More than just a moral dilemma

In our last two issues, Leadership Intelligence Bulletin explored the escalating use of private military and security companies (PMSC’s) in international war and peace-keeping operations and why they continue to become more popular. Contracting PMSC’s does, however, carry certain risks which we place under the spotlight in this last of our three-part series.

Despite criticism the future of PMSC’s seems to be guaranteed. There is little doubt that in the years to come PMSC’s stand to improve their benefits in terms of financial compensation deriving from official government and other institutional contracts.

Abdicating responsibility and control.

When contracting a PMSC the contractor, be it a government, a government department, an international organisation such as the United Nations or a multi-national company, inevitably abdicates some level of responsibility and control.

Once a contract is signed the PMSC takes responsibility for the execution of the contract and the client becomes largely a spectator with limited power to intervene or exercise damage-control should things start to go wrong.

When a contractor starts to subcontract, which is common procedure, it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to exert any effective control or oversight.

Most PMSC contracts involve a myriad of tasks, sometimes highly sensitive. The chances for things to go wrong are ever-present and when it does the consequences might be highly embarrassing and even fatal.

A recent investigation commissioned by the United States government into PMSC activities in Afghanistan revealed that contracts were so extensively subcontracted that American tax dollars were actually used to finance Afghan warlords, extortion, and corruption on a massive scale. There were even suggestions that the Taliban was a beneficiary of this lack of control.

Secrecy and corruption

The cloud of confidentiality that normally covers PMSC contracts and the secrecy in which these PMSC’s often operate, allow ample opportunity for corruption.

Bribery and corruption is almost inevitable when contracts worth millions of dollars are at stake and available for the taking.

Although his real motive has been questioned, President Karzai of Afghanistan referred to the many PMSC’s in his country as “a catalyst for corruption among Afghan officials” when he recently issued a decree ordering foreign PMSC’s to leave Afghanistan.

Generous financial contributions by Blackwater (now Xe Services), one of the world’s largest private military contractors, to the Republican Party in the US guaranteed lucrative contracts worth millions of dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Halliburton, also one of the world’s largest PMSC’s, benefited handsomely from numerous contracts when Dick Cheney, a former CEO, became US vice-president in the Bush administration.

The secrecy that enfolds most contracts and the more sensitive activities of PMSC’s make it extremely difficult to investigate any claims of corruption or bribery. To get a conviction is a rarity and cover-ups are normal.

How things operate in this clandestine world of PMSCs is well illustrated in a report in the New York Times last week on how Blackwater Worldwide created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts. This was done after the company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq.

Lack of discipline and accountability

It is often alleged, and not without merit, that PMSC’s do not necessarily display the same level of discipline, dedication and commitment as regular government troops, nor are they accustomed to the orders and  procedures that regulate government troops.

In Iraq and Afghanistan investigations have proved that employees of PMSC’s are indeed regularly guilty of ill-discipline and prone to the use of excessive force.

It is argued that private military and security contractors feel less obliged to keep to accepted standards and norms. Less-restricted and driven by a determination to achieve results because that might ensure future contracts, it is said that PMSC’s will not hesitate to do as they see fit to reach their objective.

War “made easy”

Critics are of the opinion that contracting PMSC’s and “outsourcing” war reduces the political costs of going to war.

By “outsourcing” war and war-related activities to PMSC’s, it becomes a business transaction. Putting distance between those who order the war and what happens in the war theatre makes it in a sense easier and less of a moral dilemma.

But, more importantly, it conserves official manpower, which in turn reduces the difficult and sometimes impossible task of explaining or justifying the war, especially when the number of body bags starts to increase.

Anyone signing up for a job as a PMSC contractor does so well aware of the risks involved and does so purely for financial benefit – not much different from what would normally be called a mercenary.

As a “soldier of fortune” the PMSC employee unfortunate enough to return home in a body bag is less of a national loss, dispensable and part of the collateral damage which is inevitable in war.

Privatising war might allow a government more space and spin manoeuvrability, but it will have little bearing on any attempt to make war more palatable and morally justifiable and might even add to the plight of the citizens of the country on whose soil the war is conducted.