My intent was to write a brief history of mercenaries throughout the ages. The story of the World’s Second Oldest Profession is anything BUT brief, however, and as I researched it the project grew; large and exhaustive. Despite my inside knowledge of the trade, I was still surprised by what I learned.
I tried to organize the information I gained in chronological order, but this is difficult. It seems the role of the private soldier has had far-reaching effects from the Dawn of History into our modern civilization. When you think about it, this only makes sense; War is the punctuation of History.
What follows is Part I; an overview of what a Mercenary is, as defined by the International Law of Land Warfare, and the United States Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
Modern mercenary sniper, Siege of Sarajevo, circa 1993
From Webster’s: mer•ce•nary, noun, plural mer•ce•nar•ies: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service adjective: Function: adjective 1 : serving merely for pay or sordid advantage : venal; also : greedy, 2 : : hired for service in the army of a foreign country, 3: having or marked by an eager and often selfish desire especially for material possessions “a mercenary urge to own the latest and most expensive item in home electronics” Etymology: Middle English, 14th century, from the Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages
A mercenary is a professional soldier hired by a foreign army, as opposed to a soldier enlisted in the armed forces of the sovereign state of which he is a citizen. He takes part in armed conflict on many different scales, and is “motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the Armed Forces of that Party” (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949). A non-conscript professional member of a regular army is not considered to be a mercenary although he gets remuneration for his service.
As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is essentially motivated by money, the term “mercenary” usually carries negative connotations, though that can be a compliment in some contexts. There is a blur in the distinction between a “mercenary” and a “foreign volunteer”, when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain.
French Foreign Legionnaire, Bosnia circa 1995
For instance, the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not mercenaries under the laws of war, since although they may meet many of the requirements of Article 47 of the 1949 Additional Protocol I, they are exempt under clauses 47(a)(c)(d)(e)&(f); some journalists describe them as mercenaries regardless.
Nepali Gurkha soldiers in the service of the British Army
The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, though not endorsed by some countries – including the United States. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states:
Article 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
According to the Geneva Convention, all of the above criteria (a – f) must be met for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.
According to Geneva, a captured soldier must be treated as a lawful combatant and, therefore, as a protected person with prisoner-of-war status until facing a competent tribunal (GC III Art 5). That tribunal, using criteria in APGC77 or some equivalent domestic law, may decide if that soldier is a mercenary. At that juncture, the mercenary soldier becomes an unlawful combatant but still must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”, being still covered by GC IV Art 5. The only possible exception to GC IV Art 5 is when he is a national of the authority imprisoning him, in which case he would not be a mercenary soldier as defined in APGC77 Art 47.d.
If, after a regular trial, a captured soldier is found to be a mercenary, then he can expect treatment as a common criminal and may face execution. As mercenary soldiers may not qualify as PoWs, they cannot expect repatriation at war’s end. The best known post-World-War-II example of this was June 1976 when an Angolan court sentenced three Britons and an American to death, and nine other mercenaries to prison terms ranging from 16 to 30 years. The four mercenaries sentenced to death were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976.
Costas Georgiou (Greek: Κώστας Γιώργιου, alias "Colonel Callan") was a Greek Cypriot mercenary executed following the Luanda Trial for activities during the civil war phase of the Angolan War of Independence.
On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention. Article 1 contains the definition of a mercenary. Article 1.1 is similar to Article 47 of Protocol I, however Article 1.2 broadens the definition to include a non-national recruited to overthrow a “Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or Undermine the territorial integrity of a State;” and “Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation…” — under Article 1.2 a person does not have to take a direct part in the hostilities in a planned coup d’état to be a mercenary.
Critics argue that the convention and APGC77 Art. 47 were directed to mercenary activities in post-colonial Africa and do not adequately address the use of private military companies (PMCs) by sovereign states.
The situation during the Iraq War and after the United Nations Security Council sanctioned hand-over of power to the Iraqi government shows the difficulty of defining a mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, no U.S. citizen working as an armed guard could be classified as a mercenary, because he was a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d).
