Current Event for the Week of 1/29/07
Private U.S. Mercenaries in Iraq Work Outside Normal Constraints
Mercenaries are not just a thing of the past. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the United States currently has over 100,000 private troops serving in Iraq. These troops operate outside of Congressional oversight and have no legal constraints. Bush is able to use these private military contractors (PMCs) to expand wars with little to no backlash from the public because contractor deaths do not count in the official death toll. Now, Bush is proposing a "Civilian Reserve Corps" which would give him a back door to expanding his conflicts even more.
Read the article here.
What do you think about privatized violence? Does using private military contractors make a war any more or less justified? Should the United States continue to spend money on private military contractors, or should it instead use that money to improve the current Armed Forces? Do private military contractors deserve to be awarded with Purple Hearts and other service awards even though they technically do not fight in the Armed Forces?
Mercenaries are not just a thing of the past. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the United States currently has over 100,000 private troops serving in Iraq. These troops operate outside of Congressional oversight and have no legal constraints. Bush is able to use these private military contractors (PMCs) to expand wars with little to no backlash from the public because contractor deaths do not count in the official death toll. Now, Bush is proposing a "Civilian Reserve Corps" which would give him a back door to expanding his conflicts even more.
Read the article here.
What do you think about privatized violence? Does using private military contractors make a war any more or less justified? Should the United States continue to spend money on private military contractors, or should it instead use that money to improve the current Armed Forces? Do private military contractors deserve to be awarded with Purple Hearts and other service awards even though they technically do not fight in the Armed Forces?
posted by phs_sociology at 7:52 PM
4 Comments:
I do believe that these behind the scenes soldiers should still receive awards such as the Purple Heart. Although I don't agree that these soldiers' deaths and operations should be hidden from the public. I understand you have to have your private operations but once these plans are executed and done with I would think that the public has a right to know what the country they live in and stand for is doing with their sons, daughters, neighbors, and friends. Also, I believe this article is overly biased.
Privatized violence is what it is. As the public I feel cheated, slightly, but it isn't long before the logic of it is realized. The government has to do things against the public's ethics and values to acheive the greater good. I mean after all, they have the power, so that obviously means they have the better ability to make the decisions for the country, rather than the people. Right?
-Ben Stickel
I think that the privatized soldiers are a good thing. No, I don't think that makes a war any less justified. They blew up our buildings didn't they? I think that they should continue to spend money on mercenaries, because they are helping us win the war. I don't know if they should recieve medals and awards because then they wouldn't be secret any more.
I think privatized violence is a terrible but necessary thing if America is going to stay in Iraq to fight the war on terrorism; violence to me is never a good thing though. The use of private military contractors does not make the war less justified. The U.S. can continue to spend the money of the private military contractors but if there is a significant need to improve the armed forces then they should cut back the money given to the private contractors. I think that anyone that goes over to Iraq and fights in anyway for his or her country deserves a Purple Heart/other service awards.
first let me say that I think that privatized army forces is a bad idea. Going behind congress's back is never a good thing, because that eliminates the ability to use checks and balances. Congress can't keep the operation in check, so the mercenary force can do pretty much whatever they want without restraint; that's not good. It's not logical, either. It seems to me like Bush will go to whatever lengths he has to to keep this war going in Iraq. I personally don't really even see the honor in fighting this way, and especially since these soldiers would have never been a part of the armed forces, as it were, i do not think they should receive the same rewards that the regular U.S. soldiers receive.
Post a Comment
<< Home