It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slimmed-down Army 'will rely on foreign mercenaries' to fight for Britain in future wars

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Slimmed-down Army 'will rely on foreign mercenaries' to fight for Britain in future wars


www.dailymail.co.uk

The Army will have to rely on help from private contractors and foreign soldiers in future wars, the Defence Secretary will announce today.
Several regiments will be axed or merged as the Army downsizes from 102,000 personnel to 82,000 by 2020.
Private military contractors, Nato allies and Territorial Army reservists will be employed to plug the gaps, Philip Hammond will say.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Hammond will outline plans for paid civilian soldiers
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
History shows that whenever a government even our own hires foreign mercenaries they are preparing to go to war on their own population... Because they know that home grown troops will not go against their own people, but foreigners will.. They also know that the British population is pissed off at the moment and their grip on power is becoming tenuous.. This is them pre-empting, and a virtual deceleration of war on the British people.. I am not exaggerating.. This # is starting to get real!

Our government has proven itself without doubt to be a clear and present danger, and traitors to their own people...


www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
If the same were to happen in America and history reoccurring on itself I'd say in place of the German Hessian (mercenaries) in times gone by it might not be a far cry for the remainder to supplied by Germany, in the modern day however maybe NATO or even private mercenaries disguised as NATO?

Who knows? Let's see if it comes to that..



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics
 


They are even starting to privatise the police force... This does not look good now does it?

Whenever a government does this it is to keep the puppets in power...

Truth is, most people in the UK are too blind to see the danger they are now in and wont act until its too late..



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


It doesn't mate, hope things pick up because I they don't the sh** rolls downhill on to us (Australia) or will the next decade(s) be the one where we really forge our identity and the shape of the new world is perceivable?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I suppose you can say that Russia, France and Spain are going to go to war with their population, considering they all have a Foreign Legion? It is made up of foreigners, yet i don't see them getting called in to quell any uprising in their respective countries.

I disagree with the idea to downsize the army and replace it with foreigners or PMC's, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are preparing for an uprising of some sort.
edit on 7-6-2012 by daaskapital because: eta



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Hiring foreign mercenaries is not a good idea for any government because the mercenaries will eventually try to challenge that government as they are built up and the government lowers it's forces. This is evident from looking at the past history of the USA. The USA put people in power in other areas of the world and we wound up sending our military in to crush these individuals. That happened in Panama, Iraq, and of course with Al-Queda. You can't build up a bunch of radicals without having direct control over them.

I can't expect people to see this because people aren't that smart to examine history. History is a boring subject but is the most critical of all the studies in education. History seems to always repeat itself with little twists each time. Evolution of this is evident with most safeguards eventually being ignored.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Hiring foreign mercenaries is not a good idea for any government because the mercenaries will eventually try to challenge that government


Exactly right. The French Foreign Legion actually tried to stage a Coup D'etat against the French President in
1961 (along with the help of French military leaders). This resulted in the disbandment of the 1st Foreign Parachute Regiment (as they were the main instigators) and the shift of control for the FFL. Since then, the French Foreign Legion has been under the direct control of the French military, and in return, the Government, whereas before it was its own entity

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


I can't expect people to see this because people aren't that smart to examine history. History is a boring subject but is the most critical of all the studies in education.


I don't see how history is boring...


As you said it is the most important subject one can study.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I am not endorsing a police state in any way or starting wars abroad. I am pointing out some things from a US taxpayers perspective.

The PMC(Private Military Contractor/Mercenary) concept is one of former Vice President Dick Cheny's brain childs from the early 90's. He knew the US military was going to shrink after the Berlin Wall fell. He started manipulating the Military Industrial Complex to start providing mirror services for the military from security to logistics. Obviously he had a stake in the game being his association with Halliburton and KBR.

Fast forward to the post 9/11 era. Iraq was a case study of implementation and execution of how PMC's could prove to be efficient and cost efficient. By then the military was considerably smaller, massive personnel/financial cuts tore through the US armed forces, thanks to the Clinton administration.

PMC's were used extensively from the onset of OIF, or the Iraqi invasion. They were used for everything from logistics, food services, laundry, construction/engineering, and security(soup to nuts). Keep in mind that the PMC security elements were by far the smallest portion of government contractors.

The idea was that it is much less expensive to pay people to temporarily do the jobs that soldiers used to have versus keeping soldiers on payroll to do certain jobs. There is a huge overhead for soldiers on contract. You have to pay for housing, food, pay, training, family benefits, medical, education, etc.. You have to pay for these things whether in peace time or when the country is at war. By using PMC's to do the jobs of military, you negate all those overhead expenses and only pay the PMC's when they are needed. Much of the PMC work was outsourced to American companies but those companies often hired foreign nationals to do the work at a very reduced pay rate.

