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as far as to say that any of the rules pertaining to each of these groups is necessarily bad, but they may possibly be outdated or in need of a change in the light of modern shifts in cultural and societal norms.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basic belief that national military endeavors must be undertaken by a national force and not a private contractor is outdated and in need to change.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while at the same time not completely negating the value of older established rules as being “bad” but merely as being outdated and in need of modernization.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.

Interests

My issue mainly involves three interest groups, national governments looking to lessen the weight of military incursions, private military companies looking to create a viable business based on the contracting of security, and the public of each state involved, whether they are the state paying for the military action of the state benefiting from the action. Interests that should be involved yet aren’t to the extent that they should be are those of government oversight panels and committees that would ensure the proper conduct of private military companies overseas. These groups need to achieve higher degree of involvement in order to sell private military companies as being safe and effective. The involvement of my classmates in the issue would be an involvement in the form of either supporting or not supporting the use of private military companies. My fellow classmates could become more highly versed in the troubles throughout the world such as Darfur or even localized areas in Iraq that would benefit from private military intervention. As of right now I feel people my age or younger are not involved merely due to their lack of a need to be involved, I feel that with time and age more of them shall be driven to take up cause which they feel deserve their time and energy.

Causal Stories...

When addressing the issue of Private Military Companies many may ask why are they necessary? or for what reason do we live in a world needing for armed conflicts and larger groups of individuals armed for battle? why are we not working towards peace and living in Harmony with our fellow men and women?
Why are these companies necessary? this question is the most basic and by far the easiest to answer. we need these companies in order to provide a means of protecting ourselves and those we love from those who wish us harm. we have reached an era in which large militaries and armies are successful only up to a certain point. at some time armies become bogged down in problems ranging from congressional approval due lack of financing or an inability to commit our own personal citizens to harm. these private companies allow for individuals who wish to be involved to protect and those in need and further fight those battles we are unable to fight for ourselves using our own national armies.
Private military companies also provide the public sector with eh ability to influence the cost of military engagements and thus lesson the burden on countries. for Private companies may now out bid one another another in an attempt to gain a job, decreasing the cost of military involvement.
private military companies also allow for countries to shield their young men and women harmful situations that may lack the public support to push for full scale involvement. thus protecting our own men and women while still allowing for military involvement.
one may also examine the causal story that is the push for peace. we live in a world unfair and cold and thus peace shall not come to us easily. instead peace must be fought for and in many cases men and woman must die in order for peace to prevail. in order that peace prevails we must then be willing to fight for it, and private military companies do just that, they allow for peace to be given a fighting chance in places that other wise may not be given such a chance.
Causal stories range from a need for further sources of protection to a need for peace keeping across the globe by small specialized forces. Which of these stories do i see as correct? and which does the world see as acceptable and correct? personally i see the need for private military companies arising from an inability of national armies to solve problems in smaller specialized areas of the globe. the populace however is yet to fully accept this idea of private military companies. as of right now private military companies are still looked upon with disdain and uncertainty due to a lack of general oversight. the public must still acclimate to private military companies, and in the future we shall have to see what the final view of these companies shall be.

The Human Cost of Inaction

Here we have the image of a young girl who was viciously maimed by a group of Sierra Leone rebels known as the Revolutionary United Front, or RUF. Sierra Leone like many African nations was home to a brutal civil war which ravaged the citizens of its borders for years and continues to impact them to this day. The RUF was known worldwide for their barbaric war practices and the atrocities they brought down upon the innocent civilians unfortunate enough to cross their paths. Whole villages were decimated as the inhabitants were butchered, raped or fled with nothing more than their lives and a hope to never again encounter this force of savages. This group however was subdued in 1995 for a short period by mercenary force known as Execute Outcomes, for two months the rebels were subdued to the point of enforcing a peace treaty complete with cease fire while government officials plotted their next step. Sadly after this two month period the government of Sierra Leone under UN pressure failed to renew the contract of executive Outcomes and shortly thereafter warring ensued.
Could this young girl have kept her leg and her childhood innocence had executive outcomes been allowed to continue their mission of defense in there? Would countless people still have their lives today if the RUF had been continually confronted by executive outcomes? What is the price we are willing to pay for the perception that international peace keeping forces are able to quell the rebels of the world?
Would you be able to tell this young girl that her leg was taken in the name of International cooperation and a promise “to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest” (U.N. Charter)
Was it in the common interest for her leg to be taken from her?

You decide, and when you do, tell her your answer.

Framing

The concept of framing seems to be acceptable in the present societies only in regards to commercial add schemes, yet completely intolerable when associated with political endeavors. Society hates to admit that they are being socially conditioned when it comes to commercial ads, yet they are up in arms the minute the media seems to put a slight slant on a topic. Why the double standard? Do they not realize that the media is merely another commercial enterprise whose sole goal is to make money and continue their business?
In regards to my issue of the privatization of international fighting forces framing would be a necessity, in which the media would play a pivotal role. Consider it if you will a massive public relations scheme whose sole purpose is to express to the public just how efficient and responsible it would be to privatize some of our military excursions. The public should be shown that through employing private forces money would be saves as well as human lives. The market would drive this media love affair in an attempt to promote the privatization of war in order to keep military companies lucrative so they may pay for add space. These privatized companies would also show the easier side of military conflict as there would be no large number of casualties, but instead efficient quick decisive victories. The market would drive the framing of this issue, while the polis would be conditioned by the framing of the market.