Mercenaries for Humanity

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

You have any input on this topic? I'd really love to hear it. I always enjoy debating with you, fifth, mainly because we both agree on things like how logic can be used to determine the relative value of moral philosophies.

My input is don't be a kissass, nobody likes that.

My actual input is I dunno, it does seem pretty silly as any kind of concrete real-world plan. Though it does make for an interesting hypothetical. Most of what I'd say here's already been said one way or the other.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

My input is don't be a kissass, nobody likes that.

Well, then fuck you, buddy! Too much?

Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to be a kissass. For true. Mostly just trying to insert a jab at Darth's whole anti-ideological ideology. Well, that and desperately trying to get someone to post a nice big book of their own for me to pick through in my down-time. But, in general, I do try to avoid kissassery, as well as brownnoserocity.

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

My actual input is I dunno, it does seem pretty silly as any kind of concrete real-world plan. Though it does make for an interesting hypothetical. Most of what I'd say here's already been said one way or the other.

So, what, feasibility, then?

*Sigh* Hardly anyone seems to want to talk about the actual ideology behind it. Well, except Darth. I kind of expected a little more desire to debate the whole premise of the thing, refine it, provide suggestions, etc.

Now, to address any posts I missed yet.

Originally Posted by Loki, The Fallen

Highly trained, western terrorists. As much as I think we need something to fight against the over-PC-ification (or other less nice words. Think 'sounds like') of the world, the lack of people with lofty ideals fighting for whats right, this really doesn't sound like much more then that, and I'm not sure we'd like to take the chance of having another group like that running around.

Refer to: All my posts relating to Darth SS. I think I pretty much covered how the FPA would be tremendously better than a terrorist organization, and considering them on equal moral footing is, ah, absurd.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

But back to the discussion. It sounds all well and good, but I see some problems policing it within, and stopping it from becoming corrupt, as would anyone who works as a merc. If there was a very strict code, with very strict consiquensces, it could happen.

As to strict policing -- agreed. 100% with you. Strict codes of conduct, with strict punishments. You torture someone? Bam. See you fucking later, pal. Same goes for pretty much any other kind of abuse, and unecessary killings. The nice thing about a small force is that everyone should be instilled with the same sense of duty, and it'd be difficult for anyone to hide any wrongdoing.

Originally Posted by Loki

Although you made some pretty good points with it having a strong command structure, but what happens if a part of this group goes rogue? Decides you arn't staying true enough to the code? Or, another possibility, gets more money from the other side to, say, look the other way a bit, say "they got away"?

Well, as to the "more money from the other side" bit -- again, the people who sign up for the FPA are non-profit, not-in-it-for-the-money-types. If they need more money for some reason (like medical bills for family, etc), they would just need to apply.

As to the "going rogue" bit, all I can say is that it seems doubtful. I mean, I personally, as long as I were in charge, I wouldn't let it escalate to that point. I'd make concessions first, and as would anyone who'd have been the kind of person I'd founded the FPA with. Or I'd leave peacefully. But, yeah, that's definitely a bigger risk in such a morally-bound organization. Of course, due to the military-style command/power structure, opposition would come only from other leaders, really, and it would be fairly easy to resolve those issues, considering that the problem'd only be between a few people, so concessions would be easy to make, or it would alternatively be easy to remove a troublemaker. Also, since it's all volunteer, and generally the cause would be well-known before hand, it seems that ideological unity would be highly probably.

If worst came to worst, probably the group would just splinter into two groups with slightly different missions. Well, no, that's not really the worst-case scenario. Worst would be the two sides end up in conflict, because one views the other as a threat to peace and stability. But, hey, if some part of the FPA went rogue in a destructive manner (for isntance, tried to take power somewhere) the rest of the FPA would have to try to stop them, because it's their fault (and would be mine). Still, I guess my best answer is that it seems very unlikely, and seems an acceptable risk.

Originally Posted by Loki

Ah, I'm throwin a bunch of what ifs out there, but the moderately evil idealistic vigilantie-justice side of me is rooting for you, and hopes you can stop that genocide! But the side of me who overthinks this stuff, who tends to be a bit cautious, hopes the group disbands after acomplishing that mission.

Well, there'd be plenty of other atrocities to keep the FPA busy for centuries to come, most likely. The nice thing is that the FPA could easily and quickly prove itself to the world -- it's an organization that produces tangible results than most people can really easily wrap their brains around. So, if it went well the first time, I'd see no reason to stop.

[Demetrius]

The people that the 'FPA' would attract are exactly the people you don't want to have in the fight you are describing. These people would be attracted by a cause and the chance to create peace, etc. They would have no reason to stick with you other than their belief in their cause. The first time they are forced to shoot a child with explosives strapped to them or deal with killing people who are the apparent victims in the wars they are wandering into your forces will fall apart.

The people you would be fighting against are motivated by fear, fear for themselves fear, for their loved ones, fear of the force they know is going to be coming for them. But they will fight because of their fear, their fear of you and their fear of the tyrants who force them into fighting will turn into anger against the FPA, the ones who are making their leaders force them into fighting and killing and fearing.

Most of these genocides are a result of localized conflict/civil wars, basic clashes where neither side is without innocent people dragged into it, in fact most of the people doing the dying are people who feel they have no choice, the try evil lies in the leaders and the cicumstances that set the conflict up.

Take for instance a normal college student who will go to Canada or Mexico to avoid a draft, but will sign up for your FPA; how will they do in sticking to a greater good when they have to kill other people who are fighting for a cause they believe in and will lay their lives down for?

The whole point of the mercenary part that would make this part work is that mercenaries have no loyalties other than the contract they hold. They are cold blooded and will do a job for their pay, that is the kind of impartiality needed for this to have any chance of working. The morality of the choices would have to lie with the leadership, the ones weilding the weapon they have created.

On a side note the US and the UN would take steps to eliminate you as domestic terrorists especially if your interests conflicted with the US's or if you became involved in civil wars.

(EDIT) Keep it goin' Tydeus, I work all night long without too much to do, so we can go at this all night, unless you wanna start a new thread to argue on :P

Also I think the best way to accomplish this is a Tom Clancy-esque Rainbow Six kind of organization. I just can't trust groups of individuals acting on ideals, it gets my 'mob sense' going and makes me nervous.

[Krylo]

Well if you want to discuss ideology, I'm actually more or less behind it. I mean, there's a lot of slippery slope stuff involved with giving people guns and free reign, and I honestly don't know if I trust anyone that much. However, from the purely hypothetical event that they do what you're saying they will, I have only one point of contention, and its a minor one at that.

When you say you'll not overthrow despots, might I point out that without overthrowing any despot any intervention will fail to actually accomplish anything. I mean if you go in and stop one village from being genocidized, or two, or three, or whatever, but you leave the same people who enforced the genocide in the first place in control, well what do you think will happen? More than likely they're going to send a larger force to attempt to kill the mercenaries or rebels (what they think depends upon how vocal you are and how famous), as well as continue with the genocide. If you stick around you'll face escalating forces until you're either taking down the despot, retreating, or dying. If you leave the village, well then anyone who didn't leave with you WOULD be killed. And no, people aren't always willing to leave, even when they know they'll be killed if they don't. People are stupid like that.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

The people that the 'FPA' would attract are xactly the people you don't want to have in the fight you are describing. These people would be attracted by a cause and the chance to create peace, etc. They would have no reason to stick with you other than their belief in their cause. The first time they are forced to shoot a child with explosives strapped to them or deal with killing people who are the apparent victims in the wars they are wandering into your forces will fall apart.

Hmmm...Yes, I've wondered about this myself. I suppose that's what psychological profiling is for? Making sure that the people involved are willing to kill? I think primarily the FPA would try to draw recruits from vets. Especially Special Ops types, who generally tend to be (a) very well trained (b) motivated to advance certain moral causes, even at high costs (c) willing to forgo normal life, and (d) very much willing to kill. Generally, it's these same kind of guys who end up doing merc work, but I think this would appeal to their moral sensibilities, and their military sensibilities in a way that basically no other organization does.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

The people you would be fighting against are motivated by fear, fear for themselves fear, for their loved ones, fear of the force they know is going to be coming for them. But they will fight because of their fear, their fear of you and their fear of the tyrants who force them into fighting will turn into anger against the FPA, the ones who are making their leaders force them into fighting and killing and fearing.

