
How private armies will remake modern warfare - rbanffy
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21638096-how-private-armies-will-remake-modern-warfare-return-hired-gun?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/returnofthehiredgun
======
rayiner
> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in
> which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy
> groups or individuals fund private military adventures.

I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace
the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it.
They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain on the net from the
security provided by the state, because they could provide their own private
security more cheaply. Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the
absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you.
John Galt, the engineer, isn't a free man without the state. He's a slave to a
warlord, one who puts his talents to work amassing wealth for himself.

That's what makes the possibility raised by the author terrifying. Because in
the long run, when private armies take over for states, the "wealthy groups or
individuals" aren't Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They're feudal lords--
people who earn their position in society by being skilled in war.

~~~
electromagnetic
Except the evolution to this point requires complete inaction on the parts of
the governments.

Yes, some businesses have more money than entire countries. _Because we allow
it._

It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on
the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and
you'll be stripped of your rank. If your subjects stay loyal... well then you
get things like The Harrowing of the North.

The US Congress has 535 members, and we're not talking about individuals we're
talking about corporations, which themselves are made up of shareholders.
There's no formal loyalty structure.

Your feudal Lord granted you land so you could provide for your family, and in
return pay rent to him. When your kid went missing in the woods, it was the
reeve and the Lord's men who helped search. When your barn roof collapsed, it
was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped dig out your animals, and it was
your Lord who stabled your animals. It might have been mutually beneficial,
but it was still _at his will_.

A shareholder is invested in a company because they think it will be
profitable, but most large shareholders are more invested in the _industry_
than the _individual_. So if they think something might jeopardize their
investment, they'll jump and go invest in another company. The managers and
employees? To them it's just a job, if they think their company is going to go
up against the US Government they'll be out the door and pretend they've never
even heard of the Globex Corporation, even if they're wearing a company
emblazoned jacket.

I see no loyalty structure that would be capable of supporting anyone trying
to be a neolord. When the US government decides your company has gotten too
big, it'll just nationalize it or split it.

Edit: Nice HN, act like reddit. You can't come up with a valid argument
against my post so you downvote it.

Yes we get it this is some distopian idea, but it'll never happen. The closest
we've ever come to an organization like this was the White Company, and they--
like these private contractors will--stayed on the good side of the super
power of the time, the Papacy, because their existence was entirely predicated
on the grace of being allowed to exist.

~~~
nl
_It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on
the King 's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and
you'll be stripped of your rank._

This dramatically understates the dependency a King had upon his Lords. Yes, a
King could strip someone of his rank, but if he did it too often or too
capriciously and he'd soon been replaced.

You see this in democracies too: interest groups (whether they be companies or
other groups) are quite happy to remove their support for a member if their
interests no longer align and if another credible candidate appears that is
more aligned with their interests.

~~~
mc32
From what I've read that's spot on. Royalty had powers, but they were not all
that despotic --they could not afford to be. They had to keep a good balance
with their financiers, supporters, the church, asf., all the while keeping an
eye out for shifting allegiances internally and specially externally.

------
jordanpg
State-sponsored defense spending of the kind the US government engages in is
safe from being replaced by the private sector, ever. The cost is
astronomical. Individual units like carriers, submarines, and bombers cost
hundreds of millions up to several billion. The author of the article (and
maybe the book?) don't make this distinction.

Instead, these private mercenaries raise the possibility that non-state actors
of great means could accomplish minor military objectives using small amounts
of conventional force. And I doubt very seriously that American private
military firms can take action without the tacit approval of the someone in
the United States government.

I'm much more worried about the possibility that these firms are being paid
with laundered tax dollars to accomplish objectives that I don't know about or
wouldn't approve of. See the Iran-Contra affair.

~~~
nl
Most modern wars are fought using little more than ground vehicle mounted
weaponry[1]. There's even a war named after the trucks that both sides
used[2].

The weapons acquisition program strategy of the US is defined as much by the
defence industry as by the needs in the wars the US is actually involved in.
You see US soldiers buying their own weapons, and even on a larger scale you
have things like the US buying Toyotas off show-room floors to take to to
Iraq[3].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_\(vehicle\))

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)#Iraq_War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_\(vehicle\)#Iraq_War)

~~~
colechristensen
This is because modern wars aren't really wars. When was the last time America
fought a war against an enemy whose weapons were designed and manufactured in
any significant way by the enemy? When was the last time America fought a war
against an enemy with remotely comparable military strength?

The reason that "real wars" aren't fought any more is the weapons we have
(nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, ships, planes, etc.) and the weapons our
potential opponents have as well as experiences in the world wars together
convince everyone that open war is absolutely undesirable. We build and
maintain advanced weapons for the explicit purpose of not needing to use them.

The weapons accession strategy has much to do with maintaining the ability to
manufacture advanced weapons to use against an advanced enemy so that we can
continue to prevent such a war.

