Should the U.S. use PMC's?

The United States should not use private military contractors. Private Military

Contractors were created for the purpose of continuing a culture of mass militarization. Private

Military Contractors are the perfect storm of capitalism and militarization. The military already

seeps in capitalist ideology, to begin with. However, Military contractors are a military force for

a literal instead of a perceived profit. The United States military has always had ulterior motives

aside from the fight for freedom. With Private Military contractors, the ulterior motives are no

longer perceived, they are very real. To take the biggest military in the world and attempt to

monetize their services puts a price on freedom. Creating capital surrounding “democracy” and

“freedom” is an increasingly dangerous territory. As it opens the door to pick and choose the

monetary values of people’s lives.

P .W. Singer explores the profitability of private military contractors in Corporate

Warriors: Rise of Private Military Contractors. Singer highlights the Western classification of

private military contractors and the dichotomies of the public and private sphere“ The division of

the world into public and private spheres is at the center of the long debate over what

government's role should be. Ever since the rule by kings was replaced by the bureaucratic state

in the seventeenth century, there has been a give-and-take between the public and the private,

with the line between the two constantly in flux. In fact, the debate about where

this line should fall has been described as one of the "grand dichotomies of Western political

thought"(Singer,2007,Pg.7). Singer brings up the point of the flux between the forces of the

private and public military. There are too many differing opinions in the political sphere about

the role of public and private. If the United States cannot determine whether or not government

and military forces should be public or private; how can we have a functioning military? If the

divide on how the military should be run is as dichotomized as the United States how can wehave a functioning public or private military? To put it simply the use of private military

contractors is a flawed one. With any argument, there are points on either side. However, the use

of private military contractors is flawed.

War and the ways war is fought are changing. Private military contractors are a product

of that change. There is a need for them, Private military contractors go into conflict most would

not. Private military contractors go into these conflict areas because money is a great motivator.

Money incentivizes PMC to do things the normal military would not. There is a danger in

privatizing war. At what point will war become too much of a business? At what point will too

much capitalist and private development in our military bring it to a complete grinding halt?

There are grounds for fear of too much privatization and what that will look like. What is

stopping any military from going completely private? With anti-military sentiments and lower

recruitment numbers on the rise, the military could be in danger of mass privatization in the

name of the button line. Any large-scale militarized force is looking for ways to become more

efficient, there is a constant race to be the most efficient one. Privatization and the efficiency

money and the private sector offer to the military could be the main selling points. Any

powerhouse wants to have the best military, the question stands in the future will the money be

able to buy the best military?

*Written for State, Rebels, and Warlords