Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
Hey LV,
I think it would take a major change in perception by the NGOs and world at large. While folks are often happy to receive $$$ and other types of Aid, they are not always so thrilled to have us tell them how to use it, maybe even less so if it involves US forces on their soil. What would be required is and Informational and Diplomatic strategy that clearly articulated both our goals and means to the local, regional & global interests what we were trying to accomplish and why, generally how we were going to do it so that our actions on the ground were put into context, and that we perceived the actions as a partnership of equality, not one that necessarily was to our political and economic advantage. We'd also need the diplomatic and informational means to ensure that it was a 2 way dialouge that allowed for changes in the situation. I think this is no where near as easy as it sounds.
The PMCs and other contractors are not a perfect answer. Certainly introducing a 3rd or consecutive party agent can work against the requirements laid out above. However, if you do not have the means because they are engaged elsewhere, and no volunteer agent (such as another regional state or NGO) with the capability disposes themselves to the solution, PMCs and other contracts may be required. I think much of it resides in the way the contract is written in terms, of scope, duration, responsibilities, penalties and authority. However, any contract that does not provide favorable conditions to the contractor is likely to go unfilled since they are profit and not humanitarian based. The trick is to find the happy medium - perhaps allowing the HN you are trying to assist with a role and some oversight?
Bookmarks