Blackwater and the Rise of For-Profit Armies

Mercenaries are nothing new in history. Irish warriors hired themselves out in the Middle Ages and William of Hesse-Kassel made a fortune hiring out German Mercenaries in the 18th century. However, the situation we find today is different than these two historic examples. Today, mercenaries are paid large salaries by private companies who, although they have close relationships with governments, are not actually government organizations themselves. This provides a much different scenario than individuals hiring themselves out to governments (the Irish) or a Prince hiring out his own military to other governments (Hesse-Kassel). I would say this privatized military more closely resembles activities of private European companies in colonization such as the East India Company. The East India Company was given a state sanctioned monopoly by the British crown in 1600 and although made up of private shareholders still contained many government officials in its members. The East India Company started out just trading but employed armies and eventually took over most of what we now know as India, even employing a Sepoy Army made up of Indians to help in this endeavor.

The private contractor companies that currently exist do not rule over colonies, however, much can be learned from the East India Company regarding joint private/government endeavors in military conquest. In some ways, the current system is an improvement on the system of the East India Co. which was eventually abolished amidst cries of wrong-doing by British citizens. In the current system policy is left to government who merely hire private contractors. With the East India Company, British citizens were worried about having a private organization involved in the aspects of ruling and to make matters worse the East India Company did not really enjoy that much wealth and was always struggling to retain a ‘balanced budget’. In the end a combination of dislike of the monopoly and distrust of Company techniques which led to a Sepoy rebellion in 1857 resulted in a direct crown take-over of the Indian government and eventual abolishment of all trade monopolies.

In contrast, private military companies that exist today are able to keep out of the headache of actual rule, enjoy much wealth, yet still enjoy a close relationship with government while–for the most part–staying out of the limelight. Currently, there are a handful of private contractor groups who enjoy sole-source, lucrative contracts from governments to do an array of tasks from transporting kitchen equipment for troops to protecting state officials to fighting coca growers in Columbia. These contractor groups receive great financial gains for this work and are able to pay their contractors very good wages at about $1,000/day. These good wages have prompted a recent exodus from the Canadian, British, and American special forces and ex-military personnel are recruited from such diverse places as Bosnia, the Philippines, Israel, Chile, Fiji, and Bulgaria. In this relationship government officials enact the policy either in the drug war or the Iraq invasion, but hire out lucrative contracts for certain military work to companies in a market that has little free-market competition and is more about who you know. In fact many private contractor companies boast ex-military, CIA, and other government officials on their Boards or as their owners. They even have a lobby group euphemistically called “International Peace Operations Association”.

So what are the difficulties with this system? The difficulties are less for governments and more for civilians. While a few companies may benefit financially and governments gain military force that is not restricted by laws, civilians can suffer by the secrecy such organizations entail and possible ensuing liabilities. When 4 contractors of Blackwater USA were killed in Fallujah the families decided to sue Blackwater for sending the contractors without armored vehicles into a situation that Blackwater knew was dangerous. One of those contractors, Scott Helveston an ex-navy seal, was lured into the job because of its high salary only to find death carrying kitchen equipment to soldiers in Fallujah when he thought he would be protecting ambassador Paul Bremer. Another liability is the recent shootout between Blackwater contractors and Iraqis which prompted the Iraqi government to say they will revoke the Blackwater license to operate in Iraq. However, this is not the first time that Blackwater contractors have been accused of wrongdoing in Iraq. In another situation a drunken contractor shot and killed a bodyguard of the Iraqi vice president and was subsequently flown to safety in the U.S. by Blackwater.

Although Blackwater has gotten some flack for operations in Iraq, this represents only a fraction of private military activity. There are many more private contractor companies and their various activities in all sorts of countries are fairly unknown. They are exempt from the same domestic and international laws which govern military action and can only suffer if caught and held accountable in the country of operation. As a dubious system of profit and rule these private contractor activities are very efficient, yet for a Republic of informed citizens these activities are a red flag for facism where markets and policies are manipulated to provide profits for private companies which are closely linked to government officials. Most of these companies function all over the globe and influence people’s views of Americans and the West, yet are not subject to regulations by our government or even scrutiny of their actions. Sure the media reports on a few incidents in Iraq, yet there is a multitude of private contractor activities around the globe that we know nothing about. So what is the answer to this burgeoning private military economy? I would say number one, subject it to a free market economy. Without a bloated government budget and protected relationship with government officials I’m sure these private military companies would suffer, of course that may cause the U.S. military involvement in over 200 countries to at least be greatly reduced, but I definitely wouldn’t argue with that.

Sources

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070918/tpl-uk-iraq-blackwater-81f3b62.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/14/nsas14.xml

http://www.secureaspects.com/jobboard/
http://www.secureaspects.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/world/middleeast/17cnd-iraq.html?ex=1347768000&en=4b2f6235315b15b1&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502602_2.html?hpid=topnews

Private military companies:

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

http://www.armorgroup.com/

http://www.hartsecurity.com/

http://www.privatemilitary.org/