Private Military Companies Iraq Illustrate a Trend

¶ … private military companies Iraq illustrate a trend warfare? -No, Historical reasons great empires employed a large number mercenaries.-What reasons, -Type firms, divided types- type spear

Private military companies

Today's society is more challenging and dynamic than it has ever been. And this trend is manifested within the military sector as well. Here, the employees in the division have to be better motivated in order to risk their lives and this motivation has to be complex, and include both financial and non-financial incentives. While the major non-financial incentive would be the sense of fighting to protect one's country, the financial incentive has to be substantial and significantly larger than that of any other category of employees.

The modern day army then integrates technologic developments to improve the nature and outcome of its operations. It as such strives to answer the more and more complex demands of the contemporaneous society and, in doing so, it integrates the developments of the communities, such as incremental employee demands, increasing public attention and concern or technologic developments.

In other words, the modern day military employs a wide array of tools in order to attain its primary objective -- maintaining peace. But despite political and social efforts, peace is often not sustainable and conflicts arise. In the context of conflicts, parties employ a wide array of techniques in order to increase their chances of success. One of these means is that of employing private military companies.

Throughout the recent past, the number of parties using the services of private military companies from Iraq has increased. Based on this observation, a question is being posed relative to the occurrence of a trend. The current endeavor strives to answer this question.

2. Private military companies of Iraq

The private military companies are the offspring of the traditional mercenaries, yet the players in the industry desire to distance themselves from this concept of mercenary. The private military companies offer a wide array of services, from training to involvement in combat and they serve a wide array of customers, including private agents, but even federal institutions. At the level of the services they offer, these include, but are not limited to, the following:

The protection of authority by the employers

The management of weapons

The gathering of intelligence

The offering of security consulting

The offering of non-military functions, such as catering or logistics

The offering of training programs to security staffs

The guarding of assigned locations and so on (Christian, 2005).

A majority of these private military companies is located in Iraq, but their operations and actual contracts are often mysterious.

"Private military companies (PMCs) operate extensively in Iraq, sometimes with highly sophisticated military means including helicopters and advanced computer systems allowing them to engage in direct combat […]. The number of PMCs involved in Iraq, their often -- mission critical -- activities and the fact that they are operating alongside the forces of a multinational coalition, confer a specific salience to the issue today" (Christian, 2005).

While the actual number of private military companies in Iraq is difficult to identify, in 2004, it was estimated that there were over 20,000 private security contractors in the country. This figure represented 10 per cent of all foreign military in Iraq -- and it was following an ascendant trend (Christian, 2005). It as such represented a source of contracts for parties across the globe.

As it has already been recognized, there is a certain sense of secrecy surrounding the contracts and operations of the private military companies in Iraq. A review of the available sources has however revealed the existence of the following contracts (it is assumed that several more exist):

Contracts to escort prisoners near Baghdad

Contracts signed by the Bush Administration to help manage international agendas. "With the U.S. military stretched to the limit, PMCs are being used by the Bush administration to provide the needed military and logistical means to conduct colonial interventions and wars of aggression. Without the services of mercenaries, the U.S. government would be compelled to increase the size of the U.S. military or to consider reviving the military draft" (Conachy, 2004).

Contracts to provide safety to the American diplomats traveling in the Middle East

Contracts to control the population and manage conflicts through times of regime changes in the Middle East

Florida-based firm ArmorGroup has a contract with 500 Gurkhas to protect the headquarters and transports of Bechtel and Halliburton's KBR in Baghdad (Conachy, 2004).

Overall, there is a sense of secrecy and ambiguity surrounding the contracts of Iraqi private military companies, but fact remains that the industry is one which flourishes. And the trend is expected to be maintained as the private security contractors register tremendous profits. It has even happened that soldiers in various armies have quit their jobs in order to become better paid mercenaries (Conachy, 2004). At an international level however, the question remains whether the contracting of the Iraqi private military companies has created a new trend within the societies. At this stage, it is argued that this is not the case, as mercenaries were always used by countries. The following section demonstrates this through a look across history.