I'm a little confused as to this part. Did you contstrue the FPA as an offensive organization? I mean, the FPA would go on offensive missions, at times, but generally just against military targest, e.g. air-force bases, groups of militiamen, etc. The FPA would try its best to be primarily defensive.

As to innocents? Sorry, no. If you join up with people who commit genocide and other inhuman atrocities, then you are no innocent. I mean, really, that's some haineous shit to even let happen in your country, but to actually join up? That right there is a forfeiture of innocence.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Most of these genocides are a result of localized conflict/civil wars, basic clashes where neither side is without innocent people dragged into it, in fact most of the people doing the dying are people who feel they have no choice, the try evil lies in the leaders and the cicumstances that set the conflict up.

Again, same response as above. Not that the FPA wouldn't do their best to end those circumstances, and compel leaders to change their course of action.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Take for instance a normal college student who will go to Canada or Mexico to avoid a draft, but will sign up for your FPA; how will they do in sticking to a greater good when they have to kill other people who are fighting for a cause they believe in and will lay their lives down for?

Like I said -- we'd try to draw from a more professional pool of applicants, or at least perform psych evaluations on possible applicants. Of course, we'd need medics and bureaucrats and engineers anyway, so, you know, they could do that. Or fundraise, advertise, etc. Plenty of things they could do for the group other than fight on the frontlines, if they're really that dedicated.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

The whole point of the mercenary part that would make this part work is that mercenaries have no loyalties other than the contract they hold. They are cold blooded and will do a job for their pay, that is the kind of impartiality needed for this to have any chance of working. The morality of the choices would have to lie with the leadership, the ones weilding the weapon they have created.

Yeah, basically that's the idea. Like any military -- a leadership that makes the decisions, and a grunt force that obeys those decisions. However, in this case, the grunts would also have that same moral motivation, making them more effective, obediant, dedicated soldiers. Additionally, the leadership would be fighting on the frontlines, but the traditional leadership structure is definitely something to keep around.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

On a side note the US and the UN would take steps to eliminate you as domestic terrorists especially if your interests conflicted with the US's or if you became involved in civil wars.

Well, we'd probably be based overseas, but I think technically the FPA could work within the law. I mean, security companies are hired in Iraq that are really just mercenary. I mean, yeah, they're "security" men, but they carry body armor, grenades, and .50 cal machine guns, and they kill a lot of people. Just have some representative of an opressed/threatened group, or the group together contract the FPA as a security force, and the FPA just wouldn't charge anything. The FPA could then make some offensive excursions, and quite easily justify them as necessary to maintain the safety of an entire group -- hell, the FPA could justify brokering of peace between two sides as a necessary step to cement the security of its clients. Since these "security corporations" are legal, the FPA would similarly be legal.

Besides, once the FPA proved itself, it seems likely that people would be reluctant to disband a group that's going about doing the dirty work that is involved in putting some force behind the statement "Never Again."

Originally Posted by Demetrius

(EDIT) Keep it goin' Tydeus, I work all night long without too much to do, so we can go at this all night, unless you wanna start a new thread to argue on :P

sure thing, man.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Also I think the best way to accomplish this is a Tom Clancy-esque Rainbow Six kind of organization. I just can't trust groups of individuals acting on ideals, it gets my 'mob sense' going and makes me nervous.

Yeah, I understand the nervousness, but, again, the FPA would have a lot of regulation imposed on it by its structure as well as its own internal laws.

Originally Posted by krylo

When you say you'll not overthrow despots, might I point out that without overthrowing any despot any intervention will fail to actually accomplish anything. I mean if you go in and stop one village from being genocidized, or two, or three, or whatever, but you leave the same people who enforced the genocide in the first place in control, well what do you think will happen? More than likely they're going to send a larger force to attempt to kill the mercenaries or rebels (what they think depends upon how vocal you are and how famous), as well as continue with the genocide. If you stick around you'll face escalating forces until you're either taking down the despot, retreating, or dying. If you leave the village, well then anyone who didn't leave with you WOULD be killed. And no, people aren't always willing to leave, even when they know they'll be killed if they don't. People are stupid like that.

True (the last bit about people being stupid.) Unfortunately, they'd probably have to be left behind. But, yeah, evacuation would actually be the main goal in most of these village-based missions. And, thankfully, the janjaweed don't have the kind of infrastructure to go radio in reinforcements and the like, so any support would be slow to arrive. Ideally, any civvies would be evacuated prior to the arrival of the militias.

The problem with regime change is that there has to be someone better waiting to take the despots' place, which is rarely the case, and often times the "better" person can turn out to be quite the opposite, and that kind of future-prediction relaly is very difficult to do. Otherwise, the FPA would have to occupy, and that would require an enormous force.

The best solution, to my mind, is always be attempting to broker a peace, with the threat of a total crackdown by the FPA on any military activity. Eventually, the despots will realize that every time they send soldiers out, they just get slaughtered (remember Somalia? 19 Americans dead, and 3,000 Somalis. And the Americans were (a) caught off guard, and (b) not sporting $50,000 worth of body-armor), and so they'll be forced to abandon military solutions. The FPA would force the signing of a treaty, but with the threat of FPA enforcement actually behind that treaty. Maybe both sides would prefer a fractioning of both nations, maybe they'd want a free election -- that's up to them. The FPA would just provide the peace and stability to let a more organic and permanent peace process occur.

Generally, regime-change is so difficult and can have so many unpredictable consequences it'd be best to avoid. Of course, it really depends on the situation. If the FPA saw a situation in which regime change could really happen, and there was a clearly decent group ready to step into the power vacuum, the FPA might help them achieve power. Still, it'd be avoided at all costs, and not even attempted 'til the FPA grew substantially and proven itself for some years prior.

[Dragonsbane]

Tydeus, you're consistently ignoring and dismissing a pervasive argument that has sprung up repeatedly now. Cause-motivated soldiers. Low pay. The inherent dangers of becoming essentially a Western terrorist group. Thus far, you have repeatedly misconstrued it as an assault on all subjective ideological causes when it is, in fact, a warning of the "slippery slope" you've embarked on. How many well-intentioned militia groups started out trying to fight injustice, and now merely growl about the overthrow of the government? How many idealistic young boys joined a holy corps of Muslim warriors in defense of their homeland from the Soviet invaders, and ended up the enforcers of a dictatorial theocratic regime?

Furthermore, the tone in which you put it is off. It would have been perfectly fine if, say, you had put it towards enforcing the laws set forth by the whole world based on a common consensus (ideally) of what constitutes a violation of human rights. Instead, you put this group forth to enforce your own personal philosophies and, frankly, that is too dangerous to trust.

Your idea would make a nice story, but it contains too many flaws in both idea and feasability of operation, especially since every time you talk about how you intend to accomplish the difficult bits (regime change, for instance) you assume a massive amount of money and firepower that would be simply impossible for an ideological force to obtain without government backing, especially the way you laid it out, to actually work.

[Fifthfiend]

Incidentally, on the Iraq contractors thing mentioned earlier:

U.S. contractors in Iraq allege abuses
Four men say they witnessed brutality
By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET Feb 17, 2005

There are new allegations that heavily armed private security contractors in Iraq are brutalizing Iraqi civilians. In an exclusive interview, four former security contractors told NBC News that they watched as innocent Iraqi civilians were fired upon, and one crushed by a truck. The contractors worked for an American company paid by U.S. taxpayers. The Army is looking into the allegations.

The four men are all retired military veterans: Capt. Bill Craun, Army Rangers; Sgt. Jim Errante, military police; Cpl. Ernest Colling, U.S. Army; and Will Hough, U.S. Marines. All went to Iraq months ago as private security contractors.

"I went there for the money," says Hough.

"I'm a patriot," says Craun.

"You can't turn off being a soldier," says Colling.

They worked for an American company named Custer Battles, hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. They were so upset by what they saw, three quit after only one or two missions.

"What we saw, I know the American population wouldn't stand for," says Craun.

They claim heavily armed security operators on Custer Battles' missions — among them poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqis — terrorized civilians, shooting indiscriminately as they ran for cover, smashing into and shooting up cars.

On a mission on Nov. 8, escorting ammunition and equipment for the Iraqi army, they claim a Kurd guarding the convoy allegedly shot into a passenger car to clear a traffic jam.

"[He] sighted down his AK-47 and started firing," says Colling. "It went through the window. As far as I could see, it hit a passenger. And they didn't even know we were there."

Later, the convoy came upon two teenagers by the road. One allegedly was gunned down.

"The rear gunner in my vehicle shot him," says Colling. "Unarmed, walking kids."

In another traffic jam, they claim a Ford 350 pickup truck smashed into, then rolled up and over the back of a small sedan full of Iraqis.

"The front of the truck came down," says Craun. "I could see two children sitting in the back seat of that car with their eyes looking up at the axle as it came down and pulverized the back."

"I said, 'Wow, what hit this car?'" remembers Hough.

Could anyone have survived?

"Probably not. Not from what I saw," says Hough.

The men assume that in all three incidents the Iraqis were seriously hurt or killed. But they can't be sure.

"It was chaos and carnage and destruction the whole day," says Craun.

Two of the men — Craun and Colling — say they quit immediately.

Craun, in an e-mail two days later to a friend at the Pentagon, wrote: "I didn't want any part of an organization that deliberately murders children and innocent civilians."

Errante says he also quit after witnessing wild, indiscriminate shootings on two other missions.

"I said I didn't want to be a witness to any of these, what could be classified as a war crime," says Errante.

Once back in the U.S., Craun — recipient of the Bronze Star — took the allegations to Army criminal investigators. The Army tells NBC News it's looking into the matter.

This is not the firm’s first brush with controversy. Custer Battles is a relatively new company in the booming field of so-called "private military companies" in Iraq providing veteran soldiers from around the world for various security jobs. Named for founders Michael Battles and Scott Custer, who are military veterans, the company quickly nabbed lucrative contracts in Iraq, where U.S. authorities needed firms who were willing to accept high-risk assignments.


The company is already under criminal investigation for allegations of fraud centering on the way it billed the government. Those allegations are also at the heart of a lawsuit by former associates. In September, the military banned the firm and its associates from obtaining new federal contracts or subcontracts.

Custer Battles denies it committed any fraud, and says the company has been the target of "baseless allegations" made by "disgruntled former employees" and competitors. It has said it hopes that the government will overturn the suspension on new contracts.

In any case, the ban didn’t stop the company from fulfilling its old contracts, such as the missions performed by Craun, Hough, Colling and Errante.

"These aren't insurgents that we're brutalizing," says Craun. "It was local civilians on their way to work. It's wrong."


Anyone who's been there says Iraq is a brutal, deadly place. So why do the men blame Custer Battles?

"Simply, they're negligent," says Colling. "[Just] throwing people out there and then forcing us to use these brutal tactics. They're responsible, absolutely."

Custer Battles declined to be interviewed on camera. The CEO calls the allegations "completely baseless and without merit" and says there's "no evidence" to support them. He adds that the Kurds worked for a subcontractor, not Custer Battles.


The company provided conflicting information about the crushed car but arranged for NBC News to talk to the man who who oversaw the mission on Nov. 8, 2004. Shawn Greene, who still works for Custer Battles in Iraq, spoke by phone with NBC News. He acknowledges that during the mission a pickup truck did roll over the bumper and taillight area of a sedan, which he says refused to move out of the way. Greene denies anyone was injured in the incident.

"There were no children in that vehicle," he insists.

As the leader of the mission, Greene ordered the lead driver to push the vehicle since there had been attacks against convoys in that area in the past.

"He came directly in front of my lead vehicle," says Greene. "That is how that car got in our path. And why he had to be pushed out the way when he refused to move. It wasn't that we went out of our way in any way looking for a car to hit. We don't do that."

But because of the dangers on Iraqi roads, Greene says employees of Custer Battles do sometimes push Iraqi civilian vehicles out of their way if they refuse to move.

"Usually, you know, we give them a tap at about 20 miles an hour or so," he says.

The company also arranged for a phone conversation with its country manager in Iraq, Paul Christopher. The company points out that Christopher is a retired lieutenant colonel who authored a book on the ethics of war and ran the philosophy program at West Point. Christopher maintains the Nov. 8 mission was the only case where a civilian car was damaged by the company in Iraq.

The company provided a photo to NBC News, which it says is the car in question, to prove that the damage was not that severe. In the photo, the passenger compartment of the car seems to be intact.

Craun, Colling and Hough say it's not the same car.

As for the incidents of allegedly wild shooting, Greene also disputes that any innocent Iraqis were killed by gunfire during the mission, although he agrees there were warning shots fired on several legs of the mission.

Likewise, Christopher insists "there has absolutely never been a case of anyone being hurt or killed to my knowledge, except for people who were actively engaged in shooting at us first."

Certainly the company does experience genuine combat conditions. In fact, on one leg of the November mission, the convoy came under a serious attack by Iraqi insurgents. First, the pickup truck driven by Hough was struck by an improvised explosive device, or IED, which killed one of the Iraqi Kurd guards. Then the men fought a pitched firefight against insurgents until the U.S. military arrived.

However, Custer Battles claims all these men are "disgruntled" former employees, who believe the company still owes them money. It says Hough was fired and that Craun once confided to a colleague that he knew the company didn't really kill any children.

So why are these men going public with these allegations now? They say because they care about American soldiers and about winning the war.

"If we continue to let this happen, those people will hate us even more than they already do," says Craun.

And they say that only makes Iraq more dangerous for American soldiers.

[Darth SS]

Darth SS, you are making a very unrealistic and dare I say a bigotted comparison between Rwandans and evil, orc zombies. As if they acted like hordes of creatures. No. They are men, afraid of death like any man is. Also, the genocide didn't occur by hordes of thousands like a feeding frenzy. It was committed man by man, village by village. A group of 10 mercenaries with guns would be the PERFECT rescue operation. They couldn't stop the whole genocide, but they could save perhaps one village at a time. Your belief that the only way to deal with it is "massive armed invasion" is... dead wrong. Re-evaluate your stance.

Cite your source and justify your stance.

My sources? "The Lion, The Fox, and the Eagle" (a book) and "Shake Hands with the Devil" (Romeo Dallaire's memoires of the operation.)

It was a massive movement, and they weren't afraid of death. They had safety in numbers. Plus, I fear you severely underestimate the depths of human hatred. There's many examples of when a poorly armed force didn't run away from a better armed force.

Best examples?

Operation Gothic Serpent in Mogadishu, Somalia.

When the Belgian peacekeepers were killed in Rwanda.

Almost the entire Bosnia conflict.


You also forget that just because you kill some Genocidaires in a village, there's no reason they can't come back when you've left.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Dragonsbane

Tydeus, you're consistently ignoring and dismissing a pervasive argument that has sprung up repeatedly now. Cause-motivated soldiers. Low pay. The inherent dangers of becoming essentially a Western terrorist group. Thus far, you have repeatedly misconstrued it as an assault on all subjective ideological causes when it is, in fact, a warning of the "slippery slope" you've embarked on. How many well-intentioned militia groups started out trying to fight injustice, and now merely growl about the overthrow of the government?

Ah. See, this here is the reason why I write such long posts -- generally an attempt to avoid someone miscontstruing the point I'm trying to make. Specificity would have saved us all a lot of time, along with having to read my enormous, dull posts.

Originally Posted by DB

How many idealistic young boys joined a holy corps of Muslim warriors in defense of their homeland from the Soviet invaders, and ended up the enforcers of a dictatorial theocratic regime?

