"What a great site! I'm impressed by the great stuff you've pulled together. It merely confirms my long-held belief that economics CAN be interesting....
All the best"-
Charlie Wheelan,
aka The Naked Economist
This article speaks to the incentives of having a private, as well as a public army in Iraq. I bet you didn't know we had a private army.
22 comments:
Anonymous
said...
So we are in a war that seems hopeless and the government has to pay money to both public and private armies that doesn't sound good. You think if they had a section in Wal-mart for army supplies the government would save money.
I have no real opinion either way on the issue of private contractors, but looking at it from a moral standpoint, it presents a problem for the US government. Clearly privately contracted soldiers do not have the same incentives to follow the proclaimed government policy of limiting civilian deaths. This creates the problem for the government: should we use these private contractors, who we know will do a better job than our own soldiers, at the risk of losing iraqi civilians. Most politicans would say yes, since they have no morals anyway (which is why they are successful). This is obviously a hypothetical moral problem, since it's clear our government has no conscience and they aren't introspective enough to recognize the problem anyway.
That’s crazy. I didn’t know that we had a private army. I think that we should have a private army go into Iraq to fight because the war will end sooner just like when the private army was sent to battle in the War of 1812 and the American Revolution.
with the use of blackwater, the government gets two things. one, the amount of available soldiers is increased with out a draft (and also those soldiers are also more experienced). two, when their actions are negative, the company can be blamed, and if their actions are positive, the government can take credit for hiring the company.
to some extent, it's very smart. i believe money incentives will work more strongly than patriotic ones. however, a good point the article brings up is carelessness. hired fighters aren't going to let citizens get in the way of protecting an officer or assasinating a high-ranking official.
Private armies are not needed. Private contractors provide “soldiers for hire” whose “economic incentive” is to protect officials in Iraq but without full government regulations, these soldiers are allowed to do more than just guarding. Innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered from Blackwater, a private army. The only type of army we need in Iraq is the public army. We want soldiers who are run by the government to keep the peace.
I didn't know that the United States had a private army in Iraq. However now that i do know, i think it's a bad idea. People will do anything for money. Like the article stated, if a private company is employed to complete a certain task, they will do anything to make sure that the outcome is positive. In their opinion, the less number of civilians, the greater their chance of completeing the jobs. This is just wrong. Besides being unethical and cruel, private armies are a waste of government spending. The government has its own military and should use it instead of paying other people to do their job.
It is so horrible that the contractors won't protect the iraqis, fellow humans, just because there is no incentive for them. This shows how greedy all these corporations like the Blackwater Firm and Halliburton are. It's interesting that in the next conflict these private contractors will be used despite the innocent killing of Iraqis during this conflict.
Private contractors are useful- they want to do the job, they provide an alternative to a draft, and they're better trained. They should be more of an accepted standard. The article says that the international laws are not clear, which can be changed if they are accepted as a useful tool. More attention should be given to when we use them. Some situations can be made worse by them, but some situations can be improved.
This article just makes me beleive more strongly that war is a buisness--everyone is in it for the money! I also think that balckwater usa is a company that should not exist, because their incentives are skewed. They give priority to the highest bidder, so essentially they are putting a "worth" on human life. But since iraquis have nothing to bid--since they can't contribute to blackwater's profits--they are worthless to blackwater. How is that fair? And these troops are supposedly in there to help "keep the peace" and make the situation better?? Not when there's money to be made. money is evil.
This article just makes me beleive more strongly that war is a buisness--everyone is in it for the money! I also think that balckwater usa is a company that should not exist, because their incentives are skewed. They give priority to the highest bidder, so essentially they are putting a "worth" on human life. But since iraquis have nothing to bid--since they can't contribute to blackwater's profits--they are worthless to blackwater. How is that fair? And these troops are supposedly in there to help "keep the peace" and make the situation better?? Not when there's money to be made. money is evil.
i think that by hiring a private army, the us govt is wasting money because we pay our public army anyway, and also it shows the govt doesnt have faith in our own public army which makes me wonder why are we even fighting a war then?
i see the positive and negative of a private army. more experience comes with less moral incentives. yeah, so what? that's life. everyone is motivated by something, and usually it's money. i think if we are going to have a war, we should go all or nothing. not this middle ground of half-ass attack strategy. is blackwater paid more? if so, why are we paying more for a branch of fighting power that is not winning us anything? i also like darlenes comment about a wal-mart army. it WOULD be cheaper.
I am very shocked to hear that after the US has been spending a lot of money on a public army which is frequently opposed by the people, they have a lesser known private army as well. I do understand that the private army will most likely be more successful in getting the job done quicker and more efficiently, but is it necessary to have both armies at once? Warfare is putting our country in tremendous debt which eventually may come back to haunt us.
I believe that having private army would help the united states. There would be a lot more people fighting without having to use a draft. I do not agree with them not protecting the iraqis i think its terrible that they are watching innocent people die.
i did not know that we have a private army. i definitely think it helps our fighting force greatly as it has in the past. knowing that such an incentive can keep people joining the army helps to think that a draft is much less likely. on the other hand too much money could be put into this war putting the US at an even greater debt. it is also sad to hear that innocent iraqi people are dieing from some of these military workers.
I didn't even know this private army existed. If we have this private army I believe that they should be sent to fight in Iraq and get the job done quicker and cheaper. The United States is in such debt from this war and we send the private army in it could save us more money. With the private army being able to fight in Iraq I believe that the public army shouldn't have to be there as well.
I didn't know we had a private army. But, since we do, what is the point of having a public army then? Shouldn't the goals and jobs of the public and private army be the same..to protect America? And though the private army will end the war quicker couldn't a public army do that also?
The private army doesn't sound so bad. The article points out that the "employees" would be more experienced than most current soldiers and they're more available. Maybe private contractors really can make a positive impact.
i had know idea that the US had a private army. i am very suprised. i would think that after spending a billion dollars on a public army that, that would be good enough. the government talks about how they support our troops in iraq. so if they supported them why are they making a private army? it just doesnt make sense to me. it seems to me that the purpose of our current goverment is to see how much money they can spend in a certain amount of time.
In my opinion, i don't think using private contractors is right. No i didn't know there was even a private army. But in any case, the cost of using it seems to be a little too high. Seems like people will do anything for money, and that is not right, because they don't care about how many civilians are killed. The use of the contractors hasn't been of much help in Iraq either way. And the government is just paying double, the public and private army.
the government is essentially using a mercenary force and while it may seem surprising at first there are records of contract warriors dating back past the 1600's going as far back as the times of the Romans.
22 comments:
So we are in a war that seems hopeless and the government has to pay money to both public and private armies that doesn't sound good. You think if they had a section in Wal-mart for army supplies the government would save money.
I have no real opinion either way on the issue of private contractors, but looking at it from a moral standpoint, it presents a problem for the US government. Clearly privately contracted soldiers do not have the same incentives to follow the proclaimed government policy of limiting civilian deaths. This creates the problem for the government: should we use these private contractors, who we know will do a better job than our own soldiers, at the risk of losing iraqi civilians. Most politicans would say yes, since they have no morals anyway (which is why they are successful). This is obviously a hypothetical moral problem, since it's clear our government has no conscience and they aren't introspective enough to recognize the problem anyway.
That’s crazy. I didn’t know that we had a private army. I think that we should have a private army go into Iraq to fight because the war will end sooner just like when the private army was sent to battle in the War of 1812 and the American Revolution.
with the use of blackwater, the government gets two things. one, the amount of available soldiers is increased with out a draft (and also those soldiers are also more experienced). two, when their actions are negative, the company can be blamed, and if their actions are positive, the government can take credit for hiring the company.
no, i did not know that.
to some extent, it's very smart. i believe money incentives will work more strongly than patriotic ones. however, a good point the article brings up is carelessness. hired fighters aren't going to let citizens get in the way of protecting an officer or assasinating a high-ranking official.
Private armies are not needed. Private contractors provide “soldiers for hire” whose “economic incentive” is to protect officials in Iraq but without full government regulations, these soldiers are allowed to do more than just guarding. Innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered from Blackwater, a private army. The only type of army we need in Iraq is the public army. We want soldiers who are run by the government to keep the peace.
I didn't know that the United States had a private army in Iraq. However now that i do know, i think it's a bad idea. People will do anything for money. Like the article stated, if a private company is employed to complete a certain task, they will do anything to make sure that the outcome is positive. In their opinion, the less number of civilians, the greater their chance of completeing the jobs. This is just wrong. Besides being unethical and cruel, private armies are a waste of government spending. The government has its own military and should use it instead of paying other people to do their job.
