Re: [OT] [gzg hist] UN Covert Ops

On Thu, 31 August 2000, oldecoot@webtv.net wrote:

> I believe it wasn't  until late 20th century that mercenaries were
> considered evil.  But with the almost universal use of private
security
> forces (rent-a-cops) the reintroduction of mercenaries in conflicts is
> not unexpected.

No, mercenaries were considered "evil" throughout time. Some just less
evil than others. They were usually (with some exceptions) considered
less reliable and since they got paid better than local levies they were
usually frowned upon.

Note that modern First World mercenary forces supply weapons, training,
NCOs and officers. You don't get a lot of line troops in mercenary
forces. Those usually come from local people hired by the mercenaries.
They get paid very well by local standards, but nowhere near what the
"advisors" get paid. 

The reason the mercenaries worked in Sierra Leone was that they were
guarding a small defensible area, namely the diamond mines. They weren't
trying to put down the entire insurrection, just keep it away from the
local area. I also suspect there was a fair bit of bribery going on,
too. 

The mercenaries were ruthless and could shoot first. They had good
firepower. And they were willing to pass on some money to the "enemy" to
stay away. "Here, take this, keep away. If I see you around here, I'll
shoot your head off." It was easy to "keep the peace" in the local
areas. The difference is analogous to that of hiring a bodyguard or
relying on the police. 

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com