Helping out – also to hide

Modern warfare has become a major enterprise ­– nor only for nations, but also for major corporations who supply technology and specialised skills. It has not only made war more distant and detached.  It has also become a way to hide the full cost of war in terms  of loss of life.

In an article published in last week’s Leadership Intelligence Bulletin we looked at the privatisation of war and the substantial role played by private military and security contractors (PMSC’s) in modern-day war and peacekeeping operations.

In this article we explore the reasons why the utilisation of PMSC’s has become so popular

One of the features of war throughout history is the high cost in lives and monetary expenditure.

Take Iraq and Afghanistan for example: According to the Information Clearing House newsletter of 25 August 2010 the number of Iraqis killed since the United States began its military activities in that country has now reached 1,366,350. The official number of US military personnel killed stands at 4,734.

In Afghanistan the number of International Occupation Force troops killed is reported as 2,030.

The estimated cost of the war in Iraq /is US$1,070,543,343,028 and counting.

Skills and manpower shortages

Modern warfare is a major enterprise. Technology has in a certain sense made war more distant, “clean” and sophisticated. The clamour of war has become less intense and more detached.

But no war or peacekeeping operation can be successfully executed without an effective infrastructure composed of a myriad of auxiliary support services.

Unable to comply with all the demands of modern-day warfare and lacking the necessary skills and manpower, the solution for governments lies in the outsourcing of specific tasks and responsibilities to efficient and skilled private contractors.

Outsourcing both sophisticated and mundane tasks ranging from mechanics to intelligence analysts to communication and technical specialists is not only cheaper and more cost effective, or so it is alleged, but it also releases the men in uniform to be better and more effectively utilised in combat situations.

Reluctance to fight distant wars or participate in UN-sanctioned peacekeeping operations opens up opportunities for contractors to fill the void, which in turn solves the government’s manpower dilemma.

The PMSC’s make huge profits and they are never short of volunteers lured by what they consider an adventure that also pays well and individuals who attest that they see contract work in conflict areas as a means to improve their own or their family’s financial situation.

Lessen the burden of recruitment

Employing PMSC’s has another incentive in that it relieves the pressure on recruiting troops for service in conflict zones and war.

Recruitment has become a challenging and rather sensitive issue in an age when war, especially under questionable pretenses, has become highly contentious. This has succinctly been highlighted by controversial film-maker Michael Moore in his documentaries including, Iraq for Sale: the War Profiteers.

Moore, admittedly, has an axe to grind with the US government and with what he considers the hypocrisy of the American establishment. He does however very effectively expose the hypocrisy of some American lawmakers who will vote in favour of war and willingly send another man’s child to possible death while protecting his own kin from a similar fate.

This has, off course, a ringtone all too familiar to many white South Africans growing up in the era of the “Total Onslaught” and conscription.

Diminished responsibility

Cynics claim that the use of contractors relieves the government of the responsibility of taking care of the casualties suffered by the contracting companies or being obliged to remember or mourn the dead as would be the case with enlisted soldiers.

Perhaps, most important of all, it helps keep down the official death count.

The pictures of the body of Staff Sgt. William David Cleveland being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1993 and the Black Hawk Down episode that took place when the US participated in a UN-sponsored attempt to bring peace to Somalia, have been imprinted on the collective mind of not only America but across the globe.

They brought back memories of Vietnam and played a significant role in helping to change forever the way in which many, and not only Americans, think about war. Gone are the days of the Second World War and Korea when it was considered a duty and an honour to serve “God and country” and even die for a “noble” cause.

Since Somalia the US and its mostly European allies, although not necessarily hesitant to get involved in war as history has subsequently proved, have been trying to keep the death-toll of enlisted troops as low as possible.

A popular argument also often advanced is that PMSC’s not only allow for a government to circumvent limitations set by law but private contractors also allow for a government to  evade accountability and the uncomfortable scrutiny of parliamentary or congressional oversight.

The future

For the time being it seems that despite personnel reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan which incidentally also provided a sizeable number of South Africans with work,  the demand for PMSC’s will in all probability continue.

While US troops were returning home, the Pentagon announced that it plans to spend US$100 million on air-base expansions in Afghanistan for the exclusive use of the US military.

In tandem with the Pentagon’s announcement the US State Department announced that the ongoing support of PMSC’s is indispensable for the rehabilitation programmes promised to Iraq.

Sooner rather than later the presence of PMSC’s will be required in other parts of the world where new conflicts and war develop.

The value of PMSC’s lies in the fact that they deliver a specific service under a specific set of circumstances that few others are capable of or willing to do.

Reassuring it undoubtedly is, but it might come at a price.