It is so horrible that the contractors won't protect the iraqis, fellow humans, just because there is no incentive for them. This shows how greedy all these corporations like the Blackwater Firm and Halliburton are. It's interesting that in the next conflict these private contractors will be used despite the innocent killing of Iraqis during this conflict.
Private contractors are useful- they want to do the job, they provide an alternative to a draft, and they're better trained. They should be more of an accepted standard. The article says that the international laws are not clear, which can be changed if they are accepted as a useful tool.
More attention should be given to when we use them. Some situations can be made worse by them, but some situations can be improved.
Darlene's comment is funny...
This article just makes me beleive more strongly that war is a buisness--everyone is in it for the money!
I also think that balckwater usa is a company that should not exist, because their incentives are skewed. They give priority to the highest bidder, so essentially they are putting a "worth" on human life. But since iraquis have nothing to bid--since they can't contribute to blackwater's profits--they are worthless to blackwater. How is that fair?
And these troops are supposedly in there to help "keep the peace" and make the situation better??
Not when there's money to be made.
money is evil.
Darlene's comment is funny...
This article just makes me beleive more strongly that war is a buisness--everyone is in it for the money!
I also think that balckwater usa is a company that should not exist, because their incentives are skewed. They give priority to the highest bidder, so essentially they are putting a "worth" on human life. But since iraquis have nothing to bid--since they can't contribute to blackwater's profits--they are worthless to blackwater. How is that fair?
And these troops are supposedly in there to help "keep the peace" and make the situation better??
Not when there's money to be made.
money is evil.
i think that by hiring a private army, the us govt is wasting money because we pay our public army anyway, and also it shows the govt doesnt have faith in our own public army which makes me wonder why are we even fighting a war then?
i see the positive and negative of a private army. more experience comes with less moral incentives. yeah, so what? that's life. everyone is motivated by something, and usually it's money. i think if we are going to have a war, we should go all or nothing. not this middle ground of half-ass attack strategy. is blackwater paid more? if so, why are we paying more for a branch of fighting power that is not winning us anything? i also like darlenes comment about a wal-mart army. it WOULD be cheaper.
I am very shocked to hear that after the US has been spending a lot of money on a public army which is frequently opposed by the people, they have a lesser known private army as well. I do understand that the private army will most likely be more successful in getting the job done quicker and more efficiently, but is it necessary to have both armies at once? Warfare is putting our country in tremendous debt which eventually may come back to haunt us.
I believe that having private army would help the united states. There would be a lot more people fighting without having to use a draft. I do not agree with them not protecting the iraqis i think its terrible that they are watching innocent people die.
i did not know that we have a private army. i definitely think it helps our fighting force greatly as it has in the past. knowing that such an incentive can keep people joining the army helps to think that a draft is much less likely. on the other hand too much money could be put into this war putting the US at an even greater debt. it is also sad to hear that innocent iraqi people are dieing from some of these military workers.
I didn't even know this private army existed. If we have this private army I believe that they should be sent to fight in Iraq and get the job done quicker and cheaper. The United States is in such debt from this war and we send the private army in it could save us more money. With the private army being able to fight in Iraq I believe that the public army shouldn't have to be there as well.
I didn't know we had a private army. But, since we do, what is the point of having a public army then? Shouldn't the goals and jobs of the public and private army be the same..to protect America? And though the private army will end the war quicker couldn't a public army do that also?
The private army doesn't sound so bad. The article points out that the "employees" would be more experienced than most current soldiers and they're more available. Maybe private contractors really can make a positive impact.
i had know idea that the US had a private army. i am very suprised. i would think that after spending a billion dollars on a public army that, that would be good enough. the government talks about how they support our troops in iraq. so if they supported them why are they making a private army? it just doesnt make sense to me. it seems to me that the purpose of our current goverment is to see how much money they can spend in a certain amount of time.
In my opinion, i don't think using private contractors is right. No i didn't know there was even a private army. But in any case, the cost of using it seems to be a little too high. Seems like people will do anything for money, and that is not right, because they don't care about how many civilians are killed. The use of the contractors hasn't been of much help in Iraq either way. And the government is just paying double, the public and private army.
the government is essentially using a mercenary force and while it may seem surprising at first there are records of contract warriors dating back past the 1600's going as far back as the times of the Romans.
Post a Comment