Private Military Contractors (PMCs) have destroyed America’s ability to fight and win the Iraq and Afghan wars. Without deference to rules and basic decency, most PMCs ought to be considered nothing more than criminals for hire. It is time that the government stops hiring them.
PMCs are companies that are contracted by the Department of Defense to conduct various missions in foreign countries.
Since they are private citizens, employees of PMCs are not considered part of the military. However, they often perform military functions and are authorized to kill. They are generally more expensive than regular troops, even though, in some cases they have less experience and knowledge of war than regular troops.
Many PMC managers and directors have worked for the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense and U.S. Military. Thus, it is unsurprising that the number of military contracts issued have gone up over the course of American history.
Never before has the U.S. relied so heavily on mercenaries. This makes sense, given PMCs’ penchant for destruction.
The military knows entirely and certainly that, in order to successfully conduct a counterinsurgency, soldiers must endear themselves to a population. According to the Army Field Manual, a fundamental tenant of counterinsurgency operations is to establish security and win the hearts and minds of the locals.
PMCs are doing the very opposite. There are many reports of contractors massacring villages and shooting civilians at random.
These reports are unsurprising. Military contractors are not beholden to military law, and an American citizen cannot be tried by Afghan or Iraqi courts. Only federal courts have jurisdiction over contractors.
With that being said, it is almost impossible to gather enough evidence and credible testimony to take a contractor to trial.
Even if sufficient evidence is gathered, the law is written such that only an employee of a contracting firm is eligible for prosecution. This means that when an employee of a PMC is fired, he is off the hook. Many contractors offer excellent severance packages, so getting fired is really not a big deal.
They are thus able to act as recklessly as they want because there are literally no consequences to their behavior.
PMCs are beholden only to their contracts. They do not care about overall strategy or keeping the peace. The contractor’s sole responsibility is to complete his mission. If a contractor’s mission is to get a client from point A to B, he does not care about angering the locals or killing civilians.
If the contractor sees a threat, he will shoot it. He does not care about investigating conditions on the ground or helping those in need. He cares only for fulfilling his contractual responsibility and receiving the check that comes with it.
As a result, contractors have developed what the Brookings Institution’s Peter Singer calls a “protection first and last” mentality. Contractors have made it a habit to rough up anyone in their way. They often drive on the wrong side of the road, beat people at random and threateningly shoot the air as they drive through towns.
Needless to say, contractors diminish America’s reputation among Iraqis and Afghans. Locals do not distinguish between American troops and contractors.
When a PMC misbehaves, it is a reflection of American misbehavior and irresponsibility. U.S. military strategy is dependent on civilian cooperation. Yet PMCs make it extremely difficult to foster trust.
When Americans read about negative Iraqi sentiment toward the U.S., they often fail to internalize the gravity of those sentiments.
Imagine a situation in which a foreign government has taken control of Maryland. The people of Maryland still have democratic control, but the foreign government has troops on the ground. Now imagine that, on your way to class, you see foreigners in a Humvee roughing up your classmates and shooting their guns recklessly.
Now, imagine that you are in class; an angry friend tells you of how Americans shot his uncles and cousins. You have left class now, and you see an American on patrol outside your apartment building. For most people, the natural reaction would be some combination of fear, anger and, worst of all, mistrust.
The example above is a crude and incomplete parallel to the Iraqi and Afghan experience. Nevertheless, it shows part of the reality of PMCs and the U.S. counterinsurgency.
Natives do not see the difference between soldier and contractor. They see only an occupant that has wrought havoc on their communities. They approach all Americans with skepticism and view troops as enemies, regardless of the Americans’ outlook.
By and large, abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan are perpetrated by PMCs. Many supporters of PMCs argue that contractors are necessary to augment American troops. Unfortunately, the damage done by these groups is far greater than the benefits of having extra bodies on the ground.
In the world of public sentiment, appearance is everything. In the world of PMCs, it is nothing.
