The growing role of Private Military Companies in the UK

I was reading an article in The Times newspaper today (I'll try to quote a couple of the more relevant bits later if I find time) that was talking about the growing importance of Private Military Companies to the UK's war efforts abroad, especially in Afghanistan. This may seem a rather old topic, as PMC's were very prevalent in Iraq, but the most interesting assertion the author made was that the UK is now so reliant on these PMC's that it's possible it would be unable to fight a war without them! He also talks about the power these PMC's have and about their regulation (or lack thereof).

The most interesting point I drew from this article isn't the obvious one - does the UK's armed forces really need PMC's to achieve victory? Although I'm interested to hear whether fellow Orgahs believe this to be the case, I'm more interested to hear if you believe this trend towards PMC's marks a decline in the importance of the State and its monopoly on violence, with a return to the more mercenary based system seen in the past, especially in light of events in Libya and the mercanaries fighting there?

PMC's have become vital in protracted and nasty counter-insurgency wars where the limited scale of British forces is insufficient to maintain the wide-scale and enduring presence demanded of 'nation-building'.

We won't be in that game post 2015, so they will not be vital, i.e. determine the outcome. They will still be useful, and still be used however.

Seems like a great idea.

Personally I'd make more use of Ghurkas and possibly prisoners (sentences changed into terms of service), but using Mercs is another good option. I think that the UK should be more open about selling their services abroad to others that need assistance.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

The most interesting point I drew from this article isn't the obvious one - does the UK's armed forces really need PMC's to achieve victory? Although I'm interested to hear whether fellow Orgahs believe this to be the case, I'm more interested to hear if you believe this trend towards PMC's marks a decline in the importance of the State and its monopoly on violence, with a return to the more mercenary based system seen in the past, especially in light of events in Libya and the mercanaries fighting there?

---

Since the Coalition are making half the Army redundant, firing any pilot with training and building an aircraft carrier minus any planes, one imagines that privatising wars is the only way forward for any imperially minded Prime Minister.

"Taxation is theft. Private business is the creation of wealth."

Therefore, the entire public sector ought to be privatised. Then hired back to do exactly the same work, but for multiple the amount.



Few things in life are as profitable as selling to the government something the government could do itself, but can't or won't for whatever political reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

"Taxation is theft. Private business is the creation of wealth."

Therefore, the entire public sector ought to be privatised. Then hired back to do exactly the same work, but for multiple the amount.

---

:yes:

Public services generally have:

Vastly superior pensions
Significantly higher sickness
Inflexible work models

Which means that in many cases the government can save money and a private company can make money as they in essence split the difference between the cost if the government were to do it and the costs of a private company doing it.

An analagy would be in the Pharmaceutical Industry. In previous decades, all big Pharma had their own internal departments running clinical trials. That meant for large portions of time they would be underutilised. Now seperate CROs undertake the work and are much more optimally utilised as if one company doesn't need them they go to another: they make a profit and it still costs the Big Pharma less money than having to keep everything in-house.

No, it is not a magical way of making money and the government can still screw it up badly (PFI being a fantastic example). But with careful implimentation it can work well.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

"Taxation is theft. Private business is the creation of wealth."

Therefore, the entire public sector ought to be privatised. Then hired back to do exactly the same work, but for multiple the amount.

Few things in life are as profitable as selling to the government something the government could do itself, but can't or won't for whatever political reason.

---

taxation at a level greater than 40% of GDP causes long term damage to economic growth.

taxation at a level greater than 50% is immoral in addition to stupid.

the optimum level of taxation that achieves a balance essential provision and economic growth is somewhere between 25% and 40%.

government spending should attempt to provide the best return-on-investment for its public spending without damaging economic growth.

included within this is the Defence spending.

the ability of western-european social-democracies to continue to hire gender-awareness officers in the next fifty years is DIRECTLY dependent on what we do to promote growth NOW.

failure to understand any of the above should be seen as worry indicator of mental incapacity.

making hyperbolic comparisons should be seen as an indicator that you don't like the fact you don't have any good arguments against the facts above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

taxation at a level greater than 40% of GDP causes long term damage to economic growth.

taxation at a level greater than 50% is immoral in addition to stupid.

the optimum level of taxation that achieves a balance essential provision and economic growth is somewhere between 25% and 40%.

government spending should attempt to provide the best return-on-investment for its public spending without damaging economic growth.

included within this is the Defence spending.

the ability of western-european social-democracies to continue to hire gender-awareness officers in the next fifty years is DIRECTLY dependent on what we do to promote growth NOW.

failure to understand any of the above should be seen as worry indicator of mental incapacity.

making hyperbolic comparisons should be seen as an indicator that you don't like the fact you don't have any good arguments against the facts above.

---

Tell it to the Nordics, who's public spending is above 50%. To me, the world's greatests societies, but you go right ahead and inform Norway, Sweden and Denmark they are 'both stupid and immoral'.

So stupid and immoral, in fact, that they even manage to run budget surplusses. *


Speaking of stupid, in Britain, with its infallible parliamentary system that you fully trust to make the right decisions all of the time, public spending since 1945 has always hovered between the high 30s to high 40s. Even under Thatcher it did not go below forty percent.



* Hence naturally, the Heritage Foundation, champions of family values, fiscal prudence and economic freedom, who make that miserable index of economic 'freedom', put Sweden and Norway down below between Oman, Macau and several Latin American cocaine republics. That's what the Nordics get for not being so 'fiscally prudent' as to hand over all of their and their grandchildren's money to mega corporations and the ultra-rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Tell it to the Nordics, who's public spending is above 50%. To me, the world's greatests societies, but you go right ahead and inform Norway, Sweden and Denmark they are 'both stupid and immoral'.
So stupid and immoral, in fact, that they even manage to run budget surplusses. *

Speaking of stupid, in Britain, with its infallible parliamentary system that you fully trust to make the right decisions all of the time, public spending since 1945 has always hovered between the high 30s to high 40s. Even under Thatcher it did not go below forty percent.

---

hmmm, that's not what this document is telling me:
http://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/R...j&n=282364.PDF

again, that is not what this is telling me:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Since the Coalition are making half the Army redundant, firing any pilot with training and building an aircraft carrier minus any planes, one imagines that privatising wars is the only way forward for any imperially minded Prime Minister.

---

It gets even better.

So the general consensus seems to be people aren't too worried about handing over the legal use of force to unregulated (or self-regulated at best) private companies? The article made the point of how heavily legislated the toy making industry is, yet we don't bat an eyelid at sending heavily armed mercenaries abroad with no legislation governing them and as an electorate with no way of holding their actions to account.

Personally I'm torn on the issue in that I can see the sense of PMC's doing some tasks instead of national armed forces, especially if they can do it cheaper (although I'm not yet convinced this is true), but on the other hand I don't like the idea of these companies going around, sometimes doing very sensitive tasks, with very little regulation or oversight.

Regarding the secondary issue of whether it's ok for the UK armed forces to be dependent on these PMC's to operate effectively, I'd be very worried if it were true. As has been the case throughout histroy, it just doesn't seem prudent or safe to rely on mercenaries to provide your national security. If the Armed Forces have gaps in capabilities that prevent them operating effectively, they should be remedied. I don't believe they shouldn't be ignored and outsourced to PMC's for two reasons:

1) Although motivated by money, there will come a point where it would either have been cheaper to do it yourself with armed forces or the PMC will just refuse to do the job due to unacceptable danger. At this stage a state then finds itself unable to perform the mission at all because it left the capability gap.

2) A mercenary will, more often than not, work for the highest bidder. What if you aren't that bidder?

To me, it just seems foolhardy to rely on mercenaries. Make use of them, sure, but for an armed forces to not function effectively without them? No.

Mercenaries should be outlawed, and working as one should be criminalized.

The state should retain the monopoly on violence.

I do, however, find it fascinating to see how free market fanatics will say that a private company doing job X is generating wealth and adding to our economy, while government company doing job X is an expense and hurts our economy. My school is currently counted as an expense. If it was to be privatized, it would've been counted as generating wealth. The stupidity is overwhelming.

What the british are doing is relinquishing control of the armed forces, while at the same time saving no money. Rory's point is that private companies saves us money because they pay less(in pensions). That may be true, but to achieve that the state could just lower pensions for their own employees. There's no reason to pay some private company a ton of money for lowering wages.

What? Mercenaries are the best option... Ask Carthage…
To win a war, just pay the enemies’ one (better pension etc) more… Cash.

That is the Big Society for you. Cameron will privatise the Army…

The “Grandes Compagies” the Return with a vengeance II: Du Guesclin, come back!!!!

Knowing Cameron, he'll hire the Swiss Pikemen. Let's see those taliban handle those Halberds on the battle-field.

He can't. Only 2 counrtries are allowed to do so: France and the Vatican.
This because in 1515, at the battle of Marignan, Francis the 1st defeated the Swiss and by treaty they can't be merceneries for others than these 2.
But, after the Tuilleries Massacre, the Swis decided to stick only with the Vatican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Mercenaries should be outlawed, and working as one should be criminalized.

The state should retain the monopoly on violence.

I do, however, find it fascinating to see how free market fanatics will say that a private company doing job X is generating wealth and adding to our economy, while government company doing job X is an expense and hurts our economy. My school is currently counted as an expense. If it was to be privatized, it would've been counted as generating wealth. The stupidity is overwhelming.

What the british are doing is relinquishing control of the armed forces, while at the same time saving no money. Rory's point is that private companies saves us money because they pay less(in pensions). That may be true, but to achieve that the state could just lower pensions for their own employees. There's no reason to pay some private company a ton of money for lowering wages.

---

Yes the state could reduce pensions... But it's almost impossible. The Police are having their salaries cut as currently they earn a hell of a lot more than nurses, Prison warden, firefighters and even many soldiers. Ah yes, but what about compared to Doctors and Judges was the Police answer.

So, although I agree that there should be no need to get another company to do the same job more efficiently, practically there is. Any change to the status quo is feared - another problem was McKinsey being used by GP consortia to help set them up. No details about rates of return on capital, or calculated savings whatsoever just somehow getting private experts in is wrong and this sort of thing should be left to the Civil Service to mess up again.

I don't think that we're relinquihing control - especially as another option was to share resources with the French (who are renouned for their co-operation and helpfullness...) and more than we've relinquished control of our powerstations since they were sold. Those who pay the bills still set the terms. And I would like to add I am not suggesting that the entirity of the Armed Forces is put to tender in this manner, merely that a portion of the infantry and special forces is to start with who are likely to be the forces that would be used in the majority of cases and if they are bought off by a higher bidder no biggie - as opposed to the same happening with a Trident sub.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

That is the Big Society for you. Cameron will privatise the Army…

---

hyperbole much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Mercenaries should be outlawed, and working as one should be criminalized.

The state should retain the monopoly on violence.

I do, however, find it fascinating to see how free market fanatics will say that a private company doing job X is generating wealth and adding to our economy, while government company doing job X is an expense and hurts our economy. My school is currently counted as an expense. If it was to be privatized, it would've been counted as generating wealth. The stupidity is overwhelming.

What the british are doing is relinquishing control of the armed forces, while at the same time saving no money. Rory's point is that private companies saves us money because they pay less(in pensions). That may be true, but to achieve that the state could just lower pensions for their own employees. There's no reason to pay some private company a ton of money for lowering wages.

---

Look at the bright side. Next time you want to raid British Isles.You dont have to send in the longboats, but only buy the British armed forces to do the job for you.:grin3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Look at the bright side. Next time you want to raid British Isles.You dont have to send in the longboats, but only buy the British armed forces to do the job for you.:grin3:

---

That would take away all the fun!!!