Why certain PMCs outperform others
Some private military companies perform better than others and this difference is mainly due to differences in training, experience and long-term personnel and lack of accountability. The private military companies are a very disparate collection of companies or units that can be contracted for very different missions (Voillat 1). They integrate in very different ways within the multinational military and with existing military forces. Some of these private forces are long-established companies with demonstrated operational experience and transparent business structures. Others are more loosely knit and made up of individuals hailing from varied military or security backgrounds (Voillat 1).
This difference in terms of professionalism and reliability is one of the factors leading to differences in performance levels between the companies. Again, some private military companies are poorly trained while others have a great deal of experience (Voillat 1).
Private military companies are not as accountable as military personnel. Checks and balances that apply to national armed forces can seldom be applied with equivalent strength to PMC employees. As they operate outside the bounds of military command and justice, the employees of private military companies are under no obligation to put themselves at risk, and face no real risk of punishment if they defect from their contractual obligations because they are typically based elsewhere (Singer 24).
This gives them a great deal of personal freedom. Due to the differences in personality traits and motivational aspects of its employees, private military companies differ widely in their performance levels. Moreover, private military companies typically have very few permanent staff, with most employees hired on short contracts as needed. One of their market advantages – very rapid deployment capacity – and the pressure for profitability makes them compromise on performance standards.
As an oil company executive setting up operations in a political unstable and dangerous country, would you consider hiring security personnel from Blackwater? Explain why or why not?
No, I will not hire security personnel from Blackwater. They have a bad reputation, bad managerial practices and exploit lack of accountability. Blackwater Security Consulting LLC has performed armed guard services in Iraq and became engaged in battle when the offices of the provisional administration were attacked in 2004. It has been widely condemned for the killing of 11 innocent Iraqis at Fallujah in Iraq.
In retaliation, the crowd attacked and killed four of the Blackwater guards, hanged and burnt them in public (Addicott 323). Joseph Neff’s report in the Raleigh News & Observer details the events surrounding the Fallujah massacre in 2004 and emphasizes that to a large extent these deaths of resulted in part from Blackwater practices. According to internal Blackwater memos, Neff says that the team of four had been deployed despite warning supervisors that they were undermanned, underarmed, and sleep deprived (Neff 17). The memos also suggest that such practices were not an anomaly. Neff’s report also shows that there is total lack of accountability at Blackwater Consulting LLC. When an army officer errs, he faces public scrutiny, which can force reform and the military justice system can punish offenders and protect innocents.
In the case of Blackwater, they are not open to public scrutiny. When the estates of the four men sued for the release of documents, Blackwater countersued for $10 million and got the trial moved into secret arbitration. The families of the Blackwater employees who died at Fallujah during court proceedings against Blackwater contend that Blackwater sent the contractors into this hostile environment without proper equipment or armed escorts as promised in the contract and that they were not sufficiently trained (Neff 17).
The formal allegations lodged by the survivors consist of fraud in the inducement of the contract and wrongful death as the contractors had been promised protection and proper information when they signed the contracts (Neff 17). More recently, the Iraqi Government has alleged that on September 16, 2007 Blackwater personnel opened fire indiscriminately at Baghdad and killed 17 innocent civilians (Peng 267). This company has shown no social responsibility as other corporate firms though it’s a corporate firm itself. Moreover, Blackwater has been associated with federal firearms violations (Neff 2008:1). Hence I would not want to have any dealings with this company.
Works Cited
Addicott, F. Jeffrey (2006). Contractors on the “Battlefield”: Providing Adequate Protection, Anti-Terrorism Training, and Personnel Recovery for Civilian Contractors Accompanying the Military in Combat and Contingency Operations. Houston Journal of International Law. Volume: 28. Issue: 2.
Neff, Joseph (2007). Blackwater Manager Blamed for 2004 Fallujah Massacre. Washington Monthly. Volume: 39. Issue: 9.
Neff, Joseph (2008). Blackwater using cache of AK-47s. The News and Observer. Web.
Peng, W. Mike (2008). Private Military Companies: Dogs of War or Pussycats of Peace? Integrative Case 1.4. Global Business.
Singer, W. Peter (2004). The Private Military Industry and Iraq: What have we Learned and Where to Next? DCAF (Democratic Control of Armed Forces). Web.
Voillat, Claude (2008). Private military companies: a word of caution. Humanitarian Practice Network. Web.