Link to my Term Paper

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AfX2KG2HridFZGRzdHpjem1fMHJ3cnJ4YzJn&hl=en

Pecha Kucha

Private Military Companies

View more presentations from Raynor Strombeck.

Rights

Rights when viewed in the context of my issue, the development of private military corporations, tend to be rather vague and widespread, merely because my issue tends to be an issue taken on a global scale and thus international rights and regulations come into play. Therefore I cannot merely quote from the bill of rights or the constitution because those rights may not be fully applied to the rights of those persons not from this country, such as internationally based private military companies. With this in mind then I would need to base the rights of those involved on a far more generalized ideal or principle, and that would be the inane human right of individuals to defend themselves when threatened. All people need to be afforded the right to defend both themselves and those they hold dear, and in the case of private military corporations, they may do so. Countries that may not have a standing army or may need grater assistance may look to these companies for assistance in times of need, and in doing so exercise their rights as human beings to protect themselves and their property.

Facts

A fact in regards to the employment of private military companies may be seen in the quote given to the UN during the Rwanda crisis which shows that such private military companies may be far more cost effective than employing the use of international or national peace keepers. “The report estimated the cost of a six month operation at 150 million dollars, compared to 100 million dollars spent each month by the United Nations on failed peace keeping in Sierra Leon.” The small tidbit of information however small tells a powerful story of just how cost effective private military companies are compared to national or multinational forces, and should further urge us as a world community to look into private military companies.
This piece of information is a “fact” in that it is verifiable as truth by outside sources besides the article in which it is listed. It may be corroborated by the very report presented before the United Nations which called for action in the Rwanda crisis. It may also be seen as a fact in that it is not merely a theory given by an expert or official but deals in dollars and cold hard figures, computed by the company quoting the cost of deployment as well as sighting the verifiable UN cost of deployment during the Sierra Leon crisis. This fact is variable by several outside sources, and may thus also be deemed as truthful and highly relevant.

Below is the complete article with the quote pertaining to this specific fact.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jPsdp9d1aKEC&lpg=PA178&ots=dmrf5cT2If&dq=executive%20outcomes%20price%20on%20somalia&pg=PA179#v=onepage

Rules

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.

Inducements and Sanctions

In the case of opting for the use of private military companies to execute what would have previously been national military endeavors one would need to apply government polices which would cater to both the private companies as well as the long standing national military as well. As well as contending with both the private companies and the national military officials would also need to paint private military companies and the practice of hiring them as an acceptable practice in the eyes of the American populace, for they would be the ones truly paying for these companies. I would suggest that officials first begin a to formulate a policy which would possibly offer tax incentives for private military companies that would offer their services at cheaper rates as well as accept missions that have previously been deemed to dangerous for small private companies, I would also offer the inducement to the existing military agencies that if they can deem a military operation feasible for a smaller force, and then offer this smaller private force the mission, perhaps their budget or specific branch may receive some type of compensation. One would want the ultimate result of these inducements to lead to the national military preferring to contract out to private companies in an effort to avoid the loss of enlisted soldiers while at the same time saving money and creating a more efficient outcome. Inducements would be far better in furthering mutual respect and cooperation.
However this is not to say that sanctions would not also be employed. Sanctions would need to be employed in regards to punishing private military companies that either broke with the assigned orders or failed to meet oversight standards, or worse broke with the rules of international engagement. Sanctions would have to be swift and severe in order to avoid a public backlash at the first mistake caused by the use of private military companies. The sanctions would need to create a level of no tolerance for deviation from the state mandated orders and oversights, and would ultimately lead to the end of the private company if such orders were not followed. There may be no middle road with regards to these private companies, if they wish to have government funding then they must be strictly controlled and suffer drastic consequences if they deviate in any manner.

Inducements

The targets of my study are rationally constructed with guiding principle in mind that the implementation of private fighting forces would lesson the strain on our national military as wells as provide a means for quick response and intervention in areas that might not be easily accessible to our national military branches. Although the target model is rationally based I am not naïve enough to believe that it may be implemented without the inclusion and involvement of outside interests attempting to bend the proposed policy to fit their own needs. I have no doubt that interest groups as wells as personal biases may shape the policy in regards to private military companies but I would hope that the interference would be minimal and would not overly convolute the proposed policy. Although the basis of the policy would be vested in the idea that PMCs would be rationally seen as a beneficial alternative to conventional military interference, the targets would at some point infuse into the issue their own beliefs and local knowledge hoping to twist the policy into a manner more conducive to their own needs and goals. I would hope that one be able to reach a compromise with such interests groups in the hope that the general ideal of PMCs may not be transformed into something unrecognizable from the proposed policy.