Movie Review: Shadow Company:
Despite the security aid private security firms can provide in conflicts, the services they provide are neither moral nor ethical and they should not be recognized as legitimate businesses.
In Shadow Company, the term mercenary is debated. It is historically defined as those who fight for money, dissociated from moral or political control, and fundamentally selling their military skills. Mercenaries engage in conflict for their own personal gain, neglectful of any moral obligations. Due to the negative connotation of that term, military companies try to distinguish themselves from that term by claiming they are legitimate businesses that provide security. However, private security firms are not moral or ethical because they are fundamentally mercenaries, providing their services through force in order to earn money, neglectful of any moral or ethical borders.
Guest speaker Alan Bell, president of Global Risk Holdings views private military companies as legitimate businesses, and praises their benefits. Bell states the function of his private military company is to protect nouns (people, places, and things), and work in hostile environments. They are listed as providing consulting services and protection services. The necessity of private security firms is explained as everything is franchised out, including Special Forces. He credits this to countries wanting to take command and hiring outside forces to do the work that they may not want to send their people to do. However, Shadow Company shows the disadvantages of these outside forces. Private military companies work for whoever pays, and uses force to achieve their ends. They are very different from legitimate soldiers, as soldiers fighting for a country have legitimized force to do things that normal citizens don’t normally do or get involved it. There is no immediate social justification for these “businesses” that are basically mercenary companies.
Bell states the role of members of his PMC to be primarily defensive, provide vehicular protection, secure facilities and prison, but not shoot weapons unless they’re being attacked. But Bell admits that many private military company workers are not obeying those rules, in part to poor training. While Bell’s company claims to only hire well-experienced employees and properly train them, there are numerous private contracting security companies that do not. For instance, the military company Blackwater, which has changed its name numerous times and faced charges of killing civilians.
A private military firm may try to seem like a business, as they do provide services and have clients. Their services are not all force-involved as well, as they do advising and consulting. However, their primary services are military and forceful, and their employees are trained in shooting and military skills rather than conventional business skills like strong customer service or office experience. Employees have no moral qualms, as they do their job to get paid, ignorant of any ethical or moral conflicts. The documentary Shadow Company also points out that employees that make double the pay they do working in the legitimate military. The workers of private military firms are fundamentally mercenaries that are selling their military skills for money. Shadow Company explains the three groups of people who choose to enter that sort of business: people who miss the excitement and danger, people who leave the military to join private military work, and people who view it as nothing more than a new career. Companies hire based on experience, so they could be hiring former officers or mass murderers. In less developed countries, firms don’t even try to guise their work as legitimate, and hire children and inexperienced people to work.
Bell explains the legitimacy of Globe Risk Holdings, as his employees do complete research as well before entering a possible hostile environment, to understand the cultural environment. For instance, in Iran there is a lack of female rights, and so if a military contractor wished to get information from a household he would have to speak to the man of a household rather than just any female. In addition, Bell defends his company as he says he will not send employees to Somalia or Syria because they are comprised of war towns, and there is no functional government there. However, countries he has operated in such as Africa, Sierra Leona, and Liberia have arguably dysfunctional governments as well. Additionally, if the primary roles of private military companies are to defend and protect, war towns and government-less countries would likely be places where defense and protection would be most needed.
It must be recognized that private military companies require war and conflict in order to have business. It is what that occupation requires, and where they will show up. While some companies may have limits on the clients they will work for or the areas they will occupy, it still remains that fundamentally, all these military firms do sell military services for money, and are morally unafraid to use force or weaponry in their claimed provisions of defense and protection.
The packaging of mercenary companies as private military firms or companies does not change the type of military services and force that they provide. Their services involve neglecting any moral or ethical guidelines in their pursuit of payment for militant type security. As such, private military firms should not be considered legitimate businesses or condoned.