So I keep coming back to this debate, because this is very important to the policy makers out there. Most importantly, it is a vital conversation to have with one another about who we are and what our place should be in the war and in this country.
The fear is that the state does not have control over the civilian contractor community, and more specifically, armed security contractors. Or that a state could not survive if they unleash the hounds of industry against their enemies, because then they would not have control over that industry, and especially after the war is over. That the industry as a whole would somehow turn around and attack the client, in the name of some other enemy or cause.
Well, I have read the debates, and even participated in the debates, and my conclusions are that the state would be stupid ‘not’ to use industry to fight it’s wars. Privateering during the revolutionary war is a prime example of how this country used industry to fight it’s enemies.
Thousands of enterprising ship owners, hunting down British naval vessels, and taking the loot. It was certainly a profitable endeavor back then, and arguably, that infusion of money into the local economies and the small successes of sea battle, helped to increase the morale of the revolutionaries back then. Success breeds success, and the naval fight was vital to our fight back then. Sure the land battles were important, but the sea battles are something that is always forgotten during discussions about that war, because it was an aspect of the war that was fueled by industry.
