Last December, The Guardian reported that private corporations "are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon." An estimated 10,000 "private" soldiers were then in Iraq; one out of every ten servicemen and women. Nearly a third of the budget earmarked that year for the war, or $30 billion dollars, went to private companies. "a booming business which entails replacing soldiers wherever possible with highly paid civilians and hired guns not subject to standard military procedures." Whether such contractors are mercenaries (whose use is banned by the Geneva conventions) is one concern. But the practice raises much graver issues, among them whether the ability to "hire" soldiers has allowed policymakers to wage war by proxy and without the kind of congressional and media oversight to which conventional deployments are subject.
Outsourcing—the practice of “contracting out” certain tasks rather than having employees perform them—can save businesses money. But outsourcing also presents oversight challenges, as the Gap recently acknowledged when it disclosed substandard employment conditions in overseas subcontractor’s facilities.
The problem isn’t limited to the private sector, or to jobs shipped overseas. Locally, we’ve seen what happens when government agencies “privatize” without appropriate safeguards, first during the Goldsmith administration and more recently at FSSA.
Now, we are seeing the consequences of privatizing warfare, and those consequences go far beyond “mere” financial improprieties.
Last December, The Guardian reported that private corporations “are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon.” An estimated 10,000 “private” soldiers were then in Iraq; one out of every ten servicemen and women. Nearly a third of the budget earmarked that year for the war, or $30 billion dollars, went to private companies. “…a booming business which entails replacing soldiers wherever possible with highly paid civilians and hired guns not subject to standard military procedures.” Whether such contractors are mercenaries (whose use is banned by the Geneva conventions) is one concern. But the practice raises much graver issues, among them whether the ability to “hire” soldiers has allowed policymakers to wage war by proxy and without the kind of congressional and media oversight to which conventional deployments are subject.
· Provider firms offering direct, tactical assistance—anything from training and staff services to front-line combat.
· Consulting firms using retired senior officers selling their expertise back to the military.
· Firms providing logistic and maintenance services.
But it is the other implications of outsourcing warfare that are staggering. Will we lose control of military policy to companies responsible only to their clients and shareholders? How does foreign policy change when a declaration of war means “hiring” soldiers rather than deploying constituents’ children, or when companies pursuing profits lobby for military rather than diplomatic “solutions” to conflicts? How do we control the behavior of “private” combatants who aren’t subject to military law? After all, a private military company is in Iraq or Bosnia to make money, not to advance U.S. policy.
Some jobs must be performed by citizens pursuing their civic duty rather than by businesses pursuing profits. We cannot outsource patriotism.