When soldiers act in the interest of the military, there's a chain of command, a tradition of honor and the idea that what they're fighting for is greater than themselves. I don't see how that can exist when a soldier is hired to provide potentially deadly force to protect the interests of a paying client. They are taking orders from an entity that might have no real values at all.Good to see you dropped the "cannot operate with honor, restraint, or discipline" argument.Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?What happened in the case of Blackwater then?Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?
There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?
If mercenaries operate with honor, restraint, or discipline, what's wrong with them?
Remember that you're arguing against "the whole concept" here - that the concept itself is inherently flawed.