DeletedUser
If you don't want to read the following long intro skip to the bottom
I've been reading the book MERCENARIES by Michael Lee Lanning, and watching the military channels program on mercenary forces through out history. Now both sources say the same thing, Mercenaries know how to get stuff done. The aforementioned book states about the mercenary company Executive Outcomes on the subject of the Angolan civil war "..The Angolan government paid EO $30 million (dollars US) for two months work. Whatever the costs, Angola got it's moneys worth. Within days after signing the contract, fifty to eighty EO soldiers accompanied by regular Angolan army forces conducted a surprise attack and freed the oil fields from the rebels." a feat which was nearly impossible. Also from the same book on the topic of the Sierra Leone civil war " Using only 170 soldiers and six aircraft, EO quieted the rebellion and in just nine days and pushed the rebels 80 miles back into the jungle..." now the numbers for that particular contract were quite impressive for EO, 170 merc's against rebels in the thousands. On the Military channel show ( I wish I could remember the name) an executive of the former Executive Outcomes made a bold statement concerning th Rwandan civil war, "instead of th UN spending billions of dollars ,a couple hundred peacekeeper lives and the lives of thousands of civilians, we could have done it for a few million, less death, and resolved it quicker.
Now my question is this, should the UN use mercenaries to resolve conflicts?
I've been reading the book MERCENARIES by Michael Lee Lanning, and watching the military channels program on mercenary forces through out history. Now both sources say the same thing, Mercenaries know how to get stuff done. The aforementioned book states about the mercenary company Executive Outcomes on the subject of the Angolan civil war "..The Angolan government paid EO $30 million (dollars US) for two months work. Whatever the costs, Angola got it's moneys worth. Within days after signing the contract, fifty to eighty EO soldiers accompanied by regular Angolan army forces conducted a surprise attack and freed the oil fields from the rebels." a feat which was nearly impossible. Also from the same book on the topic of the Sierra Leone civil war " Using only 170 soldiers and six aircraft, EO quieted the rebellion and in just nine days and pushed the rebels 80 miles back into the jungle..." now the numbers for that particular contract were quite impressive for EO, 170 merc's against rebels in the thousands. On the Military channel show ( I wish I could remember the name) an executive of the former Executive Outcomes made a bold statement concerning th Rwandan civil war, "instead of th UN spending billions of dollars ,a couple hundred peacekeeper lives and the lives of thousands of civilians, we could have done it for a few million, less death, and resolved it quicker.
Now my question is this, should the UN use mercenaries to resolve conflicts?
