“It’s all about control.” – Cobus Claassens (Security Contractor)

The Shadow Company presents a wide arrangement of information involving the history of mercenaries, their purpose, and roles they have played in recent middle eastern conflict. All of this information serves to show the other side of the debate on the topic of mercenaries, specifically how they have developed from soul-less “guns for hire” to a modern day asset in the war on terror. This documentary, and interview with Global Risk CEO Allan Bell, demonstrate how private military companies (PMC’s) can be a great asset, so long as the proper controls are exercised.

Allan Bell of Global Risk and The Shadow Company both explain how it is the few PMCs that are poorly run with little control, and a lack of consideration for their role besides a paycheck, that give PMCs like Global Risk and Blackwater a bad rap in the international community. So many people associate PMCs with failure (Fallujah, Iraq 2004) and criminal action (Equatorial Guinea March 2004), but there is one thing everyone can agree on; PMCs rely on control to be a positive influence in volatile situations. As previously stated, Allan Bell credits the controls he places upon the hiring and directives of his employees for the continued success of his company. Global Risk requires a minimum of 10 years military/tactical service experience from their recruits, (preferably ex Canadian or British Special Forces) who are looking for long-term commitment with realistic expectations. The PMC managers and employees interviewed in The Shadow Company all stress how it is the responsibility of the PMCs to instill ethical mandates and exercise proper precautions before accepting contracts that place people in danger. In fact, Allan Bell discussed how private military contractors can only shoot if:
1. their lives are in danger or
2. who/what they are protecting is in danger.
Granted this is a very broad mandate to be operating under in war-torn areas with lethal firepower capabilities, but in combination with strict controls on hiring practices, this is certainly a step in the right direction to avoid international incidents with PMCs. These factors along with controls placed upon accepting/brokering private security contracts may be the answer to avoiding international incidents involving PMCs, and eliminate those who are in the business for the wrong reasons.

“Some companies don’t particularly care.” – Allan Bell, CEO Global Risk

9-11 caused the demand for PMCs to skyrocket. Responding to the demand, hundreds of new, inexperienced PMCs were established, many operating under little/no ethical directives without proper preparation. So many people saw the drastic increased in demand for PMCs as a way to make millions with a single contract, and as such took advantage of the market without any control or consideration for their actions. It is these companies that would and should be eliminated through the implementation of industry-specific controls. This control however could most easily be implemented by the governments that hire PMCs for missions they are unable or unwilling to send their own troops to do. Allan Bell explained that his company has no need for advertising because he operates purely on word of mouth from valued and loyal clients. He refuses to work for people he is unfamiliar with or he is unable to substantiate their claims or role in a conflict. For legitimate clients, the process is as follows:
1. prepare a proposal after extensive research, weighing the costs, risks and requirements not just of Global Risk employees, but also the employing government/firm.
2. give homework to the prospective client. This involves giving them directives based on the information Global Risk has collected in order to ensure all precautions are taken to protect all parties involved.
If governments were forced to legitimately explore the competition before giving a contract to a PMC based on track record, ethics, and cost-effectiveness, international embarrassment for governments and PMCs could be avoided. Further, if all PMCs were required to adhere to a standardized screening process such as Global Risk’s they too would be better equipped and prepared before accepting a potentially dangerous contract.

No matter the opinion of private military companies or “mercenaries” as they are derogatorily called, one thing every side can agree upon is the need for controls upon this quickly growing industry. By exercising control over:
1. Hiring Practices – not hiring those without proper experience or ability to handle potentially dangerous situations effectively
2. Employee Directives/Mandates – ensuring private military contractors know precisely their role, what is expected of them, and what situations they are allowed to exercise lethal force in
3. Contract Screening – both on the part of governments giving out contracts, and PMCs in accepting them
PMCs could operate in international conflict effectively and serve to aid in situations in which governments are unable to act, but wish to do so ethically.

The Shadow Company, in corroboration with the Allan Bell interview, do a fairly comprehensive job of exposing most sides of the mercenary debate. The reference to history, recognizing past failures, and separating legitimate PMCs from amateur “guns for hire”, all serve to give the audience as much information as possible on the subject while still firmly defending “legitimate” private military companies.