Talk:Private military company/Archives/2014

Request for information

Request for source

The following passage from the article...

"It is notable, however, that much of the criticism of private military contractors seems to focus on largely theoretical issues with free use of arguments based on historical precedents whose relevance is to many non-obvious. Analyses usually make the radical claim that the practice is fundamentally flawed and has to be rejected. There has been little publicized effort made to actually go into details to try to pinpoint and suggest corrections to the actual flaws of the system, thus reaching an optimal middle ground."

...strikes me as an unsourced statement of opinion, too POV to be in the narrative voice of the article. Since it was essentially a "reply" to (sourced) content I added, I'm probably not the one to do more than "raise a flag", but I believe that if someone wants this content in the article, he or she should find a decent source to quote (or at least reference) rather than the alternating POV and weasel words of "It is notable...much of the criticism...seems to focus...historical precedents whose relevance is to many non-obvious...radical claim...There has been little publicized effort made to actually go into details to try to pinpoint and suggest...optimal middle ground." Does someone want to take this on? -- Jmabel 02:54, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to make a complaint about this too, but it looks like someone's beat me to it. I just thought I'd make a comment here to draw attention to it again.

Cannot be the object of military attack

Contractors are civilians authorized to accompany a force in the field and, generally, cannot be the intentional object of military attack (1949 Geneva Conventions)

Please can someone explain this one. Which article says this? Because Article 4 of GCII says:

1 Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...

1.1 Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

This would suggest that they can be taken as prisoner of war. Further The fourth Geneva Convention, (which is mainly about civilian populations under military occupation), states "Persons protected... by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War... shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention" So where is this protection mentioned in the introduction of the article? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I have some more info on the following?

"There has been a recent exodus from many special forces across the globe towards these private military corporations. The United Kingdom Special Air Service, the United States Army Special Forces and the Canadian Army's Joint Task Force 2 have been hit particularly hard."

If possible, some emphasis on JTF2 and SAS.

I could believe that companies are able to hire former special forces people. I mean it is possible and there are a lot of military people being consulted on military matters.

But when it says "recent," can I have examples of particular incidents and occurances? Like articles appearing in the news if possible. Jak722 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been quite a few articles published on this. For information on US personnel see this Daily Telegraph (UK) article [1].

For information on the British SAS. [2]and [3]

And information on the Canadian military (JTF2).[4]. (QLDer86 14:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

A GAO report could find no statistical drain on U.S. Special forces - United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees, July 2005. GAO-05-737 REBUILDING IRAQ: Actions Needed to Improve Use of Private Security Providers. Hoosier84 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Responses at public appearances

Surely these massive quotes could be paraphrased, with a link to the full text if necessary.

E.g. Both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush have been questioned at international studies forums about the role of PMCs in Iraq and the issue of regulation (QLDer86 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)).

I typed up the exchange between Bateman and Rumsfeld from a video I got on C-Span. The video is no longer available on their site, I suppose it's lost to most people. I still have it on my computer though.... However the point being that US government official stance on PMC accountability it ambivalent to say the least. These one-on-one sessions where Rumsfeld and Bush are confronted about it give useful insights. I haven't looked for transcripts but if you can find them and provide a synopsis of the issues referencing the transcripts then that would be cool I guess. --Jabbi 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But keep in mind that the article must maintain its WP:NPOV neutrality, regardless of how you personally feel about PMCs, governmental accountability, Bushfeld, etc. Alcarillo 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I found an entire transcript of the event, both Rumsfeld's speech and the Q and A session [5], and there is also a Real Audio media file available of the Q and A session from the SAIS school site [6]. I think it could be summarised to 'former Secretary Rumsfeld believed the benefits of using contractors outweighed the issues surrounding their regulation'. (QLDer86 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)) President Bush's response to Ms. Bateman's questions are available in print form at [7] and the audio and video are available at [8]. (QLDer86 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Corrections Made

I've removed the Carlye Group from the list of PMCs, as they are not, in fact, a PMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.18.141 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the initial reference to PMC's as a "state funded" entreprise. Such generalisation is an obvious error. Levraitong 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the initial reference to IPOA as a "trade and lobbying organisation" to "trade organization". Since no objections have been made to the post on the subject. Levraitong 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Contributions with similar content have been assembled according to the present classification. Levraitong 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)

In the Debate category, there is a link to an article by the IPOA (which by the way was inactive last time I checked). The article is described as "A much more accurate and updated picture of the legitimacy and accountability of private companies...". However, I would suggest that articles produced by the IPOA will be highly biased in nature given the company's position as the main political lobbying group and public relations firm for the PMCs and private security industries in Washington D.C. Their board of directors are eclusively from some of the biggest PMCs; thus their purpose is to make sure that the activities of their member companies are viewed favorably. Roaming Lion 12:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A note:

IPOA is a nonprofit, nongovernmental, nonpartisan *trade association* - as a trade association all the board members come from the companies making up the association (PMCs is not really an accurate term). The membership list and board of directors are all listed on the web site www.IPOAonline.org. The association was founded to make peace operations successful by harnessing the resources of the private sector. Public relations is just one aspect of this mission, but with a code of conduct originally written by NGOs and human rights lawyers, and a focus on improving transparency, laws and oversight, it would be deceptive to simply dismiss the organization as a PR/lobbying association. IPOA is not a registered lobbying organization (that may change), but is very much an international advocacy organization. Full disclosure: I am the founder of IPOA. Hoosier84 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to IPOA as a "U.S trade and lobbying organisation for Private Military Companies" should be removed as it this description refers to the association using a the term "lobby" which has a pejorative connotation in the daily english language. Such use misguides the reader and installs a unjustied and undocumented approach towards IPOA. Moreover in order to obtain legitimacy and efficiency a lobby requires the consent and mandate from the majority of the trade members it seeks to represent. The actual 32 members IPOA is clearly under that threshold. The simple absence of major U.S contractors such as Northrup Grumman or Dyncorp from its members should be sufficent to counter any claims of IPOA as a lobby organisation.

In order to maintain the intellectual sincerity and academic value of Wiki it is therefore suggested to describe IPOA using less ambiguous terms such as its legal status _nonprofit trade association_ or as a author from Policy Reviews calls a "consortium of military firms" ([[9]]). Levraitong 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a link, as well as one to the Montreux Document Aporio 19 Februar 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Economic Sense

If your average PMC operator makes two or three times as much as your average military special operations operator, someone has to pay that gigantic salary. Seeing as how the US military is contracting these people out, that means that American taxpayers are paying through the nose for services that government troops could provide better for much less on a per-man basis.

Has anyone actually done a study that could be referenced on the actual affordability of PMCs? It seems to me that talk of PMCs being more economical than regular troops is simply a cover for rampant corruption. Shall I quote Machiavelli on the merits of mercenaries? 128.153.205.172 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a common concern to be sure, but there's more to it than comparing individual salaries. The military simply has a notoriously long tail that's costly to maintain; the . You have to take into account training, deployment and maintenance costs which I believe are much higher for the military. Indeed, most security contractors pay for their own training that in the military, the government would pick up the tab. In addition, PMCs commit far less resources (both manpower and personnel) to a mission than the military. Political ramifications aside, in the end it may very well be cheaper to use PMCs. Check out P.W. Singer's book Corporate Warriors. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I believe he examines the economics of using private security firms. Alcarillo 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The cost effectiveness issue is much debated, but it is important to remember that companies use has many locals (or Host Country Nationals HCNs as they're sometimes called) as possible. This makes sense from legal, ethical, intel and especially cost-effectiveness perspectives. Most PSCs in Iraq are upwards of 80% Iraqi for example. For construction and logistics companies the percentage can be upwards of 95% HCNs. In general the terms of the contract will determine the actual numbers of HCNs that will be used, security concerns sometimes preclude the use of HCNs, but the net effect is services far cheaper than could be provided by Western militaries. Hoosier84 14:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first, people think of PMCs as all ex special forces guys from the US. However, guys from Western countries employed tend to be the minority in their squad (Blackwater Worldwide might be an exception). The rest of the squads tend to be filled with ex Latin American special forces (Chili, Nicargua, El Salvador), Fijans, South Africans and even Iraqis. Contractors from these areas are paid considerably less (one example was that a Fijan was paid $800 a month and an American was paid $5000) even though they do the same jobs as Americans and Brits.

Also, think of this scenario. A man joins the military. He goes through training and does everything to become a US soldiers. After 4 years of service, he loses a limb in battle and cannot fight anymore. The US will pay him pension checks for the rest of his life. Imagaine how much that costs and how mch cheaper PMCs are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of PMCs

When security was mentioned, is it implied that mercs can be used just the same as security guards provided one can pay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.31.72 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Selected articles focusing on iraq

Note that none of these have anything positive to say about PMC's, which is by definition biased. Second, it is more apropos to wikinews than wikipedia. If they were being used as sources for text in the article, they should be cited as references, not included for edification. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. 66.92.170.227 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the news aggregator part. But your first sentence strikes me as odd. Is it biased if no positive articles could be found? Do you have to find some sources claiming what a good man Adolf Hitler was to write an unbiased paragraph about him? Just wondering. DevSolar 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple answer would be yes. Positive articles exist, with valuable arguments. Should democracy be diregarded because the Austrian neo-nazi party was able to obtain the post of PM? Levraitong 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Forcing a balanced argument by giving a minority of viewpoints equal space or time as the majority is a common logical fallacy, the exact name of which escapes me. The common counter-example is as follows: despite the fact that a minority may believe that the sun revolves around the earth, they are not given equal say every time the sun is brought up in the news, because the vast majority have accepted the overwhelming evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and there is no reason to make an extra effort to givea minority of positive news stories an equal footing as negative ones. 134.84.64.33 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that to present a "balanced" argument when there is none - is a sort of perversion. This false objectivity produces controversy when there is none: so you have in the US evolution vs "creationism" as if they were both scientific when they are not. To try to produce abstract and false positive articles regarding PMCs as if they are rationally equivalent to the negative articles is definitely POV. The situation is similar to an imaginary news reporter asking for an opinion regarding the status of a corpse: "So you sir say the corpse is dead but what about the other side of this question?" Ridiculous.

War Crimes

The statement that there is no mechanism for trying "PMC"s for war crimes is inherently false. A for-hire *combatant* that has participated in military action is classified and tried as a mercenary, as that is precisely what he is. The "PMCs can be plumbers" argument above does not function here, since plumbers don't normally shoot people as part of the job description, much less commit war crimes. A hired gun committing a war crime can and should be tried as a combatant and a mercenary, regardless of what he is called by the hiring nation. 128.195.186.56 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu

I'm afraid you misread the plumber "argument". Plumbers are contractors and mercenaries are now called contractors - this lie presents mercenaries as though they were merely just another a type of contractor: benevolent, helpful and productive. PMC's are not benevolent, helpful or productive. 76.64.185.32 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If plumbers get shot at, they are entitled in most jurisdictions to use force to defend themselves. PMCs which specialise in providing infrastructure in war zones will obviously make more use of this right, and will correspondingly be better trained and equipped for it, than someone you find in the yellow pages. And PMCs can be "benevolent, helpful and productive" in places like Afghanistan and Iraq where (for instance) civilian officials and aid workers need protection against physical threats which the military is not always on hand to provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.214.163 (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. administration policy on PMCs

The section entitled "U.S. administration policy on PMCs" doesn't contain any real information, and I think it should be removed. As it is, it almost seems like the grad student is trying to promote herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.122 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear video game series

I decided to add more to the Metal Gear Solid 4 point. While Metal Gear Solid 4 is apparently going to involve a lot of PMCs, the series has had PMCs since it's first title in 1987. In fact, the "Outer Haven" concept is a direct reference to Outer Heaven from the first one. "Outer Heaven" is also used in Metal Gear Solid as well, but I'm not sure if Liquid Snake simply wanted to rage war or literally create a military nation for hire. If anyone disagrees or can clean it up, go for it, but considering the amount of times the words "mercenary" or "Outer Heaven" is said in the series, I think it would be best to mention the series rather than one upcoming game.

- 75.19.61.215 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Solid Snake has repeatedly been referred to as "the legendary mercenary" despite the fact that, at least from my MGS universe knowledge right off hand, he's never actually contracted his skills out as a direct source of income. In most of the MGS games, he's operating under US Army jurisdiction:

Metal Gear = Rookie FOXHOUND/US Army operative. Metal Gear 2 = Seasoned FOXHOUND/US Army operative. Metal Gear Solid = Retired from FOXHOUND/US Army, recalled to active duty for the Shadow Moses Mission.

Now whether Philanthropy's actions in MGS2 and MGS4 constitute it as a sort of "non-profit" PMC or not would undoubtedly be the source of a long debate, making it questionable at best.

But there's my $0.02 on a nearly 2 year old post about a section not on the page anymore. Spartan198 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

The popular culture section of this article is out of hand, especially the video games. I am going to trim it down in both depth and scope. - Tmaull (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

History/Background section?

Since Roman time, hired guns have been around. Like the Roman Bucellarii…maybe we can expand it from there? What do you guys think? TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the Private military contractor is redirected to this article, but these had been vital part of European warfare, never mind elsewhere, since the Crusades and until at least their enforced recruitment into Napoleon's Grande Armee. They may have been companies in the legal sense, but were contractors first and foremost--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

However, during the fall of Rome, the Romans employed barbarian mercenaries (they didn't have legions anymore). The Romans still lost because what do you expect when you hire mercenaries to fight their own people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

I noticed that most of the companies listed in the table and subsequent list of companies are redlinks are simply external links. Does anyone have any objects to some serious pruning (as is normal of other pages with similar lists). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact the links should be used as sparingly as possible due to spamming effect--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

wow, I never though that US/UK pmcs are NOT advertisment but Others. Kind of Democracy?--77.52.126.38 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy - the link you added doesn't have an article here so is less useful in informing our readers than any of the others - that's the only criteria that we are using at the moment. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Private army

Perhaps an article can be made on private armys ? A useful main source is the article by Jonathan Franklin. It would be linked from mercenary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.160.71 (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision of lists of PMCs is needed

First, that list is very incomplete with the chart completely filled in for only a few companies. Secondly, it is impossible to name all of the PMCs in the world. Nobody knows how many are out there, including the US. Therefore, it should be changed to something like 'Some well known PMCs' or 'A list of some PMCs'.

Also, the nonfiction book 'A Bloody Business' has a list of PMCs in it with a paragraph description. If somebody manages to get ahold of that book before me, then they could use that book as the source for the chart and paraphrase a description. This I think would provide readers with more knowledge on the PMCs.

What do you guys think? It's just that list doesn't look to good and seems very outdated.

Once I get ahold of A Bloody Business, I will start revisions but feel free to start before hand if you have good sources.72.196.14.14 (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)huhuskerguy7

Use of the word Terrorist / Terrorism

Use of these words needs to be revised/changed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and Wikipedia provides a neutral point of view. Suggest researching into the proper title of the supposed terrorists mentioned under the Incidents section. 23.41, 08 May 2009 (UTC) MattWhyte

Moral implications aren't relevant. Regardless of the observant's opinion of a man's cause, an act of terrorism remains an act of terrorism, just like taking a man's life because you feel he deserved it doesn't turn an act of murder into an act of justice. 82.217.90.215 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Propose merger with mercenary, under that article's Private military company section. Pustelnik (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, labelling PMCs "mercenaries" is a slur tactic in some circles. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion centralised at Talk:Mercenary#Merger Proposal --PBS (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a direct part in hostilities

This sentence: "However, contractors who use offensive force in a war zone could be considered unlawful combatants, thereby referring to the "concept" being implicitly mentioned in the Geneva Convention and explicitly specified by the Military Commissions Act" is incorrect and needs to be globalised.

The term that defines whether someone is a mercenary or not is not if they use offensive force but whether they "take a direct part in hostilities" (see Protocol I Article 47. This term crops up a lot in international humanitarian law, and in the case of child soldiers diplomats specifically changed the preferred wording by the ICRC of Article 77.2 of Protocol I from "take a part in hostilities" to ""take a direct part in hostilities" indicating that a person (in this case a child) can take an indirect part in hostilities. See ICRC: Direct participation in hostilities (Report 2005-12-31) for more on this.

The second problem with the sentence is globalisation the Military Commissions Act is a US act it is not binding on anyone but those under American jurisdiction. --PBS (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are blogs like Feral Jundi not acceptable for external links?

Hello to all, and I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Matt and I am the author of Feral Jundi, a blog about the security contracting industry. I believe my blog is the only industry specific blog out there that discusses everything and anything to do with Private Military Companies and Private Security Companies. It is puzzling to me that new media, like my blog, is not included in the list of external references. My blog is not a fly by night operation as well, and has been active since early 2008 and written by a security contractor that has worked for numerous PMC's. As for this blog being an unnecessary external link, I beg to differ. In the context of this discussion, new media is relevant and it is something that belongs on this wiki. To not include it, would be presenting an incomplete picture of the ever evolving information matrix about PMC's. The blog is not sponsored by any PMC's either. Also, the archives, categories and links on my blog would only help the reader to expand their knowledge base about PMC's. If the goal of this wiki is to 'clean up unnecessary external links', then it would make sense to use my blog as a way to clean up the wiki and redirect the reader to a page that does have those links. To include my blog on this wiki, as well as other wiki topics relating to PMC's, is justified in my opinion. Thank you for your time. -matt

There is already an explanation on your talk page. Also see WP:Reliable sources and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

List of PMC

The list of PMCs is incomplete, posting an external like that leads to a more detailed list of PMCs that can be used at the readers leasure is not "making a collection of websites" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supasonic7 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it is. The site you link to is commercial, and it has nothing to add to the verifiably encyclopedic content of the article. Your attempt to turn Wikipedia into either a portal or the Yellow Pages is not in accordance with our guidelines. Please refrain from adding that link a fourth time or risk being blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. administration policy on PMCs

I think this section adds nothing to the overall article; while this is a very important discussion to have in this context, simply having a transcript of part of a Q and A section between a grad student and former Secretary Rumsfeld (in which he does not answer the question in a useful way) does not provide a good enough explanation of the government's policy on PMC's. I think a discussion of the policies toward contracting these companies and the governemnt control over their operation would be far more useful. If this is already presented elsewhere in the article, I would vote that the section be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.178.11 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have relabelled it Bush Administration policy. No showing of Obama policy. Racepacket (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

www.wartimecontracting.gov

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov is a new primary (US gov) source which recently released a report on military contracting. There is probably some good secondary coverage in the media right now. I just wanted to share this here because I don't have time to do more yet. Thundermaker (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mention of "The Circuit"

I feel the listing of this specific magazine requires some further explanation; comes off as almost an advertisement.

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.152.109 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Contradiction"

"On September 17, 2007, the Iraqi government announced that it was revoking the license of the American security firm Blackwater USA over the firm's involvement in the deaths of eight civilians in a firefight that followed a car bomb explosion near a State Department motorcade. Blackwater is currently one of the most high-profile firms operating in Iraq, with around 1,000 employees as well as a fleet of helicopters in the country.'

So are we to understand they operate in Iraq 'currently' without permission from the Iraqi government? either that is the case or some correction/clarification may need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.228.9 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct; that paragraph needs work. The sole reference is about South Africa and does not even mention Iraq. The 2007 revocation was intended to be temporary and was reinstated by the US in 2008 (funny how that works -- it seems there was no requirement that US-contracted PMCs obey Iraqi law), but there was a permanent revocation by Iraq in 2009. Here are some relevant references.

U.S. suspends diplomatic convoys throughout Iraq

U.S. Looks for Blackwater Replacement in Iraq

If nobody beats me to it, I will dig up the original reference in the next few days and re-write the paragraph.

Also, the company has changed their name at least twice since then. Blackwater --> Blackwater/Xe --> Xe Services --> Academi.

08:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done I brought the paragraph up to date and also added some trial info to Blackwater Baghdad shootings. Surprisingly, the trial is still going on, more than 7 years later. Thundermaker (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)