Topic analysis: Mercs

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

My initial reaction to this was strongly positive simply on the basis of the inherent interest of the subject matter. Let’s look at it in a little detail.

First of all, there is the whole question of what comprises a private military firm. They are, of course, mercenaries, although I prefer “mercs”: makes ‘em sound much more like something out of a technothriller or videogame. If I am going to open an office in Baghdad, the first thing I’m doing is hiring me some mercs for protection. They act as security, they act as trainers, they could conceivably be on the line shooting at the enemy, whoever the hell that is at the moment. The further they get from bodyguards to infantry, the dicier they get in the mind’s eye.

Mercs are legal, and the government can hire them under the status quo, but as always, that means nothing. I would myself start thinking of what the point of the military is in the first place. Given that we come from a nation (isn’t today just a couple of days past 7/4?) that had some strong opinions about standing armies and the like, one could start with a position that the military is inherently at best a necessary evil. It is unfortunate that we need to put our citizens in harm’s way, in other words, or to train them to perform as soldiers, but we have no choice but to do so to protect our citizenry. Hence the draft. This is not to say that what soldiers do is bad—I am personally in awe of soldiers, who have my utmost respect—but that it is a sorry aspect of the human condition that they have to do it. If all humans were angels, there would be no soldiery (with apologies to John Milton). But if we must have soldiers, and we must, drawing on the citizenry for them, as compared to hiring mercs, has a certain social contract flair that one can easily defend.

Which brings us to the mercs themselves. While soldiers defending their country is honorable, soldiers who like soldiering so much they do it for its own sake, for pay, absent any patriotic goals. is something else. Perhaps the need is removed in these situations: countries need citizen soldiers, but they don’t need mercs, in other words.

Of course, what’s missing from this discussion is the end of the resolution sentence, “pursue its military objectives.” Hmmm. That would seem to indicate some measure of evaluation of the government’s military objectives, which are not of one cloth but fairly realpolitik; our objectives in Afghanistan are slightly different from our objectives in the Sea of Japan, for instance. It is hard for me to imagine that there isn’t a whole boatload of argumentation on this alone.

So, we have the nature of armies, the nature of mercenaries, the nature of military objectives—what’s not to argue? I’m probably missing whole continents of possibilities in this quick skim. This seems rich and durable. I maintain my liking of the topic.