2 ms·

"But the trend towards privatising military force could end up accelerating USA's slide down in terms of military power. " + This is a very marginal thing. "

"But the trend towards privatising military force could end up accelerating USA's slide down in terms of military power. " + This is a very marginal thing. " If we are indeed moving back to the "normal" (historically speaking) "neo medieval" world were military force is generally mercenary and not national standing armies" + This is not happening. Don't worry about it. Listen - war is too expensive. It is only economically advantageous when the parties are not interconnected. Some American businesses can economically from a war in Iraq by getting big contracts ... but a war with any real nation would cause massive upheaval in markets. The moment Brexit happened - it was a big shock to markets - and that was a small thing. 90% of people and businesses 'lose' in a big war, so it's very, very unlikely that China, Russia, USA get involved directly in a war - it's just too costly for everyone. USA is China's #1 customer. The only 'rising military power' that will make a difference is China. Everyone else - won't matter. It's also very, very expensive to challenge the Americans in any way, even regionally, so the only actors that will do it are non-state entities, i.e. insurgents like Al Qeda etc.. The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP.

e12e 10y ago
Iraq was "a real nation" before the first gulf war. Indeed, as you point out - the US lost that war by any sensible measure - but that doesn't mean the same mistakes won't be repeated. And the gulf operations were something of a 50/50 split between contractors and military personnel, at least towards the end of the protracted conflict. Don't forget that "the end of war" as proclaimed after world war one - because a new world war would be too costly, and too horrible for anyone to contemplate. Of course no one will start a war they think they will lose. You start wars you are "certain" you will win. And then they escalate. And escalate. > The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP. I absolutely agree that this is going to be the biggest change. With accompanying logistics, new (political and economical) battles over water rights and so on. If there's a new "private" war, I'm guessing it will start with a large contractor being hired by some regime to "calm down" "unreasonable unrest" over stealing natural resources and handing them over to corporations, like for example privatizing water (or as one can see in Niger, privatizing oil). I certainly hope we won't see a third world war, but I'm also afraid of people that seem to think that large scale war is "unlikely". Nothing in history suggests that it is. [ed: And "insurgents" are likely to always be proxy wars. The US created the modern resistance in Afghanistan to fight Sovjet power, and then end up fighting that same insurgency, now supported by Saudis, which are allies on paper.]

e12e 10y ago

Iraq was "a real nation" before the first gulf war. Indeed, as you point out - the US lost that war by any sensible measure - but that doesn't mean the same mistakes won't be repeated. And the gulf operations were something of a 50/50 split between contractors and military personnel, at least towards the end of the protracted conflict. Don't forget that "the end of war" as proclaimed after world war one - because a new world war would be too costly, and too horrible for anyone to contemplate. Of course no one will start a war they think they will lose. You start wars you are "certain" you will win. And then they escalate. And escalate. > The 'big shift' over the next 50 years is that 4 billion people who are not even on the radar today are going from $2 a day, to $50 a day in terms of GDP. I absolutely agree that this is going to be the biggest change. With accompanying logistics, new (political and economical) battles over water rights and so on. If there's a new "private" war, I'm guessing it will start with a large contractor being hired by some regime to "calm down" "unreasonable unrest" over stealing natural resources and handing them over to corporations, like for example privatizing water (or as one can see in Niger, privatizing oil). I certainly hope we won't see a third world war, but I'm also afraid of people that seem to think that large scale war is "unlikely". Nothing in history suggests that it is. [ed: And "insurgents" are likely to always be proxy wars. The US created the modern resistance in Afghanistan to fight Sovjet power, and then end up fighting that same insurgency, now supported by Saudis, which are allies on paper.]