Talk:Private military company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Private military company article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Atholl Highlanders 2 Request for source 3 Other companies 4 Cannot be the object of military attack 5 Corrections Made 6 Praetorian Guard 7 Rename 8 Can I have some more info on the following? 9 The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) 10 Factual error in listing of PMC's 11 Responses at public appearances 12 Economic Sense 13 Use of PMCs 14 selected articles focusing on iraq 15 Redirect from Private Security Company 16 Suggested Contents

[edit] Atholl Highlanders

Even if Atholl Highlanders can be considered a private military force, they cannot be considered a private military contractor since they are neither a company nor any other kind of business entity. In other words, they are not a PMC by definition and I suggest the removal of any reference to Atholl Highlanders in the PMC article.

[edit] Request for source

The following passage from the article...

"It is notable, however, that much of the criticism of private military contractors seems to focus on largely theoretical issues with free use of arguments based on historical precedents whose relevance is to many non-obvious. Analyses usually make the radical claim that the practice is fundamentally flawed and has to be rejected. There has been little publicized effort made to actually go into details to try to pinpoint and suggest corrections to the actual flaws of the system, thus reaching an optimal middle ground."

...strikes me as an unsourced statement of opinion, too POV to be in the narrative voice of the article. Since it was essentially a "reply" to (sourced) content I added, I'm probably not the one to do more than "raise a flag", but I believe that if someone wants this content in the article, he or she should find a decent source to quote (or at least reference) rather than the alternating POV and weasel words of "It is notable...much of the criticism...seems to focus...historical precedents whose relevance is to many non-obvious...radical claim...There has been little publicized effort made to actually go into details to try to pinpoint and suggest...optimal middle ground." Does someone want to take this on? -- Jmabel 02:54, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to make a complaint about this too, but it looks like someone's beat me to it. I just thought I'd make a comment here to draw attention to it again.

[edit] Other companies

the http://www.sandline.com/site/index.html has a list of "Other Companies" which could be viewed and if PMCs added to the list.

There is also a copy of an Economist article called "Mercenaries The Baghdad boom" at the same web site: http://www.sandline.com/hotlinks/Economist-Baghdad.html

The home page of sandline says:

On 16 April 2004 Sandline International announced the closure of the company's operations.

The general lack of governmental support for Private Military Companies willing to help end armed conflicts in places like Africa, in the absence of effective international intervention, is the reason for this decision. Without such support the ability of Sandline to make a positive difference in countries where there is widespread brutality and genocidal behaviour is materially diminished.

So the web pages may not be around for much longer.Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cannot be the object of military attack

Contractors are civilians authorized to accompany a force in the field and, generally, cannot be the intentional object of military attack (1949 Geneva Conventions)

Please can someone explain this one. Which article says this? Because Article 4 of GCII says:

1 Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...

1.1 Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

This would suggest that they can be taken as prisoner of war. Further The fourth Geneva Convention, (which is mainly about civilian populations under military occupation), states "Persons protected... by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War... shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention" So where is this protection mentioned in the introduction of the article? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections Made

I've removed the Carlye Group from the list of PMCs, as they are not, in fact, a PMC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.18.141 (talk • contribs).12:31, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the initial reference to PMC's as a "state funded" entreprise. Such generalisation is an obvious error. Levraitong 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the initial reference to IPOA as a "trade and lobbying organisation" to "trade organization". Since no objections have been made to the post on the subject. Levraitong 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Praetorian Guard

I removed the quoted statement that compared PMCs to the Roman Praetorian Guard. This was a little off the mark, especially considering the foreign-based role of PMCs. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skinwalker (talk • contribs).

I would tend to agree, they were a Palace Guard, which is totaly different than a PMC.

I believe that the Varangian Guard would be a far more likely candidate for a Roman-esque historical example to compare a modern PMC to, but in truth the phenomenon of mercenary armies dates back to the beginning of history, and it is the concept of large, state-run standing armies that is the exception throughout history. Thus, any number of historical examples, from the Gallic mercenaries under Hannibal to the Great Companies of medieval and early Renaissance Europe, could be used as a comparison--Breandán 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I'd like to move and rename this article to "Private military company". The three terms mentioned in the intro yield the following three search results on Google:

• "Private military companies": 299,000
• "Private military contractors": 55,200
• "Private miliatry corporations": 29,500

"Company" is the best highest-level descriptor for the subjects of this article. Kurieeto 11:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Lou Crazy 02:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, even before reading those stats I was pretty sure most people would search using '-company' instead. Joffeloff 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter W. Singer has a better name for the entities- "privatised military firms" (PMFs), which he uses in his book Corporate Warriors[1]. Singer categorises PMFs into three types:

1) military provider firms (usually armed security by firms such as Blackwater USA, commonly referred to as 'private military companies')
2) military consulting firms (consult on force structure etc, with the example firm being MPRI) and
3) military support firms- basically logistics (think KBR) (QLDer86 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

A few comments on the above:

The trend among researchers is to shy away from the PMC term unless you are talking about companies willing to do offensive combat operations - Executive Outcomes and Sandline International. Private Security Company PSC is a more accurate term for civilian companies that are contracted to protect 'nouns' - people, place and things. Such companies may be armed or unarmed depending on the client's needs and applicable laws. The ICRC and some other organizations use some combination of terms so as to be all inclusive - PMSC for example.

One other point, P.W. Singer lumps all companies providing any sort of military service anywhere into his PMF term. He includes companies doing fairly mundane services(military aircraft repair for example) in the United States and other Western countries. Perhaps a more accurate term currently in use is the 'peace and stability' industry since (whatever one's perspective of the legitimacy) these companies provide services (security and otherwise) in international peace operations such as the DR Congo, Haiti and Sudan as well as stability operations such as Afghanistan and Iraq. We should also be clear that the security aspect of this industry - the PSCs - makes up only about 5% of the industry in total value and numbers of deployed personnel.

Finally a full disclosure: I founded IPOA and as such am thus very much in the middle of the academic debate around the role and actions of these firms.Hoosier84 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I have some more info on the following?

"There has been a recent exodus from many special forces across the globe towards these private military corporations. The United Kingdom Special Air Service, the United States Army Special Forces and the Canadian Army's Joint Task Force 2 have been hit particularly hard."

If possible, some emphasis on JTF2 and SAS.

I could believe that companies are able to hire former special forces people. I mean it is possible and there are a lot of military people being consulted on military matters.

But when it says "recent," can I have examples of particular incidents and occurances? Like articles appearing in the news if possible. Jak722 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been quite a few articles published on this. For information on US personnel see this Daily Telegraph (UK) article [2].

For information on the British SAS. [3]and [4]

And information on the Canadian military (JTF2).[5]. (QLDer86 14:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

A GAO report could find no statistical drain on U.S. Special forces - United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees, July 2005. GAO-05-737 REBUILDING IRAQ: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security Providers. Hoosier84 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)

In the Debate category, there is a link to an article by the IPOA (which by the way was inactive last time I checked). The article is described as "A much more accurate and updated picture of the legitimacy and accountability of private companies...". However, I would suggest that articles produced by the IPOA will be highly biased in nature given the company's position as the main political lobbying group and public relations firm for the PMCs and private security industries in Washington D.C. Their board of directors are eclusively from some of the biggest PMCs; thus their purpose is to make sure that the activities of their member companies are viewed favorably. Roaming Lion 12:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A note:

IPOA is a nonprofit, nongovernmental, nonpartisan *trade association* - as a trade association all the board members come from the companies making up the association (PMCs is not really an accurate term). The membership list and board of directors are all listed on the web site www.IPOAonline.org. The association was founded to make peace operations successful by harnessing the resources of the private sector. Public relations is just one aspect of this mission, but with a code of conduct originally written by NGOs and human rights lawyers, and a focus on improving transparency, laws and oversight, it would be deceptive to simply dismiss the organization as a PR/lobbying association. IPOA is not a registered lobbying organization (that may change), but is very much an international advocacy organization. Full disclosure: I am the founder of IPOA. Hoosier84 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to IPOA as a "U.S trade and lobbying organisation for Private Military Companies" should be removed as it this description refers to the association using a the term "lobby" which has a pejorative connotation in the daily english language. Such use misguides the reader and installs a unjustied and undocumented approach towards IPOA. Moreover in order to obtain legitimacy and efficiency a lobby requires the consent and mandate from the majority of the trade members it seeks to represent. The actual 32 members IPOA is clearly under that threshold. The simple absence of major U.S contractors such as Northrup Grumman or Dyncorp from its members should be sufficent to counter any claims of IPOA as a lobby organisation.

In order to maintain the intellectual sincerity and academic value of Wiki it is therefore suggested to describe IPOA using less ambiguous terms such as its legal status _nonprofit trade association_ or as a author from Policy Reviews calls a "consortium of military firms" ([[6]]). Levraitong 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual error in listing of PMC's

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Many of the companies listed as being Private Military Contractors are in fact Private Security Contractors. Whilst there arguably may be little difference that we see, the rules of engagement for many of the contractors companies restrict them because they are deemed a Secrity Contractor and not a Military Contractor. This is what allows the US to get away with hiring them, because it is illegal under UN and US law to hire mercenary units. If anyone has feedback for me, if you think I bring up a valid point, then I'd be glad to make as many corrections as I can make. Or, if I'm an idiot, please inform me. Either way, please send me a message to let me know.Johny123t 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Or, rather: no.Phase4 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Private security company" is indeed the correct term for these enterprises. I say this article should be completely renamed to Private security company. Alcarillo 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is an alternative term for these enterprises, and have therefore redirected Private security company to Private military company.Phase4 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a better solution. Thanks. Alcarillo 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is two-fold: First off, private security contractors operate under a completely different set of laws and rules of operation than PMCs, being bound, within the US, by federal laws and the laws of the state(s) in which they operate. Secondly, by this definition, my company and hundreds of others that have armed officers, much less special response teams, would be considered PMCs when we are nothing of the sort. We may contract with several oil and energy corporations and carry government contracts, but we operate under the laws of the states in which we operate as well as federal GSA guidelines and regulations. "Private security contractor" is far too broad of a term to be tied to the PMC definition, as we are most definately NOT mercenaries. Remember, Blackwater is NOT a security company at all, but companies like Securitas are. By this overly broad definition, the armed officers at the local mall and quick-stop would be lumped in as mercenaries.--Breandán 05:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses at public appearances

Surely these massive quotes could be paraphrased, with a link to the full text if necessary.

E.g. Both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush have been questioned at international studies forums about the role of PMCs in Iraq and the issue of regulation (QLDer86 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)).

I typed up the exchange between Bateman and Rumsfeld from a video I got on C-Span. The video is no longer available on their site, I suppose it's lost to most people. I still have it on my computer though.... However the point being that US government official stance on PMC accountability it ambivalent to say the least. These one-on-one sessions where Rumsfeld and Bush are confronted about it give useful insights. I haven't looked for transcripts but if you can find them and provide a synopsis of the issues referencing the transcripts then that would be cool I guess. --Jabbi 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But keep in mind that the article must maintain its WP:NPOV neutrality, regardless of how you personally feel about PMCs, governmental accountability, Bushfeld, etc. Alcarillo 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I found an entire transcript of the event, both Rumsfeld's speech and the Q and A session [7], and there is also a Real Audio media file available of the Q and A session from the SAIS school site [8]. I think it could be summarised to 'former Secretary Rumsfeld believed the benefits of using contractors outweighed the issues surrounding their regulation'. (QLDer86 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)) President Bush's response to Ms. Bateman's questions are available in print form at [9] and the audio and video are available at [10]. (QLDer86 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Economic Sense

If your average PMC operator makes two or three times as much as your average military special operations operator, someone has to pay that gigantic salary. Seeing as how the US military is contracting these people out, that means that American taxpayers are paying through the nose for services that government troops could provide better for much less on a per-man basis.

Has anyone actually done a study that could be referenced on the actual affordability of PMCs? It seems to me that talk of PMCs being more economical than regular troops is simply a cover for rampant corruption. Shall I quote Machiavelli on the merits of mercenaries? 128.153.205.172 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a common concern to be sure, but there's more to it than comparing individual salaries. The military simply has a notoriously long tail that's costly to maintain; the . You have to take into account training, deployment and maintenance costs which I believe are much higher for the military. Indeed, most security contractors pay for their own training that in the military, the government would pick up the tab. In addition, PMCs commit far less resources (both manpower and personnel) to a mission than the military. Political ramifications aside, in the end it may very well be cheaper to use PMCs. Check out P.W. Singer's book Corporate Warriors. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I believe he examines the economics of using private security firms. Alcarillo 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The cost effectiveness issue is much debated, but it is important to remember that companies use has many locals (or Host Country Nationals HCNs as they're sometimes called) as possible. This makes sense from legal, ethical, intel and especially cost-effectiveness perspectives. Most PSCs in Iraq are upwards of 80% Iraqi for example. For construction and logistics companies the percentage can be upwards of 95% HCNs. In general the terms of the contract will determine the actual numbers of HCNs that will be used, security concerns sometimes preclude the use of HCNs, but the net effect is services far cheaper than could be provided by Western militaries. Hoosier84 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of PMCs

When security was mentioned, is it implied that mercs can be used just the same as security guards provided one can pay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.31.72 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] selected articles focusing on iraq

Note that none of these have anything positive to say about PMC's, which is by definition biased. Second, it is more apropos to wikinews than wikipedia. If they were being used as sources for text in the article, they should be cited as references, not included for edification. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. 66.92.170.227 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the news aggregator part. But your first sentence strikes me as odd. Is it biased if no positive articles could be found? Do you have to find some sources claiming what a good man Adolf Hitler was to write an unbiased paragraph about him? Just wondering. DevSolar 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple answer would be yes. Positive articles exist, with valuable arguments. Should democracy be diregarded because the Austrian neo-nazi party was able to obtain the post of PM? Levraitong 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Private Security Company

I would like to remove the redirect to this article from Private Security Company for the reasons I mentioned before, and will re-post here. My problem with this is two-fold: First off, private security companies operate under a completely different set of laws and rules of operation than PMCs, being bound, within the US, by federal laws and the laws of the state(s) in which they operate. Secondly, by this definition, my company and hundreds of others that have armed officers, much less special response teams, would be considered PMCs when we are nothing of the sort. We may contract with several oil and energy corporations and carry government contracts, but we operate under the laws of the states in which we operate as well as federal GSA guidelines and regulations. "Private security company" is being redirected to the PMC article, and it should not be at all associated with it as they are completely different industries under the rule of law. Remember, Blackwater is NOT a security company at all, but companies like Securitas and Brinks are. By this overly broad definition, the armed officers at the local mall and quick-stop would be lumped in as mercenaries, and that is not only inaccurate, it is more than a bit foolish.--Breandán 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Contents

Would a chapiter on "Operationnal History" retracing the main interventions of PMC's be of any use under this article, or is it preferable to place the operations in the article of each group? Levraitong 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)