Posted on 04/02/2006 11:39:59 PM PDT by ChristianDefender
Blackwater USA, one of the major providers of security personnel in Iraq, has offered to provide a brigade of peacekeepers for any operation, anywhere in the world. In particular, Blackwater said that it could provide a brigade in a place like Darfur for much less money than it would cost NATO to provide the same number of troops. Blackwater is proposing providing peacekeepers, not conventional combat troops. This proposal is based on Blackwaters two years experience in Iraq, where it provides thousands of foreign and Iraqi security personnel. Blackwater hires former military personnel, especially those who have been in Special Operations units, for its security jobs. The company says it has discussed the proposal with American and NATO officials. No one in an official position has made any public comments about this concept. It's not a new idea, but the shady historical reputation of mercenaries has worked against any government openly accepting the concept. This in spite of the success of mercenaries in Iraq, and elsewhere.
The Blackwater proposal also addresses a peacekeeper shortage the UN is having. There's also the problem of getting well trained and equipped peacekeeping troops. Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are major contributors of good troops, but there are not enough of them. The UN has been approached about using mercenaries in the past, and has refused to consider it. But with no country rushing to send first class troops to Darfur, and the African Union forces already there being overwhelmed by the scope of the problem, Blackwater may have a customer.
There are two other considerations. First, mercenary peacekeepers are already a fact of life in many areas. NGOs, including UN agencies, commonly hire foreign, and local, muscle to provide security. All Blackwater is proposing is expanding this practice, and delivering a more efficient, unified, force. It is known that the NGO practice of hiring local gunmen often leads to further complications, not increased security. A second factor is that, down the road, some of the nations that have been renting lots of their troops, to the UN, on a regular basis, may see the Blackwater Brigade as unwanted competition. Because the UN pays more per peacekeeper than these troops earn back in South Asian or any African countries, these jobs are quite lucrative for the troops and the countries they come from. So, while the Blackwater Brigade may be a good idea, it will only come to pass if it can overcome the political and emotional baggage mercenary peacekeepers drag in with them.
The UN is rather itching to build itself its own army.
I know of 3 correctional workers at USP that have quit the bureau in the last 2 months that have gone to blackhawk for jobs in afganistan. pay is about 100,000+. not bad for ex-military.
Darfur don't need peacekeepers.
Khartoum needs to be rolled up like the Taliban.
Yeah. But the problem is U.N. is too lousy for somebody to fight for...
Finding a military vehicle or a soldier with a UN mark/identity is not intimidating... instead vulnerable.
It's up to how U.N. defines peacekeepers...
In most cases, U.N. defines peacekeepers as soldiers who deliver's food, protect themselves instead of the people they're tasked to protect, keep the peace- but when trouble comes they leave, and soldiers who fire few shots for the whole period of their boring mission..
I think peacekeeers should be defined as those men/soldiers who butcher troublemaking muzzies without hesitation..
Exactly... and it makes the organization less credible from time to time.
The choices for the UN are troops from Chad and the Costa Rica or trained SF pros. The world has been hiring guns for thousands of years.
I know people there are suffering and I have been thinking that a force of mercenaries might just be the right thing. They talk about doing the job for less cost. Does that make them a "Wal-Mart" army?
The problem here is that during the '60's white mercenaries were used in several African conflicts. The UN was often in the position of getting between the warring parties (usually one side was employing the mercenaries). This is probably the main reason that hiring mercenaries is a radioactive subject with the UN.
Yeah, but Kofi Annan is an African of the generation that remembers "The Mercenary Problem" as it was often called. And Kofi aside, the UN is fundamentally collection of member nation-states. While turning to a mercenary force would make a certain amount of financial & tactical 'sense', the move would tend undermine its own foundations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.