Interesting testimony from Professor Stanger. Finally we are starting to see some movement towards acknowledging the existence of the LoM in DC, and it is fun to see where it goes. Although in the case with this testimony, Stanger forgot some key historical points to add to the inherently governmental debate. She sure did use the privateer analogy, but made no mention of their contribution or size of industry during the Revolutionary War or War of 1812.
Matter of fact, her entire testimony and point of view is lacking historical reference–as if contractors have no place in the history of this country. Of course that is totally wrong, and I think I have made a good case on this blog about that history. It is just troubling to me that a person of her stature and intellect would choose to ignore that stuff in such a key intellectual debate. I thought she was under oath? lol
I also wanted to post this, because much of her testimony is being quoted and used by the various critics and reporters out there covering this industry. So if everyone is rallying around her testimony, it is kind of important to read what she has to say, and give an alternative point of view to provide some balance.
What I will do is go through some of the key points and give the Feral Jundi point of view or POV. Maybe the professor can come up in the comments section and care to provide further input or explanation? Anyhoo, lets get started shall we?
Stanger Testimony: Contracting for moving security is largely a post-Cold War development, and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan today are wholly dependent on it.
Feral Jundi POV: Actually, the history of privateers hauling colonists to the new world was the first use of armed contractors for a ‘moving security’ example. We also depended on contractors moving supplies during all of our early wars in the form of camp followers. The Pinkertons were used to protect Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. During the Indian Wars and expansion into the West, armed security contractors were vital to the security of wagon trains, stage coaches, ranch/cattle protection, law enforcement, and scouts. “Eight civilians have received Medals of Honor including Dr. Mary Edwards Walker (the only woman to ever receive the award), one civilian scout and two civilian Naval pilots during the Civil War, and 4 civilian scouts during the Indian Campaigns (including William Cody…”Buffalo Bill”).” America has a rich history of contracting with armed security for protection or combat operations that certainly required ‘moving security’.
Stanger Testimony: Using Friedman’s minimalist definition, the use of contractors in the realms of security and justice demand the strictest scrutiny. Even under this leanest of definitions, moving security contractors are performing inherently governmental functions, since they are actively involved in defending the nation against foreign enemies.
Feral Jundi POV: Allison forgets that defending a nation against foreign enemies is the first point mentioned by Friedman, in his minimalist list, and the most important. To me, a nation’s first goal above all else is survival. To use all and any means necessary and available to defend a nation. That means using a standing army and private industry if necessary. Yet again, the historical context for this argument is the existence of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11. It’s existence symbolizes our nation’s desire to uphold the right to use private industry during times of war, and the clause for granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal is right there next to the authority to Declare War. That is significant.
And from a strategist’s point of view, I want every available tool in my hands to conduct war and defeat an enemy. It is why George Washington relied upon his standing armies, his volunteer militias, as well as his privateers, and it is why we are using private industry in such a way now. It answers a need for manpower.
You could also make an argument that the Second Amendment is an essential tool for the defense of a nation. ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ So would Milton Friedman or Allison Stanger argue that the Second Amendment conflicts with what their definition of inherently governmental is or what the state should allow for the defense of a country?
Stanger Testimony: There are additional grounds for concern about the use of armed security contractors that have yet to receive appropriate attention. From a constitutional perspective, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, yet armed privateers have been deployed in both Iraq and
Afghanistan without such explicit authorization.
Feral Jundi POV: This is the key point of this whole testimony that I wanted the reader to focus in on. Allison brought it up, but it is interesting to me that she would make no recommendations for congress to actually use it? Nor did she care to elaborate on the significance of this law. That it does symbolize America’s relationship with armed security and private industry during times of war. By not bringing that history into the discussion, the commission has nothing to really build off of for an opinion on the law itself. If I were to advise congress, I would just tell them that they have had the power and right to do anything they want (and for a long time) in regards to controlling and licensing private industry during times of war. They are law makers, they have the law to do such a thing in their war fighting tool kit, and they could have actually set up the kind of legal conditions and checks and balances with private industry that this whole commission is concerned with trying to understand.