War is rapidly changing in the modern world, and with it the actors, means, and methods of war shift with equal speed. The documentary “The Shadow Company” takes a closer look at the shift in actors, in this case the issue of Private Military Contractors (PMC). One of the worlds’ oldest professions, labelled and rebranded names such as “soldier for hire,” “dogs of war,” or “hired guns,” these mercenaries play an interesting role in modern warfare. It seems like an extremely antiquated concept, indeed the rebranding of mercenaries has been done so well that I had not even thought that Private Military Contractors of the world today were like the mercenaries of old. I had not expected the modern day mercenary to be such a big part in war in the modern world, as it does not garner sufficient media attention. The documentary takes an in-depth look at this old-new sector, with interviews with political analysts, contractors, CEO’s of private military companies and first person testimonials. It effectively employs a three pronged approach to dealing with the issue at hand, that is first person testimonials in the form of letters from James, interviews and questions with prominent figures and footage of mercenary operations on the ground. The gritty feel of the documentary clashes well with the information presented through a variance of characters, professionals, and contractors. The technique of raising questions and showing the question text on the screen as it answered those questions was also extremely well done, as it conveyed the information in a succint and accurate manner. However, both the film and the Skype interview with Alan Bell, CEO of Global Risk, did raise questions in my mind, some that were answered in part and others that left me wondering.
Chief amongst these issues was that of morality and ethics. I could not reconcile the notion of a group above the law that broke the state’s monopoly of violence whilst still acting as the authoritative body. I believe that this phenomenon operates within a grey area morally, as there is no comprehensive “code,” or governing body that can oversee and hold Private Military contractors accountable. This brings the main issue that I have with this-accountability. The mercenaries operate with near impunity. In the documentary it is stated that if a soldier transgresses, they get thrown out of the country right away. Moreover, it is further stated that there is no international standard, no internationally binding laws for these mercenaries. Human rights codes are the nearest thing there is to this, but there needs to be a specific set of rules, laws and codes for mercenaries’ operations. I believe it is still unethical, as mercenaries have no perceived legitimacy, which is another contentious issue in my mind. Soldiers and armies are operatives of the state, extending the state, which for better or for worse has political legitimacy. Thus it hypothetically legitimizes the military’s actions. That is not to say that everything that the army or state does is correct, far from it, but it raises the point that ideally the state is accountable to the populace, and by extension the military would be too. Private companies have no such legitimacy, yet they extend their reign of force and impose it heavily upon the citizens. In the documentary they outline the standard procedure in dealing with civilians, and it is quite shocking to see how brutal it is. If a car does not move out of the company’s way, it gets a verbal warning, followed by pointing a gun at the civilian in question. From there it escalates to firing the weapon in the air, then into the engine bay, and finally into the civilian himself if he does not comply. This lead me to questioning the root of this authority, and contrasting it with a state-based army’s. An army would be using force to extend its will, but ultimately it would be the state acting through the military, and thus would have to answer to the people, whereas the mercenaries would not. Small wonder that citizen cooperation is low and hostility is through the roof, as they are seen as outsiders not only breaking the state’s authority, but imposing their own will through force when they are seen as outsiders. This would build resentment not only for the PMC itself, but for the perceived nationality of the company.For example a citizen in Iraq would be mistreated or treated violently, and would blame the West or America for it as that would be the perceived nationality due to the lack of transparency in the company.
This leads to the next issue; that of transparency . The army does background checks, and maintains strict disciplinary standards. Moreover, it even has its own court in many countries, a separate one that entails much more comprehensive sentencing for soldiers. This means that it is apart from the citizen courts, and as such can evaluate the cases in a more holistic way without using the same standards for soldiers as they do for civilians. In these companies, there is no transparency, and a variance of characters. Ranging from ex-military to men wanting to fight for money, there is no proper, standardized hiring criteria. Although the heads of the PMC’s in the documentary talked about hiring practices, they outlined vague criteria without convincingly mentioning how to test for this criteria, or how they differentiate between who is capable of being in a position where their actions could result in death and violence, and who is not. For example. one of the leaders talked about how during the interview, if they talked about money being the motivation, it would raise a red flag and would not be a positive trait for them. Yet this seems like a very rare occurrence where someone would admit that money is the only motivation for being in a position of violence.
Another issue I had with this concept portrayed in the documentary, was the lack of personal investment and variety of motivations. Now, I am not arguing that there needs to be an ideological basis for every conflict, far from it. What I am saying is that when the basis for conflict is money, the issue becomes much more complex. An army fights to extend the state’s will and keep the peace, supposedly and ideally atleast. However there is no ideal peace situation here, as war and conflict benefit the PMCs and result in employment, resources and pay. This base motivation is something integral to a body utilizing violence as a means to an end. Furthermore, this plays into the perception and legitimacy of it as well, as civilians would see the army using force, and it could be construed as keeping the peace as they are of this nation and supposedly have its best interests at heart. This is an extremely idealistic view on it, but for the purposes of public perception it is about the superficial aspect more than anything. However, when a foreign PMC uses violence in a state, effectively making it seem alot more dangerous in the area as armed men who are seen as sadistic and foreign are firing, it is not seen as merely keeping the peace. Perception is important when discussing this issue.
Both the documentary and the guest speaker Alan Bell present this new phenomenon of modern day mercenaries. The documentary especially highlights some issues and problems and showcases just how complex of an issue this really is. The style of the documentary and the choice of interviewees and professionals was extremely beneficial for its message, as it gives it a much more informed feel. However, due to the fact that leaders and members of PMCs were represented alot more than the unbiased professionals, it feels a little imbalanced. In my opinion, there could have been more critique of the concept and a more thorough and comprehensive coverage of the ethics of it as well. However, it accomplishes its task of informing the general public about this very real and relevant phenomenon, and leaves the public pondering and making their own decisions on mercenaries in the modern world.