The Impact of Private Security on US Foreign Policy

Other problems arise with the abdication of certain strategic capabilities.  An example can be found in Canada’s experience with the GTS Katie where due to a contract dispute between private parties 1/3 of Canada’s armored equipment (550 tanks and armored personnel carriers, 350 containers of ammunition along with other sensitive military gear) was held hostage while on the way back from Kosovo because the company responsible for transporting it (Third Ocean Marine Navigation) said the government owed another $292,000. The impasse remained unresolved for over two weeks until Aug. 3, 2000when Canadian naval units were forced to board the ship to take custody of the military equipment.^[xiv] This was a major political embarrassment for the Canadian government.

In the U.S., private technicians are increasingly employed to service some of the most advanced weapons systems – including the B-2 and F-22 – and to operate UAVs. While this practice may be cost-effective, it has the unintended consequence of eroding existing personnel skills within this area, and may have a correlation to the decline in recruitment of individuals with the requisite engineering and computer science backgrounds due to more lucrative careers in the private sector.^[xv] This need to balance cost effectiveness with the requirement of retention and attraction of qualified personnel in key skill sets presents a challenge in addressing future use of private consultants within theU.S. armed forces.

Operational Services

The operational aspect of the private security industry is reliant on the protection of “nouns” (person, places, and things), and is the sector most involved in the conduct of combat operations. Contractors in Iraqproviding operational services number over 20,000 (as of April 2006), making them the largest contributor to the Coalition of the Willing. One of the greatest capabilities of this sector is the ability to provide surge capacity to augment existing military forces.^[xvi] In the case of weaker states, these operational services are usually associated with the protection of critical infrastructure such as diamond mines in Sierra Leone and oil pipelines in Columbia. In addition, operational services are very often involved in hostilities associated with counter-insurgency or ongoing civil war.  Thus, the operational sector of the private security industry finds itself at the forefront of combat operations, often leading to an opaque operating environment in regard to their assignments and conduct.^[xvii]

Within this sector another distinction can be made between operations of either an active or passive nature. Passive operations are ones that tend to be more defensive in nature, including the sort of convoy/VIP protection and guarding of sensitive facilities provided by Blackwater USAand Erinys.   Active operations run the gamut from active counter-insurgency campaigns to traditional combined arms offensives with companies like Executive Outcomes (EO) and Sandline International leading the way.^[xviii]  The negative media attention drawn to active operations along with an inherent risk that could negatively impact profits has led many private security companies engaged in the operational sector to avoid active contracts, according to Doug Brooks president of International Peace Operations Association.^[xix]