Fox News' Bill O'Reilly recommended in recent weeks that President Obama raise 25,000 mercenaries to battle the Islamic State. The use of such forces has been banned by the United Nations General Assembly. [emphasis added]
I commented on the O'Reilly position. I disagree but it doesn't deserve the scorn it has received from the left.
But what's that latter statement about?
Mercenaries are a pretty routine factor in global warfare and have been for a long time.
My so far one and only (I keep meaning to do more) e-book collects posts from here to discuss the theme of private warfare.
So I have no idea what the UN banning mercenaries even means.
There have been thoughts that the UN should regulate the use of mercenaries, but even aside from the question of whether the UN should have the authority to regulate the practice, the notion that lack of regulation is the same as a ban is not true.
Just where did the idea that there is a ban come from?
