5 ms·

I wish that people didn't take these knee-jerk, edgy, contrarian responses. There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibi

by Teever 9y ago

I wish that people didn't take these knee-jerk, edgy, contrarian responses. There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibility of the potential benefit you claim. I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. How do we ensure they don't go rogue?

prawn 9y ago
And who defines "rogue"?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- chii 9y ago
  those who are currently in power will define rogue to mean those who threaten their status quo.
microwavecamera 9y ago
Considering the history of Blackwater it's a distinct possibility.
- 3131s 9y ago
  Dyncorp should be mentioned in the headline too. From what I've been able to gather Dyncorp is still a much larger company than Blackwater and their history of war crimes is more extensive too.
  - microwavecamera 9y ago
    Definitely. Dyncorp has been implicated in horrible human rights abuses too, including child sex trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies Edit: A good documentary to check out about military contractors in Iraq is Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o
Lazare 9y ago
> I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. Historically, that's hardly unusual. > How do we ensure they don't go rogue? How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.
- 3131s 9y ago
  It's not new, Dyncorp has been around since 1946. And the US-backed groups variously called paramilitaries, anti-communist insurgents, moderate rebels, etc. are essentially foreign-run PMCs by another name.
Consultant32452 9y ago
>I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder. >How do we ensure they don't go rogue? The public entity is already rogue.
- wbl 9y ago
  Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
  - knieveltech 9y ago
    How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
  - 3131s 9y ago
    Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.
- 9y ago
Bartweiss 9y ago
I'm sort of stunned at all the people saying "the military is already rogue so it's fine". It feels alarmingly ahistorical - a military the public is unhappy with is bad, but the history of e.g. Rome ought to speak to how vastly much worse military privatization can become.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  We even have more recent examples with the specific guy proposing this 'adventure.' Truly depraved criminal actions by personnel in the employ of his merc company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
chii 9y ago
> I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.
microcolonel 9y ago
I'd take a position between you two. I personally don't see the problem with a military force being operated as a private business. The state still has the monopoly on approving the use of force, and they are no more and no less protected from a force "going rogue", when you think about it. I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force. Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.

by Teever 9y ago

prawn 9y ago

And who defines "rogue"?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chii 9y ago
those who are currently in power will define rogue to mean those who threaten their status quo.

microwavecamera 9y ago

Considering the history of Blackwater it's a distinct possibility.

3131s 9y ago
Dyncorp should be mentioned in the headline too. From what I've been able to gather Dyncorp is still a much larger company than Blackwater and their history of war crimes is more extensive too.
- microwavecamera 9y ago
  Definitely. Dyncorp has been implicated in horrible human rights abuses too, including child sex trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies Edit: A good documentary to check out about military contractors in Iraq is Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o

Lazare 9y ago

> I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. Historically, that's hardly unusual. > How do we ensure they don't go rogue? How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave? I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.

3131s 9y ago
It's not new, Dyncorp has been around since 1946. And the US-backed groups variously called paramilitaries, anti-communist insurgents, moderate rebels, etc. are essentially foreign-run PMCs by another name.

Consultant32452 9y ago

>I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder. >How do we ensure they don't go rogue? The public entity is already rogue.

wbl 9y ago
Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
- knieveltech 9y ago
  How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
- 3131s 9y ago
  Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.
9y ago

Bartweiss 9y ago

I'm sort of stunned at all the people saying "the military is already rogue so it's fine". It feels alarmingly ahistorical - a military the public is unhappy with is bad, but the history of e.g. Rome ought to speak to how vastly much worse military privatization can become.

wavefunction 9y ago
We even have more recent examples with the specific guy proposing this 'adventure.' Truly depraved criminal actions by personnel in the employ of his merc company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre

chii 9y ago

> I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war. what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.

microcolonel 9y ago

I'd take a position between you two. I personally don't see the problem with a military force being operated as a private business. The state still has the monopoly on approving the use of force, and they are no more and no less protected from a force "going rogue", when you think about it. I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force. Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.