is there a future for national armed forces?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Nurse2, Dec 21, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Given the increasing use of private military companies and contractors on operations is the day of the national armed forces over and will we see in future our wars being fought by Blackwater and supported by haliburton?
     
  2. Absolutely there is. After all a PMC will only go in if they think it will be profitable. Not all conflicts would meet that criteria.
     
  3. War is just politics by other means and all that...
     
  4. The last time wars were routinely fought by private military contractors was Renaissance Italy.

    Look how well that's turned out for them.
     
  5. I might be wearing triple-thickness, industrial strength, tin foil today but I have this sneaking suspicion that there isn't much of a future for our Armed Forces as we know and love them today.

    My theory is this. The gradual erosion of capability and manpower is part of a deliberate political strategy to reach a point where national armed forces are no longer viable thus providing the opportunity to form a truly pan-EU military force.

    Removes tin foil and retreats to the bunker.
     
  6. PMC deaths are more palatable for the general public at present as is their misbehaviour.

    I can see their use expanding.
     
  7. eveyoz i would concur and would also say from a treasury/acountants point of view they make sense as the company employed is taking the risk and having to invest in the military infrastructure rather than the government.
     
  8. Wait until WE are dragged into the new EU CONSTITUTION and see if we are able to have a national Armed Forces control by US?

    After all it has been contolled by the USA for the past 10 years at least!! :x
     
  9. Nothing new here. For years the Swiss provided mercenaries for the whole of Europe, sometimes even fighting each other in the pay of rival kings. They then diversified into banking and chocs.

    I can't see any modern state not keeping a core of directly employed, well paid, well-pensioned, well equipped, non-union, loyal soldiers, as insurance policy to protect the ruling group from their own populations. But there's plenty of scope for privatisation within that paradigm. Maybe that will be the increasing roll of BAFF and the other pressure groups: to protect HM Forces from privatisation?
     
  10. What about the Contras in Niacaragua and the Taliban in Afghanistan (1980s). Surely they're examples of outsourcing military operations to private militias for training and vast sums of cash and arms?
     
  11. You could make same argument about the current Iraqi military and police forces trained up by the Brits in Basra. You recruit them, cloth them, arm them, wind them up, then send them off to defend British/Western interests.

    Trouble is, as has been discovered in Afghanistan by British and American soldiers occupying trenches dug by Russians to fight the Taliban, once you let them go without Western officers they may turn round and bite the West on the arse, i.e. choose to fight for their own interests.
     
  12. Oh I don't know. The Honourable East India Company came a bit later than that and it turned out pretty well for us, and it could be argued the locals as well. :)
     
  13. Apparently - almost unlimited numbers of Gurkhas would like to join up. They are enthusiastic, cheap, and do not eat too much. Plus they only need small sizes in their kit. And they frighten the bejesus out of our enemies. Why not recruit 30 battalions worth? Let them lead on. Rebadge the Cavalry to them as occifers - good chaps with a polo stick. Do you think they would have surrendered in the ipod incident?
     
  14. I believe that our interests are best served by a democratic, well educated, prosperous, peacefull and stable environment/population in both those countries. Is that not also in the best interest for Afghans and Iraqis?

    You are just an anti-west person aren't you? Tell me this. If the "west" is so bad, why don't you move to wherever it is that you think is better?
     
  15. I agree with you. The trouble is, when you judge the main player, America, by it's actions, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's reasonable to conclude that the US government, far from wanting a democratic, well educated, prosperous, peaceful and stable environment/population in fact wants controlled chaos. That's why troop numbers are too low, that's why they had no post-invasion plan, that's why they have no exit strategy, that's why they ran a coach and horses through the UN: they don't intend to leave and it suits their purposes for a low level civil war to be taking place in both regions.

    So if you believe America's protestations about democracy etc you're naive. You've been taken in by a bunch of spin doctors and their venal political masters.

    No.

    Certainly.

    Because I can't think of anywhere better. You've projected a fantasy onto me and have just had a little foxtrot with a straw man. Which provides me with a bit of harmless amusement. Thank you very much. Have you always led a rich fantasy life?