Poli 360

After watching both the documentary The Shadow Company, as well as witnessing Alan Bell’s guest lecture on crisis management in times of war, I have been enlightened as to how vital private security firms are in today’s context of high rates of civil conflict. The role of private security firms in contemporary conflicts is to make gains off wars, often by providing logistical or security insight on the conflicts, which can often be taken into a negative light. However, they also play an important role in conducting jobs that governments themselves don’t want to engage in. After taking both accounts into consideration, I think private security firms are vital to world order, but only if they involve the right highly trained individuals. I think the documentary was a great way to bring up a controversial subject and to assess PMC’s for pro’s and con’s of the career, but Mr. Bell’s lecture provided an even greater way to allow us, as students, to see humanized aspects to it, and how it is not just an immoral job.

The whole topic of private security companies opened my eyes to a subject that I had never separated before, the fact that there was a huge difference between a private security contractor and a military soldier. An aspect that I found intriguing from both accounts was the idea that war can’t happen without these key players because of the simple fact that war is no longer the same as history precedes it to be. Because of the fact that hiring PCM’s facilitates soldiers to focus specifically on fighting the ‘bad guys’, militaries can significantly benefit from not having to worry about security and logistical aspects of war by hiring private security companies to do so.

I value Alan Bell’s accord of private security contracting from a Canadian standpoint, as a CEO, he seemed to take into account the morality of the situations he was encountering, and wasn’t just strictly in it for the money, although who’s to argue that that isn’t an incentive. By stating he wouldn’t send in his men to any place he wouldn’t go himself, specifically places where governments are completely dysfunctional (Somalia and now Syria), as well as having a military background himself, I trusted his authoritative opinion on the nature of the business he is conducting. Although my opinion is biased in regards to having only mostly seen a Canadian PMC (plus the documentary) and the ethical way it’s conducted, I can see how other security firms could be in the business strictly for the financial benefits. By conducting a firm on the bases that they can hire anyone for the cheapest amount of money to facilitate these security relations, I think in that sense, PMC’s could become completely unethical and highly immoral.

The documentary in my opinion, show-cased strong aspects of the ‘rogue’ mercenary, one who goes into a foreign country without any feelings of morality, and gets their assigned job complete. But this, also coupled with Mr. Bell’s example of the mercenary without training (the local Burger Joint flipper who wants to simply jump into warfare in Afghanistan because the job title looks exciting), is another side of PMC’s that I believe should be avoided at all costs if PMC’s want to continue as a strong force against war.

I think where society sees PMC’s as negative, the two accounts this week shed positive light on the career of a PMC, and that because of the benefits they provide, they are justified. From the standpoint of what Alan Bell discussed, the private security contractors he employs seem to have experience either in the military or law enforcement prior to becoming employed as a contractor.

In my opinion it’s important that these PMC’s exist for a number of reasons. Alan Bell touched on the note that they exist because there are certain roles governments, and government armies simply do not want to involve themselves in. Such as protecting bases whilst armies are out. A concept of PMC’s I don’t agree with however, is the lack of transparency and low levels of accountability that exist within the sphere of private security companies. I think that in order to be successful, and become more widely accepted in the international community, more awareness needs to be made of the intentions of these companies. Alan Bell touched on the subject that he personally met with the Taliban to discuss motives of his company within the Taliban’s territory, those that turned out to be non-violent motives such as bringing crops to the region. Whereas in the documentary there are certain situations showcased where private security contractors are targeted specifically for being foreigners possibly because they are seen as over stepping their bounds within another’s territory due to a lack of communication.

As long as strict rules and precedents are created to keep PMC’s in check and not have situations such as the Blackwater scandal occur again, groups such as private security contractors will continue to thrive and their negative connotation diminished. In addition to this, companies should sway from hiring anyone that doesn’t fit prerequisites to get the job done, and establish a standard of only hiring those that are qualified for the position. These types of firms are critical in raising and maintaining levels of security in unstable but economically vital areas of the world. The inbred fear of lack of security in society fosters a demand for these services and will continue to do so as the United States specifically, counters it’s War on Terror.