« Do airplanes make weird people stick out less? | Main | Dubai oddities »
In Defense of Mercenaries
The Gurkhas have been active in the British military since 1817 but they are not British citizens they are Nepalese hired by the British. In recent years the Gurkha brigades have served in the Falklands, Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The Indian army and Singaporean police force also hire many Gurkhas.
The Gurkhas are unusual but not unique. The United Arab Emirates, where Tyler is now, relies almost exclusively on mercenaries. The French Foreign Legion continues to attract a small number of mercenaries from around the world. During the Vietnam war the United States paid the South Korean, Philippine and Thai governments for the use of troops - these were mercenaries paid by proxy.
Should we hire more mercenaries today? Our military already has hired more than thirty thousand non-citizens. Why not bypass residency entirely and go straight to Mexico, India and elsewhere to hire soldiers? If outsourcing is good for US firms then surely it is good for the US government.
Outsourcing the military has a number of advantages. The supply of labor is nearly limitless and the price is low. Some people will object that quality is low too but if Indians can be trained to do US tax returns they can be trained to fight US wars.
One reason the Gurkhas are among the most highly regarded troops in the world is that the entrance exam is extremely difficult - only 1 in 30 applicants makes the cut. The British can pick and choose because wages are high relative to the next best alternative (the Indian army picks up many of the British rejects). Meanwhile, we are so desperate for troops in the United States that we are forcing old men and women, people who haven't seen active duty in forty years, back into service. At US wage rates we could easily hire many thousands of Mexicans. Many Mexican noncitizens are already serving honorably in the US military so there is no reason for quality to decline.
Mercenarism may seem unusual today but in the 18th century a typical European army contained 20-30 percent foreign troops - mercenarism was the norm. It's hard to see how the United States has a comparative advantage in military labor so the future may resemble the past more than it does the present.
Comments are open.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on July 22, 2005 at 07:14 AM in Economics, History, Law | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e550978c168834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Defense of Mercenaries:
» Does the U.S. need more mercenaries? from Daniel W. Drezner
Alex Tabarrok asks a provacative question over at Marginal Revolution: Should we hire more mercenaries today? Our military already has hired more than thirty thousand non-citizens. Why not bypass residency entirely and go straight to Mexico, India and ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 22, 2005 10:55:33 AM
» Does the U.S. need more mercenaries? from Daniel W. Drezner
Alex Tabarrok asks a provacative question over at Marginal Revolution: Should we hire more mercenaries today? Our military already has hired more than thirty thousand non-citizens. Why not bypass residency entirely and go straight to Mexico, India and ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 22, 2005 10:57:14 AM
» Liberty and terror from Jim's blog
Marginal revolution suggests that the US army should recruit mercenaries. This a very bad idea, for the reasons pointed out by Machiavelli. What the US army should do, and is in fact doing, is hire “Security Contractors” - people who are ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 25, 2005 4:11:25 AM
» Liberty and terror from Jim's blog
Marginal revolution suggests that the US army should recruit mercenaries. This a very bad idea, for the reasons pointed out by Machiavelli. Patriotism is pa... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 25, 2005 4:15:25 AM
» Liberty and terror from Jim's blog
Marginal revolution suggests that the US army should recruit mercenaries. This a very bad idea, for the reasons pointed out by Machiavelli. Patriotism is pa... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 25, 2005 5:59:37 AM
Comments
Making war a commodity isn't a good thing. Getting people to serve, no matter how grudgingly, is a way of "proving" a war is necessary.
Posted by: Huggy at Jul 22, 2005 7:30:03 AM
The History Channel had a show on the Ghurkas one time. If I remember correctly, the show commented on how much quickness and stamina they had in high-altitude, low-temperature and difficult terrain. At the time, they were compared to other British soldiers and were found to be superior (in those conditions). It was pretty interesting.
Posted by: Ian Lewis at Jul 22, 2005 8:38:19 AM
I agree with Huggy. Unfortunately, mercenaries will only make it easier for presidents to to go to war. Low participation in a volunteer army is as good of an indication as any that a war is not supported by the people.
Otherwise, some president will just take out our taxpayer checkbook and hire a couple thousand poor Mexicans to protect Israel the next time they are threatened. HeHe
Posted by: Jake at Jul 22, 2005 8:41:07 AM
Well, anybody but me.
It was mentioned on this sight, earlier that the best attribute of the all volutnteer army is that it limits the ability of the President to go around waging war. True mercenaries are still volunteers, but as you say, they are cheap and the supply is limitless. If the price of war falls, the quantity of wars will rise, right? Perhaps, if peace if a public good, we should avoid this sort of thing.
Posted by: josh at Jul 22, 2005 8:50:59 AM
The good in question is security and not war. The war is a means to security. Therefore, if price of security falls, the quantity (and even quality) of security will rise.
I think it is a great idea to outsource security. Instead of begging governments around the world for help join the War on Terror, let's go around and recruit their best!
Posted by: Ashish Hanwadikar at Jul 22, 2005 8:57:55 AM
Problems:
1. People don't join the military just for money. The motiviation of a merc might be different than a home-grown soldier and that might be bad.
2. Loyalty. There would be problems fighting a war against a country from whom we had recruited a lot of mercenaries.
3. There are a lot of lessons from history here - the Roman empire for one had a lot of problems with mercenaries taking over the government, for instance. You aren't proposing a 100% merc army, but I think it pays to examine other's experiences in this regard.
Posted by: Jeff Burton at Jul 22, 2005 8:58:49 AM
If the marginal war (Iraq II, Vietnam) is a bad thing overall, then the problem is not that war is too expensive, but that it is too cheap.
Posted by: Brock at Jul 22, 2005 9:17:47 AM
I understand this discussion is loose and theorhetical, but hiring more merc's from abroad won't help the most critical manpower needs since none of those non-citizens are even eligible for a security clearance.
I don't know that I would rush to group Ghurkas in with generic mercs either. They are considered part of the Royal Army, as opposed to contractor mercs.
Posted by: Ian at Jul 22, 2005 9:20:14 AM
Prof. Tabarrok -- Sorry for going OT, but why haven't we had more bounty-hunting posts? As I recall, there's been just one so far. It was really interesting.
Posted by: John P. at Jul 22, 2005 9:27:50 AM
All I need to do to refute this argument is to cite the great Machiavelli, from the Prince Chapter XII
"I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state
are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed.
Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one
holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor
safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline,
unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have
neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is
deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by
them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other
attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend,
which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are
ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if
war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should
have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by
nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on
mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared
valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed
what they were."
Posted by: Frank at Jul 22, 2005 9:29:33 AM
Until the mid 1990s, Filipinos were allowed to serve in the US Navy (only)and could earn green card status after lengthy and honorable service.
Filipinos are the most pro-American people in Asia and would be a natural recruiting place for the US military given the right screening and training.
Posted by: jn at Jul 22, 2005 9:36:59 AM
Personally I'm all for the recruitment of Mercs. Other countries have perfected the activity and it would bring us closer to several of our already close friends.
I'm not sure you can give them lower pay for the same duty but it is an opportunity to decrease wages overall by increasing supply relative to demand. This country needs more (and better quality) immigration to survive and these are the types of people we should be looking for in the future. Let them earn an education and show they are willing to fight for the country and they have earned a right to citizenship for themselves and their children.
Posted by: Steve Roberts at Jul 22, 2005 9:46:04 AM
Already many officers from foreign militaries are trained by the US military. I know that several (many?) of the Indian Navy's Admirals are US trained. In that sense we're already stitching together a military with low-cost-of-labor nations. They don't have to be directly employed by the USA.
I'm also leary of having Mercs in the US army for another reason. Many of the US soldiers currently serving in Iraq support the action there because they themselves believe in the advance of freedom - a very American trait. I'm not sure that soldiers from a culture without the shared history of fighting for freedom would be as supportive.
Posted by: Brock at Jul 22, 2005 9:50:04 AM
A citizen army is a natural restraint to war. If politicians seek to maximize votes rather than money (current deficit indicating that they clearly do), a citizen army keeps a check on the military power of a president/congress. Is there any evidence that democratic states using mercenary armies go to war more frequently than democratic states using citizen armies? Does a lower cost to war mean that we would go to more wars? Is a war something we "demand" like a t-shirt or apples? I mean, I don't know. I think if war was nearly costless to us -- say we used really cheap robot armies -- I still don't think we would completely discount the utility of the people we were attacking, unless there was a major payoff. Hmm.. interesting post, prof.
Posted by: Sarah at Jul 22, 2005 9:52:22 AM
I think the challenge with foreign mercs is the skillsets in demand by US armed forces. Why there still is plenty of "grunt work", an increasing part of soldiering is high-tech (use of GPS and night vision devices, email, etc.) as well as highly specially trained (policing, demining, logistics, etc.)
It is one thing to outsource sewing t-shirts, quite another to outsource modern US soldiering.
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Jul 22, 2005 10:04:47 AM
Didn't hiring "barbarians" as soldiers turn out to be a bum deal for the Romans?
Posted by: Maximus at Jul 22, 2005 10:04:55 AM
Two of the most pressing security issues for the U.S. today are Iraq and the drug trade in northern Mexico. Mexican drug lords are hiring former elite Army commandos called Zetas as muscle for their operations. I've been wondering why the U.S. doesn't try to eleveate two problems by outbiding the drug lords for the services of these Zetas and sending them to Iraq.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Jul 22, 2005 10:21:05 AM
I think the debate can be helped here if we look at outsourcing based on specific military functions rather than a general passing out of uniforms. I would assume that having mercenary troops on frontline activity would not be very effective, as Machiavelli said they have too much incentive to cut and run.
I know for a fact that the US Fifth Fleet employs Ghurkas to guard the naval base and the embassy in Bahrain. As such they have done so admirably for the lifetime of those facilities. Yes, I have wondered comfortable high-altitude mountain people are working on a flat humid desert island.
But I imagine that most non-combat functions would be appealing to foreigners who have a lot to gain, mainly job security, good pay, good experience. And since many of them sign up long term (stronger incentive to stay rather than face diminished oppurtunities back home), the employing military doesn't have to worry about retention rates
Posted by: Desert Island Boy at Jul 22, 2005 10:42:23 AM
Deployed carefully, mercenaries could probably be helpful once you controlled for the skill-set and security problems, though that's ultimately a decision that the individual services would have to make for themselves. On the other hand, given the global perception of America already as a fat lazy empire, hiring poor brown troops to fight our wars at a discount could make for some horrible PR.
Posted by: Jay Welch at Jul 22, 2005 11:23:46 AM
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20040128.html
And you can't solve the problem just by offering citzenship. Rome did that, and it caused more trouble than it solved.
Yes, mercs, being market-driven tend to be far more efficent in delivering their services than government. In most areas, this is an arguement in favor of privatization. But what happens when the private purveyors of military force decide to grow the market?
Think Italy. Think thirteenth through nineteenth centuries. Think very, very carefully.
Posted by: Nathan Zook at Jul 22, 2005 11:59:01 AM
The US already does hire a significant number of mercenaries. They're just hired under different terminology: normally, "security firms". (see, for instance, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/iraq_securitycompanies.htm).
They don't overtly admit that these groups get involved in open battles -- but wander back through the headlines in Iraq and see how often employees of these firms are dying...
Posted by: chuq Von Rospach at Jul 22, 2005 12:15:41 PM
Given the escalating cost of war, the question may not be "should" the government hire mercenaries, it may become "can it afford not to?"
You and I can agree that hiring mercenaries is a bad idea because it cheapens war, but that's the best reason for the government to do so. Plus, if stuff like Abu Ghraib happens, its very, very easy to blame the mercs and terminate them.
I think you'll see the use of "contractors" such as this grow around the world.
"But what happens when the private purveyors of military force decide to grow the market?"
Well, as fighting war is extremely expensive for even private armies, they don't really want to grow the market for "war," so much as the perceived need for security. They want everyone to THINK they need protection (increasing their revenue) but for things to actually be quite peaceful (decreasing their costs). No one accuses private home security companies of instigating burglaries to increase their demand. Mercenaries often vote against war because they tend to the be the "expendable" troops on the front lines -- they'd much prefer cushy "security" jobs.
"I think the debate can be helped here if we look at outsourcing based on specific military functions rather than a general passing out of uniforms."
Exactly. Private companies already provide so much of what was considering military activity already, such as logistics, supply and reconstruction. It used to be that the Army covered all those things internally. Just because the "mercenaries" are serving food instead of fighting doesn't make them any less a part of the "war." Even the defense industry can be considered "mercenaries," -- private companies that contribute to the war effort. Weapon development used to be a job for the military itself.
"The US already does hire a significant number of mercenaries."
And I believe this number will grow. I don't think they're going to take over the day-to-day "fighting" part of the army, but we may soon see the day they cover just about everything else. And indeed, they probably desire this. Why take the dangerous job of fighting on the front lines when you can make money doing all the (relatively) safer stuff?
Posted by: Caliban at Jul 22, 2005 1:12:43 PM
Lee Van Cleef's character in The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly makes me weary of hiring mercs.
But, fictional cowboys aside, there are enormous efficiency gains to be made from hiring soldiers. I think the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. Increasing the standing army would act as a deterrent to war, particularly if the increases are made overseas. Gains in efficiency would also reduce the strain and commitment of the government.
I am saying this with an unjustified assumption in my head of what types of people hire themselves out as mercs. Maybe more analysis would quell the fears of merc cowardice, disloyalty, etc. Given the right incentives, I dont see a reason why Mercs cant perform as diligently as voluntary soldiers.
I also think the army produces a positive externality for society in that it keeps people that would otherwise be - I should choose my words carefully - unproductive off the street, so to speak. But the Army has standards, and also the incentives that it provides sometimes dont match up for could-be mercs, people with roughly the same disposition as voluntary soldiers.
Plus, since when isn't labour flexibility a good thing?
Posted by: Josh at Jul 22, 2005 1:19:09 PM
Bah. I meant 'leary'.
I must be weary.
Posted by: josh at Jul 22, 2005 1:21:04 PM
Our local mercs in Dyncorps and other companies, providing security in Iraq and fighting the drug war in Colombia, are not cheap.
They often get 60K or more working half time.
In fact they are a drain on our Special Forces, offering much more pay for less work and more controllable working conditions.
Posted by: ZT at Jul 22, 2005 2:31:11 PM
