echidna

Only a quick topic because I always feel guilty at side-tracking other threads …

But what is the difference between a mercenary and a “professional” soldier ?

As I see it, only that the mercenary fights under various authorities, with money as a primary motivation (but not necessarily the only), while the soldier is restricted to “his” country’s military.

Regardless of that though, a feature of any military unit is a degree of blind obedience, to follow the chain of command. As such, even the professional soldier sacrifices “his” personal morality in accepting an external authority to justify killing. Even patriotism itself is often the most immoral form of external authority. Appeals to patriotism are commonly used to justify all kinds of immoral actions.

Neither is “just following orders” is not a moral defence either, utilitarian and practical yes, but not moral.

Tom Sawyer

I think that the main difference is that a soldier is fighting for something "bigger" than himself. A mercenary is only in it for monetary gain.

The fact that a man (or woman) is willing to sacrifice his life (and the lives of his enemies) for something that he sees as more important than himself is seen as a noble cause. Without people of this mindset to defend a society, it would quickly fall to the more agressive society next door and not be able to advance on it's own. So, histroically speaking, lionizing people who become soldiers make more people want to become soldiers and defend the society, letting the society have more security in which to advance.

Mercenaries, on the other hand, bring nothing to anyone but themselves. They're really quite useless.

MadMordigan

They're really quite useless.

Tell that to the Duke of Wellington. Or Elizabeth I. Or Alexander the Great. Or Genghis Khan. Or cardinal Richlieu. Or Sun Tzu. Or the First Nations of the Pacific Northwest.

Mercenaries have been a major element of warfare for most of human history. Before the 20th century, they were the largest source of non-conscripted troops. And they are useful in the same way professional carreer soldiers are useful. They kill people and break things.

The Other Michael

I'd been thinking about starting a thread on the ethics of mercenaries for a week or so, but I see echidna beat me to it.

I think that it is possible for mercenary soldiering to be an ethical trade. However, that isn't always (or maybe even often) the case.

Consider the situation of a small country/city-state etc. It is moderately wealthy, but has a small population and are unable to field a military force sufficient to protect themselves from other predatory states.

If they hire mercenaries, and the mercenaries comport themselves ethically (not committing atrocities, targeting civilian populations, looting, staying "bought" and not betraying the people they've contracted with, etc) then it seems like a member of that mercenary force is on an ethical ground no more shaky than a member of an army comprised of citizens.

It seems somewhat analagous to having police that aren't citizens of the munincipality they work for. They still enforce laws, and potentially may use deadly force against the citizens. But they are still "outsiders" who are "hired guns".

I have a feeling that there should be some difference where mercenaries are hired by an organization of people vs an individual, but then individuals should have as much right to purchase protection as a state.

I don't see any problem with condemning mercenaries who are just guns for hire, no questions asked, kinds of thugs.

Sure, it would be nice if there were no need for military forces, but that doesn't seem like it will be the case any time soon. And as was pointed out by one author (R.A. Heinlein I think), anyone who believes that violence never solves anything should go and ask the citizens of Carthage what they think of that.

Jerry Pournelle, David Drake and Glen Cook have written a number of novels of speculative fiction in which mercenaries are the protagonists, and they have done a good job of exploring how the soldiers react in different situations. At times the mercenaries are at greater risk from the people who hired them then they are from their military opponents.

cheers,
Michael

RogerLeeCooke

Nice argument, Michael. I'm not much for balancing delicate shades of right and wrong. If I were, I'd run with your suggestion that there ought to be some difference between working for an individual and working for a society. I think I'd look at the issue of what is being protected. When I think of a mercenary, I have the pure variety in mind: one who is indifferent to the people or country he is defending, in the profession only for the money and nothing else. Such a person would kill anyone, regardless of the harm the person might or might not do, just to get money. If some other motive enters, that would dilute the mercenary aspect of the work.

But generally I'm more interested in what is good public policy than what is right or wrong in the abstract. And human motivation is one of the last things I think we ought to consider in courts of law. I'm opposed to "hate crime" legislation for that reason, just as I would oppose the Mann Act, were it not already a dead letter. Discussions of a person's motivation in connection with morality seem to me to be futile. Their motives are nobody's business but their own, and it is useless for anybody else to have an opinion about them.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: RogerLeeCooke ]</p>

Keith Russell

Roger:

Well said, I agree.

Keith.

echidna

Actually this was a spinoff from 99’s thread about murder from a few weeks ago. I’m surprised that peteyh managed to dredge it up.

Part of the problem is the negative baggage associated with “mercenary”, but from my OP, that’s also what blind military loyalty demands of a professional soldier, that one kills anyone when so ordered.

The only difference between a soldier and a mercenary, seems to be that one has placed their entire moral trust in their government, while the other sells it for a price. But in both cases, the individual’s morality is given away.

Reality is that as with police and military forces, altruism is not the sole motivation for undertaking the career, and an element of the mercenary exists for all of us.

Not right or wrong, just a necessary evil.

I mostly agree with you about the unknowableness of personal motivation, nonetheless it’s the impossible argument which we need to pursue. Actions are often traceable to speculation on motivation with strong correlation, and often these can be discussed constructively. The objective question which could be asked for instance might be, how many in the military would continue their service if their pay were halved, for instance.

Shake

I may be off base here, but IMHO, it seems that the mercenaries are motivated not only by monetary compensation, but by the joy of killing. As a veteran of the US military, I would say that the professional soldier will kill as part of his/her job as necessary, but doesn't particularly enjoy it. I like to think of it in the way I once heard a police officer discussing the use of deadly force: "We are trained to use it, but it's training we hope we never have to use." Our military even saw members court-martialed during the Gulf War for suddenly claiming to be conscientous (sp?) objectors. "But I just joined for the educational benefits." NOT a good excuse!

Here's another idea: talk to as many combat veterans as you can. Ask them about their wartime experiences. Many won't even discuss particulars of battle, at least not their own personal involvement. Some will tell you they've had to kill, but they'll leave it at that. Others would talk about actions of their unit, as in 'we took out an enemy bunker...' while carefully leaving out any personal specifics. Try talking to a Vietnam vet, if you can! War is a horrible thing, and it does horrible things to those who have to fight them. Yes, even the survivors are not always well off, even if they've been lucky enough to escape severe physical harm.

It's psychologically damaging to participants. Modern day pilots have the luxury of rarely actually seeing the enemy they're killing. Gulf War pilots talk about it being like a video game, until they remember that there are actual people in the buildings they bomb, or other aircraft that they direct missiles towards.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit sidetracked. My point was that for the most part, the 'professional soldier' really doesn't enjoy killing, it's just part of his job, and it takes a lot for him to keep some emotional distance from it. He has to, or else it'll damage him psychologically.

Oh yeah, murderers? Murderers are just sick. End of sentence.

JerryM

I don't think all mercenaries are motivated only by money or blood-lust. Some are seeking adventure, or challenge, or maybe a desire to escape their current situation (i.e., French Foreign Legion.) And some do serve as a matter of principle. Mercenaries have certainly played a role in U.S history. Someone more expert than I can correct me, but would Washington have defeated the British at Yorktown without the assistance of 30,000 or so French troops under Lafayette? (I think Lafayette himself served without pay, but someone had to pay his soldiers.) I also seem to remember something about the U.S. hiring foreign soldiers for the Union army in the early days of the Civil War. I'd be interested to know if mercenaries, on the whole, have really been effective. Perhaps someone who knows military history can answer that.

Tom Saeterboe

the difference between a proffesional soldier and a mercenary may exist more in peoples imagination than in real life. People don't necessary join the armed forces of their nation because they want to protect whatever that nation stands for, or whatever patriotic reason they have. Often people join because they have difficulty in getting a "normal" job, they simply want to become a soldier(the "rambo"-type), adventure or things like that. So in my opinion a soldier that join in for any other reason than this "greater cause"(protecting ones nation) is really no different from a merc other than he serve in his own nations military, rather than anyones military. Norwegian special forces did secretly participate in Vietnam(the truth were revealed some years ago) even if Norway itself remained neutral. These are professional soldiers, but in this case they didn't fight for "their flag", the question is: can they be considered mercenaries in this example?