Do National armed forces have a future?

[marktigger]

Given the increasing use of contractors by armed forces to provide services and support in areas that were once the domain of national armed forces. I wonder how long it will be before the fight of wars is contraced to companies like Blackwater and Haliburton?

[Dominique]

Since I don't see contract security, training, and logistic support companies fielding armored battalions, field artillery, fighter wings, strategic bombers, or large surface fleets, I don't think standing military units have to worry about getting pink slips.

[Laconian]

What Dom said.

[Mastermind]

In my opinion, the problem is a distorion of what war really is by the kinds of conflicts we (Western Forces) have been engaged in for the last three generations.

all the wars have been limited conflicts and are referred to quite wrongly as "police actions" or 'engagements" of limited area conflict.

Hardly anyone wants to use the term "War".

Contractors have actually been involved in all wars. Some contractors being mercinary and directly engaged in the conflict, like the Hessians in the American Revolutionary War or like Suttlers and telegraph contractors, and observation balloonists in the American Civil War. One such contractor contracted to build lightly armored rams and then actually manned them in hot battles for the Union forces in the river war during that civl war.

During WW2, some Russian tank manufacturers actually did the same thing in the defense of various cities, building their tanks and then having employees getting in them and running out to meet the enemy.

Our delusion that in modern terms, all wars will be confined to strict bordered areas of engagment is totally false...

[SOG]

after thinking some more about what Mark said, maybe he is referring to: national armed forces will always be here, but will they be used or to what extent will they be used?

if the conflicts we are fighting become so heated politically and are very asymmetrical, will warfare circle more and more around outside deniability forces such as special forces or contractable military?

i guess a better thought would be, in certain types of warfare, the national armed forces are naturally very limited by multiple factors. in a world that is constantly moving towards that style of warfare national armed forces will play less and less of a role to various degrees. however they will always be used for presence of power, global positioning, strategic planning, defense and larger scale battles.

visually speaking, if we fight more "hot spot" wars, conventional forces will not be seen as much in the media. although special forces and such will always be heavily used in such engagements and those are national armed forces so... but i see the point mark is making i think about certain "types" of wars.


Our delusion that in modern terms, all wars will be confined to strict bordered areas of engagment is totally false...

would you possibly say that another delusion is: we wont be fighting any big wars? i've always wondered about that doctrine, less is more, high tech, low numbers. iraq proved that wrong on so many levels, but will technology even overcome that? i read your scary post on nano machines etc, making people sick with gun powder residue etc etc. made me wonder.

[Mastermind]

Good points SOG. when we start asking lawyers if we can engage and we begin putting soldiers, privates and sergeants on trial for hot engagement decisions, and have national debates on detaining POWs,we have lost all sense of reality about war.

These silly indulgences are absurd in any real war.

Now, please don't get me wrong...All engagments are real war to the guys fighting them...believe me, BTDT! But, in a national leadership scale, our efforts to civilize war are just pissing in an uphill stream.

[eskachig]

During WW2, some Russian tank manufacturers actually did the same thing in the defense of various cities, building their tanks and then having employees getting in them and running out to meet the enemy.Those aren't contractors by any stretch of the imagination. That's just what happens when the situation is desperate and there are weapons around but no soldiers to man them. Think of it more as impromptu civil defense.

Good points SOG. when we start asking lawyers if we can engage and we begin putting soldiers, privates and sergeants on trial for hot engagement decisions, and have national debates on detaining POWs,we have lost all sense of reality about war. I disagree. Rules of engagement have relevance to the ultimate success of the mission (which is usually political), and of course we should have national debates on how POWs are detained and treated. In a democracy, the civilian leadership of the military is responsible for setting the rules of conduct of a nation's military personnel. Of course this could interfere with the military's ability to do its jobs, and there are checks in place to prevent this, but in the end the army does what the civilian leadership tells it to. It's a cornerstone of democracy.

[Mastermind]

I think the problem is also one of instant communications and a plethora of ready photography and video that brings the horror of real war right home. That really had an effect in Vietnam at first taking the military by surprise (which it shouldn't have). Without editing and censor checks, that horror is quite a shock to mom and dad and little sister back home.

This creates a whirlwind of public debate...

"We wanted war, but we never realized it would end up actually shredding people and burning babies to death and turning little brother Johnny into a real killer. How ghastly!"

How do you keep 21 year old kids emotionally stable in a war zone? How do you judge a kid who is trying to stay alive and keep his squad members alive who snaps off a few rounds into a "wounded" "insurgent" without the context that that squad had already lost people to "insurgents" pretending to be wounded? It looks like murdering a wounded enemy combatant, or even worse a possible civilian...instead of killing a potential death dealing, non-uniformed partisan. The forces always present in a free nation who are supporters of enemy propaganda use such imagery to further weaken the war effort and to thus demoralize our fighting forces.

