Privatising the Military
10 August 2018
I had already read a book on the rise of the modern mercenary forces, so while this book had sat on my shelf ever since I bought it, a part of me felt that maybe it was not only going to go over much of the same stuff that I had already read, but that it was going to be so focused upon Blackwater that it would start to get quite boring. More so, it looked pretty thick, and a part of me really didn’t want to simply read a thick book all about one particular company. Well, it turned out not to be the case, and the main reason that it took the title of Blackwater was because not only was Blackwater probably the first company to go down this road, but it was also the company that pretty much set the benchmark.
Honestly, there has always been private security companies, and I remember when I was much younger we used to look down on such security guards and referred to them as ‘rent-a-cops’. Sort of like the Paul Blart Mall Cop type of person – the person who wasn’t good enough to get into the police force, or had simply retired from the force and really had no other options available. Actually, the Victorian government set up a similar organisation to provide security for the railway stations, and even though these PSO (public security officers) are government employees, they are still considered to have been rejected by the police force.
Well, it turns out that Blackwater isn’t quite this type of company. For instance, the average Blackwater mercenary is basically an ex-special forces type of guy, and unlike the rent-a-cops we see here, these guys are paid quite well, though we must remember that the reason that they are paid so well is because they are being sent into warzones. I suspect that the security details that were sent to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina weren’t paid anywhere near the same amount as the ones that were sent over to Iraq and other war zones. In fact, I suspect cops don’t look at private security guards with the same amount of envy that your average soldier would look at a Blackwater contractor.
No, this book has much more to do with rapid privatisation of the military as opposed to one particular organisation, and does spend quite a lot of time looking at not only their role in the Iraq War, but also a lot of background with regards to the war. The thing is that this has a lot to do with privatisation, and honestly, it is a really tricky topic to look at. My issue with privatisation is that it tends to work on the principle of charging what the market can bear, so while a private electricity/telephone company may be run better than a government organisation, the the government tends to keep the prices down, whereas private companies need to make a profit to remain in business, and the government does not necessarily provide assistance for those who cannot afford the bare essentials, such as electricity.
Honestly, I don’t think privatising aspects of the military is necessarily a bad thing. For instance, one argument is that by having private security perform guard duties frees up soldiers who can then do more important tasks that fits their role. The other problem is that the army can have a lot of difficulties in actually recruiting people to join. In fact recruiting rates have dropped off substantially over the years, so some form of stop gap is actually required. The other thing is, there is something nice about actually having options when on base, such as a choice between going to the mess, or deciding that maybe going to the local Pizza Hut on base is a better option (though in my opinion what Pizza Hut offers is probably little different to what the mess offers). Actually, there are probably a lot of aspects of army life that can be farmed out to the private sector so that the force can become a lot more leaner. However, there are problems that arrive.
One instance is that since the private sector is only concerned with profit, in many cases the quality of the service can drop in an attempt to maximise the profits that are being made, and then there are the problems where soldiers are pretty much forced to use this inferior service, such as cleaning clothes and what not. Also, it is unlikely that you are going to have anything anywhere near your local pizza shop on base, so in the end you are pretty much going to have to put up with Pizza Hut. This is actually one of the major problems when you are dealing with fixed term, and no bid, contracts.
This was of the other problems, and that is the idea of the no-bid contract. Okay, that does sort of make sense when nobody else wants the job, or nobody else is equipped to do the job, so it is going to be no-bid. However, if we are dealing with companies being awarded contracts due to connections that they have, then there is a much bigger problem. This almost reeks of corruption, especially when these companies are in reality provided a sub par service. Then let us consider the idea of the cost-plus arrangement, which simply turns into a means of siphoning government money into the coffers of the private company. The thing with cost plus is that the company bills the government for the cost of the service, plus any profit on top. Sure, that sounds fine in practice, and in fact we see this happen all over the corporate world, though here the government didn’t seem to be querying the costs, or any justification of the plus. This further blows out when the contractor employs sub-contractors on a similar basis.
It seems that many people view the government as literally having an unlimited pool of money, which theoretically they do – they can print more if they want. However, there are problems when it comes to that. The other thing is that the government makes its money through taxation, and in many cases it seems that this is little more than a shifting of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy elite. Then there is the so called ‘free-market experiment’ that was conducted in Iraq, where the neo-cons pretty much went in, removed the government, and established their free-market paradise where companies paid no tax, and could shift money out of the country with no consequences whatsover. Honestly, this doesn’t sound like a noble cause, this sounds like somebody is basically looting the spoils of a defeated foe. There were also the executive orders laid down which basically meant that the private security contractors could not be held accountable for their actions on the ground.
The thing is that this is war, but in another way it was also an experiment. It seemed to be that a certain faction within the US government wanted to see how far they could push the boundaries. They succeeded in one part in being able to turn the public opinion to support an invasion, but the thing was that the whole experiment blew up in their faces. Yet the same propaganda was constantly being pumped out, and it was difficult to actually see the other side of the story. Theoretically, the Iraqi's should have been pleased to have been liberated from tyranny, but in the minds of many of them they weren’t – one bad government had been replaced with another, except that when Saddam was in power there was law and order, yet once he was removed, society literally collapsed. The exact same thing has happened in Libya with the removal of Gaddaffi.
There was even a chapter on privatising peace keeping efforts, such as what was happening in Dafur. That sounds like a reasonable idea, until we raise the question of whether there is going to be any accountability, and where do you draw the line. This book is somewhat dated though, since Blackwater contractors have been held accountable for their actions in Iraq by the American courts. Also, Blackwater no longer exists, since it not only changed its name, but has also been bought out by a larger company. Then again that probably shouldn’t be all that surprising as the number of wars that the United States has been involved in has dropped somewhat, and troops have been brought home from various theatres. The thing is that relying on supporting the military wasn’t going to be something that would last forever.
Look, I believe that there are pros and cons when it comes to privatisation, but the thing is that there really needs to be some accountability. It is true that companies tend not to pay tax in the same way as we do, but the thing is that companies are taxed on profits, as opposed to earnings, which makes sense. Individuals are taxed on earnings, though if you are wealthy enough there are ways of being able to restructure that arrangement. However, what we are looking at was an experiment that went wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t work, it is just that there needs to be boundaries, and there needs to be some form of accountability, and more so, there needs to be checks and balances not only on people in power, but also with the media as well, who really does need to be a lot more independent than it was.