I understand the concern, but perhaps this is not the best example? The analogy is somewhat lacking in the motives for joining Mujhadeen (sp?) corps of soldiers vs the motives for joining the FPA. See, when someone is on the defensive, attempting to combat hostile invaders, those at ideological odds may join together against the greater foe. So, we see a break between leaders of the Mujhadeen and the people actually joining up to fight. The former wished to establish theocracies, enforce hyper-conservative Islamic law, etc. The latter simply wished to defend their homes. However, when leaders give soldiers the chance to achieve their goal, they are presented with a beautiful opportunity to brainwash possible recruits, and transfer the loyalty of their soldiers from one cause to the next.

The nice thing about the FPA is unity of ideology, or what approaches unity as much as can possibly be hoped for by a corporation of human beings. No one is being manipulated, brainwashed, etc. Again, the structure of the leaders fighting alongside the soldiers on the front lines reinforces the unity of ideology, and the comittment of the leaders to ethically defensible goals.

FPA soldiers inherently have some distance from the conflict, as outsiders. The urgency for them is not the same as for those directly involved. The result is a generally less impulsive organization, one which has time to make decisions.

Furthermore, since the FPA is an organization that is based on broader moral imperatives, it would not necessarily become intangled in the local politics the same way that other militias/military organizations do. Indeed, to me, the international character of the FPA is one of its most appealing traits. It leads to a way of thinking that is broader than one conflict. Unlike the young patriots who joined with the Mujhadeen, who had a specific political goal of defending their homes, a goal which had a result that could be actually brought about, the FPA's goals would be so broad and anational, and apolitical that really, the FPA would never truly achieve its goals (one guesses). I mean, it's hard to believe that humans will ever stop comitting atrocities of hate and bigotry against one another. The FPA's mission is, unlike that of basically all other organizations, an all-consuming, never ending one. There is no time to descend down the slippery slope -- the FPA would be forever detained at its peak, dealing perennially with the same damn issue.

But, that is not to call the FPA's cause hopeless or bleak -- the point of the FPA, like any humanitarian organization, is to diminish suffering, resolve conflicts. People will always be trying to start wars of bigotry, tribalism, nationalism, greed, and other less-than-admirable motives, but the FPA would ideally bring them to a close much more quickly, with less overall bloodshed and much less civilian suffering in particular.

So, whereas other forces have transitions -- which are tremendously difficult for individuals and groups to make, no matter when, where or what the transition may be -- to make (say, from rebels fighting an unjust tyranny to governmental security force ensuring the safety and power of the central government), the FPA would remain largely the same, basically for its entire existence. Should such conflicts that the FPA would be involved in ever come to an end -- well, in that enlightened of a world, one doubts that the FPA would alone be given to tyranny in a world of peace and prosperity.

This is what makes the FPA so appealing, to me, at least. The constancy, the stability, the purity of the goals. No muddling through the ever-changing currents of local politics; the FPA's goals, ethical imperatives, and purpose remain seperate always from the specific conflict. Such is the nature of an international and broadly-motivated organization. The UN has similarly remained much the same since its inception, as its goals have never been (and probably never can be) achieved. To me, the FPA is really more like the UN than any terrorist organization. To me, that is the proper analogy.

Is that a better response? I'm trying to address your claim -- I'm not positive I did, but I think I got it. Really, though, I just want to make sure you know I really am trying to take what you're saying into account and respond thoughtfully and not ignore your position. I can't stand it when people do that, so I sympathize.

Originally Posted by DB

Furthermore, the tone in which you put it is off. It would have been perfectly fine if, say, you had put it towards enforcing the laws set forth by the whole world based on a common consensus (ideally) of what constitutes a violation of human rights. Instead, you put this group forth to enforce your own personal philosophies and, frankly, that is too dangerous to trust.

Hmmm...I do see what you're getting at here. But, really, I mean, my personal philosophies set down to guide the FPA are in fact very similar to international human-rights laws. That really is the basic structure. I just resist the official endorsement of international law, mainly because the whole point of the FPA is to resist international oversight, in general. In some cases, the FPA would explicitly endorse international law, like regarding prisoners-of-war, in which case the Geneva conventions would be adhered to. In fact, the FPA would do its very best to stay within international law -- I'm merely not informed enough at the moment to know exactly which laws would be officially codified into the internal FPA regulations/doctrines.