The legal status of civilian contractors depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with respect to that of the combatants. If they have not “in fact, taken a direct part in the hostilities” (APGC77 Art 47.b), they are NOT mercenaries but civilians who have non-combat support roles and are entitled to protection under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII 4.1.4). This includes armed civilians authorized to use deadly force in self-defense.
BET YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT DEPARTMENT:
Contrary to widespread popular misconception, Private Military Companies and private security contractors ARE subject to the legal constraints of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice:
New U.S. law on Private Military Companies:
According to the FY2007 Defense Budget Appropriation Bill, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has been amended to allow for prosecution of military contractors who are deployed in a “declared war or a contingency operation.”
SEC. 552. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE DURING A TIME OF WAR. Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the UCMJ), is amended by striking ‘war’ and inserting ‘declared war or a contingency operation’.
Previously, the code applied to “persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field” only during a war, which US courts interpreted to mean a war declared by Congress. No such declaration was made in the Iraq conflict. In 2006 Congress amended the code to apply to persons accompanying an armed force during a “declared war or contingency operation.”
General Data on the Number of Private Security Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan
o Private security contractors perform personal security, convoy security, and static security missions. Not all private security contractor personnel are armed.
o USCENTCOM reports, as of 10 May 2009 , the following distribution of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan:
o There was a 23% increase (from 8,701 to 10,743) of armed DoD PSCs in Iraq compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. This increase can be attributed to our improved ability to account for subcontractors who are providing security services.
o There was a 29% increase (from 3,184 to 4,111) of armed DoD PSCs in Afghanistan compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. The increase correlates to the buildup of forces in that AOR.
General Conditions Regarding Contracts and Contractor Personnel
The Combatant Commander has provided specific guidance on arming contractor personnel and private security contractors in the USCENTCOM AOR through a series of Fragmentary Orders (FRAGOs) and other authoritative guidance, including the following:
Private security contractor personnel are not authorized to participate in offensive operations and must comply with specific USCENTCOM Rules for the Use of Force (RUF). Under these RUF, private security contractor personnel are authorized to use deadly force only when necessary in: self-defense, defense of facilities / persons as specified in their contract; prevention of life-threatening acts directed against civilians; or defense of Coalition-approved property specified within their contract. The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) issues to approved private security contractor personnel a weapons card authorizing them to carry a weapon. This weapons card also contains the guidance for the RUF and the contractor personnel’s signature acknowledging the difference between the RUF and the Rules of Engagement.
Private security contractor personnel in Iraq must be properly licensed to carry arms in accordance with host nation law and must receive USCENTCOM / Coalition Forces’ approval of their operations. Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 (CPA 17), Status of the Coalition, Foreign Liaison Missions, Their Personnel and Contractors (June 23, 2003), is still in effect. It addresses Private Security Contractors operating in Iraq and requires the contractor’s understanding of and compliance with all applicable:
o U.S., host nation, and third country national laws;
o Treaties and international agreements;
o U.S. regulations, directives, instructions, policies;
Orders, Standing Operating Procedures, and policies issued by the Combatant and / or Operational Commanders:
o MNF-I forces are authorized to stop, search, seize weapons, and detain civilians armed under MNF –I Fragmentary Order (FRAGO) 07-428 (Armed Contractors / DoD Civilians and PSCs), if MNF-I forces observe a RUF violation, exhibitions of criminal behavior, or conduct that threatens security.
o DoD contractor personnel armed by DoD authority must report any use of force, including the firing of a weapon. This requirement and the required information to be submitted are identified within the terms of the contract and MNF–I FRAGO, 07-428. MNF-I forces must report any use of force by a civilian armed under the requirements of this FRAGO to their chain of command.
To be continued…
Originally posted at STORMBRINGER.
14 responses so far
1 rbottoms // Jan 18, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Must have space aliens who killed those 17 people in Iraq.
2 andydp // Jan 18, 2010 at 2:26 pm
rbottoms: Must have been those “thugs” the Army Times talked about…
Mr Linnane: Why do your “articles” sound like PR releases by K street lobbyists ? Are you trying to get Blackwater/Xe rehired by the administration ? Or maybe, repackaging them for when a “new” administration takes over ? No matter how nice you wrap it, they are still mercenaries. Speaking as a former career Military, I wouldn’t want them anywhere near my area of operation.
3 teabag // Jan 18, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Linnane is a corporate shill for the Private army mercenaries. Nothing more nothing less. It’s all about the cash.
4 balconesfault // Jan 18, 2010 at 2:44 pm
No, he’s just a guy who is mounting an ideological defense of his chosen profession.
I see it like the old saying “guns don’t kill people – criminals don’t kill people”.
In this case “mercinaries aren’t responsible for civilian deaths … Governments and Corporations which hire mercinaries are responsible for civilian deaths”. Hiring a mercinary, putting him in a high stress/high danger position, and not making him subject to any rule of law (as was the case most of the Iraq war), is simply irresponsible.
Making mercinaries a key component of our ability to protect American governmental assets abroad is, in my opinion, a very short-sighted plan. We have no guarantee that we will always be able to pay the most money.
5 COProgressive // Jan 18, 2010 at 9:08 pm
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, believe me, it’s not a Blackwater/Xe mercenary.
You can call a pile of dogshit a Rose, but it still stinks.
BTW Sean, didn’t you wrote another CYA piece a few weeks ago called “Don’t call them mercenaries!”? Give it up man, no one is buying your crap.
6 Sean Linnane // Jan 19, 2010 at 12:12 am
None of you military geniuses noticed yet what’s wrong with that feed on the .30 cal M1919, have you?
7 Geoff C // Jan 19, 2010 at 6:00 am
I would like to point out that the Gurkhas that you have in an image are certainly not mercenaries. They are part of a proud regiment of the British Military with an established record of bravery and accomplishment. My grandfather’s brother, Costeloe, fought as a 1st Lieutenant in a Gurkha regiment and died during the invasion of Italy during WWII. They are soldiers who meet all required to meet the same standards as British soldiers and are paid the same wages. In Nepal (where I lived for a brief period) it is one of the most highly regarded jobs you can obtain. They are honest soldiers, many of whom become British citizens after their first tour of duty.
8 GOProud // Jan 19, 2010 at 7:45 am
Balconesfault “I see it like the old saying “guns don’t kill people – criminals don’t kill people””.
Actually, the better saying is: Left wing Democrats don’t kill economies and enslave people, liberal ideas do.
Glad to fix it for ya.
Sean: it feeds from the left side. None of the usual Frum trolls have ever been near a real gun, let alone a real man. They wouldn’t know.
9 MR FACE // Jan 19, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Mi-Gopher:
So your argument is that all conservatives are real men and that all liberals are not real men.
Aren’t you a homosexual? You are such a wingnut.
10 MR FACE // Jan 19, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not implying anything bad against homosexuals. I just think it is funny that the wingnut thinks he is more of a man that anyone else.
11 andydp // Jan 19, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Gee Sean, could it be you reversed the Wikipedia photo and the feed is now from the right ? Brownings (like the .50 Cal M1) could be fed from the left or right, depending on operational needs. (Something the “real men” here didn’t seem to realize) Later on in the Wikipedia article:
“During the Second World War, two additional variants of the M1919 were adopted by the US military. One version is the coaxial M37 variant, with the ability to feed from either the left or the right of the weapon. ”
GOProud: I’ve been a registered Republican since 1972, Military for 28 years and I STILL think mercenaries are a couple of levels below dog poop. I’ve also been around weapons and demolition for almost half of my adult life. Just because I don’t agree with you or Sean does not mean I’m a granola eating wing nut.
Please specify what “liberal” idea enslaved people ? Was it the Marshall Plan ? Welfare ? Social Security/Medicare ? Just to be clear, I agree welfare was enslaving but it was changed during a Democratic administration.
Sean: In the interest of full disclosure can you tell us who is paying you for the time you’re spending writing apologias for “Blackwater type” organizations ? NO ONE spends this much time and research on a subject unless they’re getting something in return. Unless, of course, a hobby has turned into an obesssion…
12 Sean Linnane // Jan 20, 2010 at 7:47 am
andydp: Your question is legit. I get no money from writing – in fact, more than one professional journalist advised me not to try to make it in writing as there is no money in it. I started blogging about a year ago; my professional opinion was sought and it grew from there.
The mercenary series began as an opinion piece on a singular event involving Blackwater – in that piece I declared that I am not a fan of that outfit; in fact, I would never work for them. I stated then and I maintain that private security contractors are not mercenaries, anymore so than postal inspectors are Federal Law Enforcement.
Then I had some downtime over the long weekend and my intent was to explore the historical role of mercenaries over the ages; what I found surprised me, despite my 26+ years in the soldiering trade. I wish to present this information in an objective format. What I wrote here simply states the definition of a mercenary, and the legal status of mercenaries under Geneva, the United Nations and how the security contractors are regarded under US law and the UCMJ.
Criminal activities may have been perpetrated by security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan – this does not make every security professional a criminal, much less a mercenary. Soldiers of every army that has ever walked the face of the Earth have committed crimes, and armies exist to fight wars; this does not make every soldier a war criminal. American soldiers have committed war crimes – but only the most unhinged extremists are equating the United States military to the Wehrmacht.
There ARE mercenaries out there; I have known a few. At best, you could say these people are adventurers, guns-for-hire, but more often than not they are involved in illegal or unethical activities. I am a security professional; I retired honorably from the military, but it’s a stretch to call me a mercenary. I certainly am not a criminal, and there are things I simply will not do for pay.
Bottom line is there are not enough regular military service men or women to man every security requirement in the challenging environments out there; it’s not even their mission. In a future post I will explain this in detail; I’ve already pointed out how it’s cheaper to hire a contractor – even for the money we make – than it is to use regular military for the service we provide.
The role of the private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere is not illegal soldiering; the UN doesn’t think so, Geneva doesn’t think so, and the Obama administration doesn’t think so. To back this up, I would like to point out that all the private military companies currently engaged in operations supporting the DoD are in the hire of . . . Barack Obama.
13 andydp // Jan 21, 2010 at 7:44 am
Sean:
Despite your protestations, I still think you’re “shilling” for someone. (“Its cheaper to hire a contractor even for the money WE make”). I’ll concede about the legality of the contractors. That said a couple of points:
“There are not enough regular military service men or women to man…” Well, the answer is to get more professional military. Make it worth something besides patriotism. Pay what these people are worth (are you aware some lower ranking married enlisted people qualify for food stamps ?). If its worth $100K to pay a “private security person” then why can’t we pay a junior enlistee more ?
“…It’s not even their mission” Wonder what MP’s have been doing all these years.
Now let’s do a situation based on your assumptions:
You’re a Battalion Commander. Part of your area of operation includes a State Department facility. Normally, MP’s would provide a security contingent, backed up by your Battalion as a secondary mission. You now have full MILITARY control of your area. The Division Commander could place that facility in your “Logistic Operations Centers”, their mutual support plans, rapid reaction forces..
In your situation there is an enclave with bunch of armed “private contractors” who might or might not want to talk to you and coordinate support and security. After all, the bottom line is they only respond to their supervisor who could be anyone. They do their convoys on their schedule and on their terms, possibly upsetting operational plans like unscheduled use of your Main Supply Route (MSR). They are likely not going to follow the rules of engagement or even a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) like you are. Please don’t mention contract clauses requiring coordination. Its a contract clause, not an oath to “obey the lawful orders”.
How “dedicated” would they be if the guano gets hot and heavy ? How “loyal” are they to the interests of the US or your mission ? In the end they’re only going to fight as long as the money holds out or they agree with you. Patrice Lamumba (SP?) found out the hard way back in the 60’s.
Maybe I’m being simplistic or ingenuous but I still would not want these people there.
14 Sean Linnane // Jan 21, 2010 at 10:05 pm
andydp: The people involved in the production of this website know me personally – they wouldn’t provide me a forum if I was an industry mouthpiece. The mercenary posts developed out of a couple of posts on the modern phenomena of the private military companies; I am simply standing up for my profession. By now you know my credentials; retired military, working as a corporate security consultant. Consider my dilemma – FF readers question my legitimacy because I mask my identity; and yet if I revealed myself, I’d be persona non grata throughout my trade.
Regarding the cost-benefits of hiring contractors vs. deploying regular military for security services, I covered this in an earlier post: http://www.frumforum.com/no-army-marches-into-battle-alone
“There are not enough regular military service men or women to man . . .” . . . the answer is to get more professional military.”
To this I say it is MUCH more expensive to “get more professional military” than simply going out for bids on security requirments – especially when you consider that expanding the size of the military, TO&E’s, etc, requires YEARS of bureaucracy AND Congress has to get involved . . .
“Make it worth something besides patriotism. ” The military is ALREADY a good deal, the pay ain’t bad; by the time I hit the 18-year mark in the Army I was making six-figures – not bad for a guy who didn’t earn his bachelor’s degree until he was forty. They housed me & my family, covered our health needs (even though Govt Healthcare is only one level above Prison Medicine), fed us, housed us, transported us around the world, insured me AND paid for my college education. Oh, AND they trained and equipped me – easily over a million dollars worth by the time I’d been in five years. And when it was all over, they pay me for the rest of my life – and when I die, they continue to pay my survivors.
“You’re a Battalion Commander. Part of your area of operation includes a State Department facility.”
Okay they LET’s go over your scenario:
PROBLEM #1: – What the hell is the State Department doing in a combat zone? I thought the military picked up where the diplomats left off?
PROBLEM #2: – OK we’re watching the State Department types – who’s watching the UN, the World Bank, OXFAM, the Ford Foundation, the Peace Corps, UNICEF, World Food Programme, EU-Afghanistan, British Agencies Afghan Group, Afghans for Civil Society (Based in USA), Land Mine Awareness Education, Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, CARE, Dutch Committee for Afghanistan Veterinary Programmes, Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, USAID (US Agency for International Development), Physicians for Human Rights, Christian Aid, # International Rescue Committee, Norwegian Refugee Council, World Vision International, Japan Center for Conflict Prevention . . .
. . . you starting to get the picture? There are over 180 NGOs just in Afghanistan alone, and that’s not counting CNN, MSNBC, the BBC, the rest of the media, financial institutions and everybody else . . .
How the hell are you going to send out patrols, maneuver and close with the enemy when you’ve got to hold all these people’s hands, blow their noses and wipe their butts? AND escort your supply trains? AND secure Corps level supplies?
There aren’t enough MPs in the Free World to handle the security requirements out there – AND perform their duties in Korea, Okinawa, mainland Japan, Bosnia, Germany, Italy, Romania, Horn of Africa, the UAE, Kuwait, the rest of Africa, South America – never mind Stateside; we’ve already contracted out the policing of our bases to free up the MPs for all of the above.
The armed security contractors are REQUIRED to behave within the constraints of their contract – they’re all a part of the support and security team. Operational planners schedule convoys and use of the MSR – and nowadays the TOCs and the JOCs include civilian contractors. The contractors are held to a much more rigorous ROE than their military counterparts, and they do not enjoy the protection of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) like regular military. They MUST “obey lawful orders” because by nature, they are legal – the contractors are covered by UCMJ and civilian laws enforced by the DOJ. Let me ask you this: if the contractors are “outside the law” how is it those Blackwater guys were charged and indicted?
“How “dedicated” would they be if the guano gets hot and heavy?”
I think the contractors have already demonstrated this, the hard way.
“In the end they’re only going to fight as long as the money holds out or they agree with you.
Well YEAH – you don’t pay us, we go home. That’s a no-brainer, and anybody who doesn’t agree with the deal can go home, any time. The only difference is in the military it’s called desertion.
Regarding Patrice Lamumba; the CIA was complicit in his overthrow and ultimate demise, although the firing squad that did the actual killing was led by a regular Belgian military officer. FYI the Special Operations Group of the CIA’s Special Activities Division has included civilian contractors for decades – I’ve known a few; good buddy of mine, KIA in Afghanistan – the irony of it was the CIA thing wasn’t what he thought it was and he was talking to the people in his old outfit about coming back INTO the Army out of retirement, but he had to finish up his contract with The Company first.
His star is on the wall in Langley.
You must log in to post a comment.