One thing to think about is that for every 1 person fighting there is anywhere from 8 to 10 people in support roles behind the warfighter. It is cheaper to only pay for those support positions when they are needed as apposed to paying for them when they are not needed.

Whether it is actually less expensive, I don't think we will ever know. The above is just the theory behind using PMC's. In no way does it address the ethics or morality of PMC work. Nor is it intended to justify their existence or what crimes they may have committed.


Know thy enemy.

Edit: BTW, the article clearly outlines the use of contractors for logistical purposes, not arming them to fight or police anybody.

edit on 7-6-2012 by NoRemorse762 because: (no reason given)


CX

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Not that i believe in paying the forces poor wages, after all i was one once and often wondered about what i got paid considering the risky job i did sometimes....but i do have to wonder what is cheaper, private secuiry personnel or the forces?

I swear if our governments had a brain cell between them i would be surpised.

CX.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
i've noticed a great increase in amry recruitment here. more through the jobcentre website.
when this starts i guess we will see a decrease in this so its not happening right now as i see it.
but doing it by 2020 will be harder to notice major changes.

if we have to fight our own government and their hired goons, would we have an ally. some country that helps the rebels take on their oppresive government... i doubt it.
but im sure if it does come to this, many would disband from the army and fight back.
for queen and country, we are the country.

edit - the plot of mgs4 comes to mind

Metal Gear Solid 4 is set in 2014, nine years after the plot of Metal Gear Solid and five years after Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty.[16] The world economy relies on continuous war, fought by PMCs, which outnumber government military forces.

the world is changing and not for the better.
edit on 7/6/2012 by listerofsmeg because: snaaaaaaake



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 

I'd almost expect America to be more passive and laconic about down-sizing and foreign troops than the British.

The backbone, stiff-upper lip, and sterling resolve was what UK was known for.

Don't tell me it's gone?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Yea, let's replace a little of the military with PMCs like "Xe", also known as "Blackwater".

It will just shed more light on the heinous acts and interventions of government, when the soldiers don't have the "Iron Curtain" of being wrapped in a flag, protected from logical criticism. When a village gets leveled, and the troops are not bearing their precious state flag, then we'll see less of this:

"War is tragic, civilian deaths happen. Few bad apples, etc, soldiers just doing their job."

and more:

"PMC's are evil incarnate, no excuse for this."

Why? Because there has been virtually no conditioning for the general public to condone Private Military Companies. They're just hired thugs who will literally serve the highest, most lucrative bid.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
whats next :
Control of these private armies by unelected beaurocraps?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Did anybody read the article?????

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It's all logistics and realignment.
edit on 7-6-2012 by NoRemorse762 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I feel for you Brits. I think your government is making a huge mistake.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB
History shows that whenever a government even our own hires foreign mercenaries they are preparing to go to war on their own population...


Do you care to highlight a few examples to support this assertion? Please, even one historical example would help.

The UK armed forces have a history of relying on foreigners. The Ghurkhas are a good example, not to mention the vast numbers of Africans, Canadians and people from the Indian subcontinent and Australasia who have fought for causes with the UK.

It is scare mongering to suggest that the reduction in army manpower is a preliminary to a “war against the people”. Utter twaddle.

The reduction in manpower has much to do with a rebalancing of the armed forces as a response to the types of conflict the UK will be prepared to participate in. We can see a further reduction in the numbers of high ranking officers flying desks around when a better qualified civilian can do the job at half the salary cost!

Regards



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


You are using examples of foreign military aid, or foreigners integrated into the military.

That is a far cry from Private Military Companies (aka Highest Bidder Mercenaries) given access to the heart of the military. It's not even for "aid", it is to be relied on in the future as they say. Also it doesn't stop at "logistics" as the above poster suggests, that is clearly bullspeak.

They're dangerous because they only answer to their CEO, who answers to the money and power he gets. It is essentially corporate fiefdom. Just as Blackwater, and how they moved a good majority of their assets to the middle-east, Qatar, to train foreign military in the desert. They also have very little care in moral oversight, and will trot the globe's worst warzones seeking new recruits from even the most corrupt armies, cartels and the like. They do this for maximum brutality and effectiveness.
edit on 7-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Britain could also be forced to rely on other countries for vital transport and logistics tasks, which are currently undertaken by soldiers’ own countrymen

www.dailymail.co.uk...
betcha Israel and the EU and Dick Cheney's and Rummey's buddies are a big recipient of the largess of Britian fighting Israel's wars

the extremely competant brits are just there to die for the cause.....cheap


edit on 7-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Canada fought with not for




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join