In defense of security contractors

Like them or hate them, we still need private security contractors

By Col. Mark Cancian (USMCR Ret.)

In criticizing the use of contractors in Iraq, some observers cite Blackwater as the tip of the contractor iceberg. It's a fair analogy, but it deserves to be taken a step further. As with an iceberg, you may be able to shave some off the tip, but hacking away at the body is pointless.

Much discussion about contractors arises from confusion over who they are. With all the attention paid to Blackwater, many suppose that all contractors are gun-toting bodyguards. Current figures indicate that there are about 265,000 contractors in Iraq - 55 percent of whom are Iraqis and another 30 percent of whom come from third countries like the Philippines. The number of Americans (and Europeans) is relatively small. Ninety five percent work in reconstruction and logistics, with a few others in misc support roles like translation.

Actual security contractors number perhaps only 10,000. Most protect facilities inside major bases and never go outside the wire. These security guards are generally from third countries - for example, Salvadorans guard the USAID compound in the Green Zone. Their function consists of screening personnel entering these facilities by checking ID cards. This group has essentially never fired a shot in anger.

What's the point in replacing these security contractors? They have volunteered for the work, are doing a fine job, and cause no problems. Further, the military is already fully employed and lacks the personnel to replace them. (A further complication is that many security contractors work for the State Department, and the Defense Department is reluctant to divert scarce and highly trained personnel to protect diplomats.)

Blackwater (and its cousins Triple Canopy, DynCorp, and Aegis) together employ about 2,000 armed personnel. These constitute the groups that go outside the wire and have caused the widely publicized incidents. Their numbers are small enough that they could be replaced, in the near term, by military and, in the longer term, by State Department security specialists.

There are good policy reasons for doing this. But it would be no panacea.

Blackwater and other outfits like it are highly professional. Blackwater, for example, prides itself on never having lost a principal. Replacing them with ordinary grunts won't do -- only the best will be adequate. Private security contractors are less expensive than government employees with their massive benefits, large infrastructure, and need for a rotation base. So costs would go up. (Hint to budgeters -- many of these costs can be hidden to make the cost of conversion look less expensive.)

Finally, the bodyguard mentality won't go away with the security company contracts; it must be changed from the top. Behind the highly publicized incidents were not "rogue mercenaries" but professionals dedicated to the mission -- protecting the principal at all costs. "At all costs" means just that; costs to the locals, to the broader counterinsurgency effort, and to relations with the host government are irrelevant. For a bodyguard, this is the only measure of effectiveness, and it won't go away just because the bodyguard works for the government.

So don't read too much into the trials of Blackwater contractors this week. We won't be getting rid of private security contractors anytime soon -- and for good reason.

Colonel Mark F. Cancian (USMCR Ret.) received his BA and MBA from Harvard University. From 2006-2007 he was assistant chief of staff for assessment at the Marine headquarters in Anbar Province, Iraq. As a military officer and civilian official in Washington, he has worked on force structure, acquisition, and manpower issues.

MARWAN NAAMANI/AFP/Getty Images



Advertisement

 

I've done quite a lot of

by Bret on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 8:54pm

I've done quite a lot of research on private mercenaries. In my opinion, large news corporations are very negative against them and paint a bad picture for them.

First, people think that they are completely gun how cowboys. They think of Blackwater Worldwide and 'mercenaries' when they hear about private military contractors. This is a stereotype. In fact, there are responsible contractors out there that respect the rules and follow laws (ArmorGroup).

Secondly, people argue that these contractors are just as expensive when compared to soldiers. This is wrong. PMCs tend to be short term and also 'outsource' contractors (Chileans, Fijis, Iraqis) because this is cheaper.

Basically, with over 100,000 contractors in Iraq, they need to stay. They're very important to the Iraqi mission and some soldiers are just as elite as US Special Forces. I believe that they should fall under the somebody's jurristriction but should stay.

