After the Vietnam War our military completely revamped itself; obviously there was a great need to separate military service from the drug use that was rampant among troops overseas. In the mid 70s the state department made our military an all volunteer force and took away the draft that had caused so much controversy during the Vietnam War. Since our military is now an all volunteer force, it has its limits, at least limitations in the number of troops that it can amass. (Screening Evaluations limit the military's numbers even further. Psychological, physical, and intelligence tests and standards prohibit a large number of would be recruits from joining the service.) This has put a strain active duty members that are currently fighting the War on Terror. Instead of the single tour of duty and return to the states that was reflective of the Vietnam War, troops are now going through cycles of training, deployment, training, deployment...etc. Some service members have seen over 5 tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.
So where do PMCs fit in? PMCs and PSCs (Security and Risk Companies) fill in the gaps so that the military is able to effectively carry out its mission. US forces are not only on the front lines fighting insurgents, but behind them as well, driving supply trains, building camps and bases, moving forces...etc. To reach the numbers needed to effectively do all this almost our entire military force would need to be deployed. Obviously this is not practical. The solution-Private Contractors.
Most of these contracted companies carry out combat support operations or security for non military personnel in country. There are, however, companies contracted by the government that fight on the front lines. A recent Washington Post article points out a Florida firm that was contracted to, "provide dogs and their handlers for operational use in areas of Southern Afghanistan along the Pakistan borer, where some of the most violent fighting is taking place."
This process of contracting out work by the Department of Defense is a major source of controversy, especially after the events of September 16th 2007, in which Blackwater employees shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians completely unprovoked. The company was 'kicked out' by the Iraqi government the very next day, but still controversy surrounds the issue. Why is the DoD paying tax dollars to private companies that kill civilians, effectively destroying any progress made to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This event, while tragic, gave the impetus for change in defense contracting. The House of Representatives passed a bill in October of 2007 that made all private contractors working in Iraq or other countries subject to prosecution by US Courts. This coupled with new standards for employees (most companies only take US citizens that have over 3-7 years in the Special Forces, since FBI investigations found that it was Iraqi Blackwater employees responsible for the civilian deaths) have removed the "lawless" cloud that hung over the term Private Contractor.
I have to disagree if you think this dilemma has been solved.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with MEJA is that it doesn't have any teeth and the jurisdiction of the law remains vague. No one has been fully prosecuted under it (one person plead guilty), including those Blackwater mercenaries who slayed 17 in Baghdad (the case was thrown out because of a due process violation. The House of Representatives attempted to broaden the horizon of the original bill by passing the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007 (HR 2740) with a vote of 389 - 30, but the Senate failed to pass a similar bill, meaning that it has not impacted US Policy. So there remains no real precedent under MEJA and the issue remains just as grave as ever.
As for the fact that Blackwater was thrown out of Iraq, this is entirely true, but it didn't prohibit the Blackwater freelancers to join one of the other Private Military Contracting firms.
And additionally, a lot of the money going to PMCs is coming from our country's general fund and not the DoD. This makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to track just how much money has been spent on these contractors.
I understand the need for military contracting, but if we give someone a gun, it reflects poorly on America if we don't hold them accountable for what they do with it.
I personally do not have a problem with the U.S. hiring private contractors to fight in the war. If it allows our troops better state of mind and some relief from fighting on the front lines, as well as removing the necessity for a military draft, I'm all for it.
ReplyDelete