4 ms·

This is also how Los Zetas formed. A bunch of elite soldiers figured out they could make a lot more money as enforcers for drug cartels.

Mirioron 6y ago
If you think about it, it's a bit odd that there are so few mercenaries in this day and age. When you look back on history then from what I can tell, mercenaries were much more common.
- demosthenes14 6y ago
  What makes you think there are so few? Mercenaries are basically representing both America and Russia in Syria right now.
- loosetypes 6y ago
  You might find this entry on Swiss mercenaries interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries It was new information to me but supports your idea.
- eloisius 6y ago
  I met a guy at NewSpace several years ago and we were talking about the role of the US military in space exploration. I was expressing my wariness of a militarized space force, the possibility of us ending up under a military junta, etc, but he was less worried. He kept making the point that mercenaries were the norm in the past and that the US military actually has an incredible record for never seizing control. He chalked it up to the fact that our military traditions and honor are deeply intertwined with civilian rule, and didn't think our soldiers would easily abandon that.
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    The US military has only been around for 250 years and look at how much the country has changed in that time. The idea of the welfare state would be totally incomprehensible to the founders[0]. I think the idea of the military as separate from the rest of the state is contingent on that state operating in the interests of the people. Or at least, not against the interests of the people. And history shows that no society has been able to do this forever. [0]: I'm not saying we shouldn't have a welfare state, it's clearly necessary in the modern world, but the America of today is nothing like the America that was intended, for better or for worse.
    - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
      I see you weren't meaning to focus on welfare state by your edit. The US is different than revolutionary times in many ways, perhaps more significantly in women's rights, slavery, prisons, illegality of many actions. I think the whole idea of the US being the world's most powerful country and acting outside our borders would have been something the founders would have struggled with, because they fought a war to get away from the world's most powerful country.
    - karatestomp 6y ago
      > The US military has only been around for 250 years And a permanent, standing, large, and fairly dysfunctional (look at descriptions of military leadership and its civilian oversight in WWII and earlier, then look at same in Vietnam, then look at the linked Afghanistan Papers documents in this thread re: same in Iraq and Afghanistan) US military is even newer, only 80ish years. Even more recent if you consider its modern form to have taken shape only after the Vietnam draft ended.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    > the US military actually has an incredible record for never seizing control. I wonder if the civil war counts here.
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      The US military was very much opposed to the confederate succession, so much so that they refused to hand over union/federal property, which started the civil war to begin with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
    - eloisius 6y ago
      This is a good point. After the conclusion of the war, 10 former Confederate states were placed under military rule. However, I believe that happened under the command of civilian leaders. Whether or not they had legitimate authority to do so is a different debate, but I don't think it was the military acting of its own accord.
- kipchak 6y ago
  Given the increased importance of having better tech and weapons in modern warfare, maybe the modern equivalent of a mercenary should include private contractors/R&D alongside boots on the ground.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    I'm sure it already does. All of those companies selling information to the police are probably selling it to well-connected private entities as well. Or hell, the mercenaries may just own these tech companies outright: look at the devos family.
    - alasdair_ 6y ago
      >I'm sure it already does. All of those companies selling information to the police are probably selling it to well-connected private entities as well. Or hell, the mercenaries may just own these tech companies outright: look at the devos family. I think it's very likely that entities like drug cartels already pay for things like location data for DEA agent's cellphones.
- smacktoward 6y ago
  It's not an accident. Nation-states spent an awful lot of time and money building up professional armies precisely because they had long experience depending on mercenaries. They knew that there were only two ways depending on mercenaries ever ended: either the country couldn't pay the mercenaries enough, in which case they sold them out to a higher bidder; or it could, in which case the mercenaries would eventually get tired of only getting part of the country's wealth, so they'd overthrow the government and take all of it. Professional armies let the nation-state escape this trap. Unfortunately professional armies fail the one test that matters these days, which is the number of opportunities they provide for private actors to siphon money into their own pockets. So we have decided to ignore the lessons of history, because private profit today is worth social collapse tomorrow.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    To stop this problems and other problems, like people in places like the SEC immediately going to work for companies under SEC investigation when they leave, and other revolving doors, it would probably be worth paying higher-level people (special forces operatives, District Attorneys, EPA commissioners etc.) a much higher level of pension that starts paying immediately after leaving the job, contingent on their lifetime disbarment from certain kinds of employment. If the person wishes to go work in such a position, that money needs to be paid back immediately. It won't stop everyone, but done correctly it could stem the most egregious of revolving doors.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  In the past, mercenaries were paid with the spoils of war. Modern artillery makes that impossible - everything gets smashed to bits.
- kilroy123 6y ago
  I personally know a merc, so they're more common than you think.
gazelle21 6y ago
Guess who trained them? The whole cartel/US connection is insane. I'm surprised more media outlets haven't talked about it.
alasdair_ 6y ago
>This is also how Los Zetas formed. A bunch of elite soldiers figured out they could make a lot more money as enforcers for drug cartels. And then very quickly figured out that the "drug cartel" bit was the easy part and they got rid of their employers rather quickly. The whole Zetas story is a fascinating one. If only their employers had read The Prince: "Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;"

