Earlier this year, I noticed an increase in the number of attacks on PMCs (private military companies) and the people they employ (military contractors). To be sure, PMCs have never been far from the point of aim of a lot of anger and resentment. But the stuff I’ve been hearing lately has been especially vitriolic. Why?
The politically expedient withdrawal of US troops from Iraq didn’t mean an end to the US mission in Iraq. To protect the infrastructure (such as the embassy in Baghdad) and personnel (diplomats, support folks, etc) that the US still maintains in Iraq, the State Department and other agencies have hired a large number of security contractors. The same goes for missions in other countries, such as Libya.
These contractors range from third country nationals such as the Ugandans that guarded our chow halls in 2006 to former SEALs, Force Recon, Special Forces, and so on – in other words, the best former products of the US military, and our allied militaries’ elite units. “Media” organizations such as Gawker would like us to think that when they EAS (leave the military), they cease being honorable and respectable, that they become bloodthirsty killers who act without any morals or respect for human life.
These are the same men who are supposedly loved by the vast majority of Americans when they’re in uniform – just look at Gawker’s own coverage of the recent SEAL hostage rescue in Somalia. Unfortunately, they’re pitied once they have taken off that uniform… and they’re looked at with suspicion bordering on disgust when they take a job with a PMC.
An inconvenient collision of facts occurs when private contractors do heroic things when they don’t have to. Although it was hardly mentioned publicly, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were on contract to provide security services elsewhere. They weren’t responsible for protecting the embassy or consulate, but stepped up to the plate and did what needed to be done. They were most often described as “former SEALs” rather than “security contractors.”
The morals of such men don’t change when they leave the military. They’ve simply developed skills that can be better utilized elsewhere with a corresponding increase in pay. Considering the dangers they face, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
In fact, the hiring of former SOF men to accomplish certain jobs is in fact beneficial to not only their retirement fund, but to the country. Politically convenient decisions to not place uniformed American military personnel on the ground does not obviate the need for American military men to be on the ground in the furtherance of American diplomatic or security objectives.
And while companies such as Blackwater/Xe/Whatever are favorite targets of some, the fact is that the pool of potential private security contractors is not massive. No matter who has the contract, the guys doing the work might not change. Hiring standards vary from company to company and contract to contract, but the top end of this spectrum is composed of skilled and professional individuals.
Of course, the ignorant will always find something to complain about.
To see the existance of PMC’s in war zones, performing traditionally military roles, and not see the ethical problems with that is intellectually dishonest.
How is it any different than just having military there? Most roles that contractors take up are cheaper than what it’d cost the official military to do.
besides, “ethical” is subjective and I don’t see/know anything that has to do with intellectual honesty in this article
Diplomatic Security is not a traditional military mission, hence the existence of the Diplomatic Security Service Agents and the security contractors that supplement them.
How is it intellectually dishonest? No contractors perform tradition military roles. PSD for the company commander/S-2 Chief/Chaplain is a relatively new phenomenon. Having spent 5 years in special operations and 5 years as a contractor, I can assure you, PMC’s do not perform military roles, despite what the guys on the internet tell you.
My problem is not with pmc’s, but with any Americans losing their life in some foreign land for the “security” of some foreign person.
Like the Jews in WWII?
Where do you draw the line?
Andrew, thank you. Most of the guys I worked with in Iraq were former military. I get tired of hearing people dump on contractors. We supplied a valuable service to the military, had a much smaller chain of command (an office in VBC) and were more flexible than soldiers.
Jerry, there are ethical problems with contractors in war zones. There are ethical problems with soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in war zones. War has a boatload of ethical problems. You forget that for centuries (millennia even), the line between PMCs and “traditional” military units has been non-existent.
It’s really interesting to see the dichotomy of responses when a Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman do something stupid and get caught (midnight rampages on villages, drugs, piss on enemy bodies, pose for photos in caskets) than when a PMC contractor does something similar.
When it’s the “real military,” the news and general public usually chalk it up to the stupidity of the individual or small group and do not hold the military as a whole in a poor light. In many cases, they even jump to defend our “heroes” that made a mistake of political incorrectness or by being over-stressed by multiple deployments…
On the other hand, when PMC contractors screw up, the entirety of the media leads the general public to believe that its a systemic failure of mercenary bloodthirst.
It is a shame, as most of the contractors are good at what they do and decent human beings. But like the military, when they saw explosive growth in contracts after OIF kicked off, they had to lower the bar in their hiring to get butts in seats and meet contract obligations. Some of those bad apples really fucked it up. In particular was the 2006 Christmas Eve murder of an Iraqi soldier by a drunk Blackwater contractor in the IZ. That incident was an total CF.
Hey Andrew,
I’ve been fairly critical of the outsourcing of military operations to private companies for many reasons, *not* focused on the individual contractors who are, understandably taking on these positions for economic and other reasons. My objection is the larger political message with privatization of federal military roles. It allows nations to do things that they would not otherwise be allowed to do when formal military missions are used. Outsourcing mil actions to private contractors also has problems with oversight of not only individual missions or objectives, but also of larger socio-political implications. Furthermore, a number of studies have shown that outsourcing of these operations is no less expensive than performing these roles with traditional military roles. Its cost shifting, not making things cheaper. I would much rather have the formal military do these roles and increase their pay scales to compensate.
I can see why things appear that way, but things are not at all what they were 2003-2006 time frame…..in the military you are forced to keep guys that make mistakes….try to fix screw ups. You can get fired these days for having a fender bender or even pointing your weapon at someone on security contracts.
