Is there any such thing as a good argument for a Private Army? In other words, could the United States entertain the idea of a Mercenary Army to fights its unpopular battles? In the study of ancient history, it is often taught that one of the downfalls of the great Roman Empire was when it began to hire mercenary armies. Do these arguments for greater efficiency and less risk make it something that we should consider?
As Written By John Stossel for Townhall:
We’ve fought in Afghanistan for 16 years now. Are we making progress?
After 9/11, we invaded, overthrew the Taliban, killed Osama Bin Laden and — stayed. Afghanistan is now America’s longest war, ever.
President Trump’s solution? He’ll send several thousand more soldiers.
Erik Prince says he has a better idea — fight terrorists with only 2,000 American Special Operations personnel, plus “a contractor force” of 6,000.
Prince is the founder of Blackwater, the private military contractor.
The military uses contractors to provide security, deliver mail, rescue soldiers and more. Private contractors often do jobs well, for much less than the government would spend.
“We did a helicopter resupply mission,” Prince told me. “We showed up with two helicopters and eight people — the Navy was doing it with 35 people.”
I asked, “Why would the Navy use 35 people?”
Prince answered, “The admiral that says, ‘I need 35 people to do that mission,’ didn’t pay for them. When you get a free good, you use a lot more of it.”
Prince also claims the military is slow to adjust. In Afghanistan, it’s “using equipment designed to fight the Soviet Union, (not ideal) for finding enemies living in caves or operating from a pickup truck.”
I suggested that the government eventually adjusts.
“No, they do not,” answered Prince. “In 16 years of warfare, the army never adjusted how they do deployments — never made them smaller and more nimble. You could actually do all the counter-insurgency missions over Afghanistan with propeller-driven ………
THERE IS MORE HERE KEEP READING: TOWNHALL