“Mercenary Generals are good when they come with mercenary troops. What kind of wisdom puts mercenaries at the head of regular troops”

I’m afraid there isn’t really any conclusive evidence one way or another on this, Joe. Historically there have been foreign mercenary troops under citizen officers (the Escadrille Lafeyette, the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas), foreign mercenary troops under local mercenary officers (the British East India Company), and citizen soldiers under foreign mercenary officers (the Dutch mercenary commander of George Monck’s artillery at the Battle of Stirling in 1651). Sometimes it has worked, sometimes it hasn’t, and is usually a testament to the officer himself rather than the combination of personnel.

As for a funding shortfall for the SL Army, I don’t see that happening. The Army will have certain roles — like guarding defense establishments and infrastructure — and funding will be provided for that.

great article. total information overload!

Of course the way things work here, our politicians would take a bribe and award the tender to some cheap outfit instead of an experienced PMC.

I’m sure they’d try, just as they take bribes and commissions on arms transactions. However, as we’ve seen lately, even relatively minor arms deals like the MiG fiasco are open to scrutiny and allegations. This has always been the case in SL, however as of late, we’ve seen that the quality of weaponry has improved. This is due to the fact that a military loss on the battlefield will result in elections lost. So when it comes to a massive deal like a privatisation of military ops in the NE, corruption could result in the war being lost, and at the very least an electoral defeat. I don’t think politicians would risk that. No doubt there’ll be corruption, but not necessarily on an inferior product.

Also, what you stated about the difference between the US and the British PMCs also seems to be true as I remember reading about the association of British PMCs holding seminars and PR campaigns to differentiate them vis-a-vis their US counterparts. From your experience, could it also be due to the composition of these different outfits? The Brits being composed of ex-SAS, SBS types whereas the Americans are less discerning? I would love to know.

Certainly, there are many ex-SF personnel in Brit PMCs (probably in larger proportion to their counterparts in US PMCs), but they’re in no way a majority. The bulk of Brit PMC combat personnel are from regiments like the Paras, Guards, and Green Jackets. The rest are from supporting arms like the Royal Engineers and REME. The main difference between Brit and Yank PMCs (as far as I can see) is that the Brits have more ex-military personnel on their payroll, primarily because there’s not much firearms experience amongst Brit civilians. In the US, it’s a different matter, and many civilians join PMCs as combat troops.

Also, you’re wrong about KBR. It was primarily a power construction company and later branched out into military support services such as building and operating military bases and repair centres etc. It never provided mercenaries per se.

Brown & Root (founded in 1919) always was what can be termed a private military contractor; ie the majority of their contracts were military engineering projects. Providing combat troops (or mercenaries) isn’t necessarily a PMC role (though it can be). Remember in a state armed forces, the bulk of personnel are not combat troops. The same goes for most PMCs. When Haliburton acquired Brown & Root in 1962, the company (along with three others) built 85% of the US Army infrastructure in the Vietnam War, earning Brown & Root the tag “Burn & Loot” by anti-war protestors. At this point all armed security for Brown & Root projects in Vietnam was provided by the company itself. The company also provided contract employees to the CIA for operations in Laos and Cambodia. All of this (in my view) quite credibly establishes Brown & Root as a PMC. When Haliburton aquired Dresser Industries in 1998, the latter’s engineering subsidiary, MW Kellogg was merged with Brown & Root, creating KBR. I checked further and found that Haliburton finally sold off KBR in April last year.Wikipedia lists KBR as a PMC.

Also, what you stated about the difference between the US and the British PMCs also seems to be true as I remember reading about the association of British PMCs holding seminars and PR campaigns to differentiate them vis-a-vis their US counterparts. From your experience, could it also be due to the composition of these different outfits? The Brits being composed of ex-SAS, SBS types whereas the Americans are less discerning? I would love to know.

Also, you’re wrong about KBR. It was primarily a power construction company and later branched out into military support services such as building and operating military bases and repair centres etc. It never provided mercenaries per se.