Talk:Private military company

Listing of PMC's

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Many of the companies listed as being Private Military Contractors are in fact Private Security Contractors. Whilst there arguably may be little difference that we see, the rules of engagement for many of the contractors companies restrict them because they are deemed a Secrity Contractor and not a Military Contractor. This is what allows the US to get away with hiring them, because it is illegal under UN and US law to hire mercenary units. If anyone has feedback for me, if you think I bring up a valid point, then I'd be glad to make as many corrections as I can make. Or, if I'm an idiot, please inform me. Either way, please send me a message to let me know.Johny123t 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Or, rather: no.Phase4 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Private security company" is indeed the correct term for these enterprises. I say this article should be completely renamed to Private security company. Alcarillo 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is an alternative term for these enterprises, and have therefore redirected Private security company to Private military company.Phase4 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a better solution. Thanks. Alcarillo 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is two-fold: First off, private security contractors operate under a completely different set of laws and rules of operation than PMCs, being bound, within the US, by federal laws and the laws of the state(s) in which they operate. Secondly, by this definition, my company and hundreds of others that have armed officers, much less special response teams, would be considered PMCs when we are nothing of the sort. We may contract with several oil and energy corporations and carry government contracts, but we operate under the laws of the states in which we operate as well as federal GSA guidelines and regulations. "Private security contractor" is far too broad of a term to be tied to the PMC definition, as we are most definately NOT mercenaries. Remember, Blackwater is NOT a security company at all, but companies like Securitas are. By this overly broad definition, the armed officers at the local mall and quick-stop would be lumped in as mercenaries.--Breandán 05:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Breandan, see that's kind of the problem, and to an extent why these contractors are hired. They don't have to follow all these "annoying pesky laws" that regular soldiers have to follow. By labling them as "Security Contractors" the government can circumvent the law which prohibits them from hiring mercenaries. 68.192.204.19 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous-I think that the list of companies should be revised because of two reasons. First, it seems incomplete with limited information and secondly, it is proboly impossible to list all PMCs because nobody keeps track of them and there are also hundreds of tiny companies. I think that it would be better to replace it with a list of 'notable/large/well known private military contractors.' I've heard that the book 'A Bloody Business' has an index of some well known PMCs with a paragraph or two about each one.

Also, to kinda support Breandan, Blackwater Security Consulting is the division of Blackwater Worldwide that does the PMC work. So technically Blackwater Worldwide isn't a PMC but one of their divisions is.

Other companies

the http://www.sandline.com/site/index.html has a list of "Other Companies" which could be viewed and if PMCs added to the list.

There is also a copy of an Economist article called "Mercenaries The Baghdad boom" at the same web site: http://www.sandline.com/hotlinks/Economist-Baghdad.html

The home page of sandline says:

On 16 April 2004 Sandline International announced the closure of the company's operations.

The general lack of governmental support for Private Military Companies willing to help end armed conflicts in places like Africa, in the absence of effective international intervention, is the reason for this decision. Without such support the ability of Sandline to make a positive difference in countries where there is widespread brutality and genocidal behaviour is materially diminished.

So the web pages may not be around for much longer.Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tactical Air Defense Services **(http://www.tads-usa.com/) (TADS)(SYMBOL-TADF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.118.34 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Atholl Highlanders

Even if Atholl Highlanders can be considered a private military force, they cannot be considered a private military contractor since they are neither a company nor any other kind of business entity. In other words, they are not a PMC by definition and I suggest the removal of any reference to Atholl Highlanders in the PMC article.

You cannot say that a "force" is not a "contractor" because they are not a company or a business entity. A contractor is someone on a contract, whether an individual, company, society or association. For profit or otherwise. All soldiers are on contracts. Most for profit (though not the Atholl Highlanders). The Atholl Highlanders are not mercenaries simply because they are not an actual military force.115.188.155.200 (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Praetorian Guard

I removed the quoted statement that compared PMCs to the Roman Praetorian Guard. This was a little off the mark, especially considering the foreign-based role of PMCs. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinwalker (talk • contribs)

I would tend to agree, they were a Palace Guard, which is totaly different than a PMC.

I believe that the Varangian Guard would be a far more likely candidate for a Roman-esque historical example to compare a modern PMC to, but in truth the phenomenon of mercenary armies dates back to the beginning of history, and it is the concept of large, state-run standing armies that is the exception throughout history. Thus, any number of historical examples, from the Gallic mercenaries under Hannibal to the Great Companies of medieval and early Renaissance Europe, could be used as a comparison--Breandán 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

":::If the PG are regarded as mercenaries, then so was the entire Roman army. Which is technically correct. The broadest definition of mercenary is anyone who fights for money, which essentially means the entire armed forces of the world, excluding conscripts.115.188.155.200 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Raytheon

What exactly is the reasoning that put them on a list of PMCs? Last I knew, they only provided training of a technical sort. 67.241.56.112 (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Halliburton

How is Halliburton a private military contractor? In its article it states that it is a petrochemical company dealing with chemical plants & producation and oil refining. I'll wait a day for a response and if none I'll remove it from the list. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

List could be own article

The list in my opinion focuses to much on the US and should either be a separate article or there should be other countries included in it. Which message template deals with lists in articles that should (the list) probably be its own article or a template that deals with a list that only includes examples from a few countries and should include one's from other articles? --Melab±1 ☎ 20:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AONN

Removing AONN from this list; there is no apparent evidence it exists. If you readd, please cite. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for information

Request for source

The following passage from the article...

"It is notable, however, that much of the criticism of private military contractors seems to focus on largely theoretical issues with free use of arguments based on historical precedents whose relevance is to many non-obvious. Analyses usually make the radical claim that the practice is fundamentally flawed and has to be rejected. There has been little publicized effort made to actually go into details to try to pinpoint and suggest corrections to the actual flaws of the system, thus reaching an optimal middle ground."

...strikes me as an unsourced statement of opinion, too POV to be in the narrative voice of the article. Since it was essentially a "reply" to (sourced) content I added, I'm probably not the one to do more than "raise a flag", but I believe that if someone wants this content in the article, he or she should find a decent source to quote (or at least reference) rather than the alternating POV and weasel words of "It is notable...much of the criticism...seems to focus...historical precedents whose relevance is to many non-obvious...radical claim...There has been little publicized effort made to actually go into details to try to pinpoint and suggest...optimal middle ground." Does someone want to take this on? -- Jmabel 02:54, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to make a complaint about this too, but it looks like someone's beat me to it. I just thought I'd make a comment here to draw attention to it again.

Cannot be the object of military attack

Contractors are civilians authorized to accompany a force in the field and, generally, cannot be the intentional object of military attack (1949 Geneva Conventions)

Please can someone explain this one. Which article says this? Because Article 4 of GCII says:

1 Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...

1.1 Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

This would suggest that they can be taken as prisoner of war. Further The fourth Geneva Convention, (which is mainly about civilian populations under military occupation), states "Persons protected... by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War... shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention" So where is this protection mentioned in the introduction of the article? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I have some more info on the following?

"There has been a recent exodus from many special forces across the globe towards these private military corporations. The United Kingdom Special Air Service, the United States Army Special Forces and the Canadian Army's Joint Task Force 2 have been hit particularly hard."

If possible, some emphasis on JTF2 and SAS.

I could believe that companies are able to hire former special forces people. I mean it is possible and there are a lot of military people being consulted on military matters.

But when it says "recent," can I have examples of particular incidents and occurances? Like articles appearing in the news if possible. Jak722 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been quite a few articles published on this. For information on US personnel see this Daily Telegraph (UK) article [1].

For information on the British SAS. [2]and [3]

And information on the Canadian military (JTF2).[4]. (QLDer86 14:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

A GAO report could find no statistical drain on U.S. Special forces - United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees, July 2005. GAO-05-737 REBUILDING IRAQ: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security Providers. Hoosier84 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Responses at public appearances

Surely these massive quotes could be paraphrased, with a link to the full text if necessary.

E.g. Both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush have been questioned at international studies forums about the role of PMCs in Iraq and the issue of regulation (QLDer86 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)).

I typed up the exchange between Bateman and Rumsfeld from a video I got on C-Span. The video is no longer available on their site, I suppose it's lost to most people. I still have it on my computer though.... However the point being that US government official stance on PMC accountability it ambivalent to say the least. These one-on-one sessions where Rumsfeld and Bush are confronted about it give useful insights. I haven't looked for transcripts but if you can find them and provide a synopsis of the issues referencing the transcripts then that would be cool I guess. --Jabbi 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But keep in mind that the article must maintain its WP:NPOV neutrality, regardless of how you personally feel about PMCs, governmental accountability, Bushfeld, etc. Alcarillo 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I found an entire transcript of the event, both Rumsfeld's speech and the Q and A session [5], and there is also a Real Audio media file available of the Q and A session from the SAIS school site [6]. I think it could be summarised to 'former Secretary Rumsfeld believed the benefits of using contractors outweighed the issues surrounding their regulation'. (QLDer86 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)) President Bush's response to Ms. Bateman's questions are available in print form at [7] and the audio and video are available at [8]. (QLDer86 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Corrections Made

I've removed the Carlye Group from the list of PMCs, as they are not, in fact, a PMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.18.141 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the initial reference to PMC's as a "state funded" entreprise. Such generalisation is an obvious error. Levraitong 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the initial reference to IPOA as a "trade and lobbying organisation" to "trade organization". Since no objections have been made to the post on the subject. Levraitong 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Contributions with similar content have been assembled according to the present classification. Levraitong 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)

In the Debate category, there is a link to an article by the IPOA (which by the way was inactive last time I checked). The article is described as "A much more accurate and updated picture of the legitimacy and accountability of private companies...". However, I would suggest that articles produced by the IPOA will be highly biased in nature given the company's position as the main political lobbying group and public relations firm for the PMCs and private security industries in Washington D.C. Their board of directors are eclusively from some of the biggest PMCs; thus their purpose is to make sure that the activities of their member companies are viewed favorably. Roaming Lion 12:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A note:

IPOA is a nonprofit, nongovernmental, nonpartisan *trade association* - as a trade association all the board members come from the companies making up the association (PMCs is not really an accurate term). The membership list and board of directors are all listed on the web site www.IPOAonline.org. The association was founded to make peace operations successful by harnessing the resources of the private sector. Public relations is just one aspect of this mission, but with a code of conduct originally written by NGOs and human rights lawyers, and a focus on improving transparency, laws and oversight, it would be deceptive to simply dismiss the organization as a PR/lobbying association. IPOA is not a registered lobbying organization (that may change), but is very much an international advocacy organization. Full disclosure: I am the founder of IPOA. Hoosier84 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to IPOA as a "U.S trade and lobbying organisation for Private Military Companies" should be removed as it this description refers to the association using a the term "lobby" which has a pejorative connotation in the daily english language. Such use misguides the reader and installs a unjustied and undocumented approach towards IPOA. Moreover in order to obtain legitimacy and efficiency a lobby requires the consent and mandate from the majority of the trade members it seeks to represent. The actual 32 members IPOA is clearly under that threshold. The simple absence of major U.S contractors such as Northrup Grumman or Dyncorp from its members should be sufficent to counter any claims of IPOA as a lobby organisation.

In order to maintain the intellectual sincerity and academic value of Wiki it is therefore suggested to describe IPOA using less ambiguous terms such as its legal status _nonprofit trade association_ or as a author from Policy Reviews calls a "consortium of military firms" ([[9]]). Levraitong 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a link, as well as one to the Montreux Document Aporio 19 Februar 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Economic Sense

If your average PMC operator makes two or three times as much as your average military special operations operator, someone has to pay that gigantic salary. Seeing as how the US military is contracting these people out, that means that American taxpayers are paying through the nose for services that government troops could provide better for much less on a per-man basis.

Has anyone actually done a study that could be referenced on the actual affordability of PMCs? It seems to me that talk of PMCs being more economical than regular troops is simply a cover for rampant corruption. Shall I quote Machiavelli on the merits of mercenaries? 128.153.205.172 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a common concern to be sure, but there's more to it than comparing individual salaries. The military simply has a notoriously long tail that's costly to maintain; the . You have to take into account training, deployment and maintenance costs which I believe are much higher for the military. Indeed, most security contractors pay for their own training that in the military, the government would pick up the tab. In addition, PMCs commit far less resources (both manpower and personnel) to a mission than the military. Political ramifications aside, in the end it may very well be cheaper to use PMCs. Check out P.W. Singer's book Corporate Warriors. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I believe he examines the economics of using private security firms. Alcarillo 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The cost effectiveness issue is much debated, but it is important to remember that companies use has many locals (or Host Country Nationals HCNs as they're sometimes called) as possible. This makes sense from legal, ethical, intel and especially cost-effectiveness perspectives. Most PSCs in Iraq are upwards of 80% Iraqi for example. For construction and logistics companies the percentage can be upwards of 95% HCNs. In general the terms of the contract will determine the actual numbers of HCNs that will be used, security concerns sometimes preclude the use of HCNs, but the net effect is services far cheaper than could be provided by Western militaries. Hoosier84 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first, people think of PMCs as all ex special forces guys from the US. However, guys from Western countries employed tend to be the minority in their squad (Blackwater Worldwide might be an exception). The rest of the squads tend to be filled with ex Latin American special forces (Chili, Nicargua, El Salvador), Fijans, South Africans and even Iraqis. Contractors from these areas are paid considerably less (one example was that a Fijan was paid $800 a month and an American was paid $5000) even though they do the same jobs as Americans and Brits.

Also, think of this scenario. A man joins the military. He goes through training and does everything to become a US soldiers. After 4 years of service, he loses a limb in battle and cannot fight anymore. The US will pay him pension checks for the rest of his life. Imagaine how much that costs and how mch cheaper PMCs are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of PMCs

When security was mentioned, is it implied that mercs can be used just the same as security guards provided one can pay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.31.72 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Selected articles focusing on iraq

Note that none of these have anything positive to say about PMC's, which is by definition biased. Second, it is more apropos to wikinews than wikipedia. If they were being used as sources for text in the article, they should be cited as references, not included for edification. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. 66.92.170.227 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the news aggregator part. But your first sentence strikes me as odd. Is it biased if no positive articles could be found? Do you have to find some sources claiming what a good man Adolf Hitler was to write an unbiased paragraph about him? Just wondering. DevSolar 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple answer would be yes. Positive articles exist, with valuable arguments. Should democracy be diregarded because the Austrian neo-nazi party was able to obtain the post of PM? Levraitong 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Forcing a balanced argument by giving a minority of viewpoints equal space or time as the majority is a common logical fallacy, the exact name of which escapes me. The common counter-example is as follows: despite the fact that a minority may believe that the sun revolves around the earth, they are not given equal say every time the sun is brought up in the news, because the vast majority have accepted the overwhelming evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and there is no reason to make an extra effort to givea minority of positive news stories an equal footing as negative ones. 134.84.64.33 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that to present a "balanced" argument when there is none - is a sort of perversion. This false objectivity produces controversy when there is none: so you have in the US evolution vs "creationism" as if they were both scientific when they are not. To try to produce abstract and false positive articles regarding PMCs as if they are rationally equivalent to the negative articles is definitely POV. The situation is similar to an imaginary news reporter asking for an opinion regarding the status of a corpse: "So you sir say the corpse is dead but what about the other side of this question?" Ridiculous.

Rewrite

This article is in need of serious work. Although I don't wish to denigrate the work of previous authors, as it currently stands this article primarily consists of: an unintegrated, effectively random collection of accumulated anecdotes about the use of PMCs in Iraq; a long list of companies, many of which have been added by anonymous ISPs, which to me suggests companies' possible self-promotion on Wikipedia (as strange as that is to contemplate); an in-popular-culture section, which WP:MILHIST guidelines recommend against; and a massive collection of links to a variety of external sources. PMCs are a controversial and little-understood feature of the current war, and this article seems to be mirroring media coverage of them, which tends to be regular but also sporadic, with little in the way of broad, systemic analysis.

In light of this I am going to attempt a total rewrite of the article, using as my primary scholarly sources the books "Corporate Warriors" by Peter W. Singer and "The Market for Force" by Deborah Avant. I also have a copy of "Licensed to Kill" by Robert Young Pelton, which is less academic but still offers some insights into the industry. I will try to supplement these with a variety of online articles and studies that I've collected in my reading on the subject, but I feel that full-length books like Avant's or Singer's should be used when possible in order to make clearer comprehensive sense of what is definitely a confusing and complicated topic.

I'm beginning a draft on my user page at User:CJSC/PMC Draft; as this is a complicated subject, it may take a while to bring it up to a standard where I feel comfortable replacing this article's current page entirely, but a fresh start is my goal. If any other editors would like to join in the process they are welcome to do so, or to leave me suggestions or feedback either here or on my talk page.

-- CJSC // Contact 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

CJSC seems to be absent (idle since may/june). Contact me for the time being. --Jabbi 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is indeed in need of a rewrite. All of the issues CJSC has identified still apply, nearly eight years after he raised them; I would be happy to help, though I suggest I leave the question of whether I should do so to others. (I work for Aegis; I am the author of 'After the Bubble British Private Security Companies after Iraq (RUSI 2006)). Perhaps the most significant issue, however, has arisen since CJSC's comment. Since 2010 there has been a multilateral diplomatic and political process (encapsulated in the Montreux Document, on states' obligations, and the International Code of Conduct, on companies' responsibilities) to address many of the fundamental problems associated with PMCs. Between them, Montreux and the ICoC also clarify many of the issues raised by editors (such as terminology; both documents use PMSC instead of PMC). This process does not feature in the entry at all, yet it has completely changed the legal, commercial and operational context for PMCs, particularly if the ISO 28000 and PSC 1 initiatives, which are linked to but not part of that process, are included. At a minimum, a rewrite should incorporate significant material on this Montreux/ICoC process; ideally, the rewrite should go much further. In the absence of that material, the article appears stuck in 2007. It raises, and focuses on, issues which were highly pertinent at the time, but which have become less salient in the subsequent eight years. Crucially it also includes material that is incorrect. I think the article worked well in 2007, as a starting point for anyone interested in the issue and the questions it throws up, but it is beginning to show its age. Because of this, and when viewed in the context of 2015 and significant progress in policing the sector, it is in danger of manifesting a bias that I do not think was intended in 2007.Dominick Donald (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

I'd like to move and rename this article to "Private military company". The three terms mentioned in the intro yield the following three search results on Google:

• "Private military companies": 299,000
• "Private military contractors": 55,200
• "Private miliatry corporations": 29,500

"Company" is the best highest-level descriptor for the subjects of this article. Kurieeto 11:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Lou Crazy 02:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, even before reading those stats I was pretty sure most people would search using '-company' instead. Joffeloff 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter W. Singer has a better name for the entities- "privatised military firms" (PMFs), which he uses in his book Corporate Warriors[10]. Singer categorises PMFs into three types:

1) military provider firms (usually armed security by firms such as Blackwater USA, commonly referred to as 'private military companies')
2) military consulting firms (consult on force structure etc, with the example firm being MPRI) and
3) military support firms- basically logistics (think KBR) (QLDer86 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

A few comments on the above:

The trend among researchers is to shy away from the PMC term unless you are talking about companies willing to do offensive combat operations - Executive Outcomes and Sandline International. Private Security Company PSC is a more accurate term for civilian companies that are contracted to protect 'nouns' - people, place and things. Such companies may be armed or unarmed depending on the client's needs and applicable laws. The ICRC and some other organizations use some combination of terms so as to be all inclusive - PMSC for example.

One other point, P.W. Singer lumps all companies providing any sort of military service anywhere into his PMF term. He includes companies doing fairly mundane services(military aircraft repair for example) in the United States and other Western countries. Perhaps a more accurate term currently in use is the 'peace and stability' industry since (whatever one's perspective of the legitimacy) these companies provide services (security and otherwise) in international peace operations such as the DR Congo, Haiti and Sudan as well as stability operations such as Afghanistan and Iraq. We should also be clear that the security aspect of this industry - the PSCs - makes up only about 5% of the industry in total value and numbers of deployed personnel.

Finally a full disclosure: I founded IPOA and as such am thus very much in the middle of the academic debate around the role and actions of these firms.Hoosier84 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename Private Security Company?

I would like to remove the redirect to this article from Private Security Company for the reasons I mentioned before, and will re-post here. My problem with this is two-fold: First off, private security companies operate under a completely different set of laws and rules of operation than PMCs, being bound, within the US, by federal laws and the laws of the state(s) in which they operate. Secondly, by this definition, my company and hundreds of others that have armed officers, much less special response teams, would be considered PMCs when we are nothing of the sort. We may contract with several oil and energy corporations and carry government contracts, but we operate under the laws of the states in which we operate as well as federal GSA guidelines and regulations. "Private security company" is being redirected to the PMC article, and it should not be at all associated with it as they are completely different industries under the rule of law. Remember, Blackwater is NOT a security company at all, but companies like Securitas and Brinks are. By this overly broad definition, the armed officers at the local mall and quick-stop would be lumped in as mercenaries, and that is not only inaccurate, it is more than a bit foolish.--Breandán 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm still early in the draft phase, I feel I should note that I personally think "private security company" is a better title for this article. There was little debate when PSC was split off from this article, but I think the distinction being made, while it should be addressed in the eventual final article, is not sufficient to warrant a separate article entirely. Many companies operating in Iraq today are not exclusively "offensive" military firms nor "defensive" security firms, and since the security provided has a military application in many cases (particularly when the US military itself is the client) I think the distinction is a tenuous one at times. I think "private security company" allows for the best broad analysis of this industry and the issues surrounding it, and Wikipedia readers do not benefit from two separate articles — but I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors on the subject as well. -- CJSC // Contact 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem with this is that private security companies are completely different in their scope, operations, legal authority, auspice, governing body, practical application, and area of operation from PMCs. Private security companies are the companies providing the local security guards you see at the mall and such, and are required to be uniformed, often unarmed, licensed by the state in which they operate, bound by very specific laws and rules, restricted in their area of operation, insured, often bonded, and fill a domestic role as defined by the state they are in. PMCs are not uniformed, licensed as security companies, bound by state guidelines regarding security guards, and operate under a completely different set of guidelines. Blackwater is a PMC, Securitas or Brinks are private security companies. They are nothing alike except in the most broad of definitions of "providing security services". I cannot fathom how anyone can make the leap between the unarmed retiree sitting in a guard shack at a wharehouse and a paramilitary operator carrying an M-4 while bodyguarding State Dept. personnel in Iraq, and the rules, regulations, and legal structures regarding the two industries are DEFINATELY vastly different. The Private Security Industry Act of 2001 in the UK sets down what a private security company is, and each state and province in the United States sets their own rules and regulations regarding them, but none of them allow private security companies to operate in any way, shape, or form even remotely close to what PMCs are authorized to do. --Breandán 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point. However, Blackwater and other companies operating in Iraq and elsewhere are often hired to provide domestic site security, and while their average employee profile may be different, they are private legally incorporated organizations providing security services. I am not familiar with all the details of Blackwater's incorporation status (they've got all that land in S. Carolina, presumably they are somehow bound by its laws) but it's my understanding that traditional domestic security companies (I'm at work so I can't give you a specific example at the moment, but I believe I read about a Canadian security company which had dispatched employees to Iraq recently) have also contracted for similar duties abroad. Organizations like Blackwater, Aegis, etc, regularly refer to themselves as PSCs: witness the Private Security Corporation Association Iraq member list. Are they all PMCs, or all PSCs, or some are PMCs and some are PSCs? Whatever the answer is, I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you suggest, which is why I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Will try to be back with more thoughts later; there was also some feedback at WP:MILHIST for those interested in this debate. -- CJSC // Contact 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I own a private security company, and I have dealt with PMCs before, and I cannot begin to stress how different they are. Blackwater is contracted by the GSA and federal contractors to do security at all of their sites, and as a result of being federally contracted as a security contractor, they do have domestic operations as well. However, these operations are restricted to the federal sites, and if they set foot off of that site, they are then bound by the state laws of the location that federal site is in. A private security company is governed by those state laws first, and only those sites that are federal will be under the same GSA guidelines and auspice (example: Wakenhut is a conventional private security company, with only small parts, subsidiaries actually, of their company being anything other such as private correctional institutes and federal security contracts). I will grant you that some companies are beginning to blur the line, but those are very rare, with the majority of the tens of thousands of security companies being nothing like PMCs. It is like trying to tie security companies to law enforcement, they just don't mesh. My concern is that the private security industry is going to get unfairly associated with the controversy surrounding PMCs, and frankly, that is not something we need.--Breandán 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, am I correct in understanding that by your proposed definition "private security companies" are (primarily/overwhelmingly) security guard companies who do not work for the federal government and do not operate overseas; and "private military companies" are those companies that do? You clearly have direct personal experience in this field, and it's not my intention to make trouble for your business; but the phenomenon I would like to describe (input is welcome), which is the companies that do work for the federal government and do operate overseas supplementing what had traditionally been military operations, also describes itself and is described by some published academics as being "private security companies". Some of these companies are recently founded, some have been around for a long time; some are part of larger corporate entities who have a wide variety of services, including domestic security, etc. My goal is to untangle this all and write a fair and neutral description of the industry, as it is being used to supplement and augment what had traditionally been military operations, not to 'tie' anybody to anybody else's bad PR (but — cops and security companies are two different groups, sure, but wouldn't a discussion of domestic crime and security cover both?). I will try to consult my sources (Avant and Singer, primarily) and review the arguments they make for the use of one term over the other; if possible I will reprint relevant quotes here. There was some response on MILHIST to this debate but I may make a request for comment as well — I'd really like to hear the opinions of other editors, and ideally more people with expertise in the field. I am not dead opposed to keeping the title "private military company" for the article, but I'm also not keen on the thought that some other business owner might come to Wikipedia and say, "why is my company mentioned here, we're not a military company, we're just a security company!" when they are off guarding a US embassy or training another country's military forces or what have you (which would, if I understand your proposed distinction right, qualify them as such). -- CJSC // Contact 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. For many decades, in the US at least, the term "private security company" was used to refer to non-PMC security guard companies. With the current hyper-vitriolic socio-political climate lending a very nasty stigma to PMCs (whether such is a valid stigma or not is an entirely separate debate) that neither I nor any other business owner involved in the security business wants to be saddled with, making the distinction between the two is important for us. The best way I can break it down is thusly: If the majority (75% or better) of their business is conventional private security (guards, etc.), then I'd say they are a private security company. If the majority of their business (in this case, 51% or more) is involved in contracting with governments and such in a paramilitary capacity, then they would be a PMC in my view. The remaining 24% in between these two percentages fall into a gray area where they could legitimately be considered both. My thoughts, anyway.--Breandán 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?

So far this entry's absolute naivete respecting the ideological component of the term "private military company" and its relations is the sign of an absolute complicity with the American war machine. The ideological meaning of these terms IS its meaning - and so far this entry has not even addressed this. These terms have only recently come into general use in the west and this is not because of some new phenomenon which needs new words to name it - but rather it is the sign of sophisticated mass propoganda which camoflages the truth and makes the prosecution of war easier to manipulate. Mercenary is a perfectly good word which describes these "private military contractors", but "private military contractor" is devoid of the contempt and dishonour conveyed by "mercenary". In fact "private military contractor" reminds us of other contractors - as in plumbers and carpenters - so the phrase contains an inherently positive value-judgement. In a similar way the phrase "private military company" wants us to believe that we are dealing with a regular everyday business - instead of an ethically and morally questionable mercenary organization. Of course those not under the sway of American world-dominating ideology do not call mercenaries "private military contractors" they call them mercenaries. If this article does not contain something about the use of these words as propoganda in America's "war on terrorism" it is an utter lie. See also in this regard the use of "extraordinary rendition" instead of "kidnapping and torture", "collateral damage" rather than "killing civilians", etc... Canuckistani 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Canuckistani, if it is true that every term carries an ideology and that we must be wary of double speak, allow me to point out that:

• Mercenary carries a pejorative conotation only since the African post-colonisation period. Its language definition (hired soldier) is not dishonourable.
• International law and relative conventions have been unable to provide a usefull definition of Mercenary activity (nor of Mercenary for the matter).
• PMCs started before the 2nd "war on terror".
• Private military companies ARE a new phenomenon be it only for their structural organisation. Though at time they may lead similar activities as the individual mercenaries (it remains a highly debatable comparaison), the corporate composition of the intervents grants them a legal legitimity that must not be confused with the rogue individual. This alone justifies the use of a seperate terminology.

Do the Russian companies name themselves mercenaries? Does a mercenary deliver water to the troops, translate in hostile ground, protect oil rigs or train police? Do you really think plumber when you read military?

Your argument would increase in value if you could say who first used the term PMC. Levraitong 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Or Mrs. Levraitong I do not believe that you and I are using the word ideology in the same way. I could substitute the word propoganda or some permutation of lie or just plain li e for ideology. But it is not a simple lie. Of course the phrase "private military contractor" has some reasonable connection with the mercenaries that the phrase denotes. And undoubtedly there have been changes in the organization and legal status of mercenary operations such that they appear more like corporations than so called "traditional" mercenary operations.

But here I must correct you vis-a-vis your understanding of the etymology, meaning and history of the word "mercenary." The english word comes from latin and I will quote the OED: "The main sense divisions in English, including pejorative application of the adjective, are found already in classical Latin. The earliest use in English refers to the ‘hireling’ (Vulgate mercenarius) of John 10:12.]" And the main meanings in English are indisputably pejorative: 1. A person who works merely for money or other material reward; a hireling. In later use (prob. influenced also by sense 2): a person whose actions are motivated primarily by personal gain, often at the expense of ethics.

So the truth of the matter is the US military machine and its supporters (which basically include all major news outlets) don't want to use the word mercenary when they are referring to mercenaries. They don't want us to think of the "private military contractors" as person(s) whose actions are motivated primarily by personal gain at the expense of ethics. A similar lie occurs whenever Americans kidnap and call it "extraordinary rendition": obviously it is easier to extraordinarily rendition someone because we hardly know what is really meant. It is easy to cover up a crime. Another permutation of this is the practice of calling torture "abuse" when americans are guilty. This was explicitly the case during the reporting on Abu Ghraib. Anyhow there are many examples of this sort of lying in american discourse these days. Someone should produce a dictionary.Canuckistani 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit rich for someone to split hairs over the ideological motivation for the use of the word "contractor" when they so freely use polemical terms such as "American military machine", "American war machine", "world-dominating ideology" and making unfounded and patently false allegations that "all major news outlets" support the American military. It is not uncommon in English for a word to have two meanings e.g. materialism can be a school of philosophy which denies the existence of the supernatural and a pejorative description of someone who seeks material reward. Likewise, mercenary can refer to someone devoid of any ethical standards who works only for money, and it can refer to a professional soldier who fights primarily for pay. Therefore, PMCs should not be referred to as mercenaries for three reasons 1) it has unfounded negative connotations when a description of their work as "contractors" is both factually accurate (they work under contract) and devoid of moral judgement 2) it falsely implies that soldiers in state-owned armies are not paid for fighting, which is inaccurate and 3) the role of PMCs in the modern war zone, essentially providing support services such as transport, infrastructure, training, etc is not the role filled by the pre-modern mercenaries such as the Italian Condotierri or Swiss Pikemen, who nearly always fought in front-line roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.214.163 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are PMCs used by US military exactly the same as Mercenaries?

My guess is they are not, but I don't know. For example, there must be some rules governing use of PMCs by the US military. E.g. can a PMC that contracts with the US also contract with any other gov't around the world? What would have stopped a PMC from fighting for Saddam Hussein and against the US if Saddam had offered them more money (other than conscience, etc.)? Any laws/disqualifying factors to hiring? What if it wasn't Saddam Hussein but some other tyrant? Would that PMC still be hireable by the US? Does this sort of thing happen often? I'd be interested in seeing this expanded upon in the article. I couldn't find anything about it in my google searches. 192.88.66.254 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Bill

By any other name. There are many euphemisms these days. If collateral damage means killing civilians, if improvised explosive device means homemade bomb, if vital signs absent means dead, if unlawful enemy combatant means they do what they will with you, then mercenary means patriot. 71.17.132.46 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, real patriots serve their country, not the highest bidder. This whole article should be merged to mercenaries, IMHO. -- 67.98.206.2 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear! Having two separate articles, one for mercenaries and one for an euphemism for mercenaries which the US says are not mercenaries but everyone knows that they are wink wink nudge nudge... is this not POV pushing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.71.210.165 (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with 67 that these guys are mercenaries, in all but name. However, I disagree that the article shuold be merged with mercenaries. Whether or not they are nothing more than mercenaries is a subject of vigorous debate. So, a merge would be POV-pushing, not common-sense.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a new era of mercenaries. They are evolving from mercenaries and are less 'merc like'. I think the article should stay separate tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Private Military Companies are not "commonly known as mercenaries", they are mercenaries. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is far better to use the proper word for what they are than use euphemisms - which actually suggests that they are ashamed of what they do.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Geneva Convention definition of mercenary is given at Mercenary#Laws_of_war. The PMC fighters in US wars are primarily US residents working for US companies, which puts them outside that definition. They become mercenaries if the US ceases to be "a party to" the conflict they're fighting. So, what about the tens of thousands of security guards in Pakistan? Is the US a party to some conflict there? I suppose if Dyncorp was fighting the Taliban in Pakistan, that would qualify. Thundermaker (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. PMC's meet the definition of mercenary. To suggest that "guns for hire" are not mercenaries is artificial.115.188.155.200 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

War Crimes

The statement that there is no mechanism for trying "PMC"s for war crimes is inherently false. A for-hire *combatant* that has participated in military action is classified and tried as a mercenary, as that is precisely what he is. The "PMCs can be plumbers" argument above does not function here, since plumbers don't normally shoot people as part of the job description, much less commit war crimes. A hired gun committing a war crime can and should be tried as a combatant and a mercenary, regardless of what he is called by the hiring nation. 128.195.186.56 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu

I'm afraid you misread the plumber "argument". Plumbers are contractors and mercenaries are now called contractors - this lie presents mercenaries as though they were merely just another a type of contractor: benevolent, helpful and productive. PMC's are not benevolent, helpful or productive. 76.64.185.32 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If plumbers get shot at, they are entitled in most jurisdictions to use force to defend themselves. PMCs which specialise in providing infrastructure in war zones will obviously make more use of this right, and will correspondingly be better trained and equipped for it, than someone you find in the yellow pages. And PMCs can be "benevolent, helpful and productive" in places like Afghanistan and Iraq where (for instance) civilian officials and aid workers need protection against physical threats which the military is not always on hand to provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.214.163 (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. administration policy on PMCs

The section entitled "U.S. administration policy on PMCs" doesn't contain any real information, and I think it should be removed. As it is, it almost seems like the grad student is trying to promote herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.122 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear video game series

I decided to add more to the Metal Gear Solid 4 point. While Metal Gear Solid 4 is apparently going to involve a lot of PMCs, the series has had PMCs since it's first title in 1987. In fact, the "Outer Haven" concept is a direct reference to Outer Heaven from the first one. "Outer Heaven" is also used in Metal Gear Solid as well, but I'm not sure if Liquid Snake simply wanted to rage war or literally create a military nation for hire. If anyone disagrees or can clean it up, go for it, but considering the amount of times the words "mercenary" or "Outer Heaven" is said in the series, I think it would be best to mention the series rather than one upcoming game.

- 75.19.61.215 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Solid Snake has repeatedly been referred to as "the legendary mercenary" despite the fact that, at least from my MGS universe knowledge right off hand, he's never actually contracted his skills out as a direct source of income. In most of the MGS games, he's operating under US Army jurisdiction:

Metal Gear = Rookie FOXHOUND/US Army operative. Metal Gear 2 = Seasoned FOXHOUND/US Army operative. Metal Gear Solid = Retired from FOXHOUND/US Army, recalled to active duty for the Shadow Moses Mission.

Now whether Philanthropy's actions in MGS2 and MGS4 constitute it as a sort of "non-profit" PMC or not would undoubtedly be the source of a long debate, making it questionable at best.

But there's my $0.02 on a nearly 2 year old post about a section not on the page anymore. Spartan198 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

The popular culture section of this article is out of hand, especially the video games. I am going to trim it down in both depth and scope. - Tmaull (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

History/Background section?

Since Roman time, hired guns have been around. Like the Roman Bucellarii…maybe we can expand it from there? What do you guys think? TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the Private military contractor is redirected to this article, but these had been vital part of European warfare, never mind elsewhere, since the Crusades and until at least their enforced recruitment into Napoleon's Grande Armee. They may have been companies in the legal sense, but were contractors first and foremost--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

However, during the fall of Rome, the Romans employed barbarian mercenaries (they didn't have legions anymore). The Romans still lost because what do you expect when you hire mercenaries to fight their own people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

I noticed that most of the companies listed in the table and subsequent list of companies are redlinks are simply external links. Does anyone have any objects to some serious pruning (as is normal of other pages with similar lists). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact the links should be used as sparingly as possible due to spamming effect--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

wow, I never though that US/UK pmcs are NOT advertisment but Others. Kind of Democracy?--77.52.126.38 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy - the link you added doesn't have an article here so is less useful in informing our readers than any of the others - that's the only criteria that we are using at the moment. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Private army

Perhaps an article can be made on private armys ? A useful main source is the article by Jonathan Franklin. It would be linked from mercenary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.160.71 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision of lists of PMCs is needed

First, that list is very incomplete with the chart completely filled in for only a few companies. Secondly, it is impossible to name all of the PMCs in the world. Nobody knows how many are out there, including the US. Therefore, it should be changed to something like 'Some well known PMCs' or 'A list of some PMCs'.

Also, the nonfiction book 'A Bloody Business' has a list of PMCs in it with a paragraph description. If somebody manages to get ahold of that book before me, then they could use that book as the source for the chart and paraphrase a description. This I think would provide readers with more knowledge on the PMCs.

What do you guys think? It's just that list doesn't look to good and seems very outdated.

Once I get ahold of A Bloody Business, I will start revisions but feel free to start before hand if you have good sources.72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)huhuskerguy7

Use of the word Terrorist / Terrorism

Use of these words needs to be revised/changed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and Wikipedia provides a neutral point of view. Suggest researching into the proper title of the supposed terrorists mentioned under the Incidents section. 23.41, 08 May 2009 (UTC) MattWhyte

Moral implications aren't relevant. Regardless of the observant's opinion of a man's cause, an act of terrorism remains an act of terrorism, just like taking a man's life because you feel he deserved it doesn't turn an act of murder into an act of justice. 82.217.90.215 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Propose merger with mercenary, under that article's Private military company section. Pustelnik (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, labelling PMCs "mercenaries" is a slur tactic in some circles. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion centralised at Talk:Mercenary#Merger Proposal --PBS (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a direct part in hostilities

This sentence: "However, contractors who use offensive force in a war zone could be considered unlawful combatants, thereby referring to the "concept" being implicitly mentioned in the Geneva Convention and explicitly specified by the Military Commissions Act" is incorrect and needs to be globalised.