This kind of exposure to full war imagery is what causes lawyers to be sought before engaging, which causes deadly delays of action on the battle field and which greatly helps the enemy effort and hampers our efforts.

It truly is, as you say, for the military leaders to set the rules of engagement and the conduct of soldiers, and most certainly, there are political ramifications when soldiers behave badly. But, when the recourse to correcting that behavior is gross over reaction to the destructive degree we have seen with such being used as political leverages, greatly magnifying the event and exaggerating the resulting damages to our forces.

In my book, that's absolute stupidity. Better to just surrender the issue and keep the boys back home looking pretty.

[marktigger]

The use of contractors can be a good way of shifting the heat of the military and their political masters looking at Abu Grade and some of the PMC incidents.
And why couldn't some technical functions like artillery be subcontracted?
Financially its makes sense in dwindling defence budgets to remove some of the recurring costs to a third party.

[CG51]

What role would the UCMJ take for contractors that work for a company and not the government that they swear allegiance to, by oath.

[Ed Robinson]

This also brings up the issue of who is a legitimate combatant.
If I am engaged in a shooting match is it ok for me to shoot up say a military convoy, but what if the convoy is driven by civilian contractors who are delivering supplies to the enemy? What about civilian contractors who are building a military camp? Now lets say that I overrun an enemy base, can I shoot all the occupants including the civilian cook, the civilian quartermaster, the civilian armourer. What happens if one of the cooks picks up a weapon, is he a military combatant or do I treat him as a criminal with an unlicenced firearm?
Are contractors entitled to be covered as POW? I may be wrong but I am under the impression that combatants who fail to wear a uniform in a war zone can be shot out of hand as per the old Hague convention. That was why the British WW2 home guard were issued with arm bands when uniforms weren’t available. The Russians shot some of the German home guard using the excuse that they weren’t wearing a recognized uniform as the arm bands didn’t count.

[lightfire]

After reading all of the comments..

However the clone troopers or alike are quite a distant future, having in mind private contractors and merceneries we can think about merging them into "foreign/independent legions" - a sort of a mercenery force, that has no nationality, only the job from one or other government, and after the job done, they can get benefits, such as gain the status of nationality, thus people at home wouldn't shead tears for sons and daughters/our boys etc. With modern Western society (and it's elements, such as media) becoming more and more sensitive to casualties and less eager to risk own soldiers for combat missions, "legions" could be an old/new answer. As if going back to the days roman auxilary or XVI century merceneries and adapting such examples for the modern days. Answerability, legistlation, structure are another questions, but somehow I think those are only technical details rather than fundamental issues.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Given the increasing use of contractors by armed forces to provide services and support in areas that were once the domain of national armed forces. I wonder how long it will be before the fight of wars is contraced to companies like Blackwater and Haliburton?

It's illegal by international convention for one.

Secondly some countries may well consider these companies as terrorist organizations. Now in the current climate this could open a can of worms if companies are used in direct combat related roles. Like artillery.

Personally if a nation has to use contractors for major roles like logistics then it's a nation that is not prepared for war and should not go to war. I do however think humanitarian groups should be able to hire companies to provide security in the delivery of humanitarian supplies.

[Mastermind]

I think the use of "contractors" was what ultimately caused the downfall of the Roman Empire. It is also what caused Egypt to lose hereself to her contractors (I think they were the Mamalukes?).

People tend to shy away from war responsibilities as they grow affluent and it is easy for politicians to sell the people the idea they can "sub-contract" their responsibilities for national intercourse with the proper sums of hard cash. It, of course, never works...it's called in the old days "Danegold"...you try to buy your security from barbarains who always want more and eventually, you simply can not afford the price.

Affluence causes people to think their son's should not have to serve at risk to their own lives...they can buy others to serve for them. But, the allegiances of the "others" are not to the nation they are paid to protect...but to the money the nation provides. Let the money run out or the danger level exceed the current market...and the mercenaries soon realize they have more power than the "Boss". And, they are usually not worng. It is my experience, wealthy aloof people are most often weak people.

There are certain duties only the national government should do and the primary job of government is to maintain the security of the nation. That is only possible when the citizens themselves have a blood vested interest in preserveing the nation. When people think they can buy that, they are already lost.

[oregongrunt]

Most countries will never be able to afford the contractor cost. They"ll have rely on their draftees.

[Dasein]

Good points SOG. when we start asking lawyers if we can engage and we begin putting soldiers, privates and sergeants on trial for hot engagement decisions, and have national debates on detaining POWs,we have lost all sense of reality about war.

These silly indulgences are absurd in any real war.

Now, please don't get me wrong...All engagments are real war to the guys fighting them...believe me, BTDT! But, in a national leadership scale, our efforts to civilize war are just pissing in an uphill stream.

