PMC's Before T2k

[kalos72]

Wow, I get it after Blackwater and the whole deal.

But do you think Australia would really prefer to send its own troops to defend New Guinea from an Indonesian Communist assault come T2k?

I mean I would think all bets are off once the nukes start dropping...

After reading up on Blackwater and the RL rise of PMC's in the US military, I am thinking there would be much more liberal use of them in a T2k world.

And to the point its armies vs small groups of security forces guarding an embassy...

I am listening to "Blackwater: The rise of the words most powerful mercenary army" and its REALLY telling about the mindset of the people in charge at the time.

[Legbreaker]

PNG is almost like an extra state of Australia, and was under our direct control until 1975. There's still very close ties, and militarily it's the location of one of the key events in our history - the battles of the Kokoda track.
As mentioned previously, we also send quite a lot of money there to subsidise the government, and a number of Australia resource companies have large scale operations (mines, etc) there.
Note also Australia was the main country to go to East Timor's aid in 1999, well before the UN became involved with New Zealand contributing the second largest contingent, the largest they'd sent anywhere since the Korean War.

Australia's sent troops into the area, and will very likely do it again if needed.

As an aside, back when I was still a reservist and before I went full time, there was a rumour floating about that if Australia sent another 100 soldiers over seas, a reserve unit would need to be activated to maintain the minimum number of troops necessary within our own borders. Can't say how true it was, but given just a few short years later reservists were indeed being called up, given additional training and sent to reinforce regular (full time) units in various locations through the Pacific and I believe Afghanistan and Iraq.
Worth noting too that reservists have NEVER been required to leave our own borders, except for the couple of battalions sent to PNG in WWII and supposedly employed as labourers (of course two of those poorly trained and equipped battalions soon found themselves advancing across the mountains before conducting a desperate fighting withdrawal against 10,000 of Japan's best).

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Wow, I get it after Blackwater and the whole deal.

...

I am listening to "Blackwater: The rise of the words most powerful mercenary army" and its REALLY telling about the mindset of the people in charge at the time.

Just wondering what deal with Blackwater are you talking about?

[kalos72]

That was one of the reason for calling the mrec up Leg, that having to do it with Australian Nationals would deplete the local labor pool. So in that sense, maybe it would happen.

Blackwater and all PMC's with the US were given immunity from any action while under contract. The whole national military complex in the US sought to use PMC's as private military armies, not under Congressional control or oversight. Its really gotten out of control...

[Legbreaker]

Once the war starts in earnest though, many of those mercs are going to find themselves conscripted or recalled into service by their original nations.
The mercs that are left will be from non-combatant countries, most of which don't exactly have a reputation for producing well trained and disciplined soldiers.
Don't imagine many Western countries will be all that interested in using the dregs that are left for anything other than distant and low priority jobs - PNG is neither distant, nor low priority to Australia.

[swaghauler]

There seems to be some confusion about the term Private Military Contractor here. A PMC is a private (non-militarily conscripted) person EMPLOYED by a government agency. They are not "legally" a "Mercenary" as one is defined in the UN Convention Against the Use, Recruitment, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries. This is because they are considered "support personnel" of a given agency or military. This is also why they are NOT subject to the laws of the host country (in the same way Military & Diplomatic personnel are also not subject to a host country's laws). They are bound by the laws of the country who is employing them (in other words, Blackwater's misdeeds are tried in US Courts NOT Iraq's). This is to prevent the host country from using THEIR judicial system to punish PMCs for behavior that might not be viewed as "criminal" by the employing country.

There is a second class of individual (which I have performed as) that is also NOT a "Mercenary" even though they may be armed on occasion. The "Security Contractor" is a specific exemption in the UN covering what are essentially "Protective Specialists." A "Protective Specialist" is a security guard or bodyguard who is protecting either a person or property and is properly registered with the host country. They may or may not be armed according to the host country's own laws. A Protective Specialist or Security Contractor IS SUBJECT to the host country's laws so they must be very careful when operating inside a host country.

The next class of armed individual you may encounter in a country is the "Peacekeeper." "Peacekeepers" are always vetted by the UN and may be deployed by the UN or another country on behalf of the UN. They are euphemistically called "blue hats" because they are often issued blue US M1 helmets with the letters UN in white on the sides. "Blue hats" may be civilian LE or ex-military but are all recruited by the UN itself. I had a coworker who served with the UN peacekeepers in East Timor. He was issued a .38 S&W Model 10 with 2 speedloaders and assigned a town to patrol in order to prevent Muslim terrorists with AKs from killing Christians. He was lucky because he was near ANZAC forces but others who signed up for the 18-month tour were not so lucky. He would tell you that UN support of its "peacekeepers" leaves MUCH to be desired.

Finally, we address what is the UN's concept of the "Mercenary." "Mercenaries" are individuals who specifically come to fight a war against or for the "host country." The US military personnel who went back to Iraq to fight alongside the Kurds against DASH (ISIS) would be classified as "Mercenaries" under the UN's Convention on Mercenaries.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

No confusion on my part but there is on the part of the Australian government. As far as they are concerned ANY private military organization is too naughty to be acceptable and in the eyes of successive Australian governments PMC = mercenary.
And it should be noted that this attitude existed long before Australia had even heard of Blackwater and even Executive Outcomes - the ex-soldier I mentioned who was helping the Karen people was doing so in the late 1980s-early 1990s.
The distrust the Australian government has towards any non-state owned military groups/personnel has even extended to some Australians who had joined the French Foreign Legion.

This sort of thing was occurring in the 1970s-1980s with the Aussie government implying that anyone joining the FFL was probably some sort of criminal escaping justice. That attitude changed in the late 80s but as a friend of mine who joined the FFL in the late 80s found out when he finished up in the early 90s and returned to Australia, he was considered "unacceptable" for some government jobs even though he was qualified.

Now having said all that, it's your gameworld, do what you want but if you want to follow the retarded (and oft times puritanical) thinking of the Aussie government in real life, this would be the result.

[Legbreaker]

Also worth bearing in mind that the Australian government treats lever action shotguns as "new technology" and therefore should be banned as too scary for anyone to own.

Any task which another country might use mercs or PMCs for, Australia uses the SASR. Not like there's really any better trained operators on the planet anyway...