PMCs: What is the media missing?

[marct]

I'm still trying to design the paper at the moment, but I will definitely be sharing it with the SWC. I'll probably be posting a draft in the RFI section looking for advice, comments, criticisms and examples.

Marc

[Abu Buckwheat]

Hi Abu Buckwheat,



Just a question - how would you characterize Executive Outcomes?

Marc

EO was definately a Mercenary organization and I helped the USG take them down!

[Tom Odom]

Originally posted by MarcT: I certainly won't disagree with you on this, but I do have to wonder how many of these conditions are "inevitable" as a result of both the social and structural effects of globalization. Let me toss out a case in point.

Marc,

No disagreement on the societal issues. They play a large role in recruitment, whether one is talking private or government/military service. But what I have centered on in the past is the US internal perspective on this issue that arose as after the Berlin Wall came down and the Armed Forces were downsized. As we downsized we used an economic model which assumes contractors are always more cost effective or rather we assumed the conditions that would make contractors more effective.

There is a very good relatively short historical paper at CSI called Public War, Private Fight? The United States and Private Military Companies by Deborah Kidwell that is well worth the read.

Best

Tom

[marct]

Hi Tom

I'm going through it right now. I'm not sure that I would say it is good. Chapter 4 seems to be arguing all sides of the question. Just one example from page 55

The American public may well question the moral aspects of encouraging combat specific positions, which may result in a loss of support and confidence in military organizations. In addition, using American soldiers exclusively to provide combat “tooth” is a curious irony to historical precedent, where nations often hired foreign nationals for some of their most dangerous fighting.

More later.

Marc

ps. It think the earlier chapters are quite goof, but 4+ are only annoying me .

[Tom Odom]

Marc,

It is a history paper. It is supposed to look at all sides. Think of it as an Israeli student of mine once said to me about my teaching Mid East military history to Arab students and him, "Tom, you are doing OK. you piss everyone off and that is good."

Tom

[SteveMetz]

Hi Tom

I'm going through it right now. I'm not sure that I would say it is good. Chapter 4 seems to be arguing all sides of the question. Just one example from page 55


More later.

Marc

ps. It think the earlier chapters are quite goof, but 4+ are only annoying me .

Quite goof, eh?

[Tom Odom]

Quite goof, eh?

that's Canadian speak, hey?

[marct]

that's Canadian speak, hey?

Yup .

Actually, Tom, I don't have a problem with presenting arguments from all sides, just with mushing all of the sides and arguments together into an incomprehensible and confused whole.

Marc

[leaAPM]

Thanks again for helping me approach this issue. The APM feature on contracting was aired on the public radio show Marketplace yesterday. It's also available online here:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...ract_policy_q/

and

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...tors_soldiers/

In addition to this, APM has a site devoted to contracting, which we hope will evolve as people submit their observations, their stories and questions on it:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/f...r/index.shtml#

We've tried to be thorough here, but the question is still wide open: what are we missing?

Thanks again for your help, gents. Best,

Lea Coon
lcoon@americanpublicmedia.org