Is the United States justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives?

  • Lean and responsive, purely from a business perspective it allows the military to run more as a corporation than as a government agency.

    The level of troops necessary to maintain national security and combat readiness are two different objectives with vastly different costs. Utilizing private military firms allows the U.S. to maintain a greater level of combat readiness at greatly reduced costs to respond to any situation as necessary while still maintaining sufficient troop levels to support national security. It's a net benefit to the public.

  • Yes, it is less expensive.

    Yes, the United States is justified in using private military firms, because it allows the military to use people who can do the job less expensive, or who do not want to be in full time military service. Everyone in the military is paid, so in a way, they are all mercenaries. Some are just employees or private contractors. There is nothing wrong with that.

  • I support the use of private military firms abroad by the United States, because it is a cost-effective solution.

    The use of private military firms by the United States allows the government to pursue its military objectives in a cost-effective manner. Although the U.S. government has been criticized for the use of these firms, due to allegations and proof of misconduct by the employees, newly enacted amendments and agreements clearly show that there are proper enforcements in place to regulate and oversee the conduct and activities of the employees of the firms. For example, the FY2007 Defense Appropriation Bill contains an amendment that states that private citizens working for these military firms are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Also, the status of force agreement between the United States and Iraq clearly states that these personnel are under the jurisdiction of Iraqi law, thereby further regulating the conduct of these firms. Therefore, because there are regulations that are now in place to oversee the conduct of private military firms, I support the use of private military firms by the United States as a cost-effective alternative in fulfilling its military objectives abroad.

    Posted by: RightfulIsiah26
  • I believe our military should be able to utilize whatever means necessary to protect ourselves and our allies.

    All throughout history man has called upon other armies to help them do their bidding. Some of the most successful militia have pulled together arms with other countries and ended up winning overall. I think that this should go for private help as well. Any help is better than no help at all.

    Posted by: AboardTod
  • The US should be allowed to use private military firms abroad.

    I believe that if the US hired private military firms overseas to pursue its military objectives, it would probably be much cheaper than shipping our military resources - personnel, weapons, tanks, etc., overseas for combat or patrol or for whatever the project. As long as the hiring party - the US - has complete control of what these military firms can and cannot do, and are subject to our military code, it could go a long way toward reducing our ever skyrocketing national debt.

    Posted by: ep0xihusky
  • To pursue military objectives, all available tools should be used.

    For a country like the United States to achieve its military objectives, any and all tools available should be used. If those tools include the use of private military firms then that should be considered part of the long-term plan. Private firms may cost money but may also bring expertise, experience and new solutions to the table.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • The U.S. Military is justified in using private military firms, due to their perceived increased knowledge in the field.

    If the military is allowing these firms to go above or beyond what is permitted in the military, then they would be committing an injustice. Otherwise, the benefits of using firms that have more knowledge of local groups and the topography far outweigh any perceived risks. Another rule should be that they are not allowed to know what our military knows, and that they just perform tasks.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • I believe that the U.S. is justified in using private military firms since people join them willingly and they follow all military laws of conduct.

    Private military firms are acceptable as long as they follow the same basic military laws as Government soldiers. As long as they do this, they are simply people doing a job, just like you and me. They should be supported with Government troops though, not used as the only forces for a campaign.

    Posted by: WickedKael
  • YES

    the vast majority of private military firms fulfill their functions properly and the little that don't should not be the ones that determine the overall image of the private military firms system/ business.

  • Yes, because The United States is the world's largest power, and we can do what we want.

    The government has international agreements to follow. However, for national security purposes, they sometimes have to bend those rules. This is why private security firms work well, seeing as how the government can distance themselves from the firms to avoid a diplomatic disaster. Also, the private firms pay more and can get better soldiers.

    Posted by: P0nyTobi
  • Rule of Law is the Bedrock of all Society

    Despite the undeniable cost savings, removing the state's monopoly on force undermines society. Setting this as the precedent is one thing. But the United States of America is the most powerful country ever to exist on the face of the earth. We collectively control the most powerful weapon in the world. Not the Nuclear Bomb, not Advanced ICBM's, but the United States Military. Outsourcing targets to mercenaries (hired killers, which is undeniable the purpose of Offensive PMC's) hurts the goal. And the mission isn't just to take down military targets, it is to maintain the rule of law.

  • Hired killing is below us.

    Decisions whether to send your kin to face possible fatal danger and hiring a gun to do the job brings about different processes in the decision.
    Fights are not a positive part of life, we all avoid them-they should signal a wrong turn must have been made! Progress has stopped.

    Posted by: Esor
  • Hired killing is below us.

    Decisions whether to send your kin to face possible fatal danger and hiring a gun to do the job brings about different processes in the decision.
    Fights are not a positive part of life, we all avoid them-they should signal a wrong turn must have been made! Progress has stopped.

    Posted by: Esor
  • The U.S. does not have business in placing the military where it is not needed.

    The country is already in significant financial debt, and a large chunk of it comes from military spending. Keeping the military domestic would help to save costs. In addition, military firms overseas suggest a "Manifest Destiny" kind of social agenda, across the world, similar to what happened when the colonists first populated America, and forced the Native Americans off their land.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • Absolutely not, because there private firms are mercenaries for hire, with little accountability under the laws of the U.S.

    Private military firms are often more expensive than using actual U.S. military action. Furthermore, they face little scrutiny and often break the law with little punishment. In fact, they have been proven to willfully break the law, knowing they could not be punished, due to their government contract. This includes drugging, repeatedly raping and imprisoning a woman for days, because their government contract dictated there was no legal way this poor woman could sue and, therefore, the perpetrators could commit several heinous crimes, knowing they could not be prosecuted.

    Posted by: NimbleGreg
  • No, the US in not justified in using a private firm abroad to pursue its military objectives.

    I think that is would be wrong for the United States to use a private military firm to pursue it military objectives. What you are basically telling the world is that you do not care about any regard for lives outside the United States. It shows that the country is only protecting its interest and not the well-being of non-American citizens.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • Enough with the hired guns; it takes away from the legitimacy of the US forces acting on behalf of US and allied interests.

    I have to say that there is probably a very viable reason for allowing private military to operate in foreign countries, but I feel that it takes away from the legitimacy of the US forces acting on behalf of US and allied interests.

    I don't like seeing or hearing that private military action is being conducted by US-sponsored firms, aboard or locally. If we cannot do things in the name of this country and of democracy, then I question that we need to do them.

    Posted by: OmeroAnnon
  • No, just because we are the United States does justify stripping others of human rights

    Every person has essential natural rights that shouldn't be violated these Private firms are irresponsible for there actions and are out of control bringing up Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) We can't use firms that are not morally cupuple for their actions. Lastly being the United States doesn't justifiy anything and we cannot do what we want like the affirming side had said we do have agreements to follow but we also have to be accountable because if we are funding companies with human rights violations then we should no use them at all

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.