With the support our government is giving to groups like Blackwater, why don't we just dissolve the military and let the private organizations take over?
2007-07-17
08:41:15
·
15 answers
·
asked by
xxx
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
Dead serious...why do we still have a military if we can pay a private organization to do the same thing? Again...dead serious...
2007-07-17
08:48:07 ·
update #1
OK...if I'm messed up, why are companies like Blackwater even allowed? That is actually where I am going with this question.
2007-07-17
08:49:57 ·
update #2
Calm down Gretch...I agree with you...
2007-07-17
08:58:56 ·
update #3
Give me a break. Your not serious are you?
2007-07-17 08:44:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Morgan 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
1. The Crown of England lost the Colonies using German mercenaries. Sad, Americans don't know their history.
2. A private paramilitary has no vested interest in ending the war. After all they are operating on a business plan. All they need is stockholders.
3. Blackwater is a corporation. It has all the rights of a citizen, but when the law is broken, Blackwater doesn't go to jail.
4. Blackwater is private and can maintain privacy.
5. The fees paid to private mercenary companies are outrageous! In essence, the current administration is buying his office. If there was a military draft the procedural voices of a democracy would be a lot, lot louder.
This "war" in the Middle East has been lost because of companies like KBR, Blackwater and Haliburton. The government is saying our military is inadequate.
2007-07-17 15:58:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why don't we do the same thing with firemen? Dead serious, dead serious. Oh wait, maybe it's because some things are too important to be left to profit-oriented organizations. A Roman named Crassus once ran a private fire department. When a fire started he would pack up all of his men and gear, drive the chariots down to the scene and then negotiate his fee with the property owner as the fire raged on. The price would go up the longer the owner negotiated. As a reward, his name is now synonymous with reprehensible behavior (as in, this question is so CRASS I can't believe you asked it). Blackwater and those other organizations are a huge liability for US forces and US foreign policy in general. Un-bound by Rules of Engagement or good sense, they make a habbit of getting in situations they aren't capable of getting out of. Their involvement has already been questioned. They've been shown to be operationally irresponsible and corrupt and in the long run I beleive we will regret their very existence.
So I did get a little carried away. Sorry! I don't think mercenary organizations should be allowed to exist.
2007-07-17 15:56:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gretch 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok, that's like asking, why have WalMart when you can buy food and home items at Joe Freindly's Supperette.
First of all, groups like Black Water and Triple Canopy are contracted out because they are not government militias bound to Geneva Conventions the same way that the US military is (to an extent) and can easily escape they watchfull eye of the media, allowing them to get stuff done.
Now the problem lies in controll. The reason the Military is able to maintain discipline is because it has its own legal system and enforces its own laws and regulations. A private company can't do that. It would be impossible to lead that many soldiers without a governing body capable of punishing its members. You can't have many smaller companies working together either because then your chain of command gets broken and you lose structure.
Cost: Right now, we pay soldiers. No middle man. If this is contracted out, not only do you pay soldiers, but the company needs its cut too. Then when people whine about raising taxes and we cut back on the money we give them, they will make cuts in numbers, training, equipment, stuff that the military now is not willing to do (to an extent).
2007-07-17 16:12:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Voice of Liberty 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
So you, me and our family and friends can enjoy the liberties we have to this day. Privatizing our military might sound like a good idea, but corporations like Blackwater would not be in existance without the military. The folks that make up these companies are of a majority ex-military.
All that being said, per the consitiution the only thing the government is required to supply to the American people is a strong national defense.
2007-07-17 15:47:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Coach 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Private Organizations can have a wide variety of political opinions that is controlled by the owners or CEOs. The Military is lead by who the people vote for, in an election.
When hiring Mercenaries to fight in the Iraq war there is not as much red tape, and things can be achieved more thoroughly. If you like to complain about private contractors from the government doing work then next time the road is being resurfaced/paved go protest.
2007-07-17 15:45:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Gump023 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of the people in Blackwater are former military... Keeps Blackwater from having to spend the money to get people trained up, since they've already gotten the training from the military...
2007-07-17 15:56:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by shavkatjon2000 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of the people in Blackwater are former military... Keeps Blackwater from having to spend the money to get people trained up, since they've already gotten the training from the military...
2007-07-17 15:44:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The military is supposed to retain civilian control. While private organizations are technically controlled by civilians, they are left to pursue their own interests via the free market. Keeping the military under the control of the government is the only way to ensure that the military serves the interests of the entire public rather than a few select individuals (or at least that is how it is supposed to work).
2007-07-17 15:46:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by brodier182 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
at first i balked at your question, but you pose a good point. the government is sinking so much money into government contracts, which i believe takes money and resources away from the military.
the only reason i can think is that it will eventually cost too much. civilian contractors can say, 'hell no, we won't go' and then we'll have no one to protect us. service members sign up to serve for a certain amount of time. they don't have a choice where, when or for how long they go. it sucks, but it's necessary, otherwise, we wouldn't have enough people to protect our nation.
outstanding question. hope no one gives you too much grief.
2007-07-17 21:56:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Julie N 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, we could do the same thing with sugar subsidies, and just let the farmers handle farming.
We could eliminate loan subsidies, and let lenders decide who to lend to.
There's a lot of things we could get the government out of, but in my view, National Defense would be one of the last things on the list.
2007-07-17 16:00:31
·
answer #11
·
answered by open4one 7
·
0⤊
0⤋