Security? What's in it for me?

Also in the IntTrib for January 17, Raenette Taljaard, a member of the South African Parliament, has a good commentary about the risks presented by the increasing use by governments of private military services - or, as they're more traditionally called, mercenaries.

The visibly important role of private military companies in the world's hot spots lends weight to the notion that the nation-state is losing its jealously guarded monopoly on the use of force - or, in some cases, voluntarily relegating it to the private sector. Private companies are coming to the fore, adopting the role of more than modern-day mercenaries. The companies that the United States and its allies have hired [for use in Iraq] - such as Kroll, Armor, Control Risks, Rubicon and Global Risk - have a whole range of specializations and hail from a range of countries. Together they provide all the services normally carried out by national military forces, including intelligence, military training, logistics and security. U.S.-allied military officials and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are quickly becoming familiar with the "brand services" provided by these companies.

But the battlefield is not merely another arena for business, and the profit motive may distort security strategy decisions. The expansion of services performed by civilian entities raises several concerns: the lack of transparency and oversight; the performance of companies motivated by profit, not national foreign policy or security interest, and conflicts of interest. ...

[T]he United States and Britain are turning increasingly to private military companies. This trend could pose a serious threat to international peace and security. Given that most conflicts in the modern era are occurring within states and often involve nonstate actors, it is clear that the world can ill afford to allow additional private actors into conflict situations - especially when accountability and legal restrictions on their behavior are weak or nonexistent.

A few other people have commented on this, but it's a trend that has largely grown under the radar, a bit of intelligence here, a bit of security detail there. It's perhaps no surprise that the biggest booster of privatized economies - the US - is also one of the biggest boosters of what amount to privatized armies.

After all, why should all those poor people who, Bush tells us, don't even know how to get married, get protected at our expense?