Reconsidering Battlefield Contractors
By Doug Brooks and Jim Shevlin
Private firms play an indispensable role in supporting peace and
stability operations from Congo to Iraq, but sensationalization
and misinformation of "battlespace contractors" has unfortunately
skewed public perceptions and is having an adverse
impact on policy formulation. Despite frequent claims that private
firms are unprecedented, unregulated, inherently unethical
and even a threat to American democracy, the private sector
actually has a long history supporting U.S. military operations,
is regulated by numerous domestic and international laws and
statutes, plays a central role in operations critical to speedy state
recovery, infrastructure reconstruction and humanitarian
security, and is critical to implementing policies of democratic
governments and the international community. The private
sector provides policymakers, as well as those tasked to carry out
the policies, with remarkably cost-effective and flexible tools,
and criticisms of the industry too often have more to do with the
politics behind the policies than with the performance of the
companies engaged in their implementation.
Private contractors have been serving in war zones alongside
U.S. forces since the American Revolution, and their role has
constantly evolved.2 Today, contractors are accepting new tasks,
such as landmine eradication, and new clients, such as the UN.
A more inclusive term for this expanding industry is the "peace and stability industry," which covers
firms providing "military" services ranging
from demining to heavy air logistics
and from military and peacekeeper
training to actual armed security. There
has been a debate of sorts among policymakers
and pundits about the scope,
role, transparency and accountability of
these companies-especially armed private
security companies. The essential
and increasing value the private sector
provides to peace and stability operations
is such that the role of these companies
deserves an honest and nuanced discussion.
This article will provide a typology
for the firms involved, describe current
regulations, highlight problems with
current laws, and provide recommendations
for the best way forward.
Within the peace and stability
industry there are hundreds of companies
providing critical services to military
operations. Personnel utilized by
these companies generally come from the
ranks of former soldiers who learn an
array of useful skills during their military
careers and can serve in the civilian workforce
for years after their military retirement.
Many of these personnel have
served for decades but are young enough
to have second careers offering their
skills through the private sector.
While there have been claims that the
peace and stability services market is
worth more than $100 billion worldwide,
that figure is hugely inflated and
takes into account services that most analysts
would not normally include, such as
cleaning the Pentagon.3 The largest contract
for services in Iraq, KBR's LOGCAP,
is valued at about $14 billion since
2003. The largest security contract in
Iraq is with Aegis Defence Services Ltd., which has more to do with intelligence
and coordination of other contractors, is
worth $293 million over three years.
Limited to service companies operating
in conflict/ post-conflict (CPC) environments,
a more accurate number
would be closer to $20 billion per year,
over half of this amount is from the
recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To better understand how the pie is
divided, it helps to break the industry
down into three generally recognized
categories: the support companies, or
Nonlethal Service Providers (NSPs),
make up well over 90 percent of the market
in terms of contract value and personnel
numbers, and the two more controversial
categories of Private Military
Companies (PMCs) and Private Security
Companies (PSCs).