Their Mercenary Calling

Another British firm, Global Risk International, is a principal player in Iraq, it provided security for Paul Bremer. Dyncorp Inc., an American firm, is currently training the new Iraqi police. MPRI, another American firm, was active in the former Yugoslavia, and supplied arms to one of the warring factions during the civil war.

Columbia has also ‘benefited’ from PMC’s. American firms provide pilots to defoliate coca fields and helicopter gunship escorts. Other firms protect US diplomats in Israel, bodyguard Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and provide ‘close protection’ or ‘physical protection’ in a number of other countries. They also have their contacts in Britain, with Kellogg, Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) formerly responsible for the refit of Britains own WMD (Trident submarines) at Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth. This deal is already months behind schedule and massively over budget.

It hasn’t always been plain sailing. Northbridge International have been particularly unfortunate. They offered to send a ’special constabulary’ of 60 men to arrest Liberia’s former President, Charles Taylor, at a price of $4 million. It was turned down, and Northbridge also faces investigations into allegedly offering mercenaries to work in the Ivory Coast. More recently, the implication of Mark Thatcher in a plot to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea has thrown the spotlight firmly on those who wish to stay in the shadows.

So why are PMC’s so popular, especially with the British and American governments? There are a number of reasons. Mercenary forces can be easier to engage, and quicker than UN peacekeepers, whose focus is always open to change in the political climate. Mercenaries are usually available if the money is right. There is also the issue of the quality differential between units of hardened professional soldiers and UN troops, many of whom come from the armies of poorer nations. Faced with a choice between hardened, experienced veterans on the one hand, and UN troops, who may well be of dubious quality and could be withdrawn by their governments, it’s an easy choice to make.

There is also a political angle to the use of PMC’s. The sight of American boys being brought home in bodybags has undoubtedly been a severe restriction on the activities of the US military in particular, at least until 9/11. If the bodybags are filled with mercenaries, then the attitude of many people is likely to be indifferent at best

PMC’s can also evade much political and legal oversight over their operations. Many armies are subject to highly complex and explicit rules of engagement, military law and international law like the Geneva Convention.

PMCs, on the other hand, aren’t subject to much regulation, if any. No tiresome legal complexities tie their hands. Being private companies, the worst that can happen is that their operatives may be indicted under the national laws of the countries they operate in. As yet, few indictments have been forthcoming, although a few conventional soldiers have been indicted to appease public opinion. And as many of these companies operate in what are known as ‘failed States’, in which national law is at best somewhat notional and corruption omni-present, this is unlikely to change soon. Americans serving with foreign armies could have their citizenship revoked under the 1870 Foreign Enlistment Act, but, today, this is highly unlikely to happen.

To sum up, the PMC is nothing new. Private armies have existed for millennia and are, seemingly, back and here to stay. It’s basically the same old racket, dressed up in designer suits instead of soiled battledress.