[DoctorIrokezov]

Support liberalism, democracy and human rights? There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for that.

yeah, it is pretty laughable when you look at the practices on the ground, isn't it.

[BitStillrhile]

Support liberalism, democracy and human rights? There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for that.

But! But!

Reagan!

[valentinesdayyy]

So if it were up to the tea party and the libertarians, they would have never hired any merc in the first place?

Certainly not the libertarians. It'd fly in the face of their almost nonexistent foreign policy.

I'd suspect many the tea party folks wouldn't want mercenaries being engaged in situations where we should be deploying our own forces and capabilities. Some see the insane costs of the wars overseas to be because of the amount of resources we spend for outside contractors to do the work the military once did for itself, others are very likely to have no clue of the use of Mercenaries and non government entities at all.

[poRmawayncmop]

Support liberalism, democracy and human rights? There is absolutely zero empirical evidence for that Other then deposing a tyrannical regimes and supporting what are supposed to be open and free elections?

Yeah I know it's comical, but that's what they thought they were doing. The notion was to build economic and political power by supporting democracy through direct military and economic intervention. Competence and political theories seldom have to go hand in hand.

Neoconservatism has it's roots in liberal conservative theory.

An Introduction to Neoconservatism by Gary North

[Dilangfh]

Certainly not the libertarians. It'd fly in the face of their almost nonexistent foreign policy.

I'd suspect many the tea party folks wouldn't want mercenaries being engaged in situations where we should be deploying our own forces and capabilities. Some see the insane costs of the wars overseas to be because of the amount of resources we spend for outside contractors to do the work the military once did for itself, others are very likely to have no clue of the use of Mercenaries and non government entities at all.

That's funny, I recall a few years ago, I read something in the Libertarian Party Official platform the following:

The appropriate way to suppress crime is through consistent and impartial enforcement of laws that protect individual rights. We applaud the trend toward private protection services and voluntary community crime control groups. Well, what is "private protection service"? Basically merc.

So have the libertarians changed their views on this issue of hiring private security firms to defend their interests and properties? They would have to have a 180 degree change here if what you said about them here is true.

And if what you said about tea party being against use of merc is true- then I applaud that. I too, am against the use of mercenaries, though perhaps for slightly different reasons.

[xqdrocherz]

This sure is looking like one hell of a mess isn’t it? Beginning to look like a huge heaping helping of boiled ‘unwinnable crap’ doesn’t it?

How did that happen?

It’s just not possible that Bush ran a better war in Afghanistan than Obama is.

It’s just not possible that the press somehow ‘covered’ for Bush… that this type of thing has been going on the whole time, they knew it and didn’t report it.

So… if you eliminate the impossible you are left with:

“Somebody” wanted this to come out. Now. Not last year… not next year… NOW.

Why might that be?

Well our military has a term for this type of thing: ‘preparing the battle space’ Putting things, people, equipment, etc, in place ready for the planned battle to come.

‘Cut and run’ Obama is getting ready to go home. This will be offered up as one of the reasons why. They are ‘preparing the battle space’

Nothing more.

[fameintatenly]

That's funny, I recall a few years ago,
Well, what is "private protection service"? Basically merc.

A policy for what is done as a matter of domestic policy and what is done in foreign policy are two very different things in libertarian circles. The applauding of private protections services for law enforcement is a naive supposition that private police forces would operate outside of political entanglement and have something to lose by facing actions non-private police forces really can't be confronted with by an unhappy populace and community crime control groups would simply be interested in straightforward protection of the population.

from the statement you linked:

"Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect. "

later on

"We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

I don't believe use of mercenaries would be in line with these points.

[Heacechig]

This sure is looking like one hell of a mess isn’t it? Beginning to look like a huge heaping helping of boiled ‘unwinnable crap’ doesn’t it?

How did that happen?

It’s just not possible that Bush ran a better war in Afghanistan than Obama is.

It’s just not possible that the press somehow ‘covered’ for Bush… that this type of thing has been going on the whole time, they knew it and didn’t report it.

So… if you eliminate the impossible you are left with:

“Somebody” wanted this to come out. Now. Not last year… not next year… NOW.

Why might that be?

Well our military has a term for this type of thing: ‘preparing the battle space’ Putting things, people, equipment, etc, in place ready for the planned battle to come.

‘Cut and run’ Obama is getting ready to go home. This will be offered up as one of the reasons why. They are ‘preparing the battle space’

Nothing more.

Cut and run? You mean basically finalizing what Bush started but didn't have the balls to finish during his term?

You make this too easy.

[ephennaCypota]

[QUOTE=tsquare;1713985]
It’s just not possible that the press somehow ‘covered’ for Bush… that this type of thing has been going on the whole time, they knew it and didn’t report it.[/QOUTE]

It has been going on the whole time. The initial invasion of Afghanistan implemented large proxy forces and this was under-reported or simply not reported at all in most of the U.S. press.

[searkibia]

That's funny, I recall a few years ago, I read something in the Libertarian Party Official platform the following:



Well, what is "private protection service"? Basically merc.

Mall cops and neighborhood watch?

God forbid we have concealed and open carry.

[ringsarcle]

A policy for what is done as a matter of domestic policy and what is done in foreign policy are two very different things in libertarian circles. The applauding of private protections services for law enforcement is a naive supposition that private police forces would operate outside of political entanglement and have something to lose by facing actions non-private police forces really can't be confronted with by an unhappy populace and community crime control groups would simply be interested in straightforward protection of the population.

from the statement you linked:

"Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect. "

later on

"We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

I don't believe use of mercenaries would be in line with these points.

I actually agree with the latter part in which you quoted- re abandoning Monroe Doctrine.

And I do agree with you to a large extent here, that we should indeed seperate domestic and foreign policies, particularly when security and deployment of force is concerned.

However, you do realize that a significant number of the "convoy", or "assets" which are being protected by merc overseas, are not embassies, or US military bases, intelligence outposts, diplomats, or any kind of governmental interest. They are in fact, private properties owned by Americans and American businesses- such as oil wells, telecommunication towers, shops and factories, shipments of goods, and so on. These are private properties which blur the line between domestic and foreign, precisely because the notion of private property is divorced from national borders- you own something, you own it wherever you are, unless you are in a communist county and they confiscated your property.

So I don't think I was quoting out of context. As far as defence of private properties' concerned- the issue looks the same foreign or domestic- Does the libertarian official doctrine endorse hiring mercenary or security services overseas, in defense of private property, is my question to you.

[VogsHoock]

Does the libertarian official doctrine endorse hiring mercenary or security services overseas, in defense of private property, is my question to you.

I don't imagine the libertarian party considers "private security services" here in the U.S. to be the same thing as mercenaries deployed in a foreign nation.

one more time:
" Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power."

Application of private security forces intended for domestic use would be excluded by this statement on how and why military force should be used outside the U.S.
It wouldn't include supporting foreign exploitation and investment for those acting and owning over seas.

[Cydayshosse]

I don't imagine the libertarian party considers "private security services" here in the U.S. to be the same thing as mercenaries deployed in a foreign nation.

one more time:
" Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power."

Application of private security forces intended for domestic use would be excluded by this statement on how and why military force should be used outside the U.S.
It wouldn't include supporting foreign exploitation and investment for those acting and owning over seas.

But practice often run contrary to the theory. Because in real life situations there are problems we have to deal with, to survive means we cannot stay saints, and being a saint often means a saint posthumously.

I have an example for you. I don't have Jeremy Scahill's book next to me anymore (borrowed it to some friends) so I don't have the precise, realistic description of this actual event, however I construe a similar scenario that is not too far off the mark, and not entirely implausible (you judge). Suppose Vodafone installs a cell site (signal transmitter for cell phones) in a Shia neighborhood in suburban Bagdad, so it can extend its business into the area. Iraqi police is both incompetent and corrupt. US military could care less about something as low priorty as a cell site. Vodafone has two choices, bribe the neighborhood, its leaders and elders into not attacking the cell tower, or hire Blackwater to guard it. Usually, when the stakes are too high, they bribe, and the bribes are regular pay-out's, not a one time only deal. The number of people you must bribe is extensive, and their power relations are complex. If you missed somebody, it won't work.

