Private military contractors, private military corporations or private military companies (PMCs) are companies that provide armed staff trained in combat, i.e. private military, for other corporations, organizations, individuals and state military forces. The term is also used for the staff of such companies.
When providing services to a state military they may be described more generally as defense contractors although defense contractors do not generally provide direct support of military operations. Under 1949 Geneva Conventions defense contractors engaged in direct support of military operations may be legitimate targets of military attack.
Some critics consider private military contractors to be mercenaries legitimizing their trade behind the veil of a corporate entity.
There has been a recent exodus from many special forces across the globe towards these private military corporations. The United Kingdom Special Air Service, the United States Army Special Forces and the Canadian Army's Joint Task Force 2 have been hit particularly hard. Operators are lured by the fact that entry level positions with the various companies can pay up to $100,000 a year, which is 2-3 times more than what an average special forces operator is paid. However, this conventional wisdom has been disputed especially in the United States where GAO research has detected no noticeable exodus.
United States
The United States State Department employs several companies to provide support in danger zones that would be difficult for conventional U.S. forces. The military employs many of them as guards to extremely high ranking U.S. government officials in hot spots all around the world. The term most often refers to the two dozen U.S. firms that provide services for the Pentagon and indirectly assist in overseas theaters of operation. Some contractors have served in advisory roles that help train local militaries to fight more effectively instead of intervening directly. Much of the peacekeeper training the United States provides to African militaries is done by private firms, and with the increasing absence of Western military support to international peace operations, the private sector is commonly utilized to provide services to peace and stability operations from Haiti to Darfur.
The Center for Public Integrity reported that since 1994, the Defense Department entered into 3,601 contracts worth $300 billion with 12 U.S. based PMCs. Some view this as an inevitable cost cutting measure and responsible privatization of critical aspects of a military. However, many feel this is a troubling trend, since these private companies are not directly accountable to a legislative body and may cost more than providing the same functions within the military.
Another issue of concern has been the recent high-profile operation of various PMCs within the United States, specifically during the initial response after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Supporters are quick to point out the stabilizing influence that the operators these companies put into place in the first few days provided, whereas detractors have levied claims of abuse and unlawful activities. Neither side has provided much proof to back their claims, however, beyond anecdotal evidence. Domestic operations are generally under the auspice of state or federal agencies such as the Department of Energy or the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Department of Defense, and thus a greater level of oversight seems to exist. However, it remains to be seen whether this apparent oversight will create an environment that will preclude troublesome incidents. Regardless of the political or social ramifications, the business end of it is definitely increasing. Driven by increasingly greater fears of domestic terror attacks and civil unrest and disruption in the wake of disasters, more and more conventional security companies are moving into operations arenas that would fall within the definition of a PMC.
Companies
Among the companies in the United States mentioned as PMCs:
Other international firms include:
Debate
Nicholas von Hoffmann, writing in the June 2004 issue of Harper's (p.79-80), gives a brief but strong statement of the case against the growing role of military contractors to provide personnel on or near the front lines:
In theory, private contracting creates competitive pressure to reduce costs, but in practice the bidding process can be so opaque and distorted by favoritism that it becomes an empty formality... The financial savings have turned out to be highly debatable. The costs and attendant risks are not. The government's monopoly of violence -- its role as the guarantor of civil peace and the rule of law -- has been diluted by the new arrangements.
On December 5th 2005 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a lecture dubbed "The Future of Iraq" at Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. [2]. During a Q&A session afterwards he was asked a question by a student regarding PMCs.
Student: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq and you were just speaking of rules of engagement in regards to Iraqi personnel and US personnel. Could you speak to, since the private contractors are operating outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, could you speak to what law or rules of engagement do govern their behaviour and whether there has been any study showing that it is cost-effective to have them in Iraq rather than US military personnel. Thank you."
Rumsfeld: "Thank you. It is clearly cost-effective to have contractors for a variety of things that military people need not do and that for whatever reason other civilians government people cannot be deployed to do. There are a lot of contractors. a growing number. They come from our country but they come from all countries and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country or another country and they employ people from totally different countries including Iraqis and people from neighbouring nations. And there are a lot of them and it's a growing number. And ofcourse we've got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they're not subject to the uniform code of military justice we understand that. There are laws that govern the behaviour of Americans in that country the Department of Justice oversees that. The [long hesitation] there is an issue that is current as to the extent to which they can or can not carry weapons and that's an issue. It's also an issue ofcourse with the Iraqis but if you think about it Iraq is a sovereign country, they have their laws and they're going to govern. The UN resolution and the Iraqi laws, as well as US procedures and laws govern behaviour in that country depending on who the individual is and what he's doing but I'm personally of the view that there are a lot of things that can be done on a short time basis by contractors that advantage the United States and advantage other countries who also hire contractors. Any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise."
A paper on Legitimacy and Accountability of Private Military Companies can be downloaded from www.nalin.ca
Significant events
- In 1999, an episode with DynCorp in Bosnia was particularly embarrassing for the U.S. military. A Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit was filed against DynCorp employees stationed in Bosnia, which found: "employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior and were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and participating in other immoral acts."
- On March 31, 2004, four American private contractors belonging to the company Blackwater USA were ambushed and killed by guerillas as they drove through Fallujah. They were dragged from their car in one of the most violent attacks on U.S. citizens in the conflict. Following the attack, an angry mob mutilated and burned the bodies, dragging them through the streets before they were hung on a bridge. (See also: Operation Vigilant Resolve)
- On March 28, 2005, 16 American contractors and three Iraqi aides from Zapata Engineering, under contract to the US Army Corps of Engineers to manage an ammunition storage depot, were detained following two incidents in which they allegedly fired upon U.S. Marine checkpoint. While later released, the civilian contractors have levied complaints of mistreatment against the Marines who detained them.
- On October 27 2005 a "trophy" video complete with post production Elvis music appearing to show private military contractors in Baghdad shooting Iraqi civilians sparked two investigations after it was posted on the Internet. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Aegis-PSD.mov [3] [4]) The video has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services. The man who is seen shooting vehicles on this video in Iraq was a South African employee of Aegis Victory team named Danny Heydenreycher. He served in the British military for 6 years. After the incident the Regional Director for Victory ROC tried to fire Heydenreycher, but the team threatened to resign if he did. As of December 2005, Aegis is conducting a formal inquiry into the issue, although some concerns on its impartiality have been raised.
See also
Books
External links
Iraq
