Trump Considers Privatizing War.

  • Thread starter Thread starter RI 360
  • Start date Start date
  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...e-house-weighs-bold-plan-privatize/548004001/

1fpxdl.jpg

tbh, I wouldn't want to blow shit up for the US govt but I totally would for Exxon Mobile.
 
I'm a bit torn on this.

From a moral and legal standpoint, this cannot end well, since mercenaries are but one step away from being state sanctioned terrorists without some sort of formal limits on what they can do, and sometimes the difference is blurry to non-existent anyway. Further, mercenaries would be crushed by any competent nation-state with a decent military in a stand up fight every time.

On the other hand, if this means people with war-boners who volunteer to be sent to meat grinders get a somewhat legal way to vent those urges in shitholes where any military group would be an improvement on utter barbarism and lawlessness, I can't say it would be an entirely bad idea to some extent.
 
> Rapidly expand size and reach of nation's sphere of influence within a few lifetimes
> It becomes a pattern for leaders to get involved in foreign wars to distract from domestic policy and ramp up patriotism
> State debt balloons due to constant military engagements, but political corruption and moneyed interests amongst the business class makes it difficult to put an end to wars
> Army is eventually partially privatized with Mercenaries with little loyalty to the state
> Mercenaries experience repeated disruptions in pay schedule due to partisan bickering in the Capitol and weak leadership by executives
> All those hired soldiers turn heel and begin to advise the enemy

Am I describing the Western Roman Empire ca. 400 AD, or the United States ca 2070?
 
Betsy Devos would just use this to keep the trannies out of school bathrooms.

Can't be all that bad.
 
> Rapidly expand size and reach of nation's sphere of influence within a few lifetimes
> It becomes a pattern for leaders to get involved in foreign wars to distract from domestic policy and ramp up patriotism
> State debt balloons due to constant military engagements, but political corruption and moneyed interests amongst the business class makes it difficult to put an end to wars
> Army is eventually partially privatized with Mercenaries with little loyalty to the state
> Mercenaries experience repeated disruptions in pay schedule due to partisan bickering in the Capitol and weak leadership by executives
> All those hired soldiers turn heel and begin to advise the enemy

Am I describing the Western Roman Empire ca. 400 AD, or the United States ca 2070?
LOL, a big factor on why we won the American Revolution was because the British used mercenaries.
 
LOL, a big factor on why we won the American Revolution was because the British used mercenaries.

Bit of history sperging to partially counter that point.

The Hessians (as they were collectively known since many of their commanders came from the Hesse area) were somewhere between soldiers of dual allegiance and mercenaries, as George III was of Hanoverian descent and thus ethnically German and thus many of the Hessians were working for German leaders who were in some way related or allied to George by marriage or political allegiance.

In practice, they weren't a roaring success, as they generally got curb stomped whenever they fought by themselves, and given what I mentioned above, they did have not only limits placed on them by their employers, they also could not embarrass their own leaders too much for political reasons, so they had somewhat more limits on their activities.

However, the British did make heavy use of Tories, Indians, and defector Patriots as mercenary forces, which often backfired (Burgoyne's Indian allies wound up being a lot more trouble then they were worth to him during the Saratoga campaign) and having fellow colonists turn on them only increased Patriot resistance.

In the long run, mercenaries didn't help them much, but by themselves weren't the only reason the British efforts in the American Revolution wound up imploding.
 
Bit of history sperging to partially counter that point.

The Hessians (as they were collectively known since many of their commanders came from the Hesse area) were somewhere between soldiers of dual allegiance and mercenaries, as George III was of Hanoverian descent and thus ethnically German and thus many of the Hessians were working for German leaders who were in some way related or allied to George by marriage or political allegiance.

In practice, they weren't a roaring success, as they generally got curb stomped whenever they fought by themselves, and given what I mentioned above, they did have not only limits placed on them by their employers, they also could not embarrass their own leaders too much for political reasons, so they had somewhat more limits on their activities.

However, the British did make heavy use of Tories, Indians, and defector Patriots as mercenary forces, which often backfired (Burgoyne's Indian allies wound up being a lot more trouble then they were worth to him during the Saratoga campaign) and having fellow colonists turn on them only increased Patriot resistance.

In the long run, mercenaries didn't help them much, but by themselves weren't the only reason the British efforts in the American Revolution wound up imploding.
I never said it was the only reason, but sure didn't help over the cost of the war to the British.
 
Can someone explain to the extent the US Miltary isn't just an arm of the Military Industrial Complex and the US Major corporate interests? The last few wars America has been in has involved Oil Fields (Kuwait), Gas Pipelines (Afghanistan), Oil fields again(Iraq), and another Gas Pipeline(Syria).

May as well have the guys on the ground with the Oil company logo on their arm.
 
It's notable that even during the hay day of mercenaries in Europe (roughly 600 CE to the late 17th century) very few mercenary forces actually saw long term employment. Some ended up transforming into actual professional armies (like the Black Legion of Hungary) at least temporarily, or forming royal guard units (The Swiss Guard of the Pope being the last surviving example I know of, and the Varangian Guard is another famous and long lasting such unit) but most groups fought in a few campaigns and then faded away as the core members died or grew too old to continue fighting. The Italian Wars and the various conflicts inside the Holy Roman Empire provided the real last hurrah of the full mercenary force as the various minor powers used them as a core component of their armies and many major nations relied on them to supplement their forces.

Mercenaries are also mentioned in The Prince by the way. Machiavelli states that they are unreliable in war, and if you do find a talented one, you have to be always worried they may just take your job/nation from you. In this case for the Afghani's, I have to agree. Hiring a mercenary force to fight their war seems appealing but it does nothing to actually solve the issues that are causing a civil war in the first place.
 
LOL, a big factor on why we won the American Revolution was because the British used mercenaries.

Hessians were essentially slaves rented out for a pittance, with no military experience or training and cost less than outfitting troops from home. The brits problem wasn't renting mercs, it was shopping in the Germanic micronation equivalent of Costco for them.
 
It's notable that even during the hay day of mercenaries in Europe (roughly 600 CE to the late 17th century) very few mercenary forces actually saw long term employment. Some ended up transforming into actual professional armies (like the Black Legion of Hungary) at least temporarily, or forming royal guard units (The Swiss Guard of the Pope being the last surviving example I know of, and the Varangian Guard is another famous and long lasting such unit) but most groups fought in a few campaigns and then faded away as the core members died or grew too old to continue fighting. The Italian Wars and the various conflicts inside the Holy Roman Empire provided the real last hurrah of the full mercenary force as the various minor powers used them as a core component of their armies and many major nations relied on them to supplement their forces.

Mercenaries are also mentioned in The Prince by the way. Machiavelli states that they are unreliable in war, and if you do find a talented one, you have to be always worried they may just take your job/nation from you. In this case for the Afghani's, I have to agree. Hiring a mercenary force to fight their war seems appealing but it does nothing to actually solve the issues that are causing a civil war in the first place.
The Swiss Guard have cool hats to eat.
Swiss_guards_in_the_Vatican_City%2C_2010.jpg
 
> Rapidly expand size and reach of nation's sphere of influence within a few lifetimes
> It becomes a pattern for leaders to get involved in foreign wars to distract from domestic policy and ramp up patriotism
> State debt balloons due to constant military engagements, but political corruption and moneyed interests amongst the business class makes it difficult to put an end to wars
> Army is eventually partially privatized with Mercenaries with little loyalty to the state
> Mercenaries experience repeated disruptions in pay schedule due to partisan bickering in the Capitol and weak leadership by executives
> All those hired soldiers turn heel and begin to advise the enemy

Am I describing the Western Roman Empire ca. 400 AD, or the United States ca 2070?

I was going to post almost exactly this but you beat me to it.

I'm sure Trump is an absolute genius and could counter every word of it on Twitter and explain why outsourcing a previously volunteer force paid a fairly low amount with highly paid mercenaries who don't give a shit about the country is actually a great idea. Probably by calling you a "loser" and thereby proving you completely wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom