Armies Inc.

[CShine]

Earlier this year, a mortar shell smashed into Baghdad airport. Corporal Tomasi Ramatau, 41, was killed instantly. But nobody reported his death, and nobody added his name to the official list of the fallen. For the corporal was just a civilian from the Pacific island of Fiji, working for a private military firm operating in the Middle East. His personal tragedy, swiftly followed by countless others, is part of a much wider development: the growing use of private companies in combat, a privatisation of warfare with profound implications for the future.

After the United States, the biggest single military contributor to the occupation of Iraq is not Britain - as official figures claim - but private military companies. The figures are startling: more than 10,000 men and women perform various jobs under contract to the military in Iraq. Furthermore, official figures in Washington estimate that out of a total S$150 billion allocated by the US for military operations in the Middle East this year, over a third will go to private contractors. This is greater than the defence budgets of most countries worldwide.

<snip>

Two major developments have contributed to this phenomenal growth in both the use and scope of private military companies. The first is the reduction in armed forces around the globe as a result of the end of the Cold War. About six million people who served in the military of the old Soviet Union and Western countries have been released from service. The wider shift from labour-intensive to technology-driven armies is retiring even more soldiers. In Britain alone, 24,000 people will leave military service this year. Many are still relatively young but have no other profession apart from fighting.

Private military companies therefore have a large recruitment pool and are able to pick people who are in peak military training condition. Huge payments are being offered: a yearly salary of S$200,000 is quite common for Iraq, and sometimes even more is on the table. Secondly, governments - and particularly the American one - have jumped at this opportunity because of political considerations. Public opinion in the US does care about the constant loss of regular soldiers, but remains unperturbed by the death of people who went to Iraq for pure financial gain.

http://www.straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,255062,00.html?

[punpirate]

1. If one thinks of troop numbers...

... and I admit that part of the money figures cited is going to supplies, it still doesn't sound like a very good deal--10,000 civilians, while ~$50 billion goes to contractors?

How can inflated salaries for the likes of logistics personnel be cost-justified? Military privatization is a boondoggle created in the Bush I years by Cheney, who soon after profited mightily from that decision on the part of the military to out-source military obligations.

[struggle4progress]

2. kick

:kick:

[saigon68]

3. MERCENARIES SUBJECT TO NO RULES

No sympathy from this quarter when their asses are shot up and their bodies dragged through the streets.

The Iraqi resistance follows no rules in dealung with them.