Old Tactics for a new enemy?

What if the US reinstated privateers and letters of marque after the 9/11 attacks?

It would cause a lot of butterflies, especially when you think of the problems the military have faced with fighting a fanatic almost unidentifiable (untill too late) enemy.

My first thought is along the lines of a mob war between the arms dealers who will supply anyone (incl AQ), and arms dealers/manufactures who want to claim the 'bounty and prize money' for 'actions against AQ and their supporters'. And at the same time groups of international mercenaries scramble to get privateer status, even attacking each other and denouncing them as 'AQ sympathisers'.


I am just kicking it around, and want to hear how the idea sounds to others
 
Like those Blackwater guys, it would not end well. Without law and rules, they may do things like attacking peoples who are innocent, but looked terrorists.

There is reasons why we stopped doing this. Such jingoist things is...
 
Two questions:

1) What are the privateers going to do that a conventional warship can not? The Germans used commerce raiders like the Atlantis in the Second World War because a) they did not have sufficient warships to do the job and b) the commerce raiders could successfully hide as merchant ships. Well hide most of the time.

2) Who are they going to attack? Al Qeada and Afghanistan did not have merchant fleets.

As an aside if the USA commissions privateers that could be construed to legitimise Somali pirates. Do we want that?
 
Two questions:

1) What are the privateers going to do that a conventional warship can not? The Germans used commerce raiders like the Atlantis in the Second World War because a) they did not have sufficient warships to do the job and b) the commerce raiders could successfully hide as merchant ships. Well hide most of the time.

2) Who are they going to attack? Al Qeada and Afghanistan did not have merchant fleets.

As an aside if the USA commissions privateers that could be construed to legitimise Somali pirates. Do we want that?


You are thinking far too much along the 18th century naval warfare lines. Read the previous post- i was thinking of things like Blackwater, and mercenaries like in the movie wild geese
 
It will be funny when a bunch of idiots get arrested trying to smuggle war material into a foreign country. I see a bunch of incidents like this happening to anyone insane enough to act like a modern day version privateer. It just seems like it would be a really silly and ineffective way to tackle the problems of international terrorism and piracy. Also

METAL GEAR
 
It wouldn't work. No control. A "privateer force" can attack pretty much anyone weak enough and then claim they destroyed an AQ cell. They can plant evidence, if necessary. Why should they risk their lives fighting an armed, somewhat trained and highly motivated enemy (AQ or not) if they can get paid for killing some poor defenseless people? Many soldiers turned mercenaries wouldn't do that - they still have some sense of honor. But I'm pretty sure there are many mercanaries who would do it without loosing any sleep about it. I can see dozens of anonymous villages erased by mercenaries who then demand payment for "destruction of AQ base". And who will speak for dead peasants?
I also can see Afghani and Iraqi government troops fighting those "privateers" and executing every captured mercenary as terrorist. When America opposes they will say: "Imagine we are sending armoured mercenaries to US of A to hunt terrorists?"
And no private army is capable to fight a regular army for a long time. It's simply a bad business.
 
And what if someone with more money hires your elite army away in the middle of a mission? Either you get a ludicrously expensive and bribed force more costly than if you'd just used regular infantry, or you get folks like the North Koreans buying their services (and knowledge of US forces).

Mercenaries, throughout history, have shown themselves to be a Really Bad Idea after the adoption of large standing armies. Why should this be different?
 

Cook

Banned
Mercenaries are illegal under international law. They were expressly forbidden in 1989 by the United Nations with the passing of the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

Prior to that, in 1949, Article 47 of the First Protocol of the United Nations had specifically made Mercenaries illegal combatants with ‘A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.’ Before that mercenaries were not protected by the Geneva Convention, but were not outlawed.

Granted, the US government has seen fit to ignore international law on a regular basis lately so perhaps that wouldn’t be enough to rule it out. There would be diplomatic repercussions though.
 
Mercenaries are illegal under international law. They were expressly forbidden in 1989 by the United Nations with the passing of the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.
That raises the interesting question of the legality of Clive Cussler's "Oregon". Then again, if any power or "NGO" is unwise enough to catch any of Cabrillo or his merry men and women then they deserve all the grief they get in return for having done so. Thus putting any of them on trial for being a mercenary would not be a particularly smart idea.

Of course, I doubt that Cabrillo gives a monkey's about the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, not after some of the "Oregon"'s activities. It would be interesting though for him to try and justify them in court, especially the destruction of that Greek bridge!


 
Privateers? Seriously? How exactly does allowing US civilians to arm themselves and attack and seize foreign vessels help fight Al Queda?

All you're doing is creating US supported pirates. World opinion will not be positive. Plus even assuming you wanted to attack middle eastern freighters you would give the US Navy the assignment not a bunch of civilians armed with rifles and screaming 'Get 'er done!'
 
Plus even assuming you wanted to attack middle eastern freighters you would give the US Navy the assignment not a bunch of civilians armed with rifles and screaming 'Get 'er done!'
Alternatively, it is only one or two missions, there are definitely bad guys on the freighters and you want deniability then pay the "Oregon" to do the job. The crew may not be subtle, but they do deliver the goods.:D
 
Top