I don’t know how people think that contractors are different guys when they get out of the military. It would be nice though if they did offer military guys better incentives to stay in with expensive training pipelines. I really doubt that contractors are more expensive when you look at the cost of pensions, health care, disability, and all the support personnel that receive the same when it takes something like 10 support personnel for every one guy gettin it done. Not the case for contracting.
BW,
Following your logic and drawing a stateside comparison, you believe that all the private security roles within the United States should be assumed by government agencies? Should all of our nations banks, hotels, stores, government facilities etc have an on site policeman because private security is unethical?
The roles that PMC’s play overseas is not much different than the role of private security agencies in the states. Many corporations and government agencies within the US hire armed private security (I happen to work for an armed private security company myself when i’m not wearing my blue uniform or my camo one) and nobody is calling for them to disband because they are unethical.
I think you may be confused slightly about what a private military contractor does. They are not “soldiers for hire” as you seemingly think. They mainly provide security, both on site and mobile to people and places that are definitely more dangerous than most places within the US, but in essence it is no different from Jim Bob the security guard down the street who stands around in your local bank branch. You are confusing private military contractors with “mercenaries”. Mercenaries do perform traditional military roles such as attacking enemy forces, and achieving the stated political goals of the person who hires them through directed violence. PMC’s respond to acts of violence to protect a person or place from those acts. They are not offensive, they are defensive in nature. I see no ethical dilemma there.
As for cost to the government which you addressed. Private contractors do not have the long term benefits that the government gives to military members who serve overseas. You are not taking into account the cost of the GI Bill, any medical expenses, retirements, disability payments,etc that the military veteran would be owed that now are shifted to the military contractor, off of the government. Many of these benefits do not exist in the private arena and therefore PMC’s would probably be a cheaper solution to a security problem than a military unit would be in the long term.
Another benefit of security contractors is it allows our military fighting units to be freed up from pulling security on places or people to allow them to go out and fight bad guys if need be. This is a definite benefit to an already overtaxed military.
I was going to delve into how private contracting allowed the government to deny certain things, but decided to leave it as is. Would be interested to talk to you about this at SHOT.
I’d very much enjoy that. How ’bout over dinner? I should be there the night before Media Day, Media Day and the first day of Shot.
All it takes is media exposure of a few bad apples and then leave the rest to Hollywood to milk their image as the bad guy flavor of the year. Yeah, I primarily blame the media.
I’m completely ignorant of the workings of this world, so please humor three naive questions
– Is it possible for a person with no prior military ties or experience to skill up via a dedicated private training pipeline and become an effective PMC employee?
– Since that training and indoctrination would also entail instilling values compatable with the military that PMCs compliment, would that mean that some kind of voluntary TRADOC-like association for PMCs to subscribe to would be a way to prove to the public that all PMC employees who subscripe to the system (whether no-prior experience or prior service) get a doctrinal refresher before becoming operational?
– Could such an organisation make a difference in the amount of trust the media and the public are willing to show if even only three of the biggest PMCs use the approved and publicly declared doctrines and values that this voluntary membership association abides by?
Please forgive me if such an association or system already exists.
Nope, nope & nope, at the minimum very unlikely for an untrained cat with no skills.
You have to be certified by somebody or government entity with a recognized and validated POI.
Almost all the cats n dogs I need have to come with at minimum a TS clearance. Nearly impossible to get in the commercial world. But there are a few gigs out there that don’t require a clearance but they aren’t HSLD and are usually on the low-end of the pay scale.
There are a few “big thinkers” out there that have tried that US training center, but couldn’t make a living at it, then it diverted to some other kind of range complex which is rented out to DoD or DHS for its training facility.
Very little now is going to win over public or media trust of security contractors or PMC’s. And there are a lot of former GO/FO’s that have lent their credibility to PMC’s for very little return on investment.
Industry volunteers to do very little. They are a business and the bottom line is that there has to be return on investment. IMHO most of the industry has no long view on training. It is the bare minimum to answer a contract and puts guys in cars or on post.
Interesting question but as a PM for one of these very high end technically demanding gigs, it is hard to find qualified folks and then keep them.
Kind regards
Mike
Ah thanks.
One other question, what’s a “cat”, and what’s a “dog”?
and GO is general officer? vs Field Officer?
@noob I believe there are training courses you can take to get certified and then you could work your way up that way. Also, getting involved with hunting/camping, or services (cop, fireman, etc) can give you a boost on your way.
Nope, well at least not on any of the normal gigs. Almost every gig requires that you have already been to a combat zone and most require special operations exp. There was a time when people slipped through and there have been waivers for certain people, but they are few and far between. As things wind down, it is easier to be picky on who they choose.
All the lower level stuff now is done by guard forces from 3rd world countries making 20 bucks/ day.
the concept of PMC’s (not EP or PSC) does concern me, the idea of paying corporations to do jobs that the military is traditional responsible for is disconcerting to me, not because they will not follow the same standars we hold the military to but instead because it further distances the public from whats happening and it moves the responsibility for the mission and actions of those involved away from the gov so that when something goes wrong the only people held accountable are the guys on the ground and little change/improvement happens. simply put PMC’s insulates the policy makers from the consequences of their actions and I thank that is something we should be concerned about.
What’s old is new again.
Perhaps it’s the same mindset as “Cops with guns good, private citizens with guns bad”?
I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot of personnel overlap between the two groups. Heck, I bet the Venn diagram would just be a simple circle.
I used to be one of those who would react with anger and disgust at the mere mention of PMCs. Then, after some people questioned my reasons for this reaction, I began thinking and occasionally reading about who PMCs actually are and what backgrounds they have, who would actually hire them, what they’d actually be hired to do, and how they’d actually go about it.
Once I thought about it, it became more clear that the mindset of “PMC = BAD” didn’t actually make much sense.