the key use of the word “and” in what they define as a mercenary.
Providing you don’t start out or end up as a mercenary outfit, you’re golden.

Lots of forces back in the 70's and 80's used to "commission" foreigners in their national forces just for the purpose of evading wording like that. They also used to claim the higher pay was for those in "specialist" or "experienced" positions.

Sure such things can be gotten around. That is not the issue. I am more worried about the precedent.

Realistically, why would the UN or any of their member states object if what they want is happening, but are too gutless to stand up on one side or another?

Who says it will be them objecting?

Say the POTUS sets up such a force to destroy ISIS. Then, that done, they turn to the next "enemy du jour". Then, with those done, they decide the national guard is insufficient to handle the next Fergusson style or OCCUPY event, and the force is sent in as a "private policing supplement". It all can snowball from there.

It is all fine when the people running such things use them the way we free people want to see such a force used. The key is, what is their motivation to continue using it like that, and what do we do if they decide not to?

CarlMc · Oct 11, 2014

Writer's Block said:
Who says it will be them objecting?

Say the POTUS sets up such a force to destroy ISIS. Then, that done, they turn to the next "enemy du jour". Then, with those done, they decide the national guard is insufficient to handle the next Fergusson style or OCCUPY event, and the force is sent in as a "private policing supplement". It all can snowball from there.

It is all fine when the people running such things use them the way we free people want to see such a force used. The key is, what is their motivation to continue using it like that, and what do we do if they decide not to?

Say you and I get together and decide we wanna open a can of whoopass on ISIS. You and I get together our tools of war, hop on our favored mode of transport, and go there. Once there, we get to it. You and I. Not hired by any government. There's nothing stopping us, and when one of us gets a burr in our saddle, we can leave at any time. When we're done, we ungird our loins and pack out.

Now say I feel like starting up a campaign. I find private benefactors to fund my effort and go about hiring former military strategists, leaders, logistics, grunts, cooks, intelligence officers, and all of the other usual necessary skills. Once my crusaders are set up, we all train together a bit, then go kick ass. If at any time, any participant wants to leave, we send them back to wherever they came from. There is no government involvement, encouragement, support, or engagement of any kind. There is a deliberate point made to avoid government influence. This organization has a singular mission-to deal 72 virgins to people who kill non-believers. Knowing that such a mission is never quite accomplished, the only requirement is that such a blow has been dealt that such activities will have a very hard time coming back to life. When the mission is accomplished, everyone goes home. Should some of that organization feel like continuing that effort (or any other effort) for whatever reason, it will be on their own dime and blood.

I get your mistrust of leaders, I really do. That's why governments should not in any way be involved. No politics, no politicians. All policies stated up front and all participation is completely voluntary, not unlike you working for the neighborhood 7-11. Don't like your job? You can walk away at any time.

IamZeke · Oct 11, 2014

Volunteer irregular armies are nothing new. Pilots in this past century did it many times in both WW1 and WW2. American pilots volunteered for the French in WW1 before the US joined up. Then we did it for the Brits at the start of WW2. The Flying Tigers fought in China. One could even say Air America in Vietnam was the same thing.

There were less instances of ground troops, but you have a lot of Americans going to fight in the Spanish Civil War. There was also a unique commando unit composed of Americans and Canadians that fought in WW2 that were a combined force under their own banner that wasn't a national one. The 1st Special Service Force simply fought under the combined Allied banner.

A volunteer army could be done if they really wanted to have one.

Jungle Work · Oct 12, 2014

Letters of Marque and Reprisal which are enumerated in the US Constitution were reportedly used in WWII and were considered after 9/11 but not used.

You can google them if you want more information.

Jungle Work

Writer's Block · Oct 12, 2014

CarlMc said:
* SNIP*

I get your mistrust of leaders, I really do. That's why governments should not in any way be involved. No politics, no politicians. All policies stated up front and all participation is completely voluntary, not unlike you working for the neighborhood 7-11. Don't like your job? You can walk away at any time.

See, there is ALWAYS some for of leader. The person who sets it up, the person who finds private funding, the person who hires more guys, the person who selects the missions, whatever. You cannot lead an effective paramilitary force by committee, hence there MUST be a leader or leadership. And that leadership is where it can all go wrong.

It is all kisses and roses while a hypothetical force like this is working ON our side. Enemy of my enemy and all that. The problem arises when their mission turns to something close to home.

What I worry about is when the leadership decides, for whatever reason (money, misplaced patriotism, they get power mad, whatever you want as a reason) that say...they don't like the way an election went and think the next mission should be removing the duly elected leader of the US...or the Speaker of the House....or whatever.

Or say a world leader finds out about them and starts publicly speaking out about this group and they decide silencing this guy is their next mission. Say he is the leader of an allied nation to the US and Can...or even someone FROM the US or Canada....

We all want to think this sort of a group would have good intentions, and it is all fine while they do. Thing is, they make no oath, are bound by no law, have no allegiance, and have no reason to respect any authority but their own.

And don't forget that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Say a group like this is formed by patriotic US citizens who literally bleed red white and blue and bandage their wounds with Betsy Ross' apron. Fine. What about when their success gets around and Russia forms a group just like them...,or Israel does...or Liberia....and all, just like the US one, of true believers under no rules but their own.....

Do we send our guys to wipe out or prevent the formation of their guys? I mean, we all know how well that worked during the days of the CIA wet work and the sole possession of atomic weapons.

9111315 · Oct 12, 2014

Ricekila said:
The other day on the news they mentioned the oil fields they took over and their selling oil on the black market to the tune of millions ( ? ) of dollars a day --

Bomb those fields or just enough to stop the oil !

Duh --- Hello !

I was wondering how such a private effort could be profitable.

. . . I guess they could take control of the oil . . . and keep all profits from the oil sales.

Maybe if the Crusaders did it for the oil and money this time, it might just work.

Writer's Block · Oct 12, 2014

IamZeke said:
Volunteer irregular armies are nothing new. Pilots in this past century did it many times in both WW1 and WW2. American pilots volunteered for the French in WW1 before the US joined up. Then we did it for the Brits at the start of WW2. The Flying Tigers fought in China. One could even say Air America in Vietnam was the same thing.

There were less instances of ground troops, but you have a lot of Americans going to fight in the Spanish Civil War. There was also a unique commando unit composed of Americans and Canadians that fought in WW2 that were a combined force under their own banner that wasn't a national one. The 1st Special Service Force simply fought under the combined Allied banner.

A volunteer army could be done if they really wanted to have one.

There is a huge difference between a "private" or mercenary army and a "volunteer" army. For one, a volunteer army still fights for, and under the flag/authority, of the nation that assembled them. They are bound by pretty much the same laws as a national army and politically are treated the same way.

India has a standing volunteer army.

A private, or mercenary, army is a different animal. They are not under the jurisdiction or the command of any national government, leader, or state. They are led by some private individual, group, company, or other form of organization and therefore politically are a whole different thing.

9111315 · Oct 12, 2014

Ya, I think that is the kind we need.

IamZeke · Oct 12, 2014

Writer's Block said:
There is a huge difference between a "private" or mercenary army and a "volunteer" army. For one, a volunteer army still fights for, and under the flag/authority, of the nation that assembled them. They are bound by pretty much the same laws as a national army and politically are treated the same way.

India has a standing volunteer army.

A private, or mercenary, army is a different animal. They are not under the jurisdiction or the command of any national government, leader, or state. They are led by some private individual, group, company, or other form of organization and therefore politically are a whole different thing.

The US has a volunteer army as well. I was referring to irregular volunteer armies of mixed nationalities.

You are correct that they are under some kind of national or national faction banner and are typically treated as formal national combatants. The Spanish Civil War is a really great example of this because it did have two legitimate opposing armies that had foreign nationals on both sides.

Mercs would outside that kind of acceptance under the laws of war.

But then with the Khurds we have a potential for making a legit recognized force of foreign nationals. In fact there is one US guy already doing it. The Khurds seem to represent our interests in most respects. They are anti-ISIS and not truly interested in toppling Assad or punishing Sunnis or Shiites. And they seem to be making progress right now dealing with their old Turkish differences. We should be having frank talks with the Turks about the Khurds. Helping the Khurds get a large portion of autonomy south of the Turkish border could be parlayed into deals where the Khurds quit pressing for independence in Turkey itself. The Khurds just want a land they can call their own. If the Turks help them get that land outside of Turkey perhaps the Khurds will quit agitating inside Turkey's borders.

gallard · Oct 12, 2014

Jojo said:
Past posts on lefties makes no such distinction.

That's because liberalism in any form is evil

:

Private Army legality...fight ISIS?

Writer's Block

CarlMc

IamZeke

Jungle Work

Writer's Block

9111315

Writer's Block

9111315

IamZeke

gallard

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities