U.S. Soldiers Mercenaries?

[estesbob]

Here’s Elenor Clift on this weekends MvGlaughlin group:

“But I think what we’re coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army. And it doesn’t have a nice ring to it. We call it ‘volunteers,’ but we’re basically paying people to serve their country.”

 

[Marie]

estesbob:

Here’s Elenor Clift on this weekends MvGlaughlin group:

“But I think what we’re coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army. And it doesn’t have a nice ring to it. We call it ‘volunteers,’ but we’re basically paying people to serve their country.”

Now there is a strange statement if ever I have read one.

 

[geezerbob]

Provide a link to the article, please.

 

[Fitz]

Now there is a strange statement if ever I have read one.

Is this how some will make a case for a draft, so that we have unwilling participants? Wait, even then we will still pay them. This is a ridiculous statement. Would some people prefer no protection, except after storms. I am sure most are appreciated the National Gurard right now in Louisianna and Alabama.

 

[estesbob]

geezerbob:

Provide a link to the article, please.

corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_28_corner-archive.asp#074620

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I thought mercenaries were those professional soldiers who placed profit above patriotism. If that is the case, I think the statement in question is highly inflammatory and hurtful to American soldiers. Perhaps this is another innovative way to ‘support the troops while opposing the War’? :whacky: – Not! :nope:

 

[ncjohn]

Whether they are technically mercenaries or not, there is something of a danger in having an all volunteer army in that it allows people to delegate that job to “others” without having a personal stake in, or having to give much thought to, what the military is doing in their name.

One of the major reasons the anti-war movement took off the way it did during Vietnam was the draft. When people’s son’s and fathers and nephews were suddenly fighting that war against their will, people started paying more attention and questioned what was going on and what we were fighting there for.

There’s an excellent analysis of this in Scott Peck’s “People of the Lie” where he discusses My Lai–its causes and consequences–and largely predicted what later took place in Iraq. While I still support the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, as well as the need to remove Saddam as a threat to peace in the mideast, the dangers cited by Peck are real and have probably led to many of the missteps we have had there.

One other thing, whether we believe we have a mercenary army or not, the Arab world apparently perceives it that way, which doesn’t help our cause any.

 

[dhgray]

Just consider the source

 

[Franze]

Having a professional army is the best thing possible, in the spanish history, the “tercios”, our great spanish army, was professional, only with the french invasion and Napoleon, the obligatory militar service was used.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The British, who have a long history of democracy, did not have conscription until nearly the end of WWI. Without conscription and without large reserves, the Kaiser called them a “contemptable little army.”

But they beat the Kaiser’s Army – and did it without threatening their own democracy.

As I have said in other threads, a conscript army would be a burden we couldn’t support – to be fair, we’d have to draft everyone. When you look at the numbers of those who turn 18 every year – plus the numbers of those over 18 but still of military age – you get a 14 million man army.

What will it cost to house, clothe, feed, equip and train that huge army?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

As I have said in other threads, a conscript army would be a burden we couldn’t support – to be fair, we’d have to draft everyone.

Maybe we need only train everyone. Not a conscript Army, but an Army that trains all eligible persons and retains them for six months or so. A regular professional Army plus a “prepared reserve.”

Military training can certainly be beneficial to an individual.

 

[Colin]

They are not mercenaries and implying that they are is deragetory. Mercenaries get paid money to fight right? So there going to get a fat paycheck becuase if a government is desperate for them theyll be very expense (supply and demand). So where am i going with this? OUR SOLDIERS DONT GET RICH FROM THE SERVICE!!! and they only server our country compared to the mercenaries who get paid a lot and work for the highest bidder. Saying there mercenaries is dumb.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Maybe we need only train everyone. Not a conscript Army, but an Army that trains all eligible persons and retains them for six months or so. A regular professional Army plus a “prepared reserve.”

First of all to train them, you have to clothe, house, feed and equip them.

Secondly, you can’t train them in six months. A soldier is trained by having him pull his weight in unit operations – basic and advanced training centers don’t produce effective soldiers, and don’t produce units at all.

Third, what if we need to use our army? If all our professionals are tied up training recruits, where will we get the trained and ready divisions we need?

Fourth, how are we to build a “prepared reserve” with hordes of half-trained privates with no unit experience?
Arba Sicula:

Military training can certainly be beneficial to an individual.

The purpose of the military is to defend the country, not to benefit individuals, and certainly not to do that to the extent the country is plunged deeper into debt and the Army left less capable of its real mission.

 

[estesbob]

ncjohn:

Whether they are technically mercenaries or not, there is something of a danger in having an all volunteer army in that it allows people to delegate that job to “others” without having a personal stake in, or having to give much thought to, what the military is doing in their name.

.

I dont Think there is any problem at all with havng an all voluteer army and I also dont think they are mercenaries in any way shape or form. . I think those who believe so(i am not refering to you here, BTW, I respect your opinion) are mainly disapointed that soldiers are not only not joining in their protests(ala Kerry) but are re-enlisting in record numbers.

I have followed the war closely and have never run across an article claiming the Arab Countries considered our troops mercanaries. I know the 100s of thousands of iraqis wavng their purple fingers after their election dont consider them so…

I am not in favor of reinstating the draft but do beleive that a year or two of national service after High School would be a good idea.

 

[jjwilkman]

i think mercenaries fight for couintries other than their own.

the hessians for the british in the revolutionary war.

i knew an ex us marine who fought in angola as a mercenary. i think there ia even a magazine for mercenaries…

 

[ncjohn]

vern humphrey:

The British, who have a long history of democracy, did not have conscription until nearly the end of WWI. Without conscription and without large reserves, the Kaiser called them a “contemptable little army.”

But they beat the Kaiser’s Army – and did it without threatening their own democracy.

As I have said in other threads, a conscript army would be a burden we couldn’t support – to be fair, we’d have to draft everyone. When you look at the numbers of those who turn 18 every year – plus the numbers of those over 18 but still of military age – you get a 14 million man army.

What will it cost to house, clothe, feed, equip and train that huge army?

I’m not sure you need to draft everyone if that was up for discussion. A fair lottery system (not like the Vietnam era one) where there aren’t exemptions given might give you all the army you need. If you want universal, it still need not be all military–it could be a universal call to national service, one component of which would be military or reserve.

The main thing is that going to war is something that all citizens should have a stake in and as Catholics we should want people thinking very hard about it before supporting leaders or potential leaders who are going to make those decisions. If nothing else, when your own ox stands to be gored you’ll try to find the alternative that is least likely to provide that outcome.

 

[gilliam]

We don’t need a universal draft. We don’t need people who don’t want to be in the service of our country. We don’t simply need more bodies. This isn’t WWII. We need men and women who want to be in the service and are attracted to certain military occupational specialties. More of a problem then it is worth to simply draft everyone and then deal with the mess that results.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

estesbob:

Here’s Elenor Clift on this weekends MvGlaughlin group:

“But I think what we’re coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army. And it doesn’t have a nice ring to it. We call it ‘volunteers,’ but we’re basically paying people to serve their country.”

I believe she is simply being visciously facetous and disingenuous to her country since the legal definition of a ‘mercenary’ is clearly defined in the Geneva Convention: Protocol 1, Article 47 (e) “is not a member of the armed forces of a Party in conflict.” So the U.S. Army, or any other government’s army, is not mercenary.

What she might be referring to is the ambiguity about the U.S. civilians hired as armed guards and private protection agencies doing body guard work and fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

gilliam:

We don’t need a universal draft.

Yes we do need a draft, and the sooner the better.

We don’t need people who don’t want to be in the service of our country.

That is true of any country. So what’s your point?

This isn’t WWII.

World War 2 is over, the war in Afghanistan is today and we need a victory before the U.S. withdraws her troops!

We need men and women who want to be in the service and are attracted to certain military occupational specialties.

We don’t need the marginal of society misusing the military as a job corp.

More of a problem then it is worth to simply draft everyone and then deal with the mess that results.

But we don’t just draft everyone, and we never have! We do not draft the homosexual, the retarded, the infirmed, the aged, women, the deformed, the crippled, the only surviving son, or the concientious objector. The draft is good for America and the formation of a American Foreign Legion would be better!

 

[gilliam]

Bobby A. Greene:

We don’t need the marginal of society misusing the military as a job corp.

I am guessing that you have no contact with the current military.

We are not ‘marginal’ in the society, my son is a PFC in the Army. His friends are not ‘marginal’ in the society and they are in the Army, Navy and Marines.