Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
It’s your last chance to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch in 2017. Help us gear up to fight the status-quo in 2018! Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Profiteering in War: the Case Against Mercenaries  

by

Photo by The U.S. Army | CC BY 2.0

Opening the August 30 New York Times, I was surprised (and personally appalled) to find Erik Prince on the opinion page with his own by-lined article (“Contractors, Not Troops, Will Save Afghanistan”). While Prince is entitled to his opinion, it seemed to me his former role as head of Blackwater should have denied him the privilege of expressing it from the vaulted platform of the NYT.

Taking issue with the Prince op-ed, I maintain that the U.S. military should never hire mercenaries, whether directly or through Blackwater-type firms since contract soldiers have a vested interest in prolonging a war.  Their private employers, investors, and lobbyists have a similar interest in advocating pro-war policies in the halls of Congress.

Enriched by a succession of lucrative government security contracts and serving for years as a CIA lackey, Prince’s security company Blackwater earned opprobrium for its high-handed aggressiveness in Iraq as it escorted government VIPs around Baghdad and beyond.  Repeated abuses of Iraqi pedestrians and motorists came to a head when four Blackwater employees opened fire in a crowded square in Baghdad in 2007, killing 17 and wounding 20.  Prince defended his security force but sold the company in 2010.

Now Prince would elevate the role of the private contractor from security to actual combat. His op-ed envisions a “contractor force of less than 6,000 (far less than the 26,000 in the country now)” that would “provide a support structure for the Afghans, allowing the United States’ conventional forces to return home.” All this sounds attractive, but why would such “former Special Operations veterans” be expected to accomplish on the battlefield what U.S. Special Ops cannot?

In a 2007 Brookings article (“The Dark Truth about Blackwater”), Peter W. Singer concluded that the “massive outsourcing of military operations,” creating a dependency on private firms like Blackwater, has given rise to “dangerous vulnerabilities.”  He went on to cite the firm’s cutting corners “that may have contributed to employee deaths,” the classification of documents “to cover up corporate failures,” and public relations fiascos that have diverted the attention of military planners and shamed America.  As to costs, Singer questioned whether firms like Blackwater really save the taxpayer money.

A more serious objection to outsourcing soldiers lies in its bypassing of citizen scrutiny.  As opposed to the deployment of more troops or the call-up of National Guard and Reserves, the hiring of contract forces lies beneath the public radar screen. Even in its more limited “bodyguard” role, the private military industry has become, according to Singer, “the ultimate enabler, allowing operations to happen that might otherwise be politically impossible.”

As with Blackwater in Iraq, military contractors often create a negative image of America.  Disrespect of and assault on ordinary civilians were frequent complaints against Blackwater in Iraq. With direct government control lacking, private contractors take orders from their corporate bosses, who in turn respond to investor preoccupation with the “bottom line.”

Corruption is another reason to limit contractor roles in warfare.  In addition to the contributions and gift travel that military industry lobbyists shower on lawmakers in an effort to win contracts, there is corruption in contractor procurement practices.  According to Singer, the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified “a staggering $10 billion in unsupported or questionable costs from battlefield contractors” in Iraq.

Many of the same objections can be laid against private prison operators, where an inherent conflict of interest divides contract employee loyalty between government and the corporate bosses who pay their salaries.  In war, the military industry profits from continuing conflict, while in peace, private prison companies profit from occupied cell blocks and minimal operating costs.  Without government control and civilian oversight, both military and prison contractors tend to skimp on support costs and resort to abuse.

Private military/security companies and private prison companies have in common the vulnerabilities of conflict of interest, corruption, policy distortion and lack of transparency.  To remain the guarantor of the public interest, the U.S. government should beware of contracting out its military, security (and prison) functions.

More articles by:

L. Michael Hager is cofounder and former Director General, International Development Law Organization, Rome.

December 11, 2017
Oscar Oliver-Didier 
The Invisibility of Poverty in Puerto Rico
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Jerusalem Decision Risks Uniting the Entire Arab World Against the US
Uri Avnery
From Barak to Trump
Robert Hunziker
Dying Ecosystems
Paul Tritschler
The Year Without Summer
Ramzy Baroud
What Trump Has Done: The Entire US-Middle East Political Framework Just Collapsed
Francis Thicke
What Does “Organic” Mean?
Franklin Lamb
Foreign Proxies Prematurely Boast “Mission Accomplished” in Syria
Mike Whitney
Petty, Backstabbing Washington Sinks Russia’s Olympic Dreams
Mel Gurtov
The Calculated Destruction of America’s Government
David Underhill
Roy Moore Runs to Seat Protestant Pope in Senate
Sheldon Richman
The FBI is Not Your Friend
Weekend Edition
December 08, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
We the Sheeple: the Blind Reading the Blind
Ted Nace
State of Fear: How History’s Deadliest Bombing Campaign Created Today’s Crisis in Korea
Paul Street
The Burning Earth Bears Witness in California
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
Operation Paperclip: Nazi Science Heads West
John W. Whitehead
John Lennon’s Most Radical Message
Patrick Cockburn
Jerusalem Explained
Gary Leupp
Jared, Jerusalem, and Possible Jail Time
Oren Ben-Dor
Jerusalem, Partition, Justice and Peace 
CJ Hopkins
The Year of the Headless Liberal Chicken
Felicia Kornbluh
Why Not a Women’s Party? 
Andrew Levine
As the “Me Too” Movement Develops, the Duopoly Divides, and Vestiges of Incoherence Remain
Pepe Escobar
The New Great Game Moves from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific
Howard Lisnoff
The Rearguard Battles We Have Fought and Continue to Fight
Ishmael Reed
What Did Corporate Media Feminists Know and When Did They Know It?
Charles R. Larson
Endpaper: The Decline of Reading for Pleasure
Brian Cloughley
Bombing to Victory?
Nick Pemberton
Reason, Nuclear Weapons, and Donald Trump
Robert Fantina
Trump, Netanyahu and Israel’s Capital
Morgan Strong
Armageddon: Pence, Israel and the Evangelicals
Lee Hall
The Professor and the Poverty Tour
Julian Vigo
Opioid and Heroin Addiction in the US: the Perfect Storm of Greed and Medical Malpractice
Jill Richardson
Our Social Structure is Rigged
John Chuckman
What Trump is Doing in Jerusalem and Why He is Doing It
 Ann Garrison – Bénédicte Kumbi Ndjoko
Trafficking Desperate Black Africans from Israel to Rwanda to Libya
Sarah Anderson
The GOP Tax Plan is Igniting a Movement for a Moral Economy
Philip Doe
Colorado Politics Redux: The Great Treachery to be Found in Little Things
José Madero
Beware the Green Corporate Scam: the 100% Renewable Façade
Patrick Bobilin
Don’t Cry For Franken; Cry For This Broken System
Phil Rockstroh
Capitalism’s Failure of the Flesh: the Rise of the Robots
George Wuerthner
Time to Create a Cascade Siskiyou National Park
Ted Rall
Will President Trump Last Another Year?
Jonas Ecke
A Leftist Case for Foreign Aid
Pablo Solon
TIPNIS: the Saga for the Rights of Nature and Indigenous People
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail