Posted by: Randy Allgaier | October 6, 2007

Private Security Contractors: Mercenaries Pure and Simple! The Danger in Outsourcing the Military


The stories about the out of control behavior of some employees of Blackwater USA in their “security” role in Iraq have highlighted a problem that has been a quiet truth in Iraq: the use of mercenaries by the United States government.

The definition of “mercenary” in Merriam Wesbter is simple: “One that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service”. What does Blackwater call theses “soldiers for hire”? “Global stabilization professionals” is how they describe them on their website. That makes it sound so “Ivy League” moving the mercenary trade away from images evoked by “Soldier of Fortune” magazine. This sounds eerily to me like companies redefining their customer service reps as “customer care professionals” or airlines that call their reservation clerks – “travel planning specialists”. OH PLEASE!

Not a real surprise that this has been an open secret. Everyone knows we have been using private security companies- but not until the most recent revelations about the behavior of Blackwater have most Americans equated that to mercenaries. I don’t know why most of my fellow citizens have been unable to see Blackwater as a 21st century mercenary army until the company got completely out of control- but I guess these are the same people that swallowed the Bush administration’s bilge water about Iraq’s ties to 9/11 and its imminent threat to our security.

Mercenaries have had a negative connotation since time immemorial, but American have an historic revulsion of mercenaries that is tied to our very founding. Thousands of German mercenaries- the Hessians- fought on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War.

Blackwater’s website reads like a website of some high-tech, humanitarian, non-governmental organization. One might think that they are on par with “Doctors Without Boarders”. Their slogan sounds tame enough- “When failure is not an option and hope is not enough”.

My mouth was agape as I read their home page:

Blackwater Worldwide efficiently and effectively integrates a wide range of resources and core competencies to provide unique and timely solutions that exceed our customers’ stated needs and expectations.

We are guided by integrity, innovation, and a desire for a safer world. Blackwater Worldwide professionals leverage state-of-the-art training facilities, professional program management teams, and innovative manufacturing and production capabilities to deliver world-class, customer-driven solutions.”

I didn’t know that mercenaries had mission statements!

Blackwater has rightfully been racked through the coals. Erik D. Prince – the founder of the company has such strong ties with the administration, it rivals Haliburton in it’s access to “no-bid” contracts. Prince’s family has been Republican and Bush supporters and fundraisers. His father was one of the founders of über radical right wing- Family Research Council. This sort of rewarding supporters makes a night in the Lincoln bedroom seem like nothing. Of course the Republicans were all over President Clinton for “selling the Lincoln bedroom” but they say nothing about “selling a war”.

The House of Representatives took the correct step on Thursday when it voted 389 to 30 to pass legislation that would bring all United States government contractors under the jurisdiction of American criminal law. Mercenaries have been acting without any particular legal consequence – either Iraqi or American. Well- Blackwater did fire an employee and sent him back to the United States when he was drunk and killed an un-armed Iraqi. That was a tough sentence! Of course that justice was rivaled by the compassion displayed by Blackwater and the US State Department agreed to pay a whopping $15,000 to the family of the killed Iraqi. No doubt that the Bush administration will try and veto this legislation if it ever gets to his desk.

As heinous are all of the particulars in the Blackwater case, the use of mercenaries has some very fundamental flaws- in any conflict.

In the March 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs, Peter W. Singer, Senior Fellow and Director of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, Saban Center for Middle East Policy wrote a fascinating article- Outsourcing War that raises some very troubling issues.

Nowhere has the role of Private Military Firms (PMF) as these “security contractors” are more realistically called been more integral—and more controversial—than in Iraq. Not only is Iraq now the site of the single largest U.S. military commitment in more than a decade; it is also the marketplace for the largest deployment of PMFs and personnel ever. According to Singer, more than 60 firms employ more than 20,000 private personnel there to carry out military functions (these figures do not include the thousands more that provide nonmilitary reconstruction and oil services)—roughly the same number as was provided by all of the United States’ coalition partners combined. President George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” might thus be more aptly described as the “coalition of the billing.”

According to Singer these large numbers have incurred large risks. As of March 2005 private military contractors had suffered an estimated 175 deaths and 900 wounded so far in Iraq (precise numbers are unavailable because the Pentagon does not track nonmilitary casualties)—more than any single U.S. Army division and more than the rest of the coalition combined.

More important than these numbers is the wide scope of critical jobs that contractors are now carrying out, far more extensive in Iraq than in past wars. In addition to war-gaming and field training U.S. troops before the invasion, private military personnel handled logistics and support during the war’s buildup. The massive U.S. complex at Camp Doha in Kuwait, which served as the launch pad for the invasion, was not only built by a PMF but also operated and guarded by one. During the invasion, contractors maintained and loaded many of the most sophisticated U.S. weapons systems, such as B-2 stealth bombers and Apache helicopters. They even helped operate combat systems such as the Army’s Patriot missile batteries and the Navy’s Aegis missile-defense system.

According to Singer, as of 2005 an estimated 6,000 non-Iraqi private contractors currently carry out armed tactical functions in the country. These individuals are sometimes described as “security guards,” but they are a far cry from the rent-a-cops who troll the food courts of U.S. shopping malls. In Iraq, their jobs include protecting important installations, such as corporate enclaves, U.S. facilities, and the Green Zone in Baghdad; guarding key individuals (Ambassador Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, was protected by a Blackwater team that even had its own armed helicopters); and escorting convoys, a particularly dangerous task thanks to the frequency of roadside ambushes and bombings by the insurgents.

PMFs, in other words, have been essential to the U.S. effort in Iraq, helping Washington make up for its troop shortage. When a country is asked to go to war, its citizens are usually asked to sacrifice for the cause- this would include the draft. Non-coms would do the work that Haliburton would do and PMFs shore up an over-deployed and thread base military. But in this war- we weren’t asked to sacrifice- we were told to go shopping. I guess the administration heeded its own advice and went shopping for contractors to wage their war in Iraq and to reward friends. These contractors pay much more than does the military to its troops and they are providing services that have traditionally been provided by the military and probably would be if we had had a draft. But a draft would have made selling this war to the American people a much more difficult task.

Singer writes that there are five broad policy dilemmas raised by the increasing privatization of the military.

The first involves the question of profit in a military context. He puts it bluntly: “The incentives of a private company do not always align with its clients’ interests—or the public good.”

His article posits that when contractors do military jobs, they remain private businesses and thus fall outside the military chain of command and justice systems. Unlike military units, PMFs retain a choice over which contracts they will take and can abandon or suspend operations for any reason, including if they become too dangerous or unprofitable; their employees, unlike soldiers, can always choose to walk off the job. Such freedom can leave the military in the lurch.

Signer believes that the second general challenge stems from the unregulated nature of what has become a global industry. There are insufficient controls over who can work for these firms and for whom these firms can work. The recruiting, screening, and hiring of individuals for public military roles is left in private hands.
The third concern Singer has is ironically the feature that makes them so popular with governments today. “They can accomplish public ends through private means. In other words, they allow governments to carry out actions that would not otherwise be possible, such as those that would not gain legislative or public approval”, Singer writes.

Fourth are the legal dilemmas that using these mercenary forces raises. One military law analyst noted, “Legally speaking, [military contractors] fall into the same grey area as the unlawful combatants detained at Guantánamo Bay.”

The final dilemma raised by Singer is the extensive use of private contractors involves the future of the military itself. The armed services have long seen themselves as engaged in a unique profession, set apart from the rest of civilian society, which they are entrusted with securing. The introduction of these contractors (mercenaries) and their recruiting from within the military itself, challenges that uniqueness; the military’s professional identity and monopoly on certain activities is being encroached on by the regular civilian marketplace.

The use of mercenaries seems sleazy to me- let alone a colossally dangerous practice. Unlike Military personnel, mercenaries aren’t people who are dedicated to their nation’s cause and serve out of a sense of duty- they serve merely to make money. Blackwater’s track record is troubling and evokes images of men who love guns and killing more than they love their country.

I have visions of the private military firms becoming so powerful that they could eventually be in a position to wage a private coup d’etat.

Congress and the next President must seriously abandon the reliance on mercenaries- our nation’s image, integrity and safety depend on it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Excellent article

  2. Excellent post.

    And…

    “I didn’t know that mercenaries had mission statements!”

    Of course they do: “We will do whatever you want, for the right price.”

    Talking about mercenaries and Iraq, here is my take on the whole situation (at the tail end of the program):

    http://ruinsofempire.blip.tv/file/415940/

    or on my website.

  3. Do you know anything about what happened? The Blackwater employees were exacuating a US official after a car bomb attack. Then their convoy was hit by an explosive device rendering one of their vehicles inactive, and small arms fire and heavy machine gun followed. US troops had to help them get out and secure the area. How again is that being out of control? It’s just asinine to not acknowledge this as self defense. Also, our government has been using private security companies since Captain John Smith and Captain Myles Standish in colonial times. Remember the Flying Tigers? They belong in our system, as long as some steps are taken to interweave them into some aspect of our military. I would just like to hear what you would say when our government re-implements the military draft for lack of troops because our government had no other options (i.e. private security companies).

  4. Well Mark – I believe that we should have a draft. I think every young person should be required to engage in some sort of national service. We shouldn’t have a military that is so stretched that they have to change the standards and let convicted felons to serve. My gay partner enlisted in the Navy in the 1970’s and was discharged for being gay. Maybe if we required national service and didn’t discharge gay people (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a disaster) – we wouldn’t need mercenaries. Not the response you expected is it?

    And by the way – I think I might know a bit about Myles Standish since I am a direct descendant of William Bradford. I think that there is a huge difference between a bunch of religious Pilgrims hiring someone for security and billion dollar contracts to Blackwater. Mercenaries have been around since man began fighting wars- whcih is about the time man evolved into man- but because it exists doesn’t make it okay. It isn’t.

    Maybe if we had a draft when we went into Iraq, the public might have thought about the intelligence of this endeavor for a nanosecond. Whatever happened to the idea that war required sacrifice of it’s citizens? When we invaded Iraq we were told to go shopping…..

  5. During the Civil War/Revolution when slaves were sent to fight for their masters and their masters got credit for it, it wasn’t deemed sleazy or dangerous then.

    Nations have traditionally outsourced labor during wars, i.e., the Hessians, etc., and probably many example from other nations.

    In theory, if outsourcing is right for company work, it could also be safe for military work, if enough control and hierarchy is established.

    It also need not be expensive, since the country could use illegal aliens as a method of solving that problem by allowing them to go to Iraq and fight for America, thereby providing a measure of commitment and loyalty that could be shown as the method of solving that dilemma, rather than by deporting them, or offering amnesty.

    If all they want is a chance, why not give them the same choice our boys have who are in Iraq?

    During Vietnam, the many draft dodgers who did not want to go shows that patriotism is relative, and that given the choice, men might not go and fight for a country. Why should fighting be considered any more patriotic than any other work?

    With a volunteer army, without the volunteers, either draftees or mercenaries are the only options, it seems.

    Perhaps we should use more, not less, and save our boys for more important or safer work.

  6. A couple of flaws I see here.

    First you say “During the Civil War/Revolution when slaves were sent to fight for their masters and their masters got credit for it, it wasn’t deemed sleazy or dangerous then.”

    Whether or not it was considered sleazy or not it was and it is revolting. Read my blog piece on the Constitution – I lthink it is a remarkable document- but we compromised this amazing document by enshrining slavery into its original writing (sure there were amendments during Reconstruction- but the damage to our national integrity had been done long ago).

    Mercenaries- expecially as currenrly configured with Blackwater- are nothing but right wing zealots. PLEASE look at the Prince family and their agenda- they are building a white supremicist Christian military force.

    Finally- what I said was that all young people should be drafted into national service- that could be military or working in inner city schools or the Peace Corp, etc. But I do think that our young people should be required to serve our nation in someway.

    I am not a hawk and loathe war and I believe that if someone is a contientious objector they have the right not to fight but should be required to serve the nation in another way.

    Our volunteer army is a disaster – with many of its rank and file being men and women who have no other choices- poorly educated and now we allow convicted felons to serve, but we don’t allow willing gay men and lesbians to serve. Let’s deal with that absurdity first- shall we?

  7. as an ex royal marine , u soon get fed up of being shot at for 20k a year and when u go to the job centre , snipers and recon lads aint on top of the list , so we do what we do to make money, and after we have seen lost brothers and paid are dues for are country , why not ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: