Privatizing Warfare

Daniel J. Neumann

Professor Kraft (Problems in Contemporary Ethics)

October 14^th, 2010

Exegesis Essay on the War on Terrorism

Privatizing Warfare

The United States of America invaded Afghanistan after an Al Qaeda terrorist attack destroyed the two World Trade Centers, part of the Pentagon, and many Americans’ lives. The Taliban, who controlled Afghanistan, affiliated with Al Qaeda. Two years later, Americans also invaded Iraq to pacify the Weapons of Mass Destruction, to cut Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, and to improve humanitarian conditions. The US couldn’t find any WMDs we didn’t sell them, Saddam disliked Osama Bin Laden, and we’ve thrown the nation into more violence now than before the US got involved. At the same time, some Americans (and foreigners) have made fantastic profits, which might trickle down to the middle-class. Corporations like Xe Services and Global Dynamics are taking up the slack, since America is running out of troops. All they ask for in return is money and an insurance policy in case they kill innocent civilians.

To begin, Xe Services might not ring a bell, since they changed their name from “Blackwater.” They’re the world’s largest private military company, with over 20,000 mercenaries, and a private air force. Their biggest client is the United States of America, who’s employed them in Afghanistan, Iraq, and post-Katrina New Orleans. In May 16^th of 2008, the New York Times wrote,

“After guards from Blackwater Worldwide protecting a State Department convoy killed at least 17 Iraqis in a hail of bullets last September, we hoped the Bush administration would rethink the folly of relying on mercenaries, who have no accountability to Iraqi or American law… The ever-stubborn administration decided it couldn’t stay at war without its gunslingers.”

In another, more famous incident, Blackwater killed at least 8 civilians, including a woman and an infant. The New York Times wrote on it September 27^th, 2007:

“Participants in a contentious Baghdad security operation this month have told American investigators that during the operation at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting, an American official said.”

As long as the government never prosecutes their murder, all they have to do is change their name to Xe (pronounced like “Z”).

Now that you understand what private military companies are, let’s talk about the pros and cons, the full analysis of this interesting moral dilemma. From a Just War Theory perspective, Xe Services is violating the criteria of Just Cause, since they aren’t acting in self-defense. The company’s buildings and personnel weren’t attacked on 9/11. They violate Legitimate Authority, since they weren’t elected by anyone and aren’t a government recognized by the United Nations. They violate Right Intention, since they are a profit-oriented enterprise (as all business are). They also violate Last Resort, since they’re known for being “trigger happy” and never tried peaceful alternatives. As for justice during the war, Xe clearly violates proportionality and non-combatant immunity. They’ve killed so many civilians because they over-kill each assignment (they’re over-achievers of destruction).

From an intentionality point of view, Xe is killing people for money. They aren’t following the Golden Rule of “do onto others as you’d like to be done to you.” They’re hired assassins, firing rifles into human beings or launching missiles from predator drones. One might argue they only want to serve their country in a time of war—but then why didn’t they voluntarily join the military? Some might reply that many of Xe’s employees are retired from the military—but, in that case, might PTSD help explain some of this disregard for life? Either way you look at it, the intentions of Xe are immoral or at least amoral. As for the U.S. government, their intention might be one of desperation, but that doesn’t change their thought-process behind the act. They purchased a military force that may cost more than our volunteer service, but can’t be court-marshaled or reflect poorly upon the US (“So it goes,” as Kurt Vonnegut would say). They were looking for a loophole to fight terrorists at their own game without rules of engagement.

Consequentialism, militarism, realism, and moral nihilism all see the privatization of our wars overseas as efficient. The terrorists don’t have a code of ethics, so how can we win against them with our restrictive Just War Theory? The ends justify the means, whoever has the most power is correct, do whatever works best, and morality is an abstract, human construct without any basis in nature. Why not pay body guards to protect our soldiers? We can use all the extra force we can get. This is about life or death. America must look after its own interests.

A pacifist would hate the idea of a war for profits, but, then again, they hate all wars, regardless of who fights them. A Marxist would dislike the idea, since it costs the taxpayer more money to fund Private Military Contractors, thus less money would go to educating and keeping healthy the men and women who chose to serve. A conservative might reject the idea because it breaks with tradition and international understandings of justice during a war. A capitalist, libertarian, or plutocrat, however, might love the idea of making more money off of war. Before, companies could only supply the weapons. Corporations secure more freedom to influence politics and make profit by holding a standing army.

After analyzing this topic with all these schools of thought, it seems to me that more believe that privatization of the military is too costly, both in taxpayer revenue and human loss. On the other hand, the Kantian/Utilitarian split seems even-handed. It’s hard to hide my opinion on this.

Bibliography

Glanz, James, and Sabrina Tavernise. "Blackwater Shooting Scene Was Chaotic." The

New York Times 27 Sept. 2007: n. pag. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/middleeast/28blackwater.html>.

Editorial. The New York Times 16 May 2008: n. pag. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16fri2.html>.