Max Boot:
But perhaps there is a way to stop the killing even without sending an American or European army. Send a private army. A number of commercial security firms such as Blackwater USA are willing, for the right price, to send their own forces, made up in large part of veterans of Western militaries, to stop the genocide.
We know from experience that such private units would be far more effective than any U.N. peacekeepers. In the 1990s, the South African firm Executive Outcomes and the British firm Sandline made quick work of rebel movements in Angola and Sierra Leone. Critics complain that these mercenaries offered only a temporary respite from the violence, but that was all they were hired to do. Presumably longer-term contracts could create longer-term security, and at a fraction of the cost of a U.N. mission.
Yet this solution is deemed unacceptable by the moral giants who run the United Nations. They claim that it is objectionable to employ — sniff — mercenaries. More objectionable, it seems, than passing empty resolutions, sending ineffectual peacekeeping forces and letting genocide continue.
Yes, we are the Hessians now.
Let me tell you, Mr. Boot's voice is heard on foreign affairs issues. It is significant that he advances this foolish position.
Foolish?
Yes. You do NOT want to extend the monopoly on legitimate violence to corporations. The difference between Exxon/Mobil with a private military (even one provided by Blackwater USA) and a nation-state is purely semantic. But at least our government has some accountablity to the citizenry.
And who would pay this private army? Darfuruans? Who can hire these armies? Somehow or other the anti-Aristede forces in Haiti pulled together huge sums of money (coincidentally after ransoms were reported paid for hundreds of kidnappings of people who were (also coincidentally) related to anti-Aristede forces. Would Blackwater USA take a contract from them?
It's not that mercenaries are more or less objectionable than hypocrisy. Both should be rejected
hi Earl,
I have mixed thoughts here about using PMC's so robustly.
Properly supervised by a great power military, a high quality PMC will provide genuine protection the way UN and African Union troops cannot. Blackwater would chew up the Janjaweed very easily as would several other top level PMCs. UN peacekeepers are disproportionately from countries like Bangladesh ( basically half-trained levies) or the Netherlands, Japan etc. ( not permitted to use force by home country). Worse than useless.
OTOH, it is not in any state's interest to let PMC's become financially self-sustaining, independent actors on the international scene, for obvious reasons. Some military theorists, notably Chet Richards, Martin van Creveld, William Lind for different reasons believe this to be an inevitable trend brought about by globalization and the decline of the state or state on state conventional warfare. Hotly disputed in the military community though.
PMCs are useful on a short leash. A very short leash. But they ought not to be ruled out a priori