A hopeful sign of the emergence of a Military-Industrial-SysAdmin-Complex.

I can’t imagine most companies will build up their own forces, rather they would rely on PMC’s (at least as advisors.) While some of the older PMC’s were driven out of business (some were even publicly traded) it seems as though they have been reconstituted, Blackwater being the most readily available example. Furthermore, British insurance companies have begun to build up naval capabilities to protect ships in the Med and east/south east Asia as piracy has spiked in the past six years.

From a pure business perspective this the exact type of activity that should be outsourced. Resource extraction firms and international shippers most likely do not have the experience and knowledge necessary to develop and adequately support a military force. Better off to higher private contractors or include it in any insurance contracts.

These private contractors will also be beneficial, because they will be less likely to want to expand their influence beyond their employers property and interests. In other words, no mission creep. They will be paid to do a specific job with specific objectives.

Regards,
TDL

Sounds like something out of a William Gibson Cyberpunk novel.

If we take John Robb’s world far enough I think you will begin to see PMC’s across the entire spectrum. Large, Wal-Mart like, that will look to push prices lower to capture the lower end of the market, while medium sized firms and small boutique operators occupying the middle upper ends of the market. I would say this trend continues, although this would be the countervailing force to Robb’s darker world. There would be direct competition between providers (that wouldn’t necessitate war, this would be bad for the bottom line) while continually innovating to protect clients. Pinkerton (or rather Securitas as it is now known) would be the best to watch since they seem to occupy the van of the security business (although the Blackwater is a competitor it seems to occupy a different sector of the industry.)

Regards,
TDL

Has anyone read Heinlein’s novel “Friday”? The same scenario is indicated there. It isn’t pretty.

John Robb also talks about primary loyalties. The USA is still a source of primary loyalty for many of its citizens. The USA can therefore generate military power on a large scale. Also recall the notion that Barnett has about rule sets for the Core and for the Gap. You don’t get to run around in the core with your mercenary army. You get to to that only in places where there is no government to speak of. If your mercs come home to London or New York or Canberra or Kiev or Antwerp or wherever, they leave their guns (or at least their big stuff) in the depot back in Indian country.

A nasty brutish world, where modern countries are so beholden by self imposed restrictions on military action that they delegate the most important function of the state to private actors unencumbered by any motive other than profit. Whereas hostage taking, reprisals, punitive atrocities are not in the repetoire of the modern state military, there is no fundamental reason not to expect such measures from private armies. Furthermore, the modern free company is essentially a parasitic organism, in that it derives its expertise mostly from ex-service personal trained by governments at ruinous taxpayer expense, a cost that is not passed on to said free companies. If private concerns become the norm instead of state militaries, and have to do their own training, expect the costs of their employment to rival or exceed that of a state army. In which case the main expediency of free companies would be precisely their potential lack of adherance to civilized laws.

Belgium in the Congo.

Another point to consider is that those who pursue employment in PMC’s are professional soldiers. They will tend to be more experienced, motivated, and knowledgeable about their business. Most of these private firms have a cadre of professional soldiers that would be able to train the next group of recruits (in fact I believe this already the technique used by many U.S. based PMC’s, although they require military experience, training is still part of the process.)

The assumption that these private contractors will not play by “civilized” rules is dubious. There may very well be abuses, but some firms will have strict ethical guidelines (while other firms may have none.) Furthermore, the clients of these firms may find it beneficial to put certain requirements in the contracts (such as “no genocide” or “no rape”.) A company like Exxon/Mobil will not want to have its reputation sullied by the excesses of a PMC; this is especially relevant today where it is much easier to communicate with the world.

A last point. A soldier who served his country for 4, 8, 12, or more years should not be prevented from profiting from his experience and skills. If this soldier wants to start a PMC and hire a bunch of his buddies, I do not see that as being “parasitic”.

Regards,
TDL

Am I the only one who thinks “PMC/Private Enterprise” and then can’t help but entertain visions of Marius, Sulla and the latters march on Rome? Sounds a bit melodramatic but it doesn’t take much imagination to see the correlation.

“The assumption that these private contractors will not play by “civilized”Â? rules is dubious. ”

In the short term, while they are based on cadres from prfessional armies of civilizes states, I assume they will play nice.

But if history is any guide, privatizing conflict is guaranteed excesses. In line with the 19th century styling of this blog : Belgians in the Congo. East India Company actions and involvement in opium trade. Rhodesia.

“...strict ethical guidelines…” Enforced by who? There is no reason to assume mercenaries will have more “strict ethical guidelines” than Exxon or Enron.

Shell employs Corporation X, which is essence fighting a fragment of 4GW to keep security over an area with distributed oil infrastructure. Will Shell or Corporation X plow millions into “hearts and minds” in a place without a state? I suggest only if it is cheaper than shooting any miscreants. If Shell needs to keep a clean image, Corporation X must consider whether it is cheaper being nice, or cheaper hiding the bodies. Or hiring some “bandits” to do it (in a place that sort of casual violence happens the time anyway).

Think mining operations in New Guinea and Bougainville late 20th century.

Shell employs Corporation X. Conditions change and Shell ditches Corporation X. The capability has been created, paid for by Shell. However, unlike a state military, it does not go back on the shelf (for long anyway). Corporation X needs cash flow. Corporation X core competency is “provides security”, but it needs conflict and failed state anarchy in order to do that….Today, in the world of strong state militaries, a rogue operator would get stamped on quite rapidly (think Bob Denard). In tomorrow’s coming anarchy, if state militaries are weak, and only intervene where directly necessary … well.

I think Mark is right in his comment. As for “empire building” many companies encounter this problem and they fail. Simply, when a company deviates from its core competency it begins to invest capital in activities it can not profitably perform. Eventually the company will find itself in a situation where it has a series of projects that earn below the cost of capital and that will slowly devalue the worth of the company. Over time, companies that operate in this manner fade away and their assets are bought, unless they shed unprofitable business and focus in on their core competencies. The same theory will apply with PMC’s. I think it is highly probable that some PMC at some point in the future will be so enamored with its military capability that it thinks it can rule a territory; obviously, guns alone do not rule territories. While some of these “free companies” will attempt to build empires (as some will probably commit atrocities), they will most likely deviate from the practices that brought them success and eventually fail.

As for a Sulla or a Marius arising from a PMC it is plausible, but I don’t think it will lead to any success. Sulla and Marius were politically popular before the civil war, I just don’t see many in our political class picking up a rifle. I would also argue that the political bulwark of the states would prevent the mere taking of D.C. as being as important as the taking of Rome was. This doesn’t mean that a pure dictator couldn’t rise, but the states are a check against a Sullan or Caesarian type of rise to power. At least that is my contention.

Regards,
TDL

“...not a substantive critique of PMC behavior.”

Agreed, and currently the PMCs are playing nice, but because they are under the control of Western governments, and staffed by the ex-soldiers of western armies. However, in a future weak legal environment without these two restraints, the PMC/corporate army is placed in a situation where the prime factor determining the utility of violence becomes maximisation of profit. No need for hypothetial examples. This can be seen in operation today in the business environment in Russia, and it is not pretty.

“I’m not sure how they could be qualitatively worse than say, the government of the Sudan.”

Agreed. Quite right. Take the hypothetical example of Shell and a failed Nigeria. A corporate army is unlikely to be worse than the forces of a third world despotism, indeed, it is quite liable to resemble the corrupt but elite forces that keep the people at bay while kleptocratic tyrants loot the country, for it will fulfill essentially the same function.

For these reasons, as well as the third of seizure of power and fomenting disorder, I can only echo the conclusion “Useful entities but not ones that should be untethered from the supervision a great power military.”

Broadcast media and western liberals are doing a terrible job of exposing what racist buccaneers like Custer Battles and Blackwater are doing in Iraq. I had to read a lot of articles about Iraq to find out that our own Marines consider these mercenaries to be barbarians who increase support for the rebels. And many of those mercenaries are working for Halliburton and other corporate friends of The Administration, who have committed crimes so vast that Congress could devote all its time to exposing them for the next 2 years and barely scratch the surface. There are no consequences because we Westerners will support any crime that is (a) necessary to prolong their “way of life” and (b) disguised as a noble cause. Americans are turning against the war because we’re LOSING, not because the Marines and Blackwater did bad things.

There are a couple misconceptions going on here. First, the nature of the corporation. A corporation is merely a manner of formally organizing rights and assets, where there exists a clear delineation of who is entitled to what. The corporation does not need the state to support its existence, it is just another civil institution that has evolved from human interaction and cooperation (not by dictate.) Second, a conflation of what is and is not capitalism. The East India company was not a capitalist entity, it was a mercantilist entity. The East India company, like all other concessions of the British Crown, existed to expand the British Empire and enrich those who were in favor of the Crown. I agree with Super390’s assessment of the chronology of East India company (even with the faux liberalism and conservative moralism.) What I disagree with is the assessment of the East India company as a capitalist entity, it was merely a cost effective way of expanding empire. Many civil institutions are co-opted by power hungry, empire builders, it does not mean that these institutions are inherently evil (or exist simply as vehicles for the expansion or power.)

Can the utilization of PMC’s turn into an “East India” event? I think that it is highly probable that they will to an extent, but the unfolding of any power garnered from the use of PMC’s in an East India manner will happen much more quickly.

Regards,
TDL

Phil –
If we move away from the right/wrong perspective in recognition of the rise of a morally neutral global platform we can PMCs as harbingers of a new age of conflict.

State platforms functions are progressively being handed off towards the individual, PMCs and the various iterations of corporation states (amid a variety of emerging state structures) are just steps along the way.

FYI—this source claiming to document/summarize Contractor casualties in Iraq:

http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx

Also, here’s a comment from an old post:

http://www.cominganarchy.com/2006/06/25/independence-inc/#comment-106991