This 'real war' you speak of has never existed. War has always been intrinsically tied to politics and public sentiment, and so debates over legalities, and treatment of prisoners are and will always be part of war in practice, not some theoretical, apolitical, 'real' war.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Good points SOG. when we start asking lawyers if we can engage and we begin putting soldiers, privates and sergeants on trial for hot engagement decisions, and have national debates on detaining POWs,we have lost all sense of reality about war.

These silly indulgences are absurd in any real war.

Now, please don't get me wrong...All engagments are real war to the guys fighting them...believe me, BTDT! But, in a national leadership scale, our efforts to civilize war are just pissing in an uphill stream.

I re-read what you have written Mastermind.

This has always been happening though. Hell they banned the crossbow there for a while and all the other shenanigans that went on especially during the medieval period over the conduct of war.

What sets today out differently to times gone by is that today's general population is better educated, has better access to information in virtual real time and with the advent of democracy a direct say in the running of government.

Also unlike years gone by the public because of the above is sick and tired of going to war to make rich people richer or to give the people in power more power. (This is the fundamental reason for every single war in history). The public is tired of it. Now if it means some Capt Smith gets canned in public so be it.

[budgie]

Given the increasing use of contractors by armed forces to provide services and support in areas that were once the domain of national armed forces. I wonder how long it will be before the fight of wars is contraced to companies like Blackwater and Haliburton?

It's a bit early in the game to be calling the death of national armies isn't it?

[Mastermind]

I re-read what you have written Mastermind.

This has always been happening though. Hell they banned the crossbow there for a while and all the other shenanigans that went on especially during the medieval period over the conduct of war.

What sets today out differently to times gone by is that today's general population is better educated, has better access to information in virtual real time and with the advent of democracy a direct say in the running of government.

Also unlike years gone by the public because of the above is sick and tired of going to war to make rich people richer or to give the people in power more power. (This is the fundamental reason for every single war in history). The public is tired of it. Now if it means some Capt Smith gets canned in public so be it.

Okay...all good points. But, think of it this way. Suppose a "civilized" force, like the American military, Russian or any EU military force meets up with a barbarian enemy of strength? I think about the conflict between the Russians and the Chechen militant forces. In my study of that conflict, I came away thinking about the chechens as hellatious fighters, under manned and under gunned, making up for that with sheer barbarity... grotesquely torturing any prisoners and leaving them to be found by Russians as a morale buster, killing all they attack....now, the Russians had a real eye opener in that conflict, intitially grossly underestimating the enemy, and paying dearly in lives for that mistake. However, eventually, the Russians caught on and met force with force and barbarity with barbarity...the whole story has yet to be told, and probably never will. But, once the media types and the lawyer types were banned from the battlefiled, all gloves were off and the sehit hit the fan with the result we have today of a fairly closed conflict.

Why the whole story will not be told is becasue of how the Russians had to resort to real war...brutal, whole blood conflict. The world will not tolerate such barbarity on behalf of a military organization that is percieved as "Modern and conventional".

What could the American military do against a harsh enemy like the Chinese? In my estiamtion, very little...because I think the world will hold the Chinese to a different scale. AS the world held the North Vietnamese to a different scale. They could commit all manner of barbaric acts, with no world criticism, and the Americans were expected to not retaliate in kind.

War by it's definition is barbaric....it is murder, slaughter, torture, maiming hell. And if people try to redefine that, they are in fantasy land. Oh, we can pretend it is something less...more "humane"...like we try to do when we ban land mines and napalm and poison gas....and acts of torture to gather intelligence. But, once the chips are down and the conflict comes down to a matter of national survival, mom and sis being raped in their homes, etc....then it's no-holds-barred real war.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I can see where you are coming from. The Pacific War gives a good example of the points you are making. As bad as the Eastern Front (Great Patriotic War) was nothing comes close to the shear barbaric nature of the conflict and it shows that civilized nations can and will resort to methods of the utmost brutality. In other wars we may have simply landed some troops as a holding force and starved them out. But with exception of Rabaul, Truk and Singapore the Allied forces went from island to island methodically launching campaigns that were not needed simply to annihilate the enemy.

Shocking stuff.

I think for the future we may end up seeing a return of "castle and siege" warfare. We are kind of seeing this now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heavily fortified bases where forces will patrol from the secure the area when trouble flares up.

As recent wars have shown, (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya) modern armies either struggle or simply can not obtain victory because either politically or military and sometimes a combination of both.

When the next big one comes, once the air forces and navies are destroyed they won't be able to be replaced since the cost is simply to great economically, we will return to the "castle and siege" warfare. Since a fortified position offers protection, provides a supply point and a launching point for operations in a area at the same time providing for war with minimal cost. (what the public want) So I don't think we'll go back to trench warfare.

[Group9]

I think a better question is how long before major powers end up having battles that are primarily fought by unmanned vehicles.