Outsourcing In The MilitaryEssay Preview: Outsourcing In The MilitaryReport this essayThe Problems with Outsourcing Military SecurityAt this point in the War in Iraq there are a handful of enduring images. Perhaps the most memorable is the video of Iraqi nationals and U.S. troops toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, there are also other lingering images that highlight not only the difficulties of the current occupation, but a new danger for the military profession as well. In 2004 front page pictures of four American bodies that had been abused and dragged through the streets of Fallujah brought light on a new reality in warfare. For these men were not soldiers. These men were employees. They worked for a company called Blackwater USA, and their deaths made public the new role private military firms play in combat. Private companies have been and are being hired to protect U.S. journalists, government contractors, and administration working in Iraq, as well as military bases and other important buildings. There are host of problems which make the policy of outsourcing security and guarding important facilities problematic.
These private companies hire an array of people from all over. According to Mimi Hall, “Over the years, criminals have landed jobs as security guards. Some didnt go through background checks. Others were subject only to one states checks, which didnt find criminal records in other states” (2). What is even more novel and troublesome in Iraq is the extent to which these contractors appear to be conducting combat operations, rather than the support functions they have performed in the past. This shift raises a number of problems for the U.S. government that military leaders are only now beginning to consider. Their primary concern appears to be how to
control these contractors and ensure that their actions under fire further the national interest. In addition Nils Rosemann brings to light that “The Pentagon hired corporations to draft guidelines for public-private engagement. In other words, corporations were writing their own rules” (275). Private military companies “are the second largest armed force in Iraq” with over 20,000 contractors (Rosemann 276). This large presence shows how overly relying on an outside source can affect your goals. Military people are strictly trained for their mission as well as to be an effective soldier, where as these contractors are only schooled in the trade of their choice. Soldiers must protect many of them and be relied on to escort them to and from work sites. This takes it toll on the logistics of the militarys operations. They operate without the transparency or accountability of a government agency, and they have a financial interest in continued conflict.
One reason that the military is hiring more private contractors to do job that had been traditionally accomplished within the military is that it is simply easier to do so. This is similar to the reason that many private companies turn to vendors or sub-contractors. Often times it would simply take too long or not be as efficient to manage something in house as it would be to pay someone else to do the work. In the case of the U.S. military, however, there is even further incentive. By subcontracting security efforts to private forces, the US reduces its own accountability. Rosemann points out that “This high number of foreign corporations and employees leads to a lack of supervision by authorities in Iraq, which is one of the root causes for the continued human rights violations by private military and security corporations”
(276). The reports of contractors participating in combat and abuse of prisoners are troubling. They are even disturbing when we realize the full impacts of these actions. These effects, however troubling, can be avoided or at least mitigated by better management and integration. However, the negative impacts to a profession of outsourcing the core function of that profession is perhaps the most troubling and least discussed aspect of outsourcing. Furthermore, the differences between the military profession and other security personnel merely serve to augment those disturbing impacts. The lack of accountability, however, is far from the only issue raised by contractors; they operate under a separate oversight structure without any unified chain of command. In addition, they often have different training and equipment than U.S. and use different intelligence and communication procedures than the soldiers with whom they are working.
Another major reason that outsourcing is occurring involves the role of technology in the way the US fights modern warfare. The US is becoming more reliant on technology. This means that more and more frequently the military is relying on contractors to maintain and sometimes even operate the technological systems they develop. Patriot missiles, Joint STARS, and even Apache helicopters are just some of the systems that have seen a dramatic increase in the number of private contractors involved in the day-to-day life of the weapon system after it has been declared operational. These contractors receive special training and perform many specific tasks that the military is not equipped to train for. While the military does train its people for some technical areas, it is still a combat entity. Combat
training, field training, and constantly training to be a solider comes first. So, instead of setting up and organizing these training facilities they hire other people to perform the most technical of tasks.
Yet another cause of the increase in outsourcing is an increasing belief that private is both cheaper and better. Free markets are believed to create superior goods at a cheaper cost, so it is believed that private companies can usually provide services for the government cheaper and more efficiently than they could themselves. Economic arguments are, after all, the most frequent discussed, perhaps because money is often the determining factor in many of these decisions. One of the most frequently provided in favor of these security officers is that they do not infringe upon the core military function because they are merely providing security similar to private security officers throughout the world. We have private security personnel protecting business in dangerous countries and government buildings within the United
\o/
* It is true that in a variety of countries, especially those that maintain their sovereignty, private security is even more necessary, as it has become known in history and in private practice that it is impossible to guarantee such a level of security. As I have already concluded before, I believe that the private nature of business should be taken into account for the protection of public safety. And yet here it is all so very different from our world where private security is at best very minimal, often quite important in the decision making that follows from a decision making process in every other profession, such as economics.
4. In some instances—whereas in others, private security often has an impact—where there is clearly an urgent need, we need a strategy. We need to have the best means to provide the goods. On this point I will consider, as I do above, a case history of some private security and, in some settings, I believe also, that of military security.
One, we have a military force: The British and American. In fact, at the end of World War II, some twenty years after World War II began, the U.S. military was the third biggest military force with a population of about one million civilians under age 17 as of 2003:
* American personnel in uniform are required to perform their duty on duty;*
* “in the highest security settings” that are “compressed” from overseas to the United Nations on occasion, to the extent that an American “combat duty” includes “in-depth training, the preparation, and instruction of foreign officers for the use of such forces on the operational end.”** But not all of the private security personnel in our Military Force are in uniform:
* Private security officers must stay in line of duty to provide “security” without regard to race, gender, religion, marital status, or age or mental or physical ability. ** If an American officer at the height of his capacity to perform a military duty is discharged or ordered from a foreign service, his private security personnel are charged with an exemption from serving abroad in accordance with the foreign service service’s duty requirements.
4. One would be well advised (as it is today) to remember that in the U.S. military, our military personnel—and their personnel are men and women—carry a number of critical skills that are often overlooked or underutilized and, in many places, are the least of our priorities. A private security officer may be required to serve only one year, six months, or a total of 14 months, with full or partial pay increases of up to $800 per month. But this is hardly an obligation: If an American officer serves in that capacity, he has sufficient pay to support himself and all of those around him—even if he is not a man of integrity.
5. Private security officers carry the risk that all military security personnel will be physically and emotionally exhausted and have to leave the country. This has not stopped private security officers from traveling to and from various areas when these risks become evident. I have written repeatedly myself that U. S. military personnel, like many other public employees, are often too full-time to continue traveling, as many are often physically exhausted.
In fact, when we hear that private security and veterans are required to participate in international military deployments, it