![]() |
|
Home | Helpdesk Contact Us | Subscribe Site Map | Search |
![]() |
|
|
Friday, September 5, 2003 || Contact
Us || Terms of
Service
What mercenaries are for
Sunday, August 31, 2003
The number of military deaths in Iraq since President
Bush declared our "mission accomplished" now exceeds the number of
soldiers lost during the actual war. Brave warriors all, some gave their
lives doing what young Americans do best -- vanquishing an enemy in the
name of freedom.
Other young soldiers -- in a cause no less noble -- have died trying to keep the peace. If attack and destroy is the hallmark of the American military, the finesse required as post-war peacekeepers seems to be our nemesis. Already, the Bush administration has insisted that Iraq is not another Vietnam because, in a vacuous assessment, Iraq is simply a "different time and place." They better come up with something better than that. Most of us, not schooled in military science or diplomatic protocol, still know what makes sense. And maintaining our forces in Iraq to be easy targets for snipers and mad bombers is beginning to make no sense at all. It would be great if those we liberated and protected could see their way clear to love and respect us. And in a perfect world, Americans would not hesitate to drop our troops in dangerous places like Monrovia -- just for the principle of it all. That's just not the way it is. Webster's Dictionary benignly describes a "mercenary" as a soldier hired into foreign service. And throughout much of world history, mercenary was not a dirty word. But these days it has the distinct air of bad fish. Sensing this image problem, providers of mercenary forces now call themselves private military companies, PMCs. A cynical view of PMCs is that there is no reason to send our sons and daughters to die in a distant war when we can pay someone else's sons and daughters to die there. But that misses the whole point. In an age of niche warfare, no one does what America does better than Americans; and there are other forces -- properly trained and equipped -- that can more effectively keep the peace once we win it. Nepal's Ghurkas have fought bravely alongside the British since the 1800s. As a paid fighting force, they are renowned for their fierce loyalty and unflinching honor. In addition to their recent service in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, they continue to serve with Great Britain in Iraq. "Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion," a 1950s television series starring Buster Crabbe and filmed in Northern Africa, provided all that many of us know about that legendary unit. There are still 8,500 of them around -- mostly in Chad and Djibouti --and if you're interested, download their application from the Internet. Even in our own armed forces, we continue to send soldiers into battle who do not enjoy the privileges of American citizenship. Their sacrifices, sometimes for just the hope of one day being called an American, are both perplexing and awe-inspiring. But with great nobility, they fight and die in service to a foreign land -- America. In Iraq, specialized units proliferate. Eastern Bloc countries, using techniques perfected for the old Soviet Union, serve without massive troop commitments. The Czechs detect chemical weaponry, the Norwegians clear mines and the Poles, as usual, step forward to do whatever needs to be done. Against this backdrop, there must surely be a place for the peacekeeping skills of a private military company -- sparing our brave young soldiers the bitter pill of peace.
Joseph Sabino Mistick is a lawyer, law professor and political analyst. He lives in Point Breeze. E-mail him at: SabinoMistick@aol.com.
Images and text copyright © 2003 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co. |
|
|