But, as I've mentioned several times, I believe, the FPA is essentially a conduit of international will. That's one of my biggest reasons for using Darfur as the archetype for FPA missions -- because there is international consensus, but not an international willingness to make sacrifices to actually stop what's happening. Hardly anyone (and certainly no nation I've heard of) opposes an attempt to stop the genocide, but no one is willing to put their own troops to use to stop it.

I think I mentioned towards the beginning of this thread that the FPA would seek official UN endorsement of its actions whenever possible. If, of course, the naturally slow-moving bureaucratic machinery of the UN sputters and stalls, or is jammed by a single (or very few) nation, despite obvious ethical grounds for action, then the FPA might have to act with only informal approval. But, before I got all off-track with Darth SS and defending the idea that we are capable of determining when some ideologies are worthy of enforcement over others, I think I mentioned this several times.

I believe I also mentioned many times that the FPA would avoid controversial situations generally, such as in Israel/Palestine. There's simply too much contention for the FPA to ever possibly make any progress there, and even if the FPA somehow managed to achieve a more stable peace, most of the world would end up hating the FPA. It wouldn't be in the interests of the FPA to take on regime change or controversial conflicts, simply because it would too likely jeopardize the cetnral, unchanging goal of the FPA. The FPA's motto could probably be considered "Never Again." But with the comittment and firepower and international support to actually do something about it when "again" happens.

Originally Posted by DB

Your idea would make a nice story, but it contains too many flaws in both idea and feasability of operation, especially since every time you talk about how you intend to accomplish the difficult bits (regime change, for instance) you assume a massive amount of money and firepower that would be simply impossible for an ideological force to obtain without government backing, especially the way you laid it out, to actually work.

Why not? Like I said -- the Red Cross takes in over $800 million a year. At least at the beginning, the FPA would require nowhere near that amount of funding. A few million would probably be adequate start-up funding (from 5-10 million, probably). The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation dishes out that kind of funding to individual school districts.

My point is, the money is out there, and what's nice about the FPA is that it produces results that can't be undone (well, in the sense that it kills people), which appeals to many people. The kind of take-charge, gung-ho, all-out, full-throttle, hyphenated-cliché nature of the FPA I think appeals to segements of the population that remain largely untapped by secular humanitarian organizations, or (in the case of some of those segments) entirely untapped by any humantarian organizations.

Yes, getting started would be hard. And, yes, I don't know exactly how to go about it. But, it's been done, many times, with great success. And once you get a good 15-30 people over in Africa, saving civilians, you can really turn that into good publicity.

Oh, that reminds me -- another way to enforce proper behavior of soldiers would be the construction of their armor; given that cameras would be employed rather than expose any of the soldiers' face (again, with a visor that could be pulled up if the cameras failed), the feed that the soldiers' theemselves see while out on a mission could be saved and uploaded to the internet, news organizations, or for review by higher-ups within the FPA. Really, it'd be a whole new level of accountability and transparency that I think would in turn foster a lot of confidence in the FPA.

[Dragonsbane]

High tech gear, AGAIN without adressing the cost.
The Red Cross gets support because it is a massive, almost universally recognized organization of healing, whereas your FPA is a tiny mercenary unit. The kinds of organizations that get funding generally are NOT those who carry guns instead of providing education of medical care.

The kind of people you are trying to bring in are kids who watch too much Rambo, people who aren't tapped by humanitarian organizations because those organizations know better.

As for unified ideology, nothing can be more dangerous than an utter unity of opinion. Purity is a filthy, filthy thing...especially when you consider who wanted it in the past. Purity of thought...the Inquisition. Purity of political opinion...Josef Stalin. Purity of race...Adolf Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan. Fortunately, such an utter unity is nearly impossible, especially if the FPA, against all the insurmountable odds succeeded. Again, nice story, but it won't work. Ever.