~~~
nl
_This is because modern wars aren 't really wars._

That's exactly the point. Proxy wars are how things have worked since WW2, and
now they are getting even more complicated because they often involve non-
state actors. This is what modern wars _are_.

To claim they _aren 't really wars_ is ignorant and kind of insulting to the
people that fight in them.

No one is claiming that private armies will take over the anti-state
deterrence.

------
hristov
This is something of great concern indeed. Back in medieval Europe there was
this nasty practice related to mercenaries that went a little like this: An
ambitious noble would borrow a bunch of money from an unscrupulous banker at
high interest and use the money to fund a mercenary army. The noble would use
his new army to conquer a new land. He would then steal everything he can from
the inhabitants, and levy maximum taxes. He would then use this money to repay
the banker. If he is successful, he may continue to conquer another land.

It was this practice that kept ordinary people in abject poverty in middle
ages and kept economic growth down for hundreds of years.

If this practice is revived, there will be a lot of suffering.

This is yet another one of the screw-ups of George Bush. He recruited tens of
thousands of mercenaries (hundreds of thousands by some counts) at a great
cost for his Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and now these people are all over the
world's problem areas looking for work.

The article mentions the possibility of mercenaries doing humanitarian work,
but this is not very likely. The world's poor and weak are the ones least
likely to be able to afford mercenaries.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Ideally these mercenaries would be used to keep order in places with poor
property rights and then be paid from the resulting productivity boom, but
because this looks like colonialism nobody is willing to do it.

------
pav7en
Hmm, mercenaries, 'soldiers of fortune', a very romantic concept. I'd like to
be one, but then not.

Military training is tough and if the only thing you're fighting for is a
paycheck, then you won't hang in there when it counts the most and hence are
worth jackshit as a mercenary.

Most private armies worth anything consist of ex-soldiers of a republic. In
essence these companies are subsidized by a/the republic's taxpayers.

So they are not a major threat to established governments, but still
constitute a worrying trend. For if the world becomes sufficiently fucked,
these will be the only dignified jobs left.

Hence, need to be regulated and monitored heavily by established governments.
In no way should these emerge as alternates to democratic state power. As is
modern democracies face an onslaught of challenges-look at freedom of
expression. And I can only laugh at the ludicrousness of this term 'freedom of
expression' if these private armies metastasize into something powerful.

~~~
deepsun
> if the only thing you're fighting for is a paycheck, then you won't hang in
> there when it counts the most and hence are worth jackshit as a mercenary.

Completely wrong. From what I heard from spec ops, professional soldiers are
way better in fight. The main point, he said, is that outside people think
that war needs courage, while really it's experience that matters. And proper
supplies.

~~~
pav7en
You misunderstood me. Whom do you consider a truly professional soldier? In my
view it's a marine, a SEAL, or another military member of a modern state. Heck
even a Pakistan army soldier is a professional soldier.

So what drives these professional soldiers is not the paycheck, its the idea
of patriotism or that they are upholding some set of values for their country,
or the idea that they are protecting their country. That is what allows them
to hang in there when it goes well beyond limits of human endurance.

Refer the marine campaign of Iwo Jima
'[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima'](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima'),
where soldiers went for 3-4 months without adequate food, rest or even barely
human conditions against a fanatical enemy. Or for that matter any campaign
during the world war. Or any other war worth something for the parties
involved.

And my point is you can't get such kind of men or women to fight for money as
mercenaries. And if I'm paying for mercenaries I want people like the ones who
fought Iwo Jima.

So, if you look at the recruiting for the private armies most of them are ex-
soldiers of a nation-state's army.

After a while some guys come to view it as any other profession. And then
probably start working for a private army.

But even then I'd be surprised if private armies would be able to hold up
their own against national armies or even if their members expect to.

~~~
pav7en
Oh and courage, well it's nothing. War is all about working effectively with
fear, that's why the emphasis on training, the more and more you train, the
better you're able to keep fear as a background process and not panic.

------
donavanm
Private armies aren't new. The very term "company" was originated as an
organized, private, group of men under arms.

I haven't read _The Modern Mercenary_, but it sounds a bit myopic. For
example, calling out potential actions in africa ignores 50 years of PMC work
there. As far as proliferation in the last 25 years ... I suppose we've seen
in increase in "market share" of defense dollars spent. Off hand I'd have to
say mid century african bush wars and the 1990's "executive outcomes" era were
notable for having tangible results. Most of the 2000s mid east work seemed
like cash grabs shrouded in "outsourced logistics" work.

I'd definitely recommend PW Singers _Corporate Warriors_ for a thorough
history of private force. [http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-
Privatized-Military...](http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-Privatized-
Military-Industry/dp/0801474361)

------
JabavuAdams
Overall, not much here, but I found the idea of setting up humanitarian
refuges defended by private security interesting.

I've thought a bit about whether it would be technically feasible to air-drop
a tele-operated fortress seed into denied territory. This could form a kernel
around which to build a safe zone.

The problem I keep running up against is that it's not a technical problem.
All you need is a few infiltrators to make life unbearable in a refugee camp.
The security forces are likely to turn against the civilians, leading to
massacres, as we've seen whenever the line between combatants and non-
combatants is blurred.

------
tibbon
Not to make light of this, but doesn't this sound like the plot to Metal Gear
Solid 4? Private armies and all?

Not sure I like it when reality mimics fiction like this.

~~~
WatchDog
That was immediately what came to my mind as well. Metal Gear Solid 4 was
being developed around the time that PMC's were gaining a lot of public
attention for their work in Iraq and the game seems very inspired by that.
Perhaps the author of this article has played the game, rather than being life
imitating art, it could be reporter imitating art.

------
ecobiker
Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to
fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a
large enough population making private armies feasible?

~~~
cpwright
People are motivated to be commercial fisherman, roughnecks, lumberjacks, and
roofers. They are also risking their lives for a paycheck.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
There was an article in the Guardian recently that expands on just how
dangerous jobs at sea are in general:
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/shipping-
disast...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/shipping-disasters-we-
never-hear-about)

------
cmdkeen
It's interesting that the potential UN peacekeeping use of private military
contractors is mentioned given that is pretty much what happens anyway.

Many UN peacekeeping operations are carried out by nations which are
reimbursed by the UN at $1,028 USD per solider per month. If the nation
chooses to pay its soldiers less than that it can turn a tidy profit.

For instance UNAMID in the Sudan has the largest troop contingent from Rwanda
which pays its privates $40 a month. I'd wager that the UN gets $40 worth of
effort from that soldier, not $1000.

------
woodman
If you're looking for an efficient security apparatus, you'll have a hard time
topping an assassination market. [0] You combine that with intelligent
software agents and crypto currency to create a policy of mutual assured
destruction that scales :)

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market)

~~~
pjc50
It's only a week after the assassination of cartoonists, this is in extremely
poor taste.

~~~
woodman
lol, wait - how is this anything like that? This might be the most hamfisted
attempt at whiteknighting I've ever seen.

~~~
pjc50
The point is that an assassination market is facilitating murder, which is
criminal and immoral and also destabilizing; you're far more likely to get a
spiral of ill-targeted reprisals.

(I can't believe someone describes "murder is wrong" as "whiteknighting")

~~~
woodman
You understand the context of this discussion involves: WMDs, state military
and private military. So we are already talking about murder - and the scales
aren't even comparable. How is a murder at the hands of the state less wrong
than a murder at the hands of private assassin? That is why you are
"whiteknighting", you are trying to defend the indefensible with an appeal to
emotion. Waving about the bloody shirt of the dead cartoonists, nice.

~~~
pjc50
This is bizarre. The context is an article saying, among other things, "He is
alarmed by the prospect, not least because he feels that in a truly free
market mercenary armies might be encouraged to seek profits by starting new
wars". You're the one who brought up assassination politics; in which anyone
sufficiently unpopular would get a price on their head. This is not an
improvement.

I'm not trying to defend anything other than the status quo, in which
unaccountable private paramilitaries are fairly rare and frowned on.

~~~
woodman
> This is bizarre.

I agree, people thinking other thoughts and drawing different conclusions can
be unsettling.

The article also touches on the idea of efficiency, which you will see is the
point of my top post - before you somehow linked assassination markets to
Islamic terrorism. While I welcome a debate on the merit and feasibility of
assassination markets, I don't think it would be a very productive
conversation to have with you - as you've already expressed your interest in
simply defending the status quo. Also, PMCs are not rare or frowned on - so
your situation awareness is off as well (lets not get into a redefinition of
"rare" or "frowned on" either).

------
digi_owl
Neomedieval eh? Personally i have taken to consider the modern corporate world
as neofeudal. This in the sense that corporations are fiefdoms, and CEOs
acting as custodians for absentee lords.

------
anonbanker
If one looks at H. Ross Perot's wikipedia page, you will see he was one of the
pioneers of private armies during the Iran-Contra crisis.

Seems the Economist is about 30 years late to the game.

------
hackuser
One definition of sovereignty is a monopoly on violence by the government.

Otherwise, who decides when it's ok to physically assault someone, and how are
they accountable to citizens?

------
JRox
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy)

------
te_chris
Where do the Mexican cartel armies fit in among this? True private mercenary
units with no humanitarian consideration whatsoever.

------
hellbanner
The difference between a "state" and a gang is that states print money, right?

