2. “To examine what American policy should be. It is our view that the challenges and opportunities of our time transcend the assumptions and vocabulary used by both the Left and Right in recent years, and that we need to move beyond the defense of obsolete positions.” (from AI’s Stated Purpose)
There is a part of me that says, where is the balance(2 against, 1 for) or why use such a charged and biased word to title such a debate? In today’s lexicon, Mercenary is used in the derogatory sense. So it would kind of be like having a debate about prostitution and calling it the ‘The Whore Debate-Three Views’. LOL. I mean how do you start a serious debate about such a thing, when even the title is stacked against the subject itself?
Either way, I am glad to see the discussion take place, and read what the views are. It is important to learn what the pros and cons are for this industry, and insure we are focusing on alleviating any fears brought up in these kinds of debates as best we can. What’s curious to me, is that none of these so called experts on the subject have made any attempt to contact myself or anyone else within the network.
Maybe they are quietly reading FJ and the other sites, and developing their opinions that way? But really, if they intend to get any kind of shared reality about the subject, they need to reach out, as opposed to staying within their safe network of like minded people.
Also, feel free to send AI a quick note if you disagree or even agree with any of these points of views. I posted the email for the editor of AI, and if they gaffe you off, please remind them of their third stated purpose of AI. Also, throw the letter or comments up in the comments section here, if no one will listen to you at AI. That way if they are reading FJ, they will at least see some feedback. –Matt
3. “Third, though its name is The American Interest, our pages are open to the world…the AI invites citizens of all nations into the American national dialogue, convinced that Americans have much to learn from the experience and perspectives of others.”
—————————————————————–
The Mercenary Debate
Three Views (May-June 2009)
Deborah Avant
In September 2007, armed guards assigned to protect U.S. diplomats and employed by the private security company Blackwater USA opened fire in crowded Nisour Square in central Baghdad. The incident wounded 24 and left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, including an infant. In the wake of the shooting, the press erupted with stories about how dependent the U.S. military had become on “mercenaries”, particularly in Iraq. Some of the coverage focused on the contractors’ aggressive tactics and how they threaten to undermine the campaign to win “hearts and minds” in Iraq. Other articles concentrated on the lack of effective oversight and legal accountability of private security forces. Still others focused on Blackwater’s political connections and practices. But very few examined the larger question of what hired guns might do to democratic governance in the United States.
In recent years, scholars and policymakers have converged on the view that democracy is a key variable for predicting both the internal and external behavior of states. Many argue that political norms favoring non-violent solutions and citizen participation in governance make it harder for leaders in democracies to steer the ship of state into war. Others claim that democracies, once engaged in a fight, are more likely to win since they more carefully calculate the benefits and costs of military action. Perhaps most prominently, democratic peace theory is taken virtually as a “law” throughout both government and the academy.
Deborah Avant is professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, a fellow at the Pacific Council on International Policy, and author of The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (Cambridge University Press 2005).
Story Link Here
——————————————————————
The Mercenary Debate
Three Views
Max Boot
Mercenaries get a bad rap. The very word has become so anathematized that it is no longer used by those it describes, practitioners of one of the world’s oldest professions. Nowadays they prefer to be called “security contractors” and their employers prefer to be known as private military or security companies. This is an understandable if not entirely logical consequence of the state monopolization of warfare, which began in the late 18th century when governments became strong enough to conscript their own citizens to fight rather than rely on hired “free lances.” The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars seemed to confirm that citizen armies were superior to the traditional mix of aristocrats and mercenaries employed by the ancien régimes, and before long almost everyone was emulating the French example. Along the way there arose the widespread belief that the use of citizen-soldiers was superior not only practically but also morally; there was something distasteful, even unethical, about hiring a professional soldier, often a foreigner, to fight on one’s behalf. Much better, leaders assumed, to force their own civilians to fight upon pain of punishment. This mindset has now become so deeply entrenched that it is easy to ignore the long and distinguished history of mercenaries, and their legitimate uses down to the present day.