Great little article by David about the evolution of the industry, with a mention of Combat Operator and Eeben’s blog. I like the PMC 2.0 phrase, and that would be cool to see that as the new buzzword ‘du jour’. –Matt
——————————————————————-
Dogs of War: Private military contractors — mysterious? No.
Published: Feb. 6, 2009 at 3:09 PM
By DAVID ISENBERG
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 (UPI) — A common refrain from many who observe the private military contracting industry is that it is opaque, shadowy, veiled, secretive, hidden, non-transparent, etc. Is this true? Yes and no, but mostly no.
When I first started following this industry in the early 1990s, it really was difficult to get information on it. Partly that was because there were relatively few companies to follow. Three companies garnered most of what little coverage existed: Executive Outcomes of South Africa, Sandline of Great Britain and U.S.-based MPRI. And the first two were not particularly eager to answer press inquiries.
MPRI, whose not-so-modest motto back then was “the greatest corporate assemblage of military expertise in the world” because it was founded and run by relatively high-ranking retired U.S. military officers, escaped that pigeonhole thanks to the efforts of one of its vice presidents, whose openness and charm enabled MPRI to gain enormous publicity for its training efforts in the Balkan wars. But it was an anomaly back then.
And the relatively few substantial pieces of writing back then were still being published primarily on paper, hard to get hold of and not easy to disseminate.
The advent of e-mail and the Web changed that situation radically. If you Google “private military contractor,” you receive more than 700,000 hits. Blackwater Worldwide alone will produce nearly 700,000 hits.
Of course, this has not all been for the better. One of the pitfalls of an online era is that anyone can be a publisher and voice one’s thoughts on a subject, regardless of the facts.
And in at least one way, most private military companies do have an ace up their sleeve when it comes to protecting the details of their contracts from public scrutiny, namely that revealing them would constitute “a trade secret or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information” and thus should be exempt from disclosure. Just ask any reporter who has ever filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a private military or security contract to see what I mean. Although it bears saying that much, if not most, of the time, the reluctance to reveal the details belongs just as much to the client — say, the U.S. government — as it does the contractor.
But, increasingly, the veritable explosion of writing on the subject and the means to access it makes it increasingly easy to do substantive, quality research on the subject. Any college student, by virtue of online library access, can download articles from a wide variety of journals. If you want to know the impact of deploying civilian mariners with active-duty sailors aboard ship, see the article in Armed Forces & Society. How does the privatization of security in Africa fit into the context of globalization? See the article in International Relations journal.
But books and articles in print, you might say, are so 20th century. Good point. But other media also have useful resources. Just about any private military and security contractor has its own Web site. Yes, the information is often vague and banal, but if you dig a little, you can find useful details.
While hardly dispassionate or neutral sources of information, trade associations often have very useful information. See the Professional Services Council to get an idea of how private contractors fit into the ever-expanding government services sector. Or for details on companies working in Iraq, see the Private Security Company Association of Iraq. And the International Peace Operations Association, once you get past its use of euphemisms like the “Peace and Stability Industry,” publishes a magazine that is a cut above the average trade group puffery.
While much of the television and movie coverage is terrible, there have been a few excellent productions, notably “Shadow Company” by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque and “Force Provision” by Allie Tyler.
There are also some quite excellent Web sites devoted to keeping tabs on what is being written. PrivateMilitary.org is one. Another is IraqSlogger.com. CorpWatch serves as a vigilant watchdog on many of the larger contractors.
Still, even the online medium has been largely static, in the sense that it is mostly people assembling news reporting or scholarly writing in one convenient place to download. While it is both necessary and valuable, up to now it has largely had a certain bloodless, theoretical quality to it. In other words, the people we most need to hear from, the operators themselves, have largely been silent.
In part, this is because operators routinely have to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of their contracts, which require them not to talk about their jobs.
Even so, there have long been places where contractors gather online to discuss the news of the day. These are sites like Danger Zone Jobs, Civilian Contractor Jobs, PrivateForces.com, Lightfighter.net and the International Contractors Association.
More recently we have sites that might be labeled PMC 2.0. These are sites run by former operators who bring unique insights into how the industry works, for better or worse. Their views can be acerbic, but their knowledge is immense.
Eeben Barlow, who founded Executive Outcomes, emerged from retirement last year with his own blog. As someone who has been through the PMC media meat grinder, his views are worth reading.
More recently, Jake Allen, a U.S. military veteran who has worked as a contractor in Iraq, founded the Combat Operator Web site for operators and security contractors. He also runs a podcast known as Combat Operator Radio, which is an innovation for PMC coverage.
The next time a congressional committee holds an oversight hearing, it should include these people as witnesses, not some self-promoting writer or film producer who has decided to use the industry as his road to fame and fortune.
—
(U.S. Navy veteran David Isenberg is a military affairs analyst. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, a correspondent for Asia Times and the author of a new book, “Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq.” His “Dogs of War” column, analyzing developments in the private security and military sector, appears every Friday.)
Story Here
I have just read David’s very interesting article titled “Dogs of War: PMC Research 101”. I do, however, need to point out one unintended error in David’s article. David wrote that EO was “not particularly eager to answer press inquiries”.
If I recall correctly, our press releases were sent to approx 120 media representatives and embassies. These releases covered what we were doing, where we were doing it, who in the company had been caught breaking the law, what action was taken against them, etc, etc. I had an “open door policy with the media and we even flew members of the media to numerous locations where we were working. But, as I was told by one journalist, essentially what we had to say was “not in the public’s interest”. They had obviously predetermined what their angle on EO would be. Again, the world has turned and the PMCs of today do not have to fight a multi-fronted war as we did. Our enemies in the media (in SA) were very closely associated with Military Intelligence (I still have hundreds of their “Top Secret” fabrications – and the military never challenged me on what I wrote in my book) and were merely using the media to propagate their disinformation. Foreign media picked up the SA disinfo and put their own spin on it.
SA-based researchers such as the ISS were too keen to pick up on the disinfo and publish it in their research papers. They even made up stories of their own on EO and myself and put it out as “research” – and gladly accepted payment for their lies.
I have it on the best authority that foreign governments, like America, was using its intelligence fronts in South Africa, notably USAid to feed disinfo on EO to the media at the highest level. Even anti-US journos often swallowed their twisted feeds as gospel.
I know I am harping on this issue but the apology I got in the SA media did give me some satisfaction but the damage had been done.
In retrospect, there was not much more we could have done to rectify what was being written and the pen was indeed mightier than the sword.
So, I believe there is a fine balance to be kept between the media and the PMC. But, the PMCs need to make sure that it does not purposely try to hide its own faults.
Anyway, that is just my grumpy two-cents worth.
Rgds,
Eeben
Comment by Eeben Barlow — Friday, February 6, 2009 @ 7:05 PM
Wow, excellent post about the subject Eeben and I would be curious to hear from a few of these journalists that were reporting unfairly or inaccurately back then about EO. The damage is done, but for research purposes, I would just be curious as to the why?
I feel the same way about guys like Jeremy Scahill. Did some Blackwater guard steal his girlfriend or kick his ass at a bar or something? I would love to get him on Feral Jundi or get Jake to interview him on COR and just ask, what gives? What is your motivation? Is it to shut down BW, is it to report on a little known subject, is it because he wants to win some award, or what?
The other one I wanted to mention, is have you ever heard of the book True Believer by Eric Hoffer? The book discusses the nature of mass movements and it was written in the 50's. My buddy Scott pointed this book out to me, and he said it has been a very influential book in today's COIN stuff. We were also joking that the same principles apply to some journalists or politically extreme types(far right, or far left) in today's media.
It is interesting to look at it from a media point of view though. The book discusses the concept of a fanatic and what harm they could do with a weapon. But my question is what about the fanatic with a pen? Those are the really scary ones in my book, because the pen is what creates the idea that reaches out and motivates other fanatics to act.
Here is a small excerpt about the book.
"Hoffer's beginning notion is that "people with a sense of fulfillment think the world is good while the frustrated blame the world for their failures. Therefore a mass movement's appeal is not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. He continues by saying that the true believer "cannot be convinced, only converted". This basic tenet of the story is about human nature and its susceptibility to totalitarianism both secular and sectarian. To wit, he writes that "all mass movements strive to impose a fact proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. And, that that faith becomes the things the fanatic declines to see. He avers how startling it is to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible, and that faith manifests itself not in moving mountains, but in not seeing mountains move. He say's that in the context of mass movement's faith should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity, or truth but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from himself and the world as it is."
Product Description
A highly provocative, bestselling analysis of the fanatic — the individual compelled to join a cause, any cause — and a penetrating study of mass movements from early Christianity to modern nationalism and Communism.Reporting on the true believer, Air Hoffer examines with Machiavellian detachment mass movements, from Christianity in its infancy to the national uprisings of our own day. His analysis of the psychology of mass movements is a brilliant and frightening study of the mind of the fanatic, the individual whose, personal failings lead him to join a cause, any cause, even at peril to life — or yours.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Natu…
Comment by headjundi — Saturday, February 7, 2009 @ 3:19 AM
I think as far as the SA journos are concerned those that reported on EO/myself were doing so at the behest of the intelligence services and getting paid for it on the side. Let me state for the record that I have no problem with the int services using the media to get a message to the public – it happens all the time. I do however have major problem when the int services use the media because they are fearful we are going to expose corruption. In fact, EO exposed an SA Minister of Finances doing illegal deals. Ironically, there was a Commission of Inquiry into the matter but they REFUSED to interview me despite the fact that I offered to attend and I had the proof of his involvement!
As for the other journos – some of them have quit. Other are reporting on mundane things such as watching paint dry and so on. But, they are the only ones who can truly explain their bizarre reporting.
But it is all water under the bridge now.
Thanks for the info on Hoffer’s book. I shall see if I can find it.
Rgds,
Eeben
Comment by Eeben Barlow — Saturday, February 7, 2009 @ 7:09 PM
Very interesting. There is always two sides to the story and thanks for posting.
Comment by headjundi — Sunday, February 8, 2009 @ 7:52 AM