Why doesn't the U.S. hire mercenaries to help us fight?

Factual Questions
1

When reading a post about how much Bush is requesting for the war, and how little each servicemperson actually receives, it struck me as odd that the U.S. doesn’t try to ‘outsource’ its own military, in the form of mercenaries.

Now I know that mercenaries currently do exist, but it seems like they are very small, secretive groups, used for incedents a government does not want to be attributed to.

Would hiring out mercenaries be cheaper than going into conflicts using our own military? Why are there no large mercenary groups out there? I do know that in the past mercenaries played a more integral part in wars.

2

If we needed soldiers that badly, wouldn’t we just reinstate the draft?

3

The 10th Mountain Division didn’t knock over Afghanistan by itself. Similarly, a single brigade isn’t going to invade northern Iraq on its own, either. Lately the U.S. has been encouraging local populations to assist it in its endeavors with the promise of self-determination if they are successful.

4

Hmm, interesting. It 's worked for the French. As in foreign legion.

5

Now that I’ve thought about, what’s the difference between a “professional army” and a “mercenary army”.

Not that I mean any insult to our brave folks in uniform.

6

Practical problems with the federal government hiring mercenaries:

  1. Negative feedback from Joe Taxpayer–"My tax dollars going for outsourcing the war in Iraq? What’s wrong with the 350,000 soldiers we’re already paying?"

  2. More negative feedback from Joe Taxpayer–"You tellin’ me GI Joe ain’t got what it takes anymore? We gotta hire a buncha damn freelancers to carry the American flag into Baghdad?"

  3. And still more negative feedback from Joe Taxpayer–"I ain’t payin’ for the Yew Ess Marines to play backup for a buncha damn freelancers, no way!"

  4. I believe that all federal employees are entitled to federal pension plans. What branch of the Civil Service or Armed Forces pension plan would “mercenaries” come under?

7

WAG: Hiring mercenaries might give the appearance that this isn’t a war being fought for moral reasons. Right now Bush’ administration is selling this as a war of right versus wrong, and image is very important in how the war is waged.

I don’t want to get into a debate of whether using your own citizens to fight is more moral than hiring outsiders; I’m just talking about the possible perception that it is.

8

More negative feedback from the mercenary companies of the world: "You want us to invade IRAQ???"

9

“We may be crazy but we’re not stupid…”

:smiley:

10

Well, mercenaries typically don’t actually want to fight. They only take contracts where the fighting is shooting lightly armed campesinos, massacring POWs, or guarding El Presidente’s mansion. The last thing a mercenary wants to be involved in is a full scale battle.

11

“You want to pay me xxx dollars to fight the Iraqis?”

“The Iraqis have offered double that amount to fight you!”

“I say no. I stay home with my girlfriend because France pays me the most to ignore the both of you.”

12

Lots of problems here. In no particular order.

a)  Modern warfare is all about coordination and training.    Look at the number of friendly fire incidents we've seen with just regular forces.    Having new and uncoordinated troops muddling up the battiefield would be a problem.

b) A mercenary company would not necessarily be subject to, or adhere, to the US military code of conduct. We’re trying to give the impression that we’re the good guys. So having a troop of hired yahoos drive into a village, looting and molesting the women would be a very bad thing.

c) Historically, after the war is over, you have the problem of the mercenaries hanging around with time on their hands, not much money, and lots of weapons. That’s a bad combination.

d) We have something like 90,000 troops on the ground in Iraq with maybe 250,000 support personnel. (Numbers very approximate.) So what’s the ad in Soldier of Fortune magazine gonna look like? “Needed, army of 350,000 to invade small but heavily armed country. Bring your own armored vehicles and RPGs.” There really isn’t anyone out there in the business on that scale.

e) Problems with command and control. Lots of mercenary companies (at least in the Middle Ages) had their own charismatic commanders. There was lots of bickering and rivalry among the commanders. So getting them to behave and do what they’re told might be a problem as egos collide.

f) Ask yourself what kind of person is going to sign up as a mercenary? In the armed services of a country, there are lots of reasons (besides conscription) to sign up: training, patriotism, financial incentives, and it’s a reasonable career path with a fair chance that you’ll never actually get into a shooting war. In a mercenary company, you will get shot at and there’s no job security when the job is done. So you’ll get the desperate, the psychopathic, the suicidal, and maybe a few idealists. (See section b)

g) Loyalty and motivation. A mercenary company is loyal just as long as the checks keep rolling in, and as long as no one outbids you. And, when things get tough, it may occur to the mercenary that his or her skin is worth more than that paycheck. So you can expect more desertions (See section b) and risk having a large chunk of your fighting force suddenly decide that they’ve gotten a better offer.

13

Lemur866 has pointed out, that true mercenary forces – freelance contractors – have a rather less-than-outstanding bang-for-the-buck record.

Foreign Legion, and Gurkhas, are NOT what comes to my mind when talking about “mercenaries”, since they involve the State actually raising and organizing standing units for its exclusive use and providing the equipment and training, and the enlistees making an exclusive commitment to serve for X period of time, with benefits upon retirement if you last that long (e.g. Legionaires get French citizenship). Notice these were creatures of old-style Empires, who needed units to do the nasty “dirty work” but may have not wanted to risk the hometown boys for it.

States with professional militaries and large enough population pools, like the USA, need not even use that supplementary mechanism – we got enough citizens and legal residents willing to serve. Even though many of them do serve for the benefits (hard to think it would be for the pay alone), those very benefits constitute a commitment to the serviceman/woman on the part of the State to look after him/her beyond the time of their service. OTOH, serving as a citizen/legal resident places you under a legal obligation of a different nature than a mere contractor. A mercenary cutting and running or switching sides is a breach of contract. A soldier doing that is treason.

Now, paying off a local warlord to be your “ally” for the time being and provide his warriors to your cause is not that different from giving a loan to a sovereign government in exchange for their aid. And it has the advantage of knowledge of the terrain and the extra motivation of knowing they are stuck there whether the Great Power stays or leaves.

As for how come there are no “large mercenary forces” available now, well… a competent standing army, even one merely brigade-sized, is one expensive mutha of a thing. To raise, assemble and maintain – including housing and feeding and periodic refresher training and upgrading of weapons and gear during peacetime; and then to transport, resupply and replenish the ranks including integral support units, in wartime? It’s just not profitable to maintain a mercenary unit capable of holding its own in a real pitched battle, against a real army; much more efficient to have a smallish one that can deal in unconventional warfare.

14

These are all legitimate points, but I had thought the benefits to hiring mercenaries were-

  1. Its not our boys/girls dying on the battlefield.

  2. It seems like it would be less controversial if we hired someone else to do the fighting in a controversial war. Technically, it wouldn’t be ‘us’ fighting the war, it would be the mercenaries.

  3. Under a bidding system the cost of hiring a mercenary army could hypothetically be cheaper than deploying a local force.

Didn’t General Patton once say something to the effect of, “You don’t go out and die for your country. You get some other bastard to die for your country.” ?

15

General Patton said “You don’t go out and die for your country, you get the other bastard to die for ** his ** country.” You win wars by killing the enemy soldiers, not by dieing yourself.

16

But I thought the Turks turned the money down!!

17

Most mercs, at least in the post-WWII era, don’t hire on as mere trigger pullers. They serve as training cadre (train the locals to be trigger pullers) or technical personnel. One of the few exceptions to this is that, apparently, some few “fighter jocks” from both the US and the former USSR have found post-military employement flying jets for various 3rd world nations.

18

Am I out of date or does the law still stand that any US citizen proven to be fighting as a mercenary for a foreign state automatically losses his/her citizenship? If this is still in force, then it would be real odd for the US to be hiring mercenaries. This rule was established to discourage people from becoming mercenaries in the first place.

19

It seems like it would be less controversial if we hired someone else to do the fighting in a controversial war. Technically, it wouldn’t be ‘us’ fighting the war, it would be the mercenaries.

Given that it would be common knowledge that we hired said mercenaries, rest assured that we would get all of the blame for whatever they do.

This would be in addition to the contempt generated by hiring mercenaries in the first place. If you go rough up Joe because he owes you a hundred bucks, you may perceived as a bully but at least you’re also acting in your own interest. If you hire some goons to rough up Joe, you still come across as a bully, but also as cowardly, despicable, and ruthless.

20

Unlike what you see in the movies, most mercenaries aren’t very good soldiers.

Like hit men, many are just just human wreckage.

The image of the mercenary as a Super Soldier, or the Hit Man as a steely-eyed killer in an impeccable business suit is nonsense. Violence has always been the lowest-paid profession, & a mercenary or hired killer is usually a bum, kicked out of more legitimate ways of life for dishonesty, drunkeness, or other transgressions. Several news articles that I’ve read refered to hit men as “ex-cops”.

You may assume that most mercenaries are “ex-soldiers”, kicked out of the military of one nation or another.

In short, we don’t hire mercs because we want to win.