3. Historic use of private military

Mercenaries -- now called private military contractors -- are essentially people or agencies specialized in military operations and assistance. They are not traditionally part of the nation hiring them, but they will bring in their expertise for money. The advantage of using mercenaries is that they are specialized, professional and efficient; they make better bodyguards and they are willing to engage in military action when the national army is not; the mercenaries are not driven by sentiments -- unlike the national forces -- and they are as such more efficient.

Private military companies have been used throughout the entire history and they have played essential parts in winning wars. As in the case of the Iraqi private military companies, the mercenaries of the past were surrounded in mystery and silence; they were not mentioned in historic documents and were not praised with glory. Their existence and role cannot however be denied. Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker explain:

"Their use is almost universal in advanced societies, and they have often played key roles in history. Without them Carthage could have never challenged Rome, and Greek mercenaries were a crucial factor in the spread of Hellenistic civilization from Italy to Afghanistan after the death of Alexander the Great.

Mercenaries were an essential, and underrated, element of medieval warfare. Flemish mercenaries, for examples, allowed King Stephen of England (1135-1154) to fight off the Plantagenets for nearly twenty years. When Henry II came to power, he banished the Flemings, who were hated by the English -- and promptly hired his own mercenaries. By the end of the medieval period, mercenaries were everywhere in Europe" (Cowley and Parker, 2001).

4. The rise of private military companies

While it is generally assumed that the private military companies are the modern day followers of mercenaries, some sources indicate a real difference between the two. In this order of ideas, the 7th Mercenary Division argues that a mercenary is not a private military company. In the first case, the private military company is an organized group, regulated and with the ability to serve any federal institution in the world. It has rights and obligations and cannot exit a contract unless the terms for which it was signed are completed or if both parties agree to the dissolution of the contract.

Mercenaries on the other hand are "paid up front to gather their supplies, and team. A mercenary enters a contract, but can refund the money at any time and opt out of the conflict. Mercenaries are often just one or two people, but can be as large as 15" (7th Mercenary Division).

The modern day private military companies became popular during the 1990s decade, when a proliferation of private military services was witnessed (Private Military). During the decade, the Cold War was still manifesting. The ideological conflicts and the absence of armed clashes created a context in which the need for the army was decreased. As a result, many soldiers were discharged and they as such entered the workforce. But it was difficult for them to become integrated in the economic market and they would soon enough become the candidates for the private military companies.

Another element which sat at the basis of the emergence of the private military companies is represented by the focus of governments. In this order of ideas, before the emergence of the Cold War, smaller size countries felt protected by the larger superpowers, such as Japan or the United States. This protection was perceived in relationship to the alliances made during the World Wars, but as the superpowers became entangled in the ideological dispute, the smaller size states found themselves without protection. And they as such turned to private troops.

These private troops would initially be joined by both financial desires, but also by sustained ideological beliefs. The American private military contractors for instance were united by their desire to fight the communists. Eventually however, they all came to be united by financial gains.

At the level of the governments, these used private troops for the reasons already mentioned -- global context and level of specialization by the private military companies -- but also because they attracted less public scrutiny. In this order of ideas, whenever the state fought a battle and lost soldiers, it was blamed for their death. But the public seemed to care less for the death of paid contractors (Beutel, 2005).

Gradually then, the privatization of the private military companies was observed at the global level. The main problem was however pegged to the fact that there existed no regulation to control the actions of the private military companies. Such a context led to a situation in which the private military companies would act based on their own regulations. Within the United States for instance:

"The trend towards privatization of the […] military occurred just as the developing world was seeking alternate means of security. This dual shift in outlook happened with little to no guidance from the international community. The rules that existed were not enforced, and the involvement of hired contractors in conflict was largely ignored. Under such conditions, the PMCs became self-regulating. They either are required by their home government to have contracts approved or unofficially check to make sure the contract is in line with their county's policies. The PMCs attend to the needs of their host government while receiving a sizable paycheck" (Beutel, 2005).

5. Regulation of private military companies

The contemporaneous society grows more dependent on private military companies and this is due to the fact that these institutions often possess the expertise required to help states across the globe deal with their specific challenges. In other words, the private military institutions are often the single groups willing and able to offer specialized assistance in critical situations.

But in this context, the state requesting the assistance of the private military group is sensitive to the measures implemented by the military institution. This specifically means that the private military institution has discretionary power within the region, and this power could come to create harm instead of good. Ultimately then, in the context of increasing dependence on private military institutions and their local power in signed contracts, it has to be ensured that the companies always act in the interest and for the well-being of the country or party which has contracted them. In other words, the regulation of the private military field is essential to create stability and safeguard community well-being.

But in spite of the necessity for regulation, the industry remains unregulated. This specifically means that the private military companies act based on their own laws and regulations. This situation is generally common throughout the world, except for South Africa. Here, mercenary operations and certain other activities are prohibited; also, the government continually monitors the actions of military groups and regulates their operations (Private Military).

Within the international arena however, private military companies remain deregulated. The United Nations has developed a program of regulating the private military institutions, but this has been welcomed with limited support. Some of the countries have signed the document, but did not ratify it. Other countries did not even sign the document. And at the level of the states which did sign the UN document on the regulations of the private military companies, they do not implement it within their own countries.

"On the global level, the United Nations put forth the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, but the Convention lacks the support of the member states. None of the permanent members of the Security Council have ratified the convention and of the current rotating members only Romania (which has signed, not ratified it) has shown the measure any support. The states that have ratified it are Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Cameroon, Cyprus, Georgia, Italy, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Suriname, Togo, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan. The countries that have signed this document but not ratified it are Angola, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Germany, Morocco, Nigeria, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. Even those that have ratified or signed the Convention do not obey its terms" (Beutel, 2005).

6. The present and the future of private military companies

As the 7th Mercenary Division has indicated, the present day private military companies are legally recognized and controlled by legislation. They have rights and obligations and they function like an organized group which responds to laws and employers. Also, in the context of the changing society, they are forces which help parties across the globe cope with modern day challenges.

The private military companies as such develop a multitude of contracts through which specific needs are served. A relevant example in this sense is represented by private military companies which safeguard transports of merchandise of multinational corporations from one region to the other. This need has been developed as a result of globalization and the international expansion of economic agents. In other words, the present role of the private military companies is that of responding to the modern day needs, in exchange for the historic payment.

In terms of the future, this appears rather uncertain and the uncertainty is pegged to the fact that the role of the private military companies would not be established by the private institutions themselves, but by the approaches implemented by the governments (Avant, 2006). In essence, the social role of private military institutions in maintaining world peace and security would be the result of federal decisions and regulations.

But the federal governments have yet to regulate the sector or decide on future actions in order to reveal a sense of the future of private military organizations. In this order of ideas, it is often argued that the modern day community has to better regulate the private military institutions in order to decrease "their potential for waywardness" (Christian, 2005). But the regulation of the private military organization is highly complex, difficult and even generative of paradoxes. And this is because private military companies are often resorted to when the traditional channels -- the regulated channels -- do not suffice in attaining the scopes of the states.

In other words, the introduction of regulations would create additional bureaucracies in the system. And it would only formalize relationships between states and private institutions. These relationships already exist and function on the principles of client and contractor, but the regulation would make these relationships function based on norms and laws. Such a strategy would reduce efficiency and would be redundant.

In this line of thoughts, it is assumed that the future politics of private military organizations would still treat the private military organizations as a "necessary evil" (Lanning, 2005) and would not be implementing legislations for the regulation of the sector as these would imply the limitation of the means in which governments can contract the private military institutions. Also, this brings to the realization that a tough regulation for private military institutions is not crucially necessary, but that it is even more so important to democratically control the means in which the governments use the private military institutions: