Posted on 10/09/2001 10:26:08 AM PDT by sendtoscott
In the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, a group of American businessmen has decided to enlist the profit motive to bring the perpetrators to justice. Headed by Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, California, the group intends to offer a bounty of $1 billion—that’s billion with a “b”—to any private citizens who will capture Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive.
Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried. Recall Ross Perot’s successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979.
We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bail-jumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide.
Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called “privateers,” played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists’ cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy.
During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wrongedby a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers’ nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers’ bond to the owners of the seized ship
If the seizure was just, the ship and cargo were sold at auction, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the privateer's owners and crew. The crews were volunteers who shared in the profits, and the investors viewed the venture as remunerative—albeit risky.
Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers.
During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689-1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd’s of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, “Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.”
If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative -- private ships of war.
In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and “every terrorist group with a global reach.” The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.
Let’s bring back the spirit of the privateers. By letting profits and justice once more go hand-in-hand, victims and their champions can have an abundance of both, rather than a paucity of either.
Privateering went away because (a) technology changed (ships no longer could use the wind, but instead needed frequent recoaling--this meant that privateers could only operate near friendly ports), (b) several anti-piracy treaties were signed--partly because privateers tended to prey on ALL trade in an area, dragging their sponsoring nations into wars they didn't want--and (c) the rate of return on a privateer went down as ships got more expensive AND successfully capture of cargo became less likely.
IMHO, nothing more than a publicity stunt.
The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.
Say that to any of our men fighting there.
Little historical note: the MAFIA could not kill Castro in the 1960s for pay.
Of course not!
"Hey Vern, whydonchuanme go an git that dadburn bin loden guy and split that re-ward?"
Are you supposing that the active military is the only place to find qualified people with resources to accomplish the mission?
Also, how do any of us know when private sources accomplish military or para-military missions on behalf of the government ot private enterprise? I'm assuming that most of those missions are need-to-know only.
You grossly misunderstand who's out there for hire.
"No previous language ability"? Learn the language, get an interpreter, or hire someone who does know the language.
"who have no intel other than what they can buy"? The USA military gets much material from non-military sources. CNN, FoxNews, etc. run constantly in inteligence gathering centers. High-resolution sattelites are available for hire. Press US$100 bills into the grubby hands of seedy Afghanis who know things for a living.
Of course, one need not do the job alone. Respectable mercenary groups are for hire - many even have websites such as Sandline Inc., MPRI, and Vinnell Corp.. Such groups tend to perform better than most militaries.
The first is getting the word out that the reward is available.
The second is making sure that the money paid for the reward, if the necessary actions to get it take place, doesn't go to further other causes aligned against the U.S. 1 billion dollars is a lot more money than OBL is supposed to have.
Still, when the Mob can't kill Castro (for big moola and political breaks), you have to be realistic about some mercenary going in and not only getting the guy, but PROVING that they got the guy (which is totally different).
I also understand taht there are covert ops using some of these people going on all the time.
Like I said, I'm for it. But I don't put one whit of trust in such people's ability, and as I said, the historical record on this is not good. You can't produce one clear "for-hire" 20th century assassination that was successful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.