The Battle Of The War On The State, And Post Cold War

A mercenary is a soldier that serves in a foreign country and have to leave their homes and families to fight. You would think with the amount of hardships they go through that they would be respected with an excessive amount of respect. Unfortunately that was not the case and they were not treated as they should have been.

The theme of my essay is war and conflict. As it connects to economics, my research topic concerns the military industrial-complex, and my research question explores the influence of the military industrial complex on the perpetuance and expansion of war. It is through a brief introductory conversation on topic of the military industrial-complex, and the reading of a few article overviews later that I realize how much has been written about the topic, and thus, how significant of a topic the military industrial-complex is. Furthermore, it is through this process that I realize how the military industrial-complex is linked to war and/or the concept can be used as the all-encompassing reason to explain the many reasons countries state for going

The job of a mercenary, fighting a war or performing some sort of military duty, for pay, without nationalist allegiance, has been a job “...since the dawn of warfare, from Xenophon 's ‘ten thousand’ Greeks hired to fight in Persia to the Swiss Guards who protect the Vatican today (Blood and Treasure). Simply put, Mercenaries are nothing new. However only in the last 60 or so years has a new, modern form of mercenary work come into practice. Modern mercenaries today often function in the form of a Private Military Corporation or PMC. These are corporations that train and deploy often elite fighting forces to fulfill contracts paid for by various clients, most of the time governments. These corporations are rather controversial for a number

In his 1960 Farewell Address, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought attention to the “military-industrial complex”, a term that is used to describe how the government uses private industry to meet its various demands during war or peace. Since World War I and World War II, the United States has witnessed a greater connection between the public and private sectors as private industry pumped out the goods to keep the government and country going. Similarly, there were changes on the battlefield as now private contractors became common sights. Eventually, the government would call on private contractors to provide aid on the military battlefield and even fight in some instances. The use of non-governmental workers on the battlefield

Throughout the Middle East, the use of private military contractors has significantly heightened, due to the call of attacks in these countries. PMC’s take up much cost for a country to fund, and the increasing rates are bringing drawbacks onto working citizens. However, there PMC’s are also vital in order for a country to maintain its armed security forces. On the other hand, mercenaries are people who take part in armed conflicts. The PMC’s hire these mercenaries to work under them in helping take part in hostilities, but receive benefits for their own gains. Recently, the United Nations Mercenary Convention (UNMC) has placed restrictions upon PMC’s in the use of mercenaries, in order to create specifications between commercial and government uses of these protection services. Sweden has very little support and funds for the use of these PMC’s, due to the lack of high military activity.

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

Civil liberties were largely influenced by the Cold War in the United States. President Truman had a large focus on civil rights. However, after World War II there was a fear that began to progress in America do to the war with the Soviet Union and against Communism,“Those who could be linked to communism enemies of freedom.”(Foner.Pg.928) People who were thought to belong to the Communist Party were being oppressed by domestic measures; the government added policies to minimize the Communist population in the United States.The Smith Act, passed in 1940;The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, was aimed at preventing Communist supporters in overthrowing the government; The Internal Security Act 1950, all members of the Communist Party was to register

Although the presence of these contractors are good and useful protection for the military presence already in Iraq, there are many problems as the rules and regulations that the contractors must follow still aren’t set in stone. In addition, because there is no real front in the war, the private contractors are scattered in non-combat as well as combative zones, dissolving the distinction between an actual soldier and a privately contracted protector of the troops. This blurring of lines makes it easier for one to begin to see these individuals as mercenaries (individuals fighting strictly for personal benefit) and not contractors employed for extra protection, which is banned by the Geneva Convention. These contractors have obligation to their employers, not to the US, and because of that do not have to follow any military code of conduct, but only follow the business rules of the company that hired them. The payment of these contractors also can insinuate that these individuals are in this

Military Professional Resources Inc. is a military consultant firm. This firm and other like I help unstable governments, revolutionary forces, or oil and mining companies working in hostile areas by providing former service members from the U.S, Britain, or South Africa to offer protection. These firms train the local police and military to fight their own conflicts. Fraud and waste by private contractors in the Middle East continue to be a problem. In Iraq, alone 14 major contractors were given minimal or no competition according to a report issued by the General Accounting Office. These contractors cost the taxpayer

The use of mercenaries to further politico-military aims is rife throughout history . From the White Company battling in 14th Century Italy to the American Volunteer Group, the ‘Flying Tigers’, in China during 1941, peace has been bought and sold by mercenaries. Despite this, in modern times, the question continues to be asked - are PMC personnel mercenaries? Once they cease performing security duties and engage in military operations and war fighting, they muddy the waters of what constitutes and defines a mercenary in accordance with both the U.N.’s Mercenary Convention 2001 and Article 47 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (API 1977).

The military has a legal monopoly on the use of force because it is an extension of the state. It also often has the advantage of finance, which manifests as size, technology, and skill (which in turn makes the military more threatening). So long as the state’s use of force by way of the military seems legitimate to both the citizen and foreign nations, the state will retain the monopoly of

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

A military regime, alongside monarchical, personalist and single party regimes, is a classification of an authoritarian regime. The regime is organised by a group of officers who decider a ruling mechanism and exercise some influence on governmental policy (Geddes, 1999, p.125). Authoritarian regimes arise through the eradication of an elected government and the majority party, through a coup or a military intervention. Survival of authoritarian regimes has become increasingly more difficult because of a developing democratic world which has now reached the ‘third wave of democratization’ (Huntington, 1991). All types of regime are vulnerable to collapse but the military regime is especially vulnerable as the institutional costs often counterbalance the benefits (Nordlinger, 1977). Thus, the longevity of a military regime is far shorter than that of either personalist or one-party regimes. The reasons as to why military regimes struggle to survive for lengthy periods of time can be explained through; the corporate interest of the regime, the benefits obtained from the regime during power or implementation, the vulnerability of the regime during power and the consequences that would emerge if the regime dissolved.

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.