The Mercenary Debate by Deborah Avant. Private security contracting undermines democratic control of US foreign policy.
The Mercenary Debate by Max Boot. Mercenaries are inevitable and, if employed wisely, they can be effective adjuncts of US policy.
The Mercenary Debate by Jí¶rg Friedrichs and Cornelius Friesendorf. Privatized security cripples statebuilding; Iraq is a case in point.
Comments
I was reading this last week and the first piece struck me as poorly thought out.
The author assumes that since PSC numbers are less of a political hot potato than troop "boots on the grounds" numbers, and thus less of a concern for Congress, that the deployment of PSCs must therefore detract from Congress' <I>ability</I> to provide oversight rather than its <I>concern</I> in doing so. She also puts forth a complaint that PSCs allow us to conduct "foreign policy by proxy" as if this is a bad thing. Sounds like a nice capability to get things done without making US involvement quite so obvious. The author does not explain why this is bad.
And then there is this passage, referring to "a recent study":
<I>"... private soldiers are seen as motivated primarily by monetary gain. This doesn't mean people think that private soldiers are greedy; on the contrary, most people assume their need must be dire to volunteer to fight an unpopular American war."</i>
"People" think that? Or is that a view held by the author that she presumes people agree with?