A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper. He does a fantastic job of finding the really interesting publications out there that need to be read and discussed. It should also be noted that this particular piece won the 1st Prize in the Awards For Excellence contest at the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies back in 2010. Pretty cool.
As to the paper itself, the point of it is to address the problem that the UN has in getting member states to contribute quality forces. Or the problem the UN has in getting enough troops that are capable enough to do the job. So a quantity and quality problem, and a possible solution to address that. The paper argues that PMC’s could be the solution to the quantity and quality problem that the UN is up against.
Contractors are also politically acceptable, just because no one cries when we are killed. With member states, when they send their military units to the UN for peacekeeping duties, and that mission goes horribly wrong and many troops are killed, then that becomes politically sticky for those leaders of those states to deal with. Tragedies in peacekeeping could actually force states to pull out troops, or a mission might be too dangerous, and no states want to contribute forces–all because those missions are threats to the careers of politicians in those contributing nations. That is reality, and PMC’s are one way to mitigate that reality.
Or worse, you get states that have poor and corrupt leaders who view their military as a way to make money by pimping them out to the UN. They could care less about taking care of their military, or accomplishing the mission/providing a good service. What matters to them is getting paid by the UN, and then letting the UN and the other member states figure out how to take care of their prostituted military. Meanwhile, those poor leaders also rip off their soldiers and siphon off their pay. Pfffft.
Now of course I have cursed the UN in the past, just because they seem to cause more problems than fix problems in these countries. But it is also important to note that a properly equipped and armed professional force with a well defined mission can make all the difference in the world. So if the UN wants to go down this path and have it succeed, then it will first have to square away the way it does business. It will have to first accept that PMC’s can do this kind of work, and then they will have focus on lessons learned within their organization and within the current wartime contracting lessons learned by the west. (or at least trying to learn…lol)
In other words, they can build a model contracting system, but it will take reaching out to other country’s experiences, other industries and companies, and ‘building a snowmobile’ out of all of these lessons and ideas. Because the really hard and costly lessons that the US has experienced, could totally help the UN form a sound contracting system that delivers the services they want and need.
Another point I wanted to bring up is that in my opinion, the optimum contracting mechanism that best mitigates the principal agent problem is the ‘best value’ contracting method. The lowest priced, technically acceptable contracting mechanism is a horrible way to do business, and it is a ‘race to the bottom’. So instead of getting poor troops from member states, you will replace them with poor PMC’s if you go this route.
Furthermore, you must have a professional contractor management force that actually produces the correct ratio of management per contract. Please do not assign one guy to manage billions of dollars and thousands of people and multiple contracts. A division of labor is vital to this effort, and those people tasked with watching these contracts need to know what they are doing and what they are looking for. Like I said, the lessons are there if anyone is willing to study this stuff.
Oh, and why was there no mention of the excellent work that Executive Outcomes did in Sierra Leone, or the cost effectiveness of that PMC, versus the total waste of UN manpower and money to do the same job there? (see the graphic above) Or where was there any mention of the UN calling Executive Outcomes and asking for help and a quote on services for dealing with the Rwanda Genocide crisis back in the nineties? My point here is that the UN should be talking with men like Eeben Barlow, and asking exactly the best way to partner and work with such companies like EO. Who knows, the UN could have actually stopped the Rwandan Genocide if they would have hired a company like EO?
I guess the final deal I want to talk about is the global economy. Right now, there are austerity measures being implemented throughout the world, and the availability of force for the UN and it’s member states is decreasing because of it. The UN will have less money and less force to work with under the current constraints of that economy, and missions will suffer because of it. That’s unless they get creative and actually look to private industry as a way to save money and provide a force with capability. I believe private industry can be a great service to the UN, but that all goes out the window if the UN does not set this up correctly or fails to manage these contracts properly. –Matt
From Dogs of War to Soldiers of Peace: Evaluating Private Military and Security Companies as a Civilian Pro…