But a cell tower is not a priority asset, so they hire Blackwater. Do you and the libertarians believe Vodafone should be allowed to do this? Is my question.

This is btw, fairly common practice over there. I am by no means exaggerating the situation.

[erepsysoulperj]

But a cell tower is not a priority asset, so they hire Blackwater. Do you and the libertarians believe Vodafone should be allowed to do this? Is my question.

This is btw, fairly common practice over there. I am by no means exaggerating the situation.

I don't believe the libertarians would have any issues with a private entity hiring a private security firm for conducting private business that is in no way related to the government or military of the U.S. outside of the U.S..

This is a different issue from deploying private firms to support military campaigns and having them hire mercenaries to protect assests necessary to support a war effort even if low priority.

[VodsNittats]

I don't believe the libertarians would have any issues with a private entity hiring a private security firm for conducting private business that is in no way related to the government or military of the U.S. outside of the U.S..

This is a different issue from deploying private firms to support military campaigns and having them hire mercenaries to protect assests necessary to support a war effort even if low priority.

Well, the difference is only notable when you assume that military efforts by the US government outside of US is completely disjoint, or unrelated, to the interests of the US private sectors. So suppose (without any far fetched conspiracy theory) the multinationals, such as BP, Vodafone, Bechtel, Royal Dutch Shell, etc. suppose they spent hundreds of millions to lobby for a foreign intervention, whether humantarian, or defeating a "failed state". Suppose they advocated it, and lobbied for it. Because there are financial gains for them. And suppose members from within the US government went with it (which is hardly surprising). Do you think the hiring of Blackwater by Vodafone to defend its cell site is something completely unrelated to US foreign policy?

I mean, I don't think any of the above is far fetched. In fact, I am quite happy to take out some time in proving them (I have already done so over the years of posting on this forum). But suppose they are the case. Wouldn't the above distinction you made, in which the libertarians are making, become somewhat outdated, or quaint?

[agrismhig]

.Do you think the hiring of Blackwater by Vodafone to defend its cell site is something completely unrelated to US foreign policy?

I believe it would be if by some improbable miracle the libertarian party was the majority in the U.S. congress. Which is of course one reason why I don't imagine the libertarians will ever be a majority because they have little to attract the big bucks to their election coffers.

[PlayboyAtWork]

answer my question please. What would the libertarian party do in that case? I thought u are knowledgeable enough to answer it. Is Vodafone justified in hiring merc to protect its business in Iraq, or any other place it lobbied the US to invade/interfere/"just happens" to invade (??), for humantarian or other noble reasons, according to libertarian platforms?

What is the libertarian stance on merc, when it comes to protecting private properties against foreign insurgents?

[xanaxist]

answer my question please. What would the libertarian party do in that case? I thought u are knowledgeable enough to answer it. Is Vodafone justified in hiring merc to protect its business in Iraq, or any other place it lobbied the US to invade/interfere/"just happens" to invade (??), for humantarian or other noble reasons, according to libertarian platforms?

What is the libertarian stance on merc, when it comes to protecting private properties against foreign insurgents?

Would a private firm be justified in hiring private security for private concerns...yes, just like I said up thread.

As for a libertarian invasion for "humanitarian" reasons? You have a lot more to learn about libertarians.

Here's two scenarios and responses that would be very much in line with the libertarians I've been exposed to:
Got yourself a dictator who poses no direct threat to the U.S....do something about it yourself.
Your business interests are threatened in some foreign nation...maybe you shouldn't' be doing business there.

[wrbwrbwrb]

I’m not sure why this is news. It is the culturally normal response to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

Historically the Silk Road caravans would hire the local tribesmen for protection when they would pass through the area. If they hired the protection then they were not attacked. If they did not hire the protection then the unemployed proctors would attack them. If guards tried to work outside their area then the next tribe would attach the caravan, not only for the profit of the attack but to attack the neighbouring tribe which strayed too far.

