power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself.
That, in it's essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a
group or by any controlling private power." -- President Franklin Roosevelt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAQ: What to Call a Private Army of 20,000?
by Ruth Walker, The Christian Science Monitor
November 3rd, 2005
Politicians' desire to make war often exceeds citizens' desire to be sent to war.
Such are the challenges of foreign policy in a free market with an all-volunteer
military. What do you call the people who fill the gaps arising when politicians insist
on going to war anyway?
There are 20,000 "private security contractors" in Iraq: This is the number –and
name – widely used to describe the legions outside the armed forces of the US and
its allies, but doing work remarkably like the work military people do. This figure has
popped up in such places as a much-linked-to article in The Washington Post and a
documentary from the PBS program "Frontline."
But "20,000 mercenaries" is another phrase that pops up as well. Are these two
different names for the same army?
"Mercenary" derives from Latin – note the "merc" root, meaning "market," which it
shares with "commerce" and "merchandise" and other such words. It's been in the
English language since the late 14th century, and originally referred to one who did
any kind of work for pay, although, as distinct from being an unpaid volunteer.
But early on, the word seems to have picked up a whiff of filthy lucre. The Oxford
English Dictionary cites as a usage example from Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales"
(1386) a line wherein the Parson is described as "a shepherde and noght a
Mercenarie." With a little bracketed note ("Cf. John x:12") Oxford refers us to the
New Testament's Gospel of John, which contrasts the "good shepherd," who
"giveth his life for the sheep," with the hireling, "whose own the sheep are not" and
who abandons them when the wolf cometh.
Whatever the conditions of their employment, let's note that the soldiers of this
army of 20,000 have in fact been paying the ultimate price in numbers roughly
comparable to those of regular armed forces. The admittedly incomplete
information on the Iraq Coalition Casualties website indicates 278 contractor
fatalities to date.
But the usage history of "mercenary" illustrates what we might call Gresham's Law
of language: the narrower, "bad" meaning of a word tends to drive the more
neutral, nonjudgmental ones out, as the word begins to take on more of an
emotional load. Just a few lines south of the Chaucer quotation, the OED notes
sternly that "mercenary" now refers "exclusively" to "a professional soldier serving
a foreign power."
Some of us remember learning in school that the British hired Hessian
"mercenaries" to help them put down the rebellious colonials during the
Revolutionary War. It was seen as a sign of the righteousness of the American
cause that it could be defended by a ragtag band of farmers and fishermen,
whereas the mighty British Empire had to hire on extras in an attempt –
unsuccessful in the end – to hold up its side.
The "foreign power" aspect of the definition has many people bristling against the
use of "mercenaries."
Over the past summer, the BBC solicited on its website comments on contractors
in Iraq, and experiences from those working for private security firms in Iraq.
One discussant cast the phenomenon as just another example of corporate
outsourcing.
"Ahmed" in Edinburgh, Scotland, however, had this to say:
When foreigners not part of an army get caught in Afghanistan they're "illegal
combatants", however when they serve the mighty USA they're honourable
"contractors". America needs to cut down on this sort of hypocrisy if it wishes to
be a responsible superpower.
The BBC also quoted "Ian" in Baghdad, working for a British security firm, which he
defended as providing "a professional, low profile service attuned to the operating
environment." He further notes,
While private security contractors are a concern, they are not - at least not
typically - used in an offensive role thus the term mercenary is not correct.
It may not be as simple as that, however. Security analyst John Robb has coined
the term "global guerrillas." He uses it specifically to refer to Latin Americans who
were trained by the United States to prosecute drug wars in the jungles and who
now find themselves with time on their hands, ready and willing to work in Iraq for
much less money than veterans of the US military typically get from private security
firms. Even high-end skilled labor is subject to price competition, it seems.
To whom do these people answer? Where do they fit in the rules of war? Those are
questions for lawyers and lawmakers. But the wordsmiths should help think them
through.
