An interesting topic in this sections readings was the
writings of Machiavelli on the topic of who should fight for us. In chapter
twelve of the Prince Machiavelli makes it clear that he is not in favor of
hiring outside forces to help fight for a country. Machiavelli states that “Mercenaries
and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on
these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited,
ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful” (Machiavelli, The prince, ch
12). It can be interpreted that Machiavelli believes that the mercenaries have
no personal ties to the country and because of this feel no true commitment towards
keeping it safe. In having this thought process the mercenaries put the country
at great risk, because they are not willing to sacrifice everything to protect
the country. In fact Machiavelli says that “The fact is, they have no other
attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is
not sufficient to make them willing to die for you” (Machiavelli, The prince,
ch 12).
Soldiers that only fight for a country because they are being paid are
not soldiers that should be protecting the country; it is because of this that
Machiavelli states “that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince
or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of a
captain; the republic has to send its citizens” (Machiavelli, The
prince, ch 12). The only way to ensure that a country is protected at all cost
is if the citizens and the rule themselves fight the war. In order to protect
their friends and families the citizens will risk their lives to fight off any
enemies that threaten the country. I believe that Machiavelli makes a very
compelling point because a soldier with nothing to lose in war is an
ineffective soldier. A country that fights with ineffective soldiers is a
country that is doomed to fall.
I agree with you that soldiers should fight for their country because it is expected and not because of the money , they make. But private military firms have often being used to intervene in dangerous situations where countries can afford to provide their troops.And they have become so ingrained in foreign operations that they have become necessary to provide security and supply.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that "a soldier with nothing to lose in war is an ineffective soldier" is a very powerful one, but I do not know that this concept is as relevant as it once was. It can easily be argued that preemptive warfare and interventions undertaken with the pretext of democratization serve to challenge this premise. What does a U.S. soldier ideologically have to lose in the Iraq War- a war which was fought under false precepts of WMD's and ties with Al-Qaeda, none of which proved to be true? I agree that citizens will risk their lives to fight off any enemies that threaten the country, but in the case of preemptive warfare the threat is not realized or imminent. This can perhaps lead soldiers to feel disconnected from the cause, completely absolving any sense of personal attachment. I think we should not rule out the possibility that personnel from private security companies can act the same as soldiers, whether nobly or shamefully.
ReplyDeleteYou both make a very good point in saying that the concept is not as relevant as it once was although i too believe that it is not as relevant as before, but i have to say that it is still relevant. In the Iraq War the soldiers believed that they were fighting to protect the lives of the US citizens because they were told that Iraq had WMD. Rather they were told the truth or not they still fought as if they had to defend the people of their country; they believed they had nothing to lose. In the case of preemptive warfare i believe that the threat is realized because majority of the time the people that commit a preemptive attack do so because they feel that an attack on their country is imminent and they have no other option to strike first. For example Israeli's preemptive strike during the Six day war. The soldiers believed in the cause and was willing to do what ever they had to keep their people safe.
ReplyDeleteAgain i agree that in today's world there are many private security organizations that are capable of fight effectively for a country, but the point that i am trying to express is that they will never be able to fight as effectively as a solider that is from the country. If the country is destroyed the private security soldier goes back home and waits for the next job, but for the solider that is from the country their is no home to go back too giving him motivation to fight harder than the private security soldier.
Why can't a mercenary soldier fight as effectively as one that is from the country? It's what they do for a living. If anything they may have more of an incentive with money.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument isn't one of effectiveness via training but one of defense and morale. During Machiavelli's time it was quite common for mercenaries to just give up when the fighting got tough. This may seem hard to believe but is certainly happened in the 16th century. And certainly there are incentives greater then money right?
DeleteHowever, I think that Lea and Nusirat have good points about the applicability today. PSCs many not be as big of a problem on this point as mercenaries in the 16th century. This is especially true since in the 16th century there were no standing armies. In order to fight a war most princes needed mercenaries. That is not the case today as PSCs are more compliments. I wonder if this will change in the future?