Replies

I think for Europe, and maybe America, there might be a return to the “good old days”, before the 19th and 20th Century phenomenon of the gigantic “industrial armies”.

That is, for 1500 years, more or less, the Europeans relied on mercenary armies for most of the “small stuff”. The advantages are that mercenary armies are much cheaper, aren’t as stressful to a nation, and can be used for uncomfortable missions where you would rather not use your regular army.

The last major mercenary army, the French Foreign Legion, still exists and is a reasonably good model if such armies were to be built today. But even they are far more professional a force than is needed in most cases.

They need to be “offshore”, to keep them out of domestic politics, and you want them commanded by people loyal to your nation, not “free lancers” for sale to the highest bidder.

In the case of Europe, or just Britain, or even America, mercenaries would for the most part, not “fight our fights”, which is one of the big objections to their use, but instead we could use them for things such as “peacekeeping” in unpleasant places like Bosnia and Darfur, for things like drug interdictions against narco gangs, and for humanitarian missions.

It is not really a dramatic move, if you think about companies like Blackwater. They already perform much of what we would want a mercenary force to do: act as bodyguards and as a security service, and generally perform jobs that would be wasteful of our soldiers’ time.

They carry light weapons, move by ground vehicle and helicopter, and if they need more logistical support, the regular military can give it to them.

Importantly, were the US, Britain or Europe to set up such an army, it could be garrisoned in the Caribbean, away from the anti-military leftists who hate, fear and would either try to outlaw, or misuse them. If they didn’t want to do a revolting task commanded by a Moonbat, they could not be compelled to.

It could be full of non-citizens, the best foreign soldiers from around the world, and the US would have no problem lending control to NATO officers or even the UN, wearing their silly light blue berets. Something US soldiers dislike intensely.

If the George W. Bush had such a force, he might have sent it to Darfur or Somalia, or even to Bosnia to relieve some of our forces there. Our fighting men do not deserve to be put in such miserable places, with less than clear missions and surrounded by hostile people. But sometimes it is morally right to send *someone* to do so.

And mercenaries cost just a fraction of what one of our regular army units costs. So not only can we do what is right, we don’t have to waste our blood and treasure to do it.

Europe may no longer have the political will to create a standing industrial army, so they may have no other choice, though their bureaucrats would fiercely object, thinking themselves armchair generals happy to lead conscripts in their morning exercises. But once cruel reality intrudes into their fantasies, mercenaries are at least inexpensive.

The US, however, would keep its military as it is, just augmenting its abilities with mercenaries we could send to places we would prefer not to go ourselves.

As a final note, mercenaries also figure into economics, as corporations often need trained security personnel to protect themselves and their assets in unstable nations. This would keep these mercenaries employed in the “off season”.