With the onset of the Iraq and Afghanistan war the world has seen a spike private security companies, expanding from seven to near 700 companies in existence. The documentary Shadow Company, directed by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque, analyzes the phenomena and addresses the common misconception regarding PMCs. Shadow Company takes a rather, though not wholly, unbiased approach to the use of PMCs in conflict in comparison to government militaries. Shadow Company does seem to portray more strongly the negative aspect of PMCs and their practices. Through the use of interviews and historical outlook, the directors frame their film to express the positive and negative qualities of private militaries and uses this focus to portray the role that PMCs play in modern conflict. While many of the interviewees regarded PMCs in positive light, the bias of the film came through regarding their concerns over PMCs acting in conflicts.

The main issue that the film introduces to the viewer is the role of private security firms in a global context and what role they should play in security and conflict. I think that the concern of private security firms being active in conflict situations is a valid response to security problems. The film even relates that private military was an active part of conflict basically until the Napoleonic times as the introduction of a state military. As such, I believe that PMCs are a fact of warfare, and the concept of state military is still in its renaissance. Yet the rhetoric of the private military as unconventional and unethical persists, despite the fact that PMCs have been the primary fighting force throughout history.

The bias against PMCs is commonly derived from the concern of the ethical ramifications of a non-state armed force and also the concern that they are merely “soldiers of fortune”, or in other words a corporation focuses primarily on profits. I believe that these concerns are shortsighted and do not accurately reflect the role that PMCs play in global conflict. Firstly, I do not believe that ethics can really apply to the use of PMCs. Condemning PMCs on the grounds of ethics presupposes that state militaries have a greater ethical standing and thus their actions can be justified. These concerns seem to derive from the fact that a private company cannot command the same ethical standing as a government based agency. I would concede that a state military is no more justified in action than a private military, assuming that state is more ethical than private elevates the state to an omnipotent level. A PMCs inclusion in a combat situation does not provide any ethical concerns in conflict, and stating otherwise promotes that a state has more justified in action.

Common rhetoric surrounding PMCs is also that they are soldiers of fortune and that their inclusion in conflict scenarios is all based on profit. I contest that this concept of being a highly capitalist and engaging in conflict just for the profits is misunderstood by the populous. I do agree that certain private military firms exist that concern themselves only with profit, however it is common knowledge that corporations that do not take other factors (risk, morals, etc) into account are not likely to remain in business for long. As such, private militaries that do not take into account all possible factors when considering a contract and merely look at the dollar amount, are less likely to conduct their affairs well and will ward off future business. Just as with companies in other fields, PMCs have to take into account more than just profit in order to keep their company in business.

In conclusion, I would contest that private militaries will play a role in future conflicts and that common bias against such firms is unjustified. PMCs have played a role in conflict throughout the most part of history, yet the stigma of the “for profit” military agencies is still prevalent in society.  I contest that the major concerns the populous has against private militaries, especially in regards to ethics and profiteering, are not rooted in fact. I believe that the world will see a greater role for PMCs in future conflicts and bias against them derives from false logic.