The same exists today. I once drove from Kabul to Peshawar Pakistan. Once you leave Afghanistan you cannot be accompanied by the normal guards but have to hire guards from the taxi and guard boss on the other side of the border. The number of guards is supposedly set by the threat level but is in actual fact set by the traffic so that the guards get the same income; lower traffic then you need more guards in your car so that income stays the same. You cannot get a taxi without a guard and if you say had your own people meet you at the boarder then you would have to either hire guards or risk being attacked by the same people you did not hire.

A lot of the people called Taliban in the media and ISAF reports are actually simple warlords and form a protection system that would do a Mafia chieftain proud. The money paid for the protection is historically similar to the Silk Road caravan fees for “protection”.

The solution is to develop a sustainable economy that is not based on violence but instead rule of law. This will take a lot longer and a deeper commitment than the various aid agencies operating in country are willing to spend. It will take a long time to become self sustaining and that will not satisfy the short term outlooks of the politicians who fund these efforts and the equally short term outlooks of the people who elect them.

[RSAccountssy]

While the angst and frustration over the story of paying Mercs off to attack or not to attack NATO convoys is understandable, this is just a microcosm of what is happening at a larger scale ... After all, US government is doing this at a national scale as well ...
Pentagon chief defends arms sales to India, Pakistan
US turns focus to Pakistan’s conventional defence

US Arms Sales are propping up Pakistan as a Regional Challenger

While the results are seen in this article below:
Pakistan puppet masters guide the Taliban killers
Pakistani support for the Taliban in Afghanistan runs far deeper than a few corrupt police officers, however. The Sunday Times can reveal that it is officially sanctioned at the highest levels of Pakistan’s government.

Pakistan’s own intelligence agency, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), is said to be represented on the Taliban’s war council — the Quetta shura. Up to seven of the 15-man shura are believed to be ISI agents.

The former head of Afghanistan’s intelligence agency, Amrullah Saleh, who resigned last week, said: “The ISI is part of the landscape of destruction in this country, no doubt, so it will be a waste of time to provide evidence of ISI involvement. They are a part of it.”

Testimony by western and Afghan security officials, Taliban commanders, former Taliban ministers and a senior Taliban emissary show the extent to which the ISI manipulates the Taliban’s strategy in Afghanistan.

Pakistani support for the Taliban is prolonging a conflict that has cost the West billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. Last week 32 Nato soldiers were killed.

According to a report published today by the London School of Economics, which backs up months of research by this newspaper, “Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude” in Afghanistan.

The report’s author, Matt Waldman, a Harvard analyst, argues that previous studies significantly underestimated the influence that Pakistan’s ISI exerts over the Taliban. Far from being the work of rogue elements, interviews suggest this “support is official ISI policy”, he says.

The LSE report, based on dozens of interviews and corroborated by two senior western security officials, states: “As the provider of sanctuary and substantial financial, military and logistical support to the insurgency, the ISI appears to have strong strategic and operational influence — reinforced by coercion. There is thus a strong case that the ISI orchestrates, sustains and shapes the overall insurgent campaign.”

The report also alleges that Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan, recently met captured Taliban leaders to assure them that the Taliban had his government’s full support. This was vigorously denied by Zardari’s spokesman. Pakistani troops have launched offensives against militants in North and South Waziristan.

However, a senior Taliban source in regular contact with members of the Quetta shura told The Sunday Times that in early April, Zardari and a senior ISI official met 50 high-ranking Taliban members at a prison in Pakistan.

According to a Taliban leader in the jail at the time, five days before the meeting prison officials were told to prepare for the impending presidential call. Prison guards wearing dark glasses served the Taliban captives traditional Afghan meals three times a day.

“They wanted to make the prisoners feel like they were important and respected,” the source said.

Hours before Zardari’s visit, the head warder told the Taliban inmates to impress upon the president how well they had been looked after during their time in captivity.

Zardari spoke to them for half an hour. He allegedly explained that he had arrested them because his government was under increasing American pressure to end the sanctuary enjoyed by the Taliban in Pakistan and to round up their ringleaders.