Lure Has to Agree

by Lure D. Lou on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:34pm

War is big business and the managers have to always keep an eye on the bottom line. It is also ridiculous to assume that a) contractors are any more trigger happy than soldiers, or that b) just because someone has enlisted they are morally superior to someone who is just doing his or her job. Frankly I think all wars should be fought by private contractors. When you brainwash young people into thinking they are killing for a higher purpose like the military does (other than money that is)you are committing a far worse moral transgression. Right now wars are like college football...not all pro but not amateurs either....I say send in the free agents!

Not so sure

by TimM on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 2:03pm

If we are talking about a relatively low number of people (security contractors working outside the wire), why do we have to contract this work out?

These people can do irrevocable damage to our nation's image (as they have repeatedly done) and possibly jeopardize our mission.

And accounts from journalists, miltary, civilians, etc... confirm that these guys ARE more trigger happy than our soldiers.

Certainly we need private

by J Thomas on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 4:21pm

Certainly we need private security contractors. It would be silly to pull them out.

And also we need to put them under iraqi legal jurisdiction. When they break iraqi law they must be tried in iraqi courts and punished in iraqi prisons.

People act like this is a complex problem but see how simple to solve once you know how!

winning over the Iraqi population?

by socal55 on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 11:00am

Exactly what is the mission in Iraq? If private security contractors are undermining that mission then on what bases is it desirable to continue their use?

Socal55, once it got obvious

by J Thomas on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 3:36pm

Socal55, once it got obvious there was no victory available in iraq, the mission has been to look good until Bush gets out of office.

It needed more troops than we had available to look good, and they filled in as many jobs as they could with private contractors. Part of the problem is that when contractors went in harm's way they had poor armor and poor weapons and little backup. So they tried to make up in volume of fire and quick reaction what they lacked in everything else.

Iraqi complaints about them got monotonous and not news, so after the initial bad publicity it mostly hasn't been particularly costly toward the goal of looking good.

I'm not clear what the new goal will be. It would be absurd for Obama to try to keep the occupation going for four more years and look good. But after we finally won the war with the Surge, he'll look bad if the gains were all lost on his watch. Another example like vietnam, where the war was won and then we lost it at the last minute because we lost our nerve and pulled out. He'd probably want to try to get an iraqi government going that he can leave on good terms with, but how?

One problem is the iraqis are pretty upset about mercenaries who have permission to kill them at will, responsible to nobody. And if they're put under US authority then every time they kill a bunch of iraqis and we investigate it will be he-said/she-said, and if we say they're right the iraqis will be mad at us and vice versa. So put them under iraqi law. Our guys will leave, replaced by mercenaries from third-world nations who really really need the money. And if we're drawing down troops anyway the effect will just be like drawing down a little faster. The alternative of officially drawing down troops and adding more mercenaries to replace them is not workable at all.

In response to both Social 55

by Bret on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 3:41pm

In response to both Social 55 and you is that first, the US military doesn't like having private military contractors escorting supplies of kitchen equipment around Iraq. That's where the use of contractors come in, they do the jobs that enable the US to put its troops to more effective areas.

J Thomas, I'm assuming that most private military companies will stay except for Blackwater (a 'special' pmc). Surprisingly, there are companies out there that ensure their soldiers go in ready and briefed. However, there are some firms out there that ignore these preparations. These firms don't last long because they will screw up.

Anyways, Blackwater has given mercenaries a negative view.

BW is its own worst enemy and its own saviour

by TCO on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 10:15am

BW has done serious damage to their brand in recent years. IMHO they will need to seriously re-invent themselves or stand-up other companies under different brands in the future.

Mostly this is all to be expected. Like everything else in our economy the PSC industry has gone through explosive growth and this created also a 'bubble' that was sure to burst.

There will certainly be some consolidation in the industry in the next two years. Those that survive will be of two forms

1) Companies who are connected at very high levels politically and can get things done behind the scenes to keep contracts coming their way. (BW is certainly in this category right now). This list will be very short. Less than 5 companies in both the UK and US respectively.
2) Companies who are operationally efficient and have high customer focus. These are likely to be smaller or more medium sized firms that have higher quality leadership at all levels and can satisfy clients needs while still protecting shareholder value. These firms can always survive and even thrive in absence of high political connections.

Jake
http://combatoperator.com/blog/