The term that defines whether someone is a mercenary or not is not if they use offensive force but whether they "take a direct part in hostilities" (see Protocol I Article 47. This term crops up a lot in international humanitarian law, and in the case of child soldiers diplomats specifically changed the preferred wording by the ICRC of Article 77.2 of Protocol I from "take a part in hostilities" to ""take a direct part in hostilities" indicating that a person (in this case a child) can take an indirect part in hostilities. See ICRC: Direct participation in hostilities (Report 2005-12-31) for more on this.

The second problem with the sentence is globalisation the Military Commissions Act is a US act it is not binding on anyone but those under American jurisdiction. --PBS (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are blogs like Feral Jundi not acceptable for external links?

Hello to all, and I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Matt and I am the author of Feral Jundi, a blog about the security contracting industry. I believe my blog is the only industry specific blog out there that discusses everything and anything to do with Private Military Companies and Private Security Companies. It is puzzling to me that new media, like my blog, is not included in the list of external references. My blog is not a fly by night operation as well, and has been active since early 2008 and written by a security contractor that has worked for numerous PMC's. As for this blog being an unnecessary external link, I beg to differ. In the context of this discussion, new media is relevant and it is something that belongs on this wiki. To not include it, would be presenting an incomplete picture of the ever evolving information matrix about PMC's. The blog is not sponsored by any PMC's either. Also, the archives, categories and links on my blog would only help the reader to expand their knowledge base about PMC's. If the goal of this wiki is to 'clean up unnecessary external links', then it would make sense to use my blog as a way to clean up the wiki and redirect the reader to a page that does have those links. To include my blog on this wiki, as well as other wiki topics relating to PMC's, is justified in my opinion. Thank you for your time. -matt

There is already an explanation on your talk page. Also see WP:Reliable sources and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

List of PMC

The list of PMCs is incomplete, posting an external like that leads to a more detailed list of PMCs that can be used at the readers leasure is not "making a collection of websites" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supasonic7 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it is. The site you link to is commercial, and it has nothing to add to the verifiably encyclopedic content of the article. Your attempt to turn Wikipedia into either a portal or the Yellow Pages is not in accordance with our guidelines. Please refrain from adding that link a fourth time or risk being blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. administration policy on PMCs

I think this section adds nothing to the overall article; while this is a very important discussion to have in this context, simply having a transcript of part of a Q and A section between a grad student and former Secretary Rumsfeld (in which he does not answer the question in a useful way) does not provide a good enough explanation of the government's policy on PMC's. I think a discussion of the policies toward contracting these companies and the governemnt control over their operation would be far more useful. If this is already presented elsewhere in the article, I would vote that the section be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.178.11 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have relabelled it Bush Administration policy. No showing of Obama policy. Racepacket (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

www.wartimecontracting.gov

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov is a new primary (US gov) source which recently released a report on military contracting. There is probably some good secondary coverage in the media right now. I just wanted to share this here because I don't have time to do more yet. Thundermaker (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mention of "The Circuit"

I feel the listing of this specific magazine requires some further explanation; comes off as almost an advertisement.

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.152.109 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Contradiction"

"On September 17, 2007, the Iraqi government announced that it was revoking the license of the American security firm Blackwater USA over the firm's involvement in the deaths of eight civilians in a firefight that followed a car bomb explosion near a State Department motorcade. Blackwater is currently one of the most high-profile firms operating in Iraq, with around 1,000 employees as well as a fleet of helicopters in the country.'

So are we to understand they operate in Iraq 'currently' without permission from the Iraqi government? either that is the case or some correction/clarification may need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.228.9 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct; that paragraph needs work. The sole reference is about South Africa and does not even mention Iraq. The 2007 revocation was intended to be temporary and was reinstated by the US in 2008 (funny how that works -- it seems there was no requirement that US-contracted PMCs obey Iraqi law), but there was a permanent revocation by Iraq in 2009. Here are some relevant references.

U.S. suspends diplomatic convoys throughout Iraq

U.S. Looks for Blackwater Replacement in Iraq

If nobody beats me to it, I will dig up the original reference in the next few days and re-write the paragraph.

Also, the company has changed their name at least twice since then. Blackwater --> Blackwater/Xe --> Xe Services --> Academi.

08:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done I brought the paragraph up to date and also added some trial info to Blackwater Baghdad shootings. Surprisingly, the trial is still going on, more than 7 years later. Thundermaker (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal Issues

Currently, the legal section of this article is very small and doesn't cover one of the most obvious issues: the legal framework that allows these groups to buy military-class weapons that would normally be illegal in most countries. I recently found myself wondering why the Kurds are complaining they can't get enough heavy weapons (or even M-16s) for use against ISIS, and yet PMCs have such weapons. Does anyone have enough knowledge of this issue to write something about it? Ryn78 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Brillstein, Arik: Antiterrorsystem. Engel Publishing 2005 - ISBN 393854700

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. The Italian version of this Wiki article has a "valid" ISBN, but it produces zero hits on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

PMC's not mercenaries?

It is stated that "the United States has rejected the UN's classification of PMCs as mercenaries". On what basis? PMC's meet every possible definition of mercenary. If the USA disagrees with this logical classification, some reason should be given - even if it is rubbish.115.188.155.200 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

32 Battalion and Alfa DID NOT BECOME PMC's

It is false that the ""South African 32nd Reconnaissance Battalion and the former Soviet "Alfa" unit were reorganized into private military companies". The 32nd Battalion (NOT 32nd Reconnaissance Battalion) was simply disbanded, and Alfa still exists.115.188.155.200 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)