Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Chad: send mercenaries

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Chad: send mercenaries
    Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 19:52
It's eight month since the EU decided to send troops to Eastern Chad to prevent violence from Sudan-backed militias against Darfuri refugees camps along the Chad-Sudan border. It's been eight month that the EU has been trying to set up this force unsuccessfully. It's been eight month of shame.

Basically the problem is the following, only three countries really have the ability to back up the expeditionary corp: the UK, Germany and France. Other countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain do not have armed forces big enough to do the job. Most of the European countries are also engaged in Afghanistan and the American ally may not appreciate to see helicopters and tanks sent to Chad instead of fighting Talebans.

British resources are already scattered between Iraq, Afghanistan and a number of other smaller operations. Germany has never been too hot to see its troops go anywhere without at least a mandate of the UN. France is ready to send men in Chad but suffers from being the former colonial power in the region, which risks to taint the whole operation with a strong neo-imperialist taste.

So the need is there, the will as well and it is not a financial issue. Only politics prevents the Darfuri refugees from enjoying the bare minimum: safety. What is there to do?

In my opinion, it would be a good idea to send mercenaries for the following reasons:
1) They are basically just as good as national armies' soldiers but are rather cheaper (less people supporting them).
2) Their life and safety are not as politically sensitive an issue as is they were in the army.
3) They only require financing, the rest of the problem is outsourced.
4) They allow armed forces to remain untouched for potential emergencies.
5) They do not carry a country's flag and as such are less likely to create a neo-colonial image.
6) It is easier to finance an army with 27 countries tipping in rather than with soldiers from these 27 countries.

True, some problems may arise:
1) A legal frame needs to be set for their actions.
2) A clear reward system needs to be set so if they mess up and the crisis becomes worst, they will never be used again.
3) The top of the chain of command needs to remain in the buyers' hands.

So there are pitfalls, but overall, I'd say it would be a good idea to send a mercenary force to Chad (and maybe in other places too). What do you think?
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 22:33
Where is the pool of mercenaries to be had?  If they are available, are there sufficient numbers trained in the type of warfare being encountered in Chad?  How will they be paid and supported?  
 
Maharbbal, I think what you are seeing here is what we have discussed in the past.  Europe has taken verbal responsibility for international obligations, but doesn't want to fulfill them or to pay for them.  Why else would it take the better part of a year to respond?  It is because they don't want to do it.
 
Europe has lived for six decades under a US military umbrella and it has become very comfortable.  Britain, for a number of reasons (that would constitute a separate topic), has been more willing to take on obligations and to fulfill them as well as she is able.  For most of the rest, just token responses are all that can be shown.
 
Sorry to say it, but Europe has lost her chops.  The second "Thirty Years War" did her in, and she spends her treasure on being comfortable and letting the heavy lifting up to someone else.  If I lived in Bavaria, or Tuscany, or Catalonia, or Denmark, and had a job and a pension and health care, I probably would be in favor of that as well.  Europe no longer has to defend her interests, so she won't.
 
Don't look for the US to do more than we still do.  We have enough issues.  After the Somalia fiasco, there will be zero US political capital invested in Africa.  Africa is Europe's sphere of influence; if you don't take care of it, it will fester, rot and be a security threat on your southern geographical flank for some time.  Mercenaries aren't going to do it.  Someone has to have some balls.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 10-Feb-2008 at 22:37
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 23:10
Bring on Landsknechts Cool.

But seriously wouldn't institutions like French foreign legion serve well to this purpose.
EU could create it's own army based on the French foreign legion principles which would be basically a mercenary army composed of men from different EU nationalities.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 23:28
Originally posted by Roberts

Bring on Landsknechts Cool.

But seriously wouldn't institutions like French foreign legion serve well to this purpose.
EU could create it's own army based on the French foreign legion principles which would be basically a mercenary army composed of men from different EU nationalities.
 
So how does one coordinate that; provide for a viable command structure and pay for all of it without conflicting interests and priorities?  How much time would it take to put together such a "force?"  Where would the equipment come from?  Who would transport them and provide logistics without political repercussions?  And the Useless Nations would no doubt have to be placated.....years of negotiations and dinners at New York restaurants.  Too many problems.
 
The Legion Etrangere is part of the French army.  As such, as good troops as they are, they are subject to French command and French national interests.  The Foreign Legion is probably represented in Chad as we speak, but there are not that many of them.  France has made statements....OK.
 
Our friend Maharbbal will perhaps disagree, but France is as guilty as other Euro states in sliding on their responsibilities.  When they realize it is not 1960 anymore, and they have to take responsibility for their own interests, maybe European states will do something.  Don't hold your breath...there are few votes in that.
 
     
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 23:35
The Foreign Legion seems neo-colonial and neo-imperialist in the context of missions in Africa. The Legion used to be based out of Algeria, and participated in the repression of numerous political revolutions in the region. I'd say that the Legion is out of the question, at least in terms of being the sole member in a peace-keeping mission. Italian troops would probably be out of the question as well, given Italy's history in North Africa and Ethiopia. Then again, I guess pretty much any Western European nations' soldiers in Africa carries with it neo-colonial implications. British East Africa, Dutch South Africa, French North and Western Africa, Germany's east African territories, Italian occupation of Libya and Ethiopia, etc.
Technically, in agreement wit pikeshot, European military foreign policy lacks 'teeth.' Those militaries are underfunded and undermanned for missions outside of their own borders, for the most part. They're mostly well-trained and well-equipped, but they don't have a fraction of the numbers necessary to exert military influence outside of Europe.

Mercenaries have historically been a pretty terrible idea in just about any historical/political contexts. Mercenaries lack the ability to, as US military personnel call it, influence 'hearts and minds' in a positive way. The US has found that out the hard way in Iraq, with it's use of 'private contractors' negatively influencing the perception of the mission. Mercenaries tend to use more force than necessary, due to a lack of accountability. Because, honestly, lacking national allegiance, who can prosecute them in the event of atrocities? Governments have to worry about public perception, but mercenary units do not. They can just go underground, rename their organization, and resurface again on a different (or even the same) battlefield again a few months later.
As it stands, it looks like the people of Darfur will just have to hold on as best they can under the frightful circumstances, because Europe lacks the gumption and manpower to do anything about it, and the US isn't sticking it's nose in that bee's nest again.

And I doubt the Sudanese gov't's old friend China will be sending any troops any time soon...
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 02:15
Ok we are not too much discussing the point here.

But hey I ain't a mod no more so lets go.

Europe lacks teeth? Maybe, but I'd rather say it lacks good teeth in sufficient number and specially it lacks jaw. What I mean is that I'm pretty sure the French army (or the British one  for that matter) has been used more often than the US army in the past 60 years proving that these two countries are overall well aware of what it takes to defend its interests the world over.

True enough, the Royal Navy is not what it used to be even 30 years ago but when it comes to very expensive material, the EU suffers from having not one but 27 defense budget that range from one of the highest in the world relative to the population and GDP (Poland) to countries that have have basically decided not to have an army no more (Denmark).

EU armed forces are not able to enjoy the type of economies of scale the US do. This added to a vast array of interests sometimes contradictory, does not make the issue an easy one. That' why I mentioned the mercenaries.

Companies such as Executive Outcome have proven that they could very effectively reach military targets a state's armed forces couldn't.  The EUFOR supposed to go to Chad is meant to be 3500 strong. In the US alone, I'm sure there are more recently unemployed ex-soldiers.

There are pitfalls, but nothing a well written contract, a strong juridical frame, a close monitoring and a good regulation of the sector by itself could not over come. Basically, the point would be: you kill civilians, you go to jail, if you let bad things happen you don't get paid, if you try to get into local politics, you'll never be employed again (you as in the persons, not the company).

The point would be that the money is not missing but government are not too keen to have their soldiers killing or being killed but if it was only to send a few guys with a clearly defined mission it wouldn't be a problem (actually Germany has already said it would pay for the EUFOR).

We also have to take into account that mercenaries may be more efficient at some tasks. Namely, putting a French elite soldier to guard a refugee camp for months is called wasting taxpayer money. An Indian or Fijian mercenary would do just as well for a quarter of the price.

Another advantage would be that instead of spreading its forces a bit everywhere (France has at least 8000 soldiers in Africa right now) on mission consisting mostly in showing your gun once in a while and playing cards the rest of the time, the European armies could be concentrated where they are truly needed (Afghanistan for instance).

I can see that some are a bit uneasy with the idea of having mercenaries a bit everywhere, and indeed one should always remain careful (the Foreign Legion tried a coup against the French Republic in the 60s). But then again, NGOs such as the Red Cross are using Private Military Companies to protect their missions the world over, and the Red Cross ain't exactly a bunch of dangerous fascists.

Overall, in my opinion, operations such as the one in Chad could very well be outsourced.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 02:33
Outsourcing military functions is a return to the days when governments did not have the resources to address their vital interests. 
 
France went through eight civil wars, 1562 - 1598 because private armies were the only viable military option, and, because of financial and logistical inadequacy, none could gain a decisive resolution to the wars.  Elizabethan England had to depend on private capital and private interests to fight Spain, and it bankrupted the realm to no substantial advantage.  Private military enterprisers presented such a threat to the Holy Roman Emperor in the Thirty Years War that he had to have his generalissimo assassinated to prevent being eclipsed by him.
 
More modern state organisms saw vital interests more clearly, and mobilized resources to defend those.  The jumble of national interests and POVs has corrupted that in the last 100 years.
 
The mirage of international collective security hangs over us to this day.  If the polities of the EU don't act, even individually, in their own interests (as much as they can), Europe remains a non-entity overshadowed still by Russia in the East and the US in the West.  Even if they do act, it may not be any different.  It just makes the EU look bad.  But, the lives and interests of Africans don't mean much, do they?
 
  


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 11-Feb-2008 at 02:36
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 03:11
Pikeshot, France has always been militarily engaged in Africa. I wouldn't say France lacked the will power to deploy troops, it may lack man power, but it has shown that is willing to deploy troops to its former colonies.

I agree about Mercenaries though, they are not a solution. They are unrealiable, prone to committing atrocities, and will probably just make the situtation worse.
The availability of mercenaries doesn't appear to be poor. "Private security firms" are providing many troops to backup the US in Iraq, and presumably this is where the pool of mercenaries would come form. UN missions are primarily manned by countries such as Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. Europe may have a better option paying the Indonesians to send troops.
EU could create it's own army based on the French foreign legion principles which would be basically a mercenary army composed of men from different EU nationalities.

An EU army you mean? I'm sure there will be plenty of opposition to that.
Originally posted by Brian


And I doubt the Sudanese gov't's old friend China will be sending any troops any time soon...

China isn't afflicted with the disease to get involved in everyone elses buisness unlike the US and Europe. They also probably have a better understanding of the conflict than the "lets help poor Dafuri refugees" policy in Europe.

Africa now reminds me of medieval Europe, or turn-of-the-millenium Turkestan. Constantly producing migrants, homelands in constant warfare - I reckon that Africa is going to be very powerful in 300-500 years.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 11-Feb-2008 at 03:13
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 04:01
True about China, but if you want to be a major world player, it means you have humanitarian responsibilities. US and European soldiers have served as peace-keepers in many places the world over.
Misguided humanitarian projects are arguably better than the blatant funding of a government committing some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet right now.
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 05:13
Being a major world player has nothing to do with humanitatian responsibilities. What peace keeping missions did Victorian Britian embark on? As I already pointed out most of the troops for peace keeping missions are not supplied by the US or Europe.

I'd also advise not to judge a conflict you don't understand. For example, Darfuri groups were responsible for the atrocities against the Dinka (I don't know what side those groups are on now, its possible they are still the aggressors)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 05:26

How the hell are they even going to support an operation which is a thousand miles inland not to mention, the neighbouring countries want the place to stay, "whitefrei".

Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 06:20
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


An EU army you mean? I'm sure there will be plenty of opposition to that.


It actually exists, kinda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR_Chad/CAR , though I guess it is still very far from united mechanism.

About opposition - if the French and Germans agree that united EU army corps are neccesary than the only possible opposition to that would be UK.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 12:06

I agree with Pikes' sentiments.

some points , as far as i can see
  1. most of the Europeans forces are not fighting the taliban and are engaged in 'reconstruction' projects and boy scout camping holidays in the North.
  2. spain and italy have the forces to contribute. EU are talkers - unless its white problem like kosovo.
  3. France can fight it chooses not to, the have the capacity to at least support Chad in a bigger way than they have in this latest round.
  4. China is involved some how, reports do exist of some type of Chinese armed forces of sorts in Sudan protecting their oil interest. Its misguided to think there any different to the Europeans






Edited by Leonidas - 11-Feb-2008 at 12:07
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 16:28
China has a non-intervention in other country's business doctrine that is rooted in its own reluctance to see other countries getting involved in matters like human rights in China, Tibet, etc. I bet that the day their oil supply is threatened by some rebels, they will drop it. Realpolitik it is.

In regard with France non-intervention in Chad, it is actually a good thing as the country had the bad tendency to support dictatorships in the past (Dby's for instance), seeking a EU support instead of going alone is a good point in my view.

Regarding mercenaries, the fact that they have been used again, and again and again during centuries kind of proves that they can be trusted or at least that risks are low. Besides, we are not talking about a coup in Papua New Guinea here. The operation would be 100% legitimate, coordinated and checked by real officers still in the army.

European standing armies came into being at a time when wars required a lot of soldiers and little training. Nowadays, at least in places like Chad, modern military rely on a small number of soldiers and on training-intensive tactics and material. 3000 ex-soldiers drawn from around the world (potentially re-trained in a more modern fashion in by private military academies such as the original Blackwater facility) and commanded by experienced officers would not be a danger for any country's security and would be faster to deploy than any other force.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 16:46
We were going to send 500 of 'our boys' till it actually looked like it was going to be too dangerous to send them over there. Am I the only one who regards that as an oxymoron?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 17:07
The problem starts with the whole "deployable concept" that you put forward. The wars of the 2000's have proved that the "light, easily deployable" mantra of the 1990 was a fallacy. A case in point was the US Marine I MEF (a corps sized force as opposed to an undersized brigade that you propose) performance in the Iraq invasion, they to put in politely, made a meal of it, the post war consensus was that light troops like them should never have been committed, the had difficulty dislodging Iraqis from Nassiriya for instance. THe US V Corps on the other hand, with a mechanized division, managed to rip through far most onerous resistance. Conclusion, for operations like the one that you propose, you need big, powerful formations that will, to put it crudely, kick ass.
 
The only time when a force like the one that you suggest will be of any use is when it sends a political message, that is it displays a statement of intent, a line in the sand so to speak, and the message is "yes its a small force, but if you attack it, you are at war with us, and that will be disasterous for you". Sort of like 1st Brigade 82nd Airbourne in the first stages of Desert Storm. In this case, you have that threat absent, sinvce as you said there will be little pressure on the governments to avenge the loss of mercs. Hell even if European soldier are sent, unless from UK, France and Germany it will have no effective message, since if a tinpot dictator slaughters a few hundred or few thousand Danes, Dutch or Irishmen, there is little Copanhagen, Amsterdam or Dublin can do, in retaliation.
 
 
Practically only the US can do anthing about it, but since the US Army's strategic reserve is at this time, aboutn two battalions that is out of the question without a significant drawdown from the seven divisions in Iraq (and one in Afghanistan). The last option is to send atomic warheads, and that is well.................
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:15

there is little Copanhagen, Amsterdam or Dublin can do, in retaliation.


Why we'll just keep sending more of our boys down there until we win!
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:46
Your point on the lack of deterrence a merc force would have, is very good, but then again it may be as much an advantage as a problem (no chance to get locked in an escalating situation). Besides, there would still be real soldiers' boots on the ground to provide intelligence and support and to monitor the mercs.

Regarding the mission in Chad, the point is not to kick asses nor to overcome "onerous" defenses. They would be fighting guerrillas and bandits, not the Presidential Guard. The guys in front have no air support, no amoured vehicle and little or none artillery. That is precisely the type of mission a light force is good at, and that is precisely the type of force a private company can set up.
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 19:11
I agree that militarily, mercenaries have just as good a shot, if not a better shot, than most countries' standing armies. The problem is the politics of the situation. Sure, mercenaries could burn villages and execute prisoners and kill guerrillas with the best of them; but that's not the mission. The mission would be to halt an 'ethnic cleansing' campaign, provide humanitarian aid to hundreds of thousands of refugees, and restore order in a very troubled region. Mercenary companies are not set up for those sorts of missions, i.e. Blackwater in Iraq.

By the way, Omar, I'm very surprised that you find a policy of non-interventionism to be more defensible than one of responding to urgent human rights abuses. Is it then better to do nothing than to do something imperfectly?
My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 19:18
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Your point on the lack of deterrence a merc force would have, is very good, but then again it may be as much an advantage as a problem (no chance to get locked in an escalating situation). Besides, there would still be real soldiers' boots on the ground to provide intelligence and support and to monitor the mercs.

Regarding the mission in Chad, the point is not to kick asses nor to overcome "onerous" defenses. They would be fighting guerrillas and bandits, not the Presidential Guard. The guys in front have no air support, no amoured vehicle and little or none artillery. That is precisely the type of mission a light force is good at, and that is precisely the type of force a private company can set up.
 
I MEF faced the Fayedeen-e-Saddam, who were equipped as you descibed and had NO air or artillery support. It was V Corps which faced the Republican Guard.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.