He was against the privatization of certain US military and intelligence functions, but I'm not aware of him being against foreign states hiring US military or intelligence contractors for similar functions.

Privatization of military functions was a key reason for the downfall of the Roman Republic. Troops became loyal to generals, not to the Republic herself, as the general became the paymaster/generator of funds. The echos are getting louder.

> The echos are getting louder

These mercenaries are closer to Crassus hiring legions to fight a foreign war moreso than Caesar or Sulla marching on Rome. American firepower is predominantly state owned and loyal to its civilian leadership. These mercenaries are a liability because they make America look bad, not because they pose even an intermediate threat to American military power.

True!

A good look into this further is Mike Duncan's The Storm before the Storm that leads into the Sulla era: https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic...

Duncan's The History of Rome podcast is very good overall and very much worth a listen.

Thank you! I have always had a strange fascination with Sulla–as a man, a politician and a general. Appreciate the book and podcast references.

It's not clear to me why Roman Empire would be relevant in this case. Society, economy, politics, military, culture, technology, wars, the life of soldiers... a lot of things were different back then.

Roman Republic, not the Empire.

There are always lessons in history, even accounting for the differences between an agrarian and digital society. Private militaries have proven to be rather fickle when it comes to rights v. might.

> Roman Republic, not the Empire.

The fall of the former and rise of the latter seems to be the issue being raised, so either equally applies.

Privatization of US military function isn't what this article is about. (it's mentioned, but it's not the main narrative)