Private Military Companies Mere War Profiteers or a Cost-Effective Alternative

In the Middle East, and other countries active in their military uses, are raising high questions of controversy against whether or not PMC’s should be implemented at an international scale. After these countries in the middle east have been hit with attacks, there has been thought on how to promote entrusted security for the countries. However, the use of these PMC’s can lead to security faults in diplomatic officials, and can cause unstable regions throughout a country as we have seen happen in Libya in 2012. On the contrary, PMC’s can be ideal in post-war

The United States is a militaristic country because of the military budget, the military’s expansion into civilian areas, and military culture. The large and increasing budget of the military is an example of U.S. militarism. According to National Priorities

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

The realistic comparison that connects to monopolistic and oligopolistic structure of defense contractors resulting in reason for shutdown for cost efficient purposes rather than competition (Hayden et al., 2010). This cost efficient purpose then turns to intergroup relations between Congress, the President and the leading large-scale power-bloc defense contractors while during government shutdown continued to run while other DOD agencies suffered from furlough (Brass, 2014; Hayden et al., 2010; McPhail, 1991; Sy (2013). In perspective, the top five defense contractors awarded DOD contracts for year 2007 were Lockheed Martin Corporation - $27B, Boeing Company - $22B, Northrop Grumman - $14B, General Dynamics - $14B, and Raytheon - $11B respectfully (Hayden et al., 2010). Based on McPhail (1991), individual-group discontinuity is explicit contrast between intergroup relations, where Brass (2014) and Sy (2013) debated on intergroup relations distinction between government shutdown and debt limit impasse. According to Brass (2014), government shutdown is the lack of group performance, intergroup relations, and communication

The B-2 Bomber for example, having parts made in all 50 states, is a strategic move. Nobody is going to stop the production of that plane; no congressman/woman is going to allow that. Simple positions that were originally held by people in the service sector, such as peeling potatoes and doing laundry, are now handled by contractors. For every soldier out fighting with a gun, there are hundreds of people working to provide equipment. To the people of Congress, defense spending equals jobs, and that is how Congress gets woven in with the industries as well in the MIC.

Furthermore, a report by Reuters in 2013 found that nothing has changed as staffers are routinely pressured to falsify figures to cover for any missing funds. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has received $8.5 trillion since 1996, the first year in which all government agencies were required to submit to audits. Yet, none of that money has been audited by an independent party, thereby making the Pentagon the only federal government agency that has refused to allow outside audits! To sum up, it’s difficult to find more incontrovertible evidence to show the galling lack of accountability for the military industrial complex, but the human trafficking aspect may just do so.

representatives possessed the capability to engage in this delicate balancing act’ (Janiewski 2011, p.684). Chosen representatives should withhold military contractors to exploit the industry for personal gains.

“The committee of five Congressmen stayed several weeks and was helpful in getting more food and clothing to the soldiers.” (Powell 149) The army at least has some nourishment and support from congressmen. Farmers around the close area could provide food along with the congressmen. (Roden 141) “Uncle Levi is a prosperous, third generation Pennsylvania Dutch farmer with foodstuffs to sell.” The farmers could give the General George the food, then the army would have more food, and less stress. “Powell 149” When the congressmen arrived Valley Forge, the congressmen looked wealthy. Rich people have money, and money can provide many resources the army could use. A book called American Crisis was a very famous book, and swayed many people to the American’s side (Paine 153) The whole country seemed moved by that book, me included. Having back-up from our country and prosperous congressmen is causing me to re-enlist because this fight is not being fought alone, the army has some help. America standing by our side side-by-side with wealthy people is enough to make me re-enlist, even if the war is still

To restate, the standard PMS is too costly, and too risky to deploy over our own armed forces, despite having a solid foothold in the war economy. However, this foothold will allow them to see various deployments in future combat situations- whether that be against, or for

he future of private military companies (PMCs) is depended on several factors, direction of war, and regulation. There are certain factors that will help determine the long term impact with entrusting PMCs and PSCs with critical military and government functions for a long period of time. Those factors are cost efficiency, control, flexibility, control and transparency. These are some elements that will help determine the impact of the PMC and PSC impact with the government functions and also what direction the war is heading. First of all it will cost the government potentially a lot of money to keep having PMC conducting security forces functions. PSCs may be more expensive than military forces-particularly under circumstances when the US wants to provide the same level and quality of service as the military does or when there are high levels of danger. PMCs would be cost effective for the government for a short period, but for a long period of time it will be best to invest in the armed forces. Similarly, for those who believe that a long-term commitment is crucial to successful nation building in Iraq and worried that the US cannot sustain such a long term commitment, the use of PSCs may be a tool to substitute for troops and encourage staying power. Thus there are some significant benefits to be had from involving the private sector in security.

With the development of technological drone warfare, the United States people have been barely kept in the loop of what their country is doing. This being said, it is impossible to deny that drones have protected the United States troops. Because of this, there will always be an argument for the use of drones. However, there has been even more evidence of heavy costs; such as pilot mental health, casualties, military funds, and the transparency of the government. To begin, the government (especially President Barack Obama) has had to compromise their integrity to keep the drone program running. For example, it is believed that the “Lethal Presidency” has been hidden through proxy leaders – people who announce the news of the drones in order to keep civilians distracted from the President’s calls. Ultimately, the drone program started with somewhat good intentions but has been proving to be a deadly investment.

In 2008, the actress and activist Mia Farrow approached the private security company Blackwater and some human rights organizations with a proposition: Might it be possible to hire private military contractors to end the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan? Sean McFate, who had just finished working as a military contractor at DynCorp International, was asked to weigh

Not only does direct representation prevent opposition against the F-35 program, social pork barrel politics similarly discourages dissent (Wilson 1968, 49). Wilson describes “social pork barrel politics” as a program’s output declining; yet, its allocation of federal money increases. In addition to the primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, regularly asserting that the F-35 program has led to job creation in key congressional districts, the company also employs

Even though there has not been global governance over the Private Military Corporation, there were some attempts at global governance over privatized violence as a whole. Two major international documents which contribute to the discussion on global governance over privatized war happen to be: The United Nation’s International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Montreux Document. The creation of these documents have also been impacted by non-state actors such as committees or regional groups.

Boyle, M. (2013, March 11). How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war. The Guardian.