Mirioron 6y ago

If you think about it, it's a bit odd that there are so few mercenaries in this day and age. When you look back on history then from what I can tell, mercenaries were much more common.

demosthenes14 6y ago
What makes you think there are so few? Mercenaries are basically representing both America and Russia in Syria right now.
loosetypes 6y ago
You might find this entry on Swiss mercenaries interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries It was new information to me but supports your idea.
eloisius 6y ago
I met a guy at NewSpace several years ago and we were talking about the role of the US military in space exploration. I was expressing my wariness of a militarized space force, the possibility of us ending up under a military junta, etc, but he was less worried. He kept making the point that mercenaries were the norm in the past and that the US military actually has an incredible record for never seizing control. He chalked it up to the fact that our military traditions and honor are deeply intertwined with civilian rule, and didn't think our soldiers would easily abandon that.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  The US military has only been around for 250 years and look at how much the country has changed in that time. The idea of the welfare state would be totally incomprehensible to the founders[0]. I think the idea of the military as separate from the rest of the state is contingent on that state operating in the interests of the people. Or at least, not against the interests of the people. And history shows that no society has been able to do this forever. [0]: I'm not saying we shouldn't have a welfare state, it's clearly necessary in the modern world, but the America of today is nothing like the America that was intended, for better or for worse.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    I see you weren't meaning to focus on welfare state by your edit. The US is different than revolutionary times in many ways, perhaps more significantly in women's rights, slavery, prisons, illegality of many actions. I think the whole idea of the US being the world's most powerful country and acting outside our borders would have been something the founders would have struggled with, because they fought a war to get away from the world's most powerful country.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    > The US military has only been around for 250 years And a permanent, standing, large, and fairly dysfunctional (look at descriptions of military leadership and its civilian oversight in WWII and earlier, then look at same in Vietnam, then look at the linked Afghanistan Papers documents in this thread re: same in Iraq and Afghanistan) US military is even newer, only 80ish years. Even more recent if you consider its modern form to have taken shape only after the Vietnam draft ended.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  > the US military actually has an incredible record for never seizing control. I wonder if the civil war counts here.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    The US military was very much opposed to the confederate succession, so much so that they refused to hand over union/federal property, which started the civil war to begin with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
  - eloisius 6y ago
    This is a good point. After the conclusion of the war, 10 former Confederate states were placed under military rule. However, I believe that happened under the command of civilian leaders. Whether or not they had legitimate authority to do so is a different debate, but I don't think it was the military acting of its own accord.
kipchak 6y ago
Given the increased importance of having better tech and weapons in modern warfare, maybe the modern equivalent of a mercenary should include private contractors/R&D alongside boots on the ground.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  I'm sure it already does. All of those companies selling information to the police are probably selling it to well-connected private entities as well. Or hell, the mercenaries may just own these tech companies outright: look at the devos family.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    >I'm sure it already does. All of those companies selling information to the police are probably selling it to well-connected private entities as well. Or hell, the mercenaries may just own these tech companies outright: look at the devos family. I think it's very likely that entities like drug cartels already pay for things like location data for DEA agent's cellphones.
smacktoward 6y ago
It's not an accident. Nation-states spent an awful lot of time and money building up professional armies precisely because they had long experience depending on mercenaries. They knew that there were only two ways depending on mercenaries ever ended: either the country couldn't pay the mercenaries enough, in which case they sold them out to a higher bidder; or it could, in which case the mercenaries would eventually get tired of only getting part of the country's wealth, so they'd overthrow the government and take all of it. Professional armies let the nation-state escape this trap. Unfortunately professional armies fail the one test that matters these days, which is the number of opportunities they provide for private actors to siphon money into their own pockets. So we have decided to ignore the lessons of history, because private profit today is worth social collapse tomorrow.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  To stop this problems and other problems, like people in places like the SEC immediately going to work for companies under SEC investigation when they leave, and other revolving doors, it would probably be worth paying higher-level people (special forces operatives, District Attorneys, EPA commissioners etc.) a much higher level of pension that starts paying immediately after leaving the job, contingent on their lifetime disbarment from certain kinds of employment. If the person wishes to go work in such a position, that money needs to be paid back immediately. It won't stop everyone, but done correctly it could stem the most egregious of revolving doors.
pyuser583 6y ago
In the past, mercenaries were paid with the spoils of war. Modern artillery makes that impossible - everything gets smashed to bits.
kilroy123 6y ago
I personally know a merc, so they're more common than you think.

gazelle21 6y ago

Guess who trained them? The whole cartel/US connection is insane. I'm surprised more media outlets haven't talked about it.

alasdair_ 6y ago

>This is also how Los Zetas formed. A bunch of elite soldiers figured out they could make a lot more money as enforcers for drug cartels. And then very quickly figured out that the "drug cartel" bit was the easy part and they got rid of their employers rather quickly. The whole Zetas story is a fascinating one. If only their employers had read The Prince: "Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;"