Private Security vs National Security

The various factors that influence both the definition and the perception of private security are typically environmental but can be internal and external to the issue of security itself. In most developed nations, the state provides security forces that are paid for by tax payers (local, municipal, state and federal police, and military forces); however, private security forces, typically operated by ex-military officers who bring their training and experience into the private sector to fill gaps in the market where demand cannot be satisfied by state security apparatuses alone, do exist and do operate both in developed and developing nations. Private security contractors like Academi, GRS, and Aegis look like military forces and often work with military forces when political factors require governments to apply to them for assistance (as has been the case with the U.S. government in the Middle East (Elsea) as well as with Middle Eastern governments like in Saudi Arabia when private contractors are used to address domestic situations—such as those regarding Mohammed bin Salmon’s recent crackdown on corruption among several high profile Saudi princes). Private security forces put distance between the public and the government by placing security issues in the hands of private companies and thus getting them off the shoulders of the state. In this manner, states that lack the expertise and confidence in their own police forces can find trustworthy security among private companies; and states that must pacify public resistance to foreign intervention can turn to private contractors for security issues while simultaneously showing that they are not using military forces (“putting more boots on the ground”) in foreign lands.

Defining private security and the perception of private security thus becomes a murky or gray area when one considers these rather legalistic frameworks: private security forces may be viewed essentially as mercenaries (hired soldiers), who are not bound by the same restrictions as those of state security forces but are just as capable of operating in the same fashion in limited contexts.

While the Office of Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) oversees the process of training civilian security and law enforcement personnel in routine police procedures involving terrorism issues, Department of State officials often work with foreign countries to construct a policy that will better enable the effective means of readying personnel in addressing bomb threats, investigations, security (airport, building and maritime), and VIP security. This kind of direct involvement between state security apparatuses and private security forces further blurs the line between private and national. However, the perception that private security forces are somehow inferior to national security forces should be eradicated by the fact that in most cases these private security forces are comprised of ex-military and are formed alongside or under military industrial firms that can supply technology and weaponry required for providing military-grade security services.

That kind of service background, along with training and experience in operating crime scenes, investigating bomb threats, and securing buildings, maritime operations, and airport facilities in the face of terroristic risk, place private security at a top-tier level right alongside national security forces in terms of offering adequate and effective security operations, no matter the client. In some cases, the client is the government itself, and in other cases, the client consists of other private businesses and/or operations that face threats in this age of terror. Private security is the latest trend in an increasingly militarized world.