US sponsoring mercenary forces Options

[Dogmeat]

This article doesn't really sit well with me ...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/12/...tors/index.html

The market is there thanks to an unprecedented "outsourcing" of conflict, according to Amy Clark, who led the Baghdad end of a small private security contractor

That really scares me ... If we can't fucking fight our own god damned wars we are REALLY fucked.

"Military doesn't even like to go where we are going and most of the companies that do this don't want to go where we are going ... and that's why we're going," explained one of Clark's men, nicknamed "Mr. GQ."

Great, let's pay mercenaries 5x as much or whatever to do our dirty work for us so we can claim US military casualties are lower than they really are...

I think this is crap ... I think they otta be paying people in the US armed forces this much....

It's also funny...anybody remember Rummy and Bush claiming they had plenty of troops in Iraq?

I like to take everything I read on a major news network with a grain of salt but I guess for some reason this article struck a nerve with me

[Hartmann]

These guys are not paid to go out and engage the enemy, they are not seek and destroy forces. They are there to provide cover for convoys and protect fixed assets. These are areas where the U.S. cannot afford to put troops, mainly because they have their own assets to protect.