The private security industry has "boomed since 9/11" says Peter
Singer, an expert in the corporate warriors at the Brookings
Institution here. "Since 9/11 the US military is stretched far
thinner than it's ever been before, so you have a gap in supply and
demand and private companies are filling it."
This private military industry, which emerged in the 1970s,
gained steam with the end of the cold war and apartheid, which freed
up thousands of seasoned military troops - ranging from elite troops
from South Africa, the Soviet Union, and the United States to the
Gurkhas from Nepal. It "spewed forth a lot of capable people in the
market," says Herbert Howe of the School of Foreign Service at
Georgetown University.
Today, it operates in more than 50 conflict zones around the
world, with several hundreds of firms involved doing an estimated
$100 billion in business each year, according to Mr. Singer.
In Iraq, these private military firms collectively represent the
largest US coalition partner, with an estimated 15,000 to 20,000
"troops" on the ground, he says. While casualties among these
contractors are not tracked by the US government, an estimated 30
have died in Iraq so far and an unknown number have been wounded,
outside experts estimate.
Those who join the firms - including Blackwater, the North
Carolina company whose employees died in Fallujah - are often
capable and seasoned military veterans, having traveled the world,
learned languages, and engaged in combat in multiple hotspots.
At the prime of their careers, they're drawn by salaries at least
double or triple their military pay. And they don't mind the dangers
of places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Colombia. US firms recruit
former Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces (Green Berets), and Delta
Force commandos, who retire from the military only to take on
equally risky work for much higher pay.
Indeed, competition over the elite troops from private companies
is so intense that it has recently spurred the US Special Operations
Command to formulate new pay, benefits, and educational incentives
to try to retain them. "Competition with the civilian world has
never been greater," said Gen. Bryan "Doug" Brown, commander of the
49,000-strong US Special Operations Command, in congressional
testimony.
Questions of accountability
Still, the proliferation of such private firms in conflict zones
is raising questions over their own accountability and protections -
and the motivations of the governments that hire them.
While the horrific nature of the Fallujah killings marks an
exception, hiring contractors generally imposes "less political
accountability and less political repercussions because these are
not our boys being killed," says Mr. Howe. "If you get highly
skilled people whose deaths do not carry the same political baggage,
it makes political sense to hire these guys."
From a financial standpoint, private security workers cost more
than US troops, but they are hired only when needed and are paid for
services rendered.
At the same time, however, such private firms may be more
inclined to withdraw from conflict zones when violence flares. "A
worrisome factor with private security is that these companies are
under less obligation to remain when the going gets tough. A US
soldier doesn't have that freedom," says Howe.
Efforts to create a legal framework for regulating the private
military industry could address some accountability issues,
clarifying the legal gray area in which these companies currently
operate, says Doug Brooks of the Washington-based International
Peace Operations Association, a nonprofit group of companies that
offers services in conflict zones.
So far, however, the United Nations and broader international
community have avoided creating such a regulatory system, he says.
"The international community doesn't want to legitimize the concept
by creating laws," says Mr. Brooks.
"Companies have been leading the efforts to regulate this
industry ... operating in failed states," he says, to establish
"guidelines for addressing grievances on both sides."
A way to dodge political costs?
Another potential problem, some critics say, is that the US
government employs private security workers to skirt restrictions by
Congress on what US troops can do on the ground, as well as on troop
numbers.
"It's a way to dodge political costs," says Mr. Singer. "For
example, US troops can't get involved in civil war or with groups
that have human rights problems ... so this is a way to go around
that," he says.
Moreover, he adds, "it's a way to avoid the public costs when
things go wrong," citing the little-publicized example of ex-US
military workers being held captive today in Colombia. "You can
imagine the outcry if three American soldiers were being held
captive," he says.
