How private armies will remake modern warfare
economist.com
How private armies will remake modern warfare
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#2Hmm, mercenaries, 'soldiers of fortune', a very romantic concept. I'd like to be one, but then not.
Military training is tough and if the only thing you're fighting for is a paycheck, then you won't hang in there when it counts the most and hence are worth jackshit as a mercenary.
Most private armies worth anything consist of ex-soldiers of a republic. In essence these companies are subsidized by a/the republic's taxpayers.
So they are not a major threat to established governments, but still constitute a worrying trend. For if the world becomes sufficiently fucked, these will be the only dignified jobs left.
Hence, need to be regulated and monitored heavily by established governments. In no way should these emerge as alternates to democratic state power. As is modern democracies face an onslaught of challenges-look at freedom of expression. And I can only laugh at the ludicrousness of this term 'freedom of expression' if these private armies metastasize into something powerful.
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#3> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures.
I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain on the net from the security provided by the state, because they could provide their own private security more cheaply. Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you. John Galt, the engineer, isn't a free man without the state. He's a slave to a warlord, one who puts his talents to work amassing wealth for himself.
That's what makes the possibility raised by the author terrifying. Because in the long run, when private armies take over for states, the "wealthy groups or individuals" aren't Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They're feudal lords--people who earn their position in society by being skilled in war.
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#4> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures. I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain o…
> Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you.
I think the libertarian point is that this same logic applies to states themselves.
Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#5> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures. I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain o…
> Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you. I think the libertarian point is that this same logic applies to states themselves. Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so fort…
> Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth.
Any policy related to the things you've mentioned were or were not enacted by popular support, on those issues in particular. Brutal slaver warlord can take away restaurants, high fructose corn syrup, and your children with a single vote.
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#6> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures. I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain o…
1. As the state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy, and the influence on policies from the democratic majority is reduced to zero, a 'country' controlled by warlord factions and private armies may be closer to the 'market' equilibrium by eliminating the waste of the bureaucratic middleman. No need to use roundabout ways and Kafkaesque policies to dominate the people and compete with other factions, just do it outright. You can read an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era As you can read in the article, private armies are cheaper and just as effective (Possibly due to government overpaying weapons manufacturers controlled by friends or relatives of public bureaucrats). This efficiency may in the future outcompete public armies.
2. Eventually conflicts between warlords lead to increased inequality between various private 'states' and thus consolidation - and from this monopoly of private armies a state emerges. To maintain this monopoly and to maintain stability and create a sense of legitimacy (and thus preventing new competing warlords from arising) it introduces policies like public bureaucrats only indirectly controlled by the individuals who have actual power, who act for the benefit of the public; and depending on the era, an emperor that governs for all, or allow the public to elect some officials, - the economy prospers and generate more taxes for the rulers.
3. This morphs into a more or less fair and democratic and equal society that may last for several decades or even centuries, as the economy booms, inequality is introduced. More affluent individuals are able to afford better education and better connections to their children, who are more able to compete for positions of power. The state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy. Go to 1.
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" - Romance of the three kingdoms
With a couple of exceptions, I have thus described the revolving history of China from the Zhou to modern times.
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#7Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a large enough population making private armies feasible?
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#8State-sponsored defense spending of the kind the US government engages in is safe from being replaced by the private sector, ever. The cost is astronomical. Individual units like carriers, submarines, and bombers cost hundreds of millions up to several billion. The author of the article (and maybe the book?) don't make this distinction.
Instead, these private mercenaries raise the possibility that non-state actors of great means could accomplish minor military objectives using small amounts of conventional force. And I doubt very seriously that American private military firms can take action without the tacit approval of the someone in the United States government.
I'm much more worried about the possibility that these firms are being paid with laundered tax dollars to accomplish objectives that I don't know about or wouldn't approve of. See the Iran-Contra affair.
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#9Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a large enough population making private armies feasible?
Most rational people will choose life over a paycheck if it's only their own life, and their own paycheck, on the balance.
Rational people, however, may choose to die for a paycheck if said paycheck would help feed their children, parents, friends, and/or significant other. Assuming, of course, that the employer has a reputation for honoring their contract even after you're dead.
Needless to say, people who live in societies with a robust social safety net will be less motivated to fight for a paycheck. In most parts of Africa, on the other hand...
Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare
#10Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a large enough population making private armies feasible?
Absolutely. If I were younger and didn't have a family, I'd be tempted to do this.
I sometimes feel like I missed my era. Not so good at going in to the office, but might have been a decent warlord. Then I wake up and realize I'd probably just be hung from a tree in any era except this one.