On Private Military Companies

[SWJED]

From Council member MountainRunner at his blog by the same name - On Private Military Companies (http://mountainrunner.us/2007/04/on_private_military_companies.html).

Thanks to Mark at Zenpundit (http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/index.html), I'm not getting back to what I need to... why? Because I just read his post suggesting (http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2007/04/musings-and-recommendations-hectic-day.html) a read of Shloky's Private Militaries and Market States (http://www.shloky.com/?p=617). A few brief comments...

[Uboat509]

"Special Forces provide deniable accountability."

What does that mean?

SFC W

[Stan]

He also has a previous post on this subject here:

http://mountainrunner.us/2005/12/

The issue of private military companies, private security companies, or private military firms brings up the question of accountability. This question can be asked in different dimensions: moral, legal, ethical, and command and control. This is a brief draft on the legal accountability of private military forces, divorced from any profit motives. It is my belief that private military forces fall into the same "loophole" (really a misnomer, it is an intentional gap) in regulation in which non-governmental forces "approved" by the international community, namely Blue Helmets, are also found.

[MountainRunner]

"Special Forces provide deniable accountability."

What does that mean?

SFC W

I meant that in the margins, when seeking options that are not readily attributed back to the source and are generally covert, SF can be used effectively. In this space, private forces can also provide value, especially in the cold sense of disposability. In the overt arena, deniable accountability, that is thinking actions don't represent the principal, is a fantasy, contrary to what many may want to think. In less overt applications, such as the Balkans before Dayton, SF could have been used if deniable accountability was the real reason to use MPRI.