Christopher Kinsey

Private Contractors and the reconstruction of Iraq: Transforming Military Logistics

Introduction 1. The Role of Mercenaries and Contractors in Supplying War 2. Contractors and the Consequence of Political Mismanagement of the Iraq Invasion 3. Contractorising War: the US Governments Reliance on Contractors in Iraq 4. Strategic Contracting and Contractors in the Reconstruction of Iraq 5. Outsourcing War: The Use of Contractors in Support of the UK Operation in Iraq 6. Operating with Impunity: A Gap in the Law or a Lack of Political Will? Conclusion

The impact of private security companies on Somalia's governance networks

The article discusses the use of private security contractors to support coastguard forces in the Somali substate entities of Puntland and Somaliland. Neither of these entities is sufficiently robust to raise and maintain an effective maritime security force without external assistance, hence they have had recourse to the private sector for training, logistical and operational support and high-level consultancy with respect to their coastguards. The article makes some general observations about the international private security industry and Somali politics in order to provide a context for the three case studies. The case studies, each of which covers the engagement of one security contractor in support of a coastguard, assess the roles played by the contractors, making particular reference to sustainability and influence on governance networks. The analysis establishes a matrix of security company typologies and potential roles and then uses this matrix to suggest which types of company might be best employed for which functions. The article has current pertinence, as two of the three case studies concern efforts by substate entities to hire private security to enhance anti-piracy capability.

Challenging international law: a dilemma of private security companies

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a marked increase in the sale of military services by private security companies (PSCs).1 These companies sell anything from combat support for government military operations to military training and assistance, logistical support and more conventional security protection services. They have undertaken operations in countries as diverse as Sierra Leone, Croatia, and Columbia and now Iraq and Afghanistan. The presence of these companies on the international stage raises fundamental questions about the way war is now being fought. Unfortunately, the legal issues raised by their presence in conflicts have not yet been properly addressed. This article sets out to examine the suitability of international law in defining and controlling the activities of PSCs on the battlefield. It then goes on to discuss the problems associated with national regulation. Here the focus is on the attempts by the United States (US), South Africa, and United Kingdom (UK) governments to introduce effective legislation to control the industry.

Regulation and control of private military companies: The legislative dimension

The demand for private military services is likely to increase in the near future, a point made in the governments 2002 Green Paper on options for regulation. As a consequence of this, private military companies (PMCs) will continue to have an impact on international security and stability. The introduction of a suitable regulatory system will therefore be vital to ensuring such an impact by UK PMCs is of a positive nature. The article outlines the six regulatory options in the Green Paper and a seventh option not included, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each option and the potential impact of each on the actions of UK PMCs operating on the international stage.

Bureaucratic Interests and the Outsourcing of Security The Privatization of Diplomatic Protection in the United States and the United Kingdom

In spite of its sensitivity, diplomatic protection has received very sporadic scholarly attention. This article provides a comparative analysis of US and UK diplomatic security policies, focusing on the increasing use of private military and security companies (PMSCs) for the protection of foreign service and development agencies’ personnel. The existing theoretical explanations of the privatization of security tasks cannot explain why countries displaying similar material incentives and similar political and market cultures have outsourced diplomatic protection to different degrees, nor can they account for variance in the use of PMSCs by different agencies within the same country. Our analysis highlights the importance of investigating organizations’ interests in providing a more accurate explanation of the varying propensity to outsource armed protection. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, the outsourcing of diplomatic security was a resultant of foreign policy bureaucracies and military organizations’ preferences.

Problematising the Role of Private Security Companies in Small Wars

This article sets out to investigate the impact of Private Security Companies (PSCs)1 on civil wars. In doing so, it has taken an historical line, outlining the way the industry has developed from when it first emerged on the international stage in the late 1960s, to the present. Importantly, the article is able to identify three broad strands of involvement in civil wars that include substituting for state military forces, propping up weak governments, and supplementing state militaries. Moreover, in each of these situations, the involvement of PSCs raises both moral and legal questions, as well as challenges for government. This is especially so in light of their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the likelihood that governments will increasingly turn to them for niche capabilities.

