Privatizing the Army - A vision for just a game or an inevitable reality?

[PointOfViewGun]

A new Call of Duty game seems to be coming out soon and they have just published an investigative video on use of private security companies:


I believe this is not just a gaming issue but one that will bound to get bigger with each conflict that turns to use of real guns.

I, probably same with many others, only knew of Blackwater. I wasn't even aware that they're now called Academi, but, the one video highlights as being the largest is G4S, which I've never heard of. They seem to be employing over 620 thousand people with $12 billion in revenues in 2012. Though, of course, not all of that is associated with private military contracts. Some of the issues the video highlights are question of allegiance, regulations and their growing presence.

What do you think? Will they have a growing presence in the world theater of conflicts as a primary player or just remain as a supporting players for real state militaries?


For the game's trailer:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Condottiere 40K]

Employers need to know that their assets remain loyal and put the employer's interests first; mercenaries are a compromise.

[Astaroth]

What's Frank Underwood doing in my Call of Duty?


Aside from that, this is a very worrying development. But I'm okay with it as long as the government armed forces remain considerably more powerful. That's the only way to uphold democracy in the long run.

[Condottiere 40K]

The British established a ratio of one to three, with them keeping hold of the artillery.

[Captain Jin]

G4S isn't an army. It's a lot of security tech type people, security analysts and consultants and so on in many different fields, and rent-a-cops.

[PointOfViewGun]

G4S isn't an army. It's a lot of security tech type people, security analysts and consultants and so on in many different fields, and rent-a-cops.

Not in its entirety but they do provide private military service.

[Captain Jin]

Not in its entirety but they do provide private military service.

What is that Setekh? Why don't you tell me what this nondescript 'private military service' is because I don't think you even know.

[PointOfViewGun]

What is that Setekh? Why don't you tell me what this nondescript 'private military service' is because I don't think you even know.

A Look At The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Armies

With more than 625,000 employees, this listed security giant is the second-largest private employer in the world (behind Wal-Mart). While some of its business is focused on routine bank, prison and airport security, G4S also plays an important role in crisis-zones right around the world.

In 2008, G4S swallowed up Armorgroup, whose 9,000-strong army of guards has protected about one third of all non-military supply convoys in Iraq (it's also notorious for its wild parties and for having Afghan warlords on its payroll).

But the combined group has a security presence in more than 125 countries, including some of the most dangerous parts of Africa and Latin America, where it offers government agencies and private companies heavily-armed security forces, land-mine clearance, military intelligence and training.

Defence is part of their service description as well:

Supporting the successful deployment and engagement of armed forces at home and abroad

As world events continue to remind us, the world’s armed forces face serious and ever present security risks both at home and abroad.

By seeing the challenge of defending nations more broadly, G4S works with governments directly supporting their international operations. We have the insight that comes from working in widely different cultural and physical environments worldwide and the know-how in logistics, end-to-end project management and security technologies to provide solutions.

For our defence sector clients, that means better protection of their key assets – including people, facilities and reputations – alongside cost savings and improved performance. Ultimately, it means that governments can rely on security solutions that create tangible benefits and support their defence objectives in both the short and long terms.

Recognise that the most secure and beneficial solutions come from understanding the challenges of defending nations and populations and the interdependence of parts. Let us help you to see the opportunities that exist in the challenge of securing your world.

[Captain Jin]

A Look At The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Armies


Defence is part of their service description as well:

Yeah exactly what I said. Security. Most of which is unarmed except in bad places where they are on a personal security detail. And again, they're providing SECURITY for convoys. They aren't engaging in offensive operations. Hell just look through the career opportunities available to those applying to most of their security positions. They are unarmed and usually for like thirteen dollars an hour. It's not a pissing match. You just don't know anything about the topic.

The major players that provide closer to what this video is trying to sell are Academi, Triple Canopy, SOC, Aegis, and Dyncorp. But again, their numbers in the field of trigger pullers is pretty damn small and they aren't taking over any combat operations anywhere. Nor do they have the capacity, as I said, to take on a real military. They get big contracts because they hire professionals (except some companies early eesh) to come back over and do a five month stint for 150k to be on a personal security detail for someone.

State Department is the biggest employer ASFAIK but they've been in the process of replacing those guys with their own people as they've created a new position in the DSS to replace PMCs. But it's a lengthy, slow process because State is a plodding bureaucratic entity and they're trying to do a good job of selection, vetting and training prior to sending them over. So right now they are mainly taking over PSD teams with their own DS agents running a team of contractors but eventually the contractors will get replaced by DS agents.

[justicar5]

G4S isn't an army. It's a lot of security tech type people, security analysts and consultants and so on in many different fields, and rent-a-cops.

I can second this, G4S does meter reading and private event security in the UK (and amusingly messed up big time on the Olympics)

[Captain Jin]

Man I just watched that video and what a farce. Totally misleading, misuse of statistics, false claims backed by nothing. I mean that's what you expect from a CoD advertisement, but seriously. P.W. Singer from Brookings is knowledgeable about it, but I think they're putting his statements in there at their own discretion and out of context. For one thing, PMCs never participate in active combat operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. They never did. The 'combat' they were involved in was during the course of their security details responsibilities. That is to say, they protected convoys, static locations and individuals and any combat they saw took place because those assets were attacked. They were never used as an offensive tool, or even to conduct patrols or anything. In Afghanistan they are not 'taking over combat' there. That's such a silly load of crap. Why are there so many? Because they do logistics crap, tech stuff, and other support stuff and anyone that knows anything about the military knows that the tail of any fighting force is three or four times as large as the number of people doing the fighting.

All the guys that work on the ECM device stuff, the advanced comm gear, any of the chow hall or base support and utility personnel and specialists all fall under these so-called 'PMCs'. So many of these 'mercenaries' are AC repair guys, or fix radios, or fix refrigerators and other inane stuff like that. Just like I said GS4 has people in a bazillion different positions and the vast majority are people that would never see, touch, or shoot a gun let alone participate in active combat operations.

As far as regulation goes you can blame all the first world countries and the United Nations for not confronting the problem when it was manageable back in the 90s when EO was doing business. EO actually pressed very hard for regulation and standardization of the business so that they could better legitimize the industry. The UN said no. The US said no. They were afraid and instead of dealing with the issue they stuck their heads in the sand. Then fast forward to Iraq and suddenly we don't have enough troops in Iraq to hold key positions or secure the green zone in order to set up a provisional government because that asshat Rumsfeld did things with half the number of troops he should have and there was a rush to put people in there and they went with the private sector. And in those early days all sorts of companies, some legit, some mom and pop were getting contracts to protect buildings, facilities, personnel, etc. and the vetting process was bad and some bad people got in there and did some bad things.

Beyond all of that they don't have the sort of armaments to take over in a combat role. They have assorted small arms and some light armored vehicles. That's it. They don't have heavy assets, or super advanced stuff. What limited air capabilities they possess exist in the realm of transport and that's pretty limited as well. They are not a 'fighting force' that could take on a conventional, professional military.

But yeah, overall that whole video is alarmist tripe meant to drum up publicity for CoD.

[Love Mountain]

Privatized military services won't happen until the space age and by then, who the hell knows what'll happen?

[Condottiere 40K]

Prince/Blackwater mentions he regrets working for the State Department, as they supposedly screwed over his company ex post facto.

[Captain Jin]

Prince/Blackwater mentions he regrets working for the State Department, as they supposedly screwed over his company ex post facto.

Well Blackwater was the most notorious of the bigger companies for hiring incompetent shills in the early days post-invasion Iraq and much of the bad press for PMCs came out of what some of those idiots did. They dropped their standards and administered lackluster vetting process to increase numbers in those days and let in a lot of unqualified or under qualified people.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, military privatization is not something new nor distant past, and it did rise and fall several times in history. Would it rise up again? Well, who knows, afterall feed Taliban some leads is not much different than feed US military some leads, nor do you need reason beyond "I just want to fight them" to start the war, especially consider most people join a war for either killing time or earning money.

[Condottiere 40K]

Going back to the Renaissance, mercenaries were more abundant, and bridged the gap between feudal levies and standing national armies.

[hellheaven1987]

Going back to the Renaissance, mercenaries were more abundant, and bridged the gap between feudal levies and standing national armies.

The issue is as long as you want to fight and fight well under any condition, do I care you are an Irish or a Chinese? Afterall, it is not like Irish get a racial trait of +1 saving throw every turn, nor Chinese get +1 unarmed strike when condition fire up.

On the other hand I do think private military such as Knight Hospitallers or Knight Templars are awesome.

[evenflowjimbo]

I use to live across the street from someone who was in Blackwater. He was not a nice guy - including to his three children who seem to all be just plain out of it.

Anyways, I can believe we would use more and more private companies for military actions. Of course, who needs a man when we have drones?

[fkizz]

while not an expert in warfare, such a thing wouldn't be new, king philip II of spain had mostly mercenaries in his armies (despite the overall failure of his military campaigns), and the side with the most money can easily get the biggest army.. in practical terms such a thing doesn't sound new..

[hellheaven1987]

while not an expert in warfare, such a thing wouldn't be new, king philip II of spain had mostly mercenaries in his armies (despite the overall failure of his military campaigns), and the side with the most money can easily get the biggest army.. in practical terms such a thing doesn't sound new..

King Philip II's issue is his army was never large enough to cover all the mess he started, regardless how big it was...

A more successfully "private" military example would be British East Indian Company, and I do think future private military business would be more close to that - large corporation that needs armed service to protect its interest.