Fighting For Cash And Cause

HariLakhera · Oct 23, 2018

Fighting for Cash and Cause
I had heard of European mercenaries who fought for cash not for cause but that was perhaps long long back when it was not economically viable to keep a regular army.
I have also heard of gangsters hiring foot soldiers to control their area of operations.
I was surprised to learn that America is thinking of replacing U.S. troops in Afghanistan with private military contractors.
Is fighting for cash and fighting for cause is the same or cash is important than cause? When a national army fights it fights for a cause, the security of motherland. It may not be the same when fighting just for cash.
Technically both are professionals. But those who fight for cash may stay loyal for the period they serve the employer like in any other profession whose loyalty changes with the change in employer. Tomorrow they may fight for the opposite party with changed localities as happens in business organizations.

Army job is risky one but it also pays well. The days of compulsory drafting are gone. One has to go through a rigorous test before selection. More importantly it gives a sense of pride that one is fighting for a cause, like for the motherland. Nations reward their solders for their gallantry.

It can never be the same for contract fighters.

Gauri03 · Oct 24, 2018

Contract fighters don't care for gallantry awards. Their loyalties lie with coin. The privatization of the Afghan war is being pushed by Eric Prince, the billionaire founder of Blackwater, now called Academi. For these people wars aren't ideological conflicts, but money spinning operations. He made a fortune on the graves of Iraqi civilians and has been doing so in Afghanistan on a smaller scale since 2001. Blackwater mercenaries were involved in grievous human rights violations in Iraq and after many failed attempts no one was held accountable. With a receptive president and unprecedented access to the White House thanks to his sister, who is the Secretary of Education, Prince wants to operate the Afghan war like a franchise. He claims he can end the war in six months. A private company does not owe transparency or accountability to tax payers. One can only imagine what a bunch of guns for hire with no moral or ethical investment in the war will do when allowed to operate with impunity as a law unto themselves.

Most national armies are steeped in traditions of virtue and bravery. They fight as much for the honor of their corp and their commanding officers as they do for their nation. They are cognizant of behavior that could bring disgrace to their corps, and when they cross the line, 8 out of 10 times they face the consequences. Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw the architect of India's victory in the 1971 war was a stickler for what are called OLQs in the Indian army -- Officer Like Qualities. Troops were sensitized to treating prisoners of war and the civilian populace of enemy nations with respect and dignity. Sam Bahadur as he is fondly remembered in army circles, told the troops on the eve of the '71 war, in his irreverent style,

"When you see a Begum, keep your hands in your pockets and think of Sam." : )

Viswamitra · Oct 24, 2018

Army job is risky one but it also pays well.
Click to expand...

This may be true in India but the American soldiers are not paid so well. It is the sense of pride of being in the military, free education for those who serve the military, gadgets that they assign to those who fight, etc. motivates the soldiers besides national pride. Their injuries, if any, stays life long and most suffer from PTST due to the stress of their experiences. Veteran care is much to be desired to be honest. Most politicians say so many flowery speeches supporting the soldiers and veterans but the actions don't match their words. The army advertisements and recruitment efforts are substantial in the US attracting those who just finished the school or drop out of school promising a bright future here in the US.

The new President has a strong principle that it is not the job of the US to police the entire world which was originally started as a policy by President Obama reducing troops from all over the world. How much ever I dislike this President for his heartless actions such as dividing the country, irritating the alliance partners, trade policies to levy tariffs for good imported into the US creating a trade war, unnecessary defense spending, awarding the rich through his tax bill, declaring himself as a nationalist (giving an impression that he stands only for the whites), his disrespectful attitude towards the intelligence and DOJ, hobnobbing with dictators, etc., I support his policies on controlling illegal immigration, reducing the policing all over the world and demanding the countries to pay for protecting their country.

Viswa

HariLakhera · Oct 25, 2018

Gauri03 said: ↑

Contract fighters don't care for gallantry awards. Their loyalties lie with coin. The privatization of the Afghan war is being pushed by Eric Prince, the billionaire founder of Blackwater, now called Academi. For these people wars aren't ideological conflicts, but money spinning operations. He made a fortune on the graves of Iraqi civilians and has been doing so in Afghanistan on a smaller scale since 2001. Blackwater mercenaries were involved in grievous human rights violations in Iraq and after many failed attempts no one was held accountable. With a receptive president and unprecedented access to the White House thanks to his sister, who is the Secretary of Education, Prince wants to operate the Afghan war like a franchise. He claims he can end the war in six months. A private company does not owe transparency or accountability to tax payers. One can only imagine what a bunch of guns for hire with no moral or ethical investment in the war will do when allowed to operate with impunity as a law unto themselves.

Most national armies are steeped in traditions of virtue and bravery. They fight as much for the honor of their corp and their commanding officers as they do for their nation. They are cognizant of behavior that could bring disgrace to their corps, and when they cross the line, 8 out of 10 times they face the consequences. Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw the architect of India's victory in the 1971 war was a stickler for what are called OLQs in the Indian army -- Officer Like Qualities. Troops were sensitized to treating prisoners of war and the civilian populace of enemy nations with respect and dignity. Sam Bahadur as he is fondly remembered in army circles, told the troops on the eve of the '71 war, in his irreverent style,

"When you see a Begum, keep your hands in your pockets and think of Sam." : )
Click to expand...