Private Security Companies: Agents of Democracy or Simply Mercenaries?

Since the setting up of the first private security companies (PSCs) the term has been synonymous with mercenaries. Such a claim was justified in the early days when there were strong links between these two groups of actors. Watchguard, for example, employed mercenaries to launch a military operation against Qadaffi in 1970 (Hoe 1999: 410). Since then, the industry has changed beyond recognition. Instead of being perceived as guns for hire, many in the international community now recognize that PSCs can make a valuable contribution to international peace and security through training and other areas of expertise. What is emerging today is their integration into strategic complexes that now operate in many parts of the developing world and that are responsible for addressing the democratic deficit found in many weak and failing states. As the chapter explains below, such complexes are made up of governments, international organizations, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), multinational corporations and now PSCs.

Think Again – Supplying War: Reappraising Military Logistics and Its Centrality to Strategy and War

ABSTRACT This article argues that logistics constrains strategic opportunity while itself being heavily circumscribed by strategic and operational planning. With the academic literature all but ignoring the centrality of logistics to strategy and war, this article argues for a reappraisal of the critical role of military logistics, and posits that the study and conduct of war and strategy are incomplete at best or false at worst when they ignore this crucial component of the art of war. The article conceptualises the logistics–strategy nexus in a novel way, explores its contemporary manifestation in an age of uncertainty, and applies it to a detailed case study of UK operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

Transforming war supply: Considerations and rationales behind contractor support to UK overseas military operations in the twenty-first century

Since the end of the Cold War, policymakers and academics alike have examined in great detail every aspect of military operations apart from military contracting. This article surveys key issues that confront United Kingdom (UK) policymakers. It engages with and updates the secondary sources to explain the evolution, role, and implications of military outsourcing for UK overseas operations in the twenty-first century. It explores the politics, rationale, and consequences of outsourcing technical and support services to expeditionary operations. This article provides a framework for a discussion that is becoming increasingly urgent given the UK militarys increasing dependence on military contractors to generate fighting and support capabilities on operations. It proceeds in two steps. First, it traces the evolution of military contracting, identifying the different political and economic drivers behind the decision to engage technical and support contractors on operations. Second, it discusses the future implications for the UK military of this decision.

Privatizing Military Logistics

This chapter sets out to explain why governments are privatizing military logistics, and what implications such a trend has for the supply of war into the future. It takes a broad approach, examining a variety of drivers behind military outsourcing and the problems that outsourcing creates politically and for military commanders who are responsible for utilizing force. Our main objective is to show that logistics outsourcing is possibly the most representative and important (yet neglected) aspect of the wider phenomenon of military outsourcing. It most comprehensively encapsulates the drivers of contracting in general, involves the largest number of the contractor workforce and expenditure, and is exemplary of the future of military outsourcing. Moreover, not only is it highly relevant to foreign and defence policy, but governments have also become heavily dependent on logistics contractors for the long term whereas they could – political will provided – always replace private security contractors with regular troops. This should cause us to reconsider the overwhelming focus the literature places on the outsourcing of various security functions to armed contractors. This chapter first defines logistics and underscores its relevance to foreign and defence policy. Next, after a brief historical account of logistics outsourcing, it gives a comprehensive explanation of why states today have chosen to outsource military logistics instead of doing it themselves. It then introduces three key debates around military outsourcing – whether it saves money, how decision-makers are affected by contractors, and the problem of the “revolving door”. The chapter concludes by considering the future of the outsourcing of military logistics, finding that outsourcing is not only here to stay because its driving forces persist, but that it is likely to accelerate and lead to the integration of public and private workforces in the defence 2 enterprise. The chapter draws primarily on evidence from the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) who have gone the furthest in outsourcing military logistics and have historically set standards that other countries eventually follow.