Thursday, November 19, 2009


The targets in my policy issue are a threefold group, first you have the basic private military companies which need to garner support as well as a healthy degree of competition between their fellow contractors to further lower costs, second you have the national government which in turn controls the present day military actions and must be swayed into agreeing that private military companies may be utilized in military actions, and thirdly you have the public, society in general who must be convinced that private military compan9es are a safe and effective alternative to the use of national military forces in some situations. Each of these groups in turn is governed by their own set of rules, while being governed by the same general set of national rules on a wider scale. In essence the private military companies follow the nationally set rules and guidelines for the execution of their enterprise; they must not break national law. With this in mind they also fallow their own set of guidelines and “rules of thumb” rules which may be deemed of importance to them but not so on a national level. The national government is governed by the national rules and guidelines they set forth, the same rules they expect entities existing within their sphere of influence and jurisdiction to abide by. The society on the other hand is not only governed by national laws and rules, as well as rules of thumb but personal biases as well. The level that is the society must then overcome not only societal norms as well as national laws and rules of thumb.
I would not go as far as to say that any of the rules pertaining to each of these groups is necessarily bad, but they may possibly be outdated or in need of a change in the light of modern shifts in cultural and societal norms. I would argue then that the basic belief that national military endeavors must be undertaken by a national force and not a private contractor is outdated and in need to change. The rule might be changed to allow more freedom for private military companies in an effort to lesson eh strain on the national military and avoid the loss of our enlisted soldiers. In this respect I would say that the proposed rule change would be a beneficial change while at the same time not completely negating the value of older established rules as being “bad” but merely as being outdated and in need of modernization.

No comments: