Mercenaries

Bill O’Reilly has proposed a mercenary army to root out the radical Islamic threat.  He assumes that a skilled fighting force led by American and European officers will have the staying power and the motivation to dedicate the many years it may take to accomplish the job.

While I respect O’Reilly and admire the courage he has shown in standing up to liberal bullies, this is a dreadful idea.  Although he seems to assume this approach can overcome America’s ambivalence about going to war, it reveals some deep-seated problems.

First, mercenary armies are dangerous.  Their history is a chronicle of treachery and barbarism.  O’Reilly could begin exploring this drawback by reading Barbara Tuchman’s book “A Distant Mirror.”  She explains how after medieval armies for hire fulfilled their contracts they did not disband, but instead went into business for themselves.

The same thing happened when the Romans hired barbarians to defend their borders.  After learning the niceties of Roman military organization, these German ruffians turned their arms around and undermined the Empire.

Centuries earlier, conquerors, such as Caesar and Pompey, had used armies in their pay to cease control of the Republic.  Soldiers, loyal to them and not the central government, were only too happy to set their leaders up as dictators.

 Mercenaries also have a nasty habit of ravaging the lands they occupy.  Because much of their income derives from pillage, they habitually rape, murder and steal.  Sometimes at the behest of their generals, but often as freelancers, they plunder the communities at their mercy.

O’Reilly seems to believe that modern mercenaries can be controlled by a democratic officer corps.  American captains and colonels, because they are presumably subsidiary to civilian leadership, would routinely do the bidding of the politicians who sent them into battle.

This is utopian thinking.  Any band of condotteiri that is strong enough to defeat a worldwide scourge is also strong enough to defy their pusillanimous civilian bosses.  Their officers would have the clout to do what they wanted, irrespective of what their alleged bosses desired.

One of the great accomplishments of the modern era has been the evolution of civilian armies.  During the Middle Ages, most fighting was done by aristocrats.  Nevertheless these professional knights fought primarily for themselves.  They conquered territories so that they could rule over them.

Ordinary peasants might be conscripted at the point of a sword, but they did not fight for the sake of the nation.  Not patriotism, but fear of their leaders kept them in arms.

The modern nation state, led by figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, changed this.  Ordinary people came to believe that the government served their interests and hence if it succeeded, they succeeded.  This is how the nationalism that we take for granted was born.

Because of it, millions of men and women could be mobilized to fight in the two world wars.  They did not relish the idea of combat, yet they put their lives on the line to defend their countries.  As a result, these heroes are still admired.

The fact is that if we hope to defeat Islamic terror, we must resurrect such patriotism.  Civilian solders, even if they are professional volunteers, need to identify with the interests of their nation.  They must be prepared to fight for it, rather than themselves.

We can continue to have some mercenaries—indeed we do.  Today we call them contractors and they have guarded places like the Benghazi CIA Annex.  But they are always small in number and an auxiliary to civilian forces.

The Romans taught us an important lesson.  A people who are not prepared to defend their freedom, lose it.  Those, who, out of a misguided tolerance and/or a desire for absolute peace, refuse to fight, inadvertently throw away their heritage.  Enfeebled by luxuries and arrogant in their power, they smugly squander hard-won liberties.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University