greg334
Veteran Expediter
I ran across this site
http://www.op-for.com/
and went through the posts. I found this;
A "Mercenary" Perspective
By Lightning
"I've been a bit remiss in my posting over the past few weeks. I hope you'll excuse my absence. I have dropped in from time to time to read some of the topics and try to keep abreast on some of the issues. I've finally decided that William Arkin's piece "Early Warning" deserved some commentary.
So, Arkin called me a mercenary? *yawn* What's his point? If you haven't figured it out yet, Arkin used the word simply to generate more of a reaction. He claims it was done, "to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them". Hogwash. As Tanker Brothers so astutely mentions, folks like Arkin are in the business of generating readership. The kind of outcry that he generated by calling us mercenaries simply reassures the editorial staff that they are being read.
Nevermind the fact that I don't really consider "mercenary" an insult or pejorative. I'm actually a bit amused by some of the outrage. Yeah, I get paid more when I am "downrange" than when I am sitting comfortably back here in CONUS. Hell, my second deployment enabled me to pay off my car. Savings from my third deployment helped me to buy a house. If that makes me a "mercenary", so what? The negative connotations associated with the word "mercenary" are actually a somewhat new phenomenon. Employment of highly specialized bands of mercenaries, such as the condottieri of Italy, used to be a widely accepted facet of warfare. Personally, I think that the widespread use of PMCs in today's conflict zones is a signal of times to come, of a return to smaller state armies supplemented by professional mercenaries. Doesn't bother me a bit. After all, do a bit of research on Executive Outcomes in Angola and Sierra Leone and you will see just how much of an effect a small band of mercenaries can have on nasty little backwater conflicts that most nation-state militaries would prefer to avoid.
The other thing that amuses me is the fact that some would praise Ehren Watada for "practicing First Amendment freedoms of speech, press and conscience" on the one hand, yet condemn servicemen who voice frustration with the media and public on the other. So, you want it both ways?
Let's get a few things straight. I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me. At no time did I swear to do the bidding of the American citizenry, as one of the writers on Daily Kos would have us believe. No, I am obligated to obey your elected representatives. It's called a consitutional republic, ladies and gents. Go back and retake 9th grade civics, please.
You want my First Amendment rights abrogated when I try to counter the anti-war bias that I see creeping into news reports, but you'll proudly champion my rights if I choose to speak out against a war that was initiated by the duly elected President of the United States, with the support of your elected representatives in Congress? Tell me, who is really out to limit my rights? The U.S. government, who says that a Marine officer can not openly criticize elected officials, or the Daily Kos, who says that all servicemen should not be allowed to criticize the American public at all?"
http://www.op-for.com/
and went through the posts. I found this;
A "Mercenary" Perspective
By Lightning
"I've been a bit remiss in my posting over the past few weeks. I hope you'll excuse my absence. I have dropped in from time to time to read some of the topics and try to keep abreast on some of the issues. I've finally decided that William Arkin's piece "Early Warning" deserved some commentary.
So, Arkin called me a mercenary? *yawn* What's his point? If you haven't figured it out yet, Arkin used the word simply to generate more of a reaction. He claims it was done, "to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them". Hogwash. As Tanker Brothers so astutely mentions, folks like Arkin are in the business of generating readership. The kind of outcry that he generated by calling us mercenaries simply reassures the editorial staff that they are being read.
Nevermind the fact that I don't really consider "mercenary" an insult or pejorative. I'm actually a bit amused by some of the outrage. Yeah, I get paid more when I am "downrange" than when I am sitting comfortably back here in CONUS. Hell, my second deployment enabled me to pay off my car. Savings from my third deployment helped me to buy a house. If that makes me a "mercenary", so what? The negative connotations associated with the word "mercenary" are actually a somewhat new phenomenon. Employment of highly specialized bands of mercenaries, such as the condottieri of Italy, used to be a widely accepted facet of warfare. Personally, I think that the widespread use of PMCs in today's conflict zones is a signal of times to come, of a return to smaller state armies supplemented by professional mercenaries. Doesn't bother me a bit. After all, do a bit of research on Executive Outcomes in Angola and Sierra Leone and you will see just how much of an effect a small band of mercenaries can have on nasty little backwater conflicts that most nation-state militaries would prefer to avoid.
The other thing that amuses me is the fact that some would praise Ehren Watada for "practicing First Amendment freedoms of speech, press and conscience" on the one hand, yet condemn servicemen who voice frustration with the media and public on the other. So, you want it both ways?
Let's get a few things straight. I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me. At no time did I swear to do the bidding of the American citizenry, as one of the writers on Daily Kos would have us believe. No, I am obligated to obey your elected representatives. It's called a consitutional republic, ladies and gents. Go back and retake 9th grade civics, please.
You want my First Amendment rights abrogated when I try to counter the anti-war bias that I see creeping into news reports, but you'll proudly champion my rights if I choose to speak out against a war that was initiated by the duly elected President of the United States, with the support of your elected representatives in Congress? Tell me, who is really out to limit my rights? The U.S. government, who says that a Marine officer can not openly criticize elected officials, or the Daily Kos, who says that all servicemen should not be allowed to criticize the American public at all?"
missions, then I would complain to the powers that be about it. Some are probably truly 