July 2007 Defense Horizons 1
Defense
pated. In these conflicts, the battlespace is cluttered with large num-
bers of personnel and entities not previously seen as major players in
conflict arenas. These include the United Nations and its many compo-
nents, foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
a plethora of news media, and even private entrepreneurs who arrive
without benefit of government sponsorship. The main driver of new
entries in the battlespace is privatization of activities formerly per-
formed by uniformed personnel.
In the United States, privatization means any shift of activities
or functions from the state to the private sector and, more specifi-
cally, any shift of the production of goods and services from public to
private. Especially where the privatized functions are military, this
process has been contentious, as many argue that national security
itself is being privatized.
1
However, it is beyond cavil that private mili-
tary firms must provide the military with certain professional services
intrinsically linked to warfare, which begs the question of what is and
is not inherently governmental. The services to be provided often
are ill defined until events unfold or technology changes. Although
regulations for contracting these services are detailed, they leave
significant issues to be resolved as they arise because the regulations
were devised in another time and for purposes that do not always suit
today’s threat environment.
Probably the most significant change comes as a result of out-
sourcing some logistical needs previously provided by uniformed per-
sonnel. That outsourcing may be accomplished through NGOs, other
governments, international organizations, or private contractors and
may include outsourcing within the continental United States. This
paper deals exclusively with the issues that have arisen from using
private companies to support the U.S. military in a foreign conflict. For
that purpose, Iraq will be the backdrop that illustrates the speed with
which earlier practices of outsourcing have been overtaken by threats
not contemplated only a few years ago. In this analysis, it will become
apparent that the threat environment, at least partially transnational
in nature, has created a security problem that confounds administra-
tion of privatized activities. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate
Overview
The Armed Forces of the United States are designed to be
supported by capabilities provided by civilians. The Army, for
example, depends not only on Reserve and National Guard compo-
nents for warfighting elements, but also on private contractors for
numerous roles no longer performed by military personnel. Origi-
nally working in small contingents focused on logistical functions,
private contractors now rival military personnel in number in the
battlespace. In addition to providing direct logistical support to
the military, contractors perform equipment maintenance and
reconstruction work, train military and police, and work as civil
affairs staff, interpreters, and even interrogators. They also pro-
vide private armed security services. The issues arising from new
roles are exacerbated by the growth of the contractor population
in conflict zones at a pace that defies effective recordkeeping.
This rapid increase in the number of contractors has
outstripped procedures meant more for acquisition of tangible
objects than services. It has also placed private contractors in
harm’s way in a manner not envisaged in previous conflicts.
Legal and regulatory schemes have been challenged and perhaps
stretched beyond limits. The laws of war divide the world neatly
into combatants and civilians, but on today’s battlefields, the dis-
tinctions blur. Moreover, there are neither recognized nor logical
rules of engagement for private individuals. The laws of armed
conflict not only fail to accommodate armed private citizens, but
also, in some instances, may treat them as unlawful combatants.
Put simply, the requirements of the contemporary battlespace do
not mesh well with procedures, regulations, and laws devised for
a different era.
Growth of Privatization
The end of the Cold War exposed ethnic tensions and intra- and
interstate rivalries that destabilized broad regions of the world. Neither
the extent nor the nature of the resulting conflicts had been antici-
Privatizing While Transforming
by Marion E. “Spike” Bowman
A publication of the
Center for Technology and National Security Policy
National Defense University
J U L Y 2 0 0 7
Number 57
Horizons
