Talk:Private military company/Archives/2015

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)

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[1]. 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)

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)

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)

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)