Thanks for initiating the discussions. Evidently contract army is a profitable business. May be manufacturers of weapons will enter the field in due course. As for Prince and his company I was not aware of that. I was thinking that Trump is thinking of this because he does not want any more American dying there. Moreover it will save millions of dollars in veteran care. This is when the contractor has no such obligation.
National armies fight for a cause. They are motivated by their leaders. However, I am not sure when someone joins the forces, he is doing it purely on patriotic ground. Its a career one chooses by choice. It needs lot of smartness and resources to join military academy. There have been cases of bribery at recruitment centers. One rank one pension is still not fully closed. Army men retiring at young age are not finding suitable jobs as civilians. All these and more make it a debatable issue.

HariLakhera · Oct 25, 2018

Viswamitra said: ↑

This may be true in India but the American soldiers are not paid so well. It is the sense of pride of being in the military, free education for those who serve the military, gadgets that they assign to those who fight, etc. motivates the soldiers besides national pride. Their injuries, if any, stays life long and most suffer from PTST due to the stress of their experiences. Veteran care is much to be desired to be honest. Most politicians say so many flowery speeches supporting the soldiers and veterans but the actions don't match their words. The army advertisements and recruitment efforts are substantial in the US attracting those who just finished the school or drop out of school promising a bright future here in the US.

The new President has a strong principle that it is not the job of the US to police the entire world which was originally started as a policy by President Obama reducing troops from all over the world. How much ever I dislike this President for his heartless actions such as dividing the country, irritating the alliance partners, trade policies to levy tariffs for good imported into the US creating a trade war, unnecessary defense spending, awarding the rich through his tax bill, declaring himself as a nationalist (giving an impression that he stands only for the whites), his disrespectful attitude towards the intelligence and DOJ, hobnobbing with dictators, etc., I support his policies on controlling illegal immigration, reducing the policing all over the world and demanding the countries to pay for protecting their country.

Viswa
Click to expand...

Dear Shri Viswa,
Now army-men are receiving good remuneration and facilities in India. One rank one pension has also improved their post retirement life. However a lot more is required to be done at lower level. I am not aware of conditions in the USA but have an impression that they are taken care of very well after retirement.
As for US president and his policies, it is all vote politics. Polarization. Same as in India. Fortunately here there are only two main parties unlike India where regional parties make a hell lot of difference.

gopalan1937 · Nov 6, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

Fighting for Cash and Cause
I had heard of European mercenaries who fought for cash not for cause but that was perhaps long long back when it was not economically viable to keep a regular army.
I have also heard of gangsters hiring foot soldiers to control their area of operations.
I was surprised to learn that America is thinking of replacing U.S. troops in Afghanistan with private military contractors.
Is fighting for cash and fighting for cause is the same or cash is important than cause? When a national army fights it fights for a cause, the security of motherland. It may not be the same when fighting just for cash.
Technically both are professionals. But those who fight for cash may stay loyal for the period they serve the employer like in any other profession whose loyalty changes with the change in employer. Tomorrow they may fight for the opposite party with changed localities as happens in business organizations.

Army job is risky one but it also pays well. The days of compulsory drafting are gone. One has to go through a rigorous test before selection. More importantly it gives a sense of pride that one is fighting for a cause, like for the motherland. Nations reward their solders for their gallantry.

It can never be the same for contract fighters.
Click to expand...

First time I am hearing the term"contract fighters" , Ms Harilakhera. I served in the army during Indo Pak conflict of 1965. It helped me to pursue post graduate studies.

HariLakhera · Nov 7, 2018

gopalan1937 said: ↑

First time I am hearing the term"contract fighters" , Ms Harilakhera. I served in the army during Indo Pak conflict of 1965. It helped me to pursue post graduate studies.
Click to expand...

In India also you must have come across Gorkha Regiment. They are there purely for employment. They were in the British army also. They surely don't have any loyalty to the country they are fighting for. Their loyalty lies for their employer.
All said and done, Army is a job option but when it comes to fighting for the country it becomes a passion.

Thyagarajan · Nov 7, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

Fighting for Cash and Cause
I had heard of European mercenaries who fought for cash not for cause but that was perhaps long long back when it was not economically viable to keep a regular army.
I have also heard of gangsters hiring foot soldiers to control their area of operations.
I was surprised to learn that America is thinking of replacing U.S. troops in Afghanistan with private military contractors.
Is fighting for cash and fighting for cause is the same or cash is important than cause? When a national army fights it fights for a cause, the security of motherland. It may not be the same when fighting just for cash.
Technically both are professionals. But those who fight for cash may stay loyal for the period they serve the employer like in any other profession whose loyalty changes with the change in employer. Tomorrow they may fight for the opposite party with changed localities as happens in business organizations.

Army job is risky one but it also pays well. The days of compulsory drafting are gone. One has to go through a rigorous test before selection. More importantly it gives a sense of pride that one is fighting for a cause, like for the motherland. Nations reward their solders for their gallantry.

It can never be the same for contract fighters.
Click to expand...

strategic alliance not only between nations but among thirds and mercenaries. Enemies enemy is friend. Money power can neutralize enemy and the hired as well. What has VIA DONE with help of Afgan chief the same done by him the result twin tower blast. Jesus.
God Bless.