Legitimacy of PMCs in Public Discourse

[John T. Fishel]

there is a long history of the US military using private contractors in many ways. From the Revolution on, much of military logistics was handled by civilian suttlers (contractors). In the Indian Wars, civilian scouts were hired by the Army.

The recent contracting push and PMCs has come from a variety of sources. One is ideological and comes from the UK with PM Thatcher's move to have the government compete with the private sector to provide services. There was some of this in the Reagan years and after in the Clinton era in the US. Post-Cold War downsizing is another source. Note that in the wake of downsizing after major wars there is often an upsurge in mercenaries. In the 60s, many demobilized French and British soldiers were the source of merc units in the Congo and Nigeria. In the 90s, Executive Outcomes was largely made up of former SADF. MPRI was founded by former Chief of Staff of the US Army, Carl Vuono, and others.

There is also a wholly legitimate tradition of private security companies who long have provided external security at US Embassies. among these are firms like Wakenhut which provided embassy security in El Salvador during the war years of the 80s. They were also the contractor at the US embassy in Guatemala during the same time. These guys did and still do carry guns and perform a legitimate security role (must disagree with you on this minor point, Wilf).

I've said before on a number of these threads that I believe we have made too much use of contractors - that there are a number of functions that are inherently governmental; allowing the private sector to do them risks turning government policy over to private corporations no matter how patriotic their leaders. That said, there are clearly functions that are better done by the private sector and some that could be done by either. PMCs can fall into any of these categories - indeed, the same company can be in all 3 on the basis of different contracts. To me, the answer is to get the private sector out of those areas that are inherently governmental as rapidly as possible and use contractors and PMCs where they are appropriate. what is needed is clear policy guidance! With which, I will now get the heck off my soapbox.

Cheers

JohnT

[William F. Owen]

There is also a wholly legitimate tradition of private security companies who long have provided external security at US Embassies. among these are firms like Wakenhut which provided embassy security in El Salvador during the war years of the 80s. They were also the contractor at the US embassy in Guatemala during the same time. These guys did and still do carry guns and perform a legitimate security role (must disagree with you on this minor point, Wilf).

I may not have made myself clear. Private Armed Security personnel may be appropriate in certain circumstances, and where there is a strict legal framework for their employment. I understand Armed Private Security is widespread in the US.