« Erwin Nyiregyhazi | Main | Using Incentives to Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict »
Should we use mercenaries at all?
Over at Mark Thoma's, Bernard Yomtov asks a very good question:
Why should there be mercenaries at all, given the existence of a large and well-trained Army? The mercenaries are former soldiers. Their functions are military and could be carried out by regular soldiers. The only reason I can see for using them is precisely to have people doing military jobs who are outside the normal chain of command, and not subject to normal laws, rules, and regulations governing the conduct of soldiers. In other words, it is to have people who do not work for government in the way that they should.
Most private contractors today do not serve in the function of soldiers but rather they deliver, ensure, and guard supplies. This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but often the private sector does a better job and without major legal problems.
Security guards, however, are often "mercenaries." A general or top Iraqi official for instance might be guarded by Blackwater employees. The critics have not shown that Blackwater employees misbehave at a higher rate than do U.S. soldiers, so the comparative case against Blackwater -- as opposed to the more general case against the war -- is mostly shrill rhetoric. It is possible to pay Blackwater employees bonuses for good performance rather than just give medals, plus they are on a higher pay scale in the first place. Nonetheless my judgment call is that issues of perception and accountability are important enough in contemporary Iraq that we should be using contractors less in these capacities (as the column indicated), but the temptation to use them is based on more than just sheer political abuse.
Contractors lower the cost of good operations, contractors lower the operational (but not social) cost of bad operations, contractors magnify the costs of mistaken Executive preferences, and contractors can raise new problems of monitoring. If you don't think the first item on this list is at work, there is good reason to cut back on contractors in Iraq.
But if you view the scope and use of contractors as a more general decision, rather than something which can be fine-tuned for each war, it is no longer such a simple choice.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 28, 2007 at 01:17 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
But if you view the scope and use of contractors as a more general decision, rather than something to be fine-tuned for each war, it is no longer such a simple choice.
The problem is that the US government is not viewing the use of contractors as a more general decision. Otherwise, they would have issued letters of marque and reprisal as allowed by international law against any Al-Qaida terrorists who have commited or plan to commit hostile acts in the U.S.
Letters of marque and reprisal are included in the U.S. Constitution for a reason. Why engage in a costly "war on terror" at all when you can empower private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans?
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 28, 2007 1:35:23 PM
.
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 28, 2007 1:36:43 PM
Isn't there another name for people described by Yomtov as "outside the normal chain of command, and not subject to normal laws, rules, and regulations governing the conduct of soldiers?" Aren't such people also known as "unlawful combatants?"
If Blackwater is unaccountable to U.S. authorities due to what the Secretary of State describes as a "hole" in the law, and if Blackwater employees don't wear uniforms, aren't they unlawful combatants?
I recall the outrage with which "unlawful combatants" were assailed by U.S. politicians in years gone by. The depravity of such combatants was attributed to their lack of accountability to the laws and chain of command of a recognized sovereign state, their not wearing identifiable uniforms and sundry other breaches of etiquette which were purported to place such miscreants beyond accounting to the laws of God or Man.
And now comes Tyler Cowen to explain that, actually, unlawful combatants are merely participants in a marketplace, reflecting the sins and virtues of their customer, to whom they are accountable only by the law of supply and demand.
But isn't there a paradox regarding accountability here? Doesn't their very unaccountability to U.S. or Iraqi civilian law make Blackwater contractors unlawful combatants, which status therefore makes them accountable under whatever Bush-made law it is that allows people to be boxed-up at Guantanamo Bay.
I suppose the paradox is resolved by noting that although Blackwater contractors may be unlawful combatants, they are OUR unlawful combatants, and thus they are not unlawful ENEMY combatants.
This distinction is nicely captured at Wikipedia. Their entry on "Unlawful combatant" begins, "Civilians who directly engage in hostilities, are considered unlawful combatants . . .," whereas their entry on "Unlawful enemy combatant" unabashedly states, "An unlawful enemy combatant is a person detained by United States in its war on terror."
Posted by: hpr at Oct 28, 2007 3:44:09 PM
Reportedly, Blackwater is significantly more expensive than using regular soldiers, primarily because they pay *much* more.
In any event, how can you make a blanket statement that contactors lower costs?
Posted by: richard at Oct 28, 2007 3:56:02 PM
The attacks on Blackwater are indirect attacks on The U.S. military. That's what you do when direct attacks fail. As an example, when the direct attacks to impeach President Bush failed, the attacks switched to Karl Rove.
The direct attacks on the U.S. military failed. Abu Ghraib was reported as all abu Ghraib all the time for months. That attack eventually failed.
Not surprisingly, the playbook produces attacks on Blackwater. See hpr above.
I don't think Bernard meant to be malicious in his question but, it does show his ignorance. Clearly, he has never been a soldier.
Posted by: Lee at Oct 28, 2007 4:14:36 PM
I am curious as to how you would envision the critics ever having access to information as to whether or not "Blackwater employees misbehave at a higher rate than do U.S. soldiers."
Realistically, through what channels would those data come?
Posted by: different jeff at Oct 28, 2007 5:21:00 PM
How anyone can talk about these security contractors being unaccountable is pretty silly. Blackwater is about to get kicked out of Iraq and may very well go under for this incident. Other contractors are probably scrambling to rewrite the rules of engagement for their operators to prevent the same from happening. When the US (or any other national Army) blows up a bunch of civilians rarely does anything happen other than some reprimands for the commanding officers and maybe some jail time for a few people if very serious (or high profile). "Mistakes were made" and all that. The military isn't go anywhere.
The military is a governement organization just like any others. It is subject to ridiculous beauracracies, incompetent officers, and corruption as much as any other government organization. The term "military efficiency" is an oxymoron. Having been in and seen this first hand, I can attest about the amount of uneeded baggage the miliarty hauls around with it. While I have no numbers I imagine government contractors, in order to maximize profits, fight a much leaner fight. This would make them more effecient even if they paid more money per soldier as they would only equip what they need, as opposed to what some congressman wants to build in his home district.
Posted by: Apostate at Oct 28, 2007 5:29:50 PM
Lest we forget, simply by being legitimized by uniforms and some sort of semantic classification as "military" does necessarily not make any combatant either more accountable or more responsible for actions occurring in a combat zone. There are thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and very few disciplinary actions have been recorded against US troops, while the recent incident with Blackwater is one of the first in this conflict. As Apostate points out, there seems to be little support for the claim that they are not being held accountable, or any less accountable than persons guilty of similar acts but who under the aegis of military legitimacy.
different jeff: I don't see how finding this data would be so impossible. It would be pretty easy to proxy a variable for, say, 'man-hours of exposure' to a conflict area for contractors compared to US military, and compare that to civilian casualties caused by each in order to find a "rate of misbehavior."
Posted by: Nonemoreblack at Oct 28, 2007 7:03:55 PM
Frankly I'm surprised that people would assume that the government is using mercenaries in order to get around rules. The government is using mercenaries for the same reason governments have used mercenaries throughout history- to beef up the standing army for short, high intensity periods, i.e. wars.
We know that the army is, if anything, short handed even with the mercenaries there. Why assume that they were hired for any other reason than need for more "soldiers".
Posted by: Jim Clay at Oct 28, 2007 7:19:14 PM
Frankly I'm surprised that people would assume that the government is using mercenaries in order to get around rules. The government is using mercenaries for the same reason governments have used mercenaries throughout history- to beef up the standing army for short, high intensity periods, i.e. wars.
We know that the army is, if anything, short handed even with the mercenaries there. Why assume that they were hired for any other reason than need for more "soldiers".
Posted by: Jim Clay at Oct 28, 2007 7:19:52 PM
Frankly I'm surprised that people would assume that the government is using mercenaries in order to get around rules. The government is using mercenaries for the same reason governments have used mercenaries throughout history- to beef up the standing army for short, high intensity periods, i.e. wars.
We know that the army is, if anything, short handed even with the mercenaries there. Why assume that they were hired for any other reason than need for more "soldiers".
Posted by: Jim Clay at Oct 28, 2007 7:20:00 PM
Just the idea of so many private contractors in a war zone makes me cringe, however good they are. When you fight a war, you are doing that as a country, as a government. In other words, you have to take 100% responsibility. Having a set of people who could get into combat situations and are not under the same set of rules as the military is just inexcusable.
Posted by: Deepak at Oct 28, 2007 7:33:05 PM
Posted by: anon at Oct 28, 2007 8:02:01 PM
richard, "Reportedly, Blackwater is significantly more expensive than using regular soldiers, primarily because they pay *much* more." is also a blanket statement.
Blackwater is not more expensive. These are contractors; they do not receive benefits, a pension, etc. They show up trained and equipped to perform their duties. While comparing a Blackwater contractor's daily rate to that of a U.S. soldier may make for a great soundbyte, it completely ignores the upfront and legacy costs associated with the labor costs of carrying out military operations.
More importantly perhaps, these security companies provide a medium for the U.S. and its allies to leverage a significant talent base that would otherwise be at home.
Posted by: Sparty at Oct 28, 2007 8:25:03 PM
--Why should there be mercenaries at all, given the existence of a large and well-trained Army?
Is the author of the above that ill informed or naive?
Because the "large" army isn't large enough in times of crisis, and it would take many changes for it to be large enough. It would take money, money, and money to increase its size. It would take political capital, lots of capital. It may be that the US Congress doesn't want to increase the size of the standing army. It may be that neither does the executive branch, for other reasons as well. For one, increasing the standing army for a temporary crisis without a draft is difficult--are you going to keep the size of the army after that? Train them and then throw them out? Sink capital into keeping them in the military? Why not avoid these issues by having contractors and mercenaries? Would the author prefer a draft?
Blackwater employees might be "more expensive" per hour today, but they don't end up with military pensions for their service or with military health care or Tricare for that service either. You need to look at the whole picture. These people are already trained, have already been weeded through, have been vetted, etc. Contractors provide a service under far more efficiency than the USG does.
Posted by: Allison at Oct 28, 2007 9:26:54 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that Blackwater employees are "mercenaries."
The definition of "mercenary":
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
They appear to be primarily or entirely made up of patriotic Americans. They see themselves as serving their country, etc.
Nor were they "unlawful combatants" before the Iraqi government decided to kick them out.
Mike Elgan
Posted by: Mike Elgan at Oct 28, 2007 9:48:43 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that Blackwater employees are "mercenaries."
The definition of "mercenary":
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
They appear to be primarily or entirely made up of patriotic Americans. They see themselves as serving their country, etc.
Nor were they "unlawful combatants" before the Iraqi government decided to kick them out.
Mike Elgan
Posted by: Mike Elgan at Oct 28, 2007 9:49:08 PM
The government has forfeited its monopsonistic buying power over government-funded military jobs, so the taxpayers are having to shell out much higher pay, either to Blackwater mercenaries or to U.S. military servicemen to keep them from going over to Blackwater. From the taxpayers' point of view, it's a ridiculous situation.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 28, 2007 10:08:10 PM
This is not a unique case restricted tot he military. Much of the demand for privatization of traditionally governmental jobs comes from government employees themselves who want a competitive market for their skills. As a taxpayer, I'm tired of paying to train somebody in a government job, then, when they are finally productive, having them jump to an outsourced for-profit job that costs me two or three times as much.
I want our monopsony back!
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 28, 2007 10:10:45 PM
"Most private contractors today do not serve in the function of soldiers but rather they deliver, ensure, and guard supplies."
But Tyler, for the past several thousand years the things you mention above ate exactly what soldiers have done. Perhaps next you'll say that digging foxholes should be done by private excavation contractors?
Posted by: David Sucher at Oct 28, 2007 10:42:34 PM
Mercenaries are only in business due to them being able to beside the laws and restrictions of the military. If mercenaries were taken out, more emphasis and importande would be placed upon the military. On the other hand mercenaries do the small jobs that the military will not. If they were taken out, then the military would have to step in and take care of these small petty jobs that the mercenaries do.
Posted by: Seth Black at Oct 28, 2007 11:10:45 PM
Tyler,
I'd like to emphasize the centrality of logistics -- "deliver, ensure, and guard supplies" -- in warfare. Napoleon said it best -- "Armies travel on their stomachs." So to diminish the role of "delivering supplies" as military function is sadly mistaken. Logistics are at the very hear of what armies are all about. We "outsource" such a function to private parties at our peril.
Posted by: David Sucher at Oct 28, 2007 11:15:57 PM
Tyler, smarter guys than you or me have thought longer and harder about mercenaries.
Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, Chapter 12:
"The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
"And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free."
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 28, 2007 11:52:46 PM
A lot of the demand for privatization and contracting out comes from higher level government employees themselves, who want to get out from under the civil service cap on their pay. For instance, executives of state lotteries have long crusaded for privatizing the running of state lotteries, so they can be paid like CEOs instead of like civil servants -- all the while running a government-licensed monopoly. It's the best of both worlds!
Well, for them; for taxpayers, not so much...
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 29, 2007 2:34:46 AM
Might the existence of mercenaries in the current conflict be explained by a form of first order price discrimination?
To whit: I strongly suspect that the supply-curve for troops in war-time exhibits a pronounced S-cure. A portion of the population is very susceptible to low-level inducements to enlist for a variety of reasons- appreciation for the virtues of military service, lack of other employment options, or a native inability to differentiate action movies from real life. Once this pool of potential recruits (who form the bulk of the armed services) is exhausted, supply of fresh recruits probably becomes very inelastic indeed; most of us, after all, would require quite a bit more than a signing bonus to persuade us that a potentially one-way ticket to Falluja is in our best interests. At some certain point (for me, subjectively, somewhere between 150-500k) the added pay will begin persuading people to be all they can be in logistically useful numbers.
When the demand for troops exceeds the first period of elastic supply, the military must either raise payscales throughout the service, or else operate like our Coasean railroad magnate, paying late-comers more than those who joined prior to the conflict. As the first option would be cripplingly expensive, and the second politically suicidal, it therefore makes sense for the military to employ mercenaries as a method of realizing optimal price discrimination. Everyone gets paid exactly what is required to get them to Iraq and no more.
It's also important to point out that just because mercenaries are economic efficient, their use is not necessarily ethical, legal, or strategically wise.
Posted by: K. Larson at Oct 29, 2007 4:16:53 AM
