CONCEPTUALIZING PRIVATE MILITARY SERVICES

New and Improved February 2006 Version!

This version streamlines the concept, but essentially we still have the three general categories - the logistics and support companies (90% of the industry in contract value and personnel), the Private Security Companies (PSCs) that protect things, and the Security Sector Reform (SSR) companies, that do the training and organizing that create a long term stability allowing the peace or stability operation to be phased out. Since everyone asks, my best estimate of the industry value is $20B - with PSCs at about $2B of that total (a number that will fall significantly as Iraq winds down). Anyone who still claims the value is $100B-$200B (!!!) ain't doing their homework!

Anyone interested the evolution of my thought on this can see the old concepts below.

February, 2005 Version





Previous Version

 
 
 
 
 
  (From: Protecting People: the PMC Potential, Comments and Suggestions for the UK Green Paper on Regulating Private Military Services, by Doug Brooks, 25 July 2002.  The full PDF version can be downloaded HERE.)

  Conceptualizing Private Military Services

Categorizing companies makes regulation of the more sensitive services substantially easier.  Publicizing a form of organization encourages companies to be clear about the services they offer, assisting the government’s desire to focus regulatory attention on services of greatest concern.  There are a variety of ways proposed to categorize legitimate companies offering military services, one of which is on page 10 of the Green Paper.  However what follows is a simpler categorization that might be more useful for purposes of regulation.

Companies providing military services internationally can be termed Military Service Providers (MSPs).  All companies providing military services draw from the same pool of talent for their employees – predominately ex-service personnel.  In fact, most companies currently providing military services internationally need little if any additional regulation beyond existing commercial laws since their services are nonviolent and beneficial to humanitarian and international operations.  MSPs can be broken down into three general groups (table 1), Nonlethal Service Providers (NSPs), Private Security Companies (PSCs), and of course PMCs. 

NSPs probably need no additional regulation at all.  These companies provide useful logistics services, remove unexploded ordinance, or do other services in high risk environments that the international community finds more useful than threatening. 

PSCs provide (usually) armed protection, most often for other companies rather than states.  This protection can be similar to private security guards common in western nations, or more likely, a higher level of armed security capable of defending against attacks by guerilla forces.  Some of these companies have contracts guarding embassies and humanitarian operations.  Usually the technique is for the company to provide a few managers with Western military backgrounds who then train scores or even hundreds of locals to make up the vast bulk of the manpower.  These companies do not undertake offensive military actions.  While it is conceivable that some regulation might be useful, in fact informal voluntary agreements between the NGO community and PSCs  mean that such regulation is not critical and may in fact reduce the level of flexibility that makes these agreements possible.  Finally it should be noted that a number of PSCs are quick to emphasize they are not PMCs.  They fear the “mercenary moniker” that the more sensationalist academics and journalists utilize to demonize the companies.  That kind of label could easily damage the reputation of a company doing legitimate contracts with NGOs, governments or the UN.

With these categories PMCs only represent one of the three broad types of companies, but the type of most concern for regulation.  PMCs are companies that generally work for states and provide military services designed to significantly impact strategic situations.  It should also be noted that the category can be broken down into two subcategories: active PMCs willing to carry weapons into combat, and passive PMCs that focus on training and organizational issues.  It is the PMCs that stimulate the most interest for regulation.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

---

If you have comments, suggestions, death threats or job offers, email me at
Hoosier84@aol.com

Back to Title Page