You still haven't explained why you think a private military would somehow magically avoid profitable endeavours. They are Capitalists. I thought you loved Capitalism and all that it entails. If turning their back on their 'customers' and looting some foreign land is more profitable than keeping their corporate logo squeaky clean, then they will do it.
I've explained to you that it would
not be more profitable.
Now it's my turn to sarcastically call you 'genius' -- how the hell would
you know this for a fact? You think market forces somehow didn't apply when e.g.: the US military decided to attack Iraq or Afghanistan? You think the US government was somehow pointing a gun at the military head and saying "attack them or we will taser you!" ?
The US military is funded by taxation, and therefore not affected by the market forces that would affect a private military force. And yes, the government essentially does have a gun to the head of the military's leadership. Remember that the President is the Commander in Chief.
They would expend materiel [WTF??]...
If you're going to cut and paste the same old crap without revising your opinion, at least do a spell-check! Says Myrkul: "I have been programmed to like the An-Cap ideology. All other ideologies are inferior. I have not been programmed to 'think'."
There's a reason I used that word....
ma·te·ri·el
/məˌti(ə)rēˈel/
Noun
Military materials and equipment.