By Paul Reitan
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wbfo/local-wbfo-687186.mp3
Buffalo, NY – Our army and marine forces and the National Guard are stretched thin. Everybody knows that. Ask why and you'll hear that it's because we have an all volunteer military. Recruiting men and women is difficult. But not many people favor reinstating the draft, and if that were done there would be even more opposition to the war than there is now.
Our administration does not want the people of the country to experience any hardship, inconvenience, or sacrifice because of the war they chose to wage, but that comes with some consequences. One is that we have to put off payment for the war. Of course, that means that our small children and future generations will have to bear the costs. Not very nice, but the point is that people shouldn't notice the cost of the war now. Another consequence - and this is to avoid calling for the draft - has been to hire mercenaries - people employed by Blackwater USA, Halliburton, Triple Canopy, and other profit making para-military organizations to support our troops.
But are those the only choices - mercenaries or the draft?
It might help to ask, how is it that Backwater and other private contractors of mercenary forces manage to get people to volunteer to work for them in very dangerous settings? Answer: they pay well.
Does that suggest an alternative approach that might ease recruitment and re-enlistment into the regular military forces? I think it does. We could pay our regular fighting forces more. If we did, more would volunteer?
But if we did that it would put the financial impact of better pay for the men and women of our military right out there in the Department of Defense budget - right where everyone could see the costs and evaluate them, and it would require increased regular appropriations instead of obscured off-budget appropriations, and then we'd feel the costs now.
But there are some other things that I wonder about concerning our use of mercenary forces. Where does the loyalty of those men and women who are mercenaries lie? With their employer? Who sets the standards for their employment? Their employer? To whom or what are they accountable? Their employer? Who gives them their salaries? Their employer? If the answer to any of those questions is "Yes," then I, as a US citizen, am concerned.
Many of these mercenaries are heavily armed, and while not intended to be combat forces, they do provide protection for our diplomats and others and must be prepared to engage in combat to fulfill that responsibility.
Are these mercenary forces fully under the regular US military lines of command and control? Are they subject to Courts Martial, civil courts, or other recognized legal process to adjudicate charges of misbehavior? If the answer to either of these questions is "No," then I, as a US citizen, am concerned.
I, as a US citizen, am concerned.
Maybe it would be a good idea if our presidential candidates were really up-front about this practice of supplementing our regular military forces with a bunch of hired guns. Would they continue to have us be dependent on mercenaries in roles that could be filled by the US military? If so, why? If not, what will they do?
Listener-Commentator Paul Reitan is an emeritus professor at the University at Buffalo.
Click the "listen" icon above to hear the commentary now or use your podcasting software to download it to your computer or iPod.