Most battles eventually come down to boots on the ground and rifles in the field. So when commanders are building their ranks it's often with professional soldiers who know how to fight, and get paid well to do it.
The idea of a mercenary may seem a bit quaint in the 21st century, but those forces make a difference and are often all that stands between a leader and his fate.
By: Brant
Posts
2 comments:
Interestingly, the most successful example, EO, ever distinguished themselves through numbers, but expertise and a handful of assets they brought with them (one or two gunships, a few transports, secure communication equipment etc).
The notion of "powerful"="high numbers" is very American, and when it comes to military contractors, more or less beside the point. Pretty much all the successful examples relied on acting as a significant force multiplier for local troops.
I would counter that "The notion of 'powerful'='high numbers' is {NOT} very American" but instead very Soviet. Look at the "big" armies throughout history and where the US fell on that spectrum compared to the Soviet and Soviet-style armies (USSR, Iraq, Norks, etc)
Now, the American press, that doesn't know any better, might confuse numbers with power, but I'm pretty sure the US military doesn't make that mistake.
Post a Comment