A Salon piece by an expert on military contractors underlines the dangers of overuse of the practice, suggesting it seems that it is at heart a structural problem. Surely, the parties in place now does not help, as shown by the fact that there are remedies to contractor malfeasance that this bunch simply has chose not to attempt to use. This underlines that who is in charge matters. All the same, the use of private forces ("mercenaries" apparently is inappropriate to the head of Blackwater since Americans are in charge of provide private forces to Americans; I assume then the Declaration of Independence was basically redundant for referencing "foreign" mercenaries) inherently will not have the same overall mindset as use of the military and other public resources.
Private forces have a sort of one track mind, being paid for a job (protection of coalition forces), while public forces have various concerns. Thus, the article notes how Blackwater is quite successful apparently (I have not read deeply on the matter, so it's useful to hedge) at its general mission, but this does not mean we as a whole should be pleased. After all, it's ugly American heavy-handed tactics (speeding along recklessly, etc.) hurts our general mission of a political solution, and overall, the desire to win the proverbial hearts and minds. The response to the murder of the four contractors also is covered, the net result being that protecting contractors (a tad ironic given their security role) set back this mission severely, ruining some good that was done in the process.
This is the sort of thing that suggests why certain things should not be in private hands. There is a reason, and it isn't just a matter of resources [and on a cost/benefit ratio alone our use of private military contractors is very dubious], why the police is not a private entity. The growth of a private prison industry suggests the limits of this statement, but the basic truth stands. Likewise, the dangers of having a basic human need -- health care -- so reliant on private insurance companies.* OTOH, certain institutions, like religion and the media, should not be government run ... and regulations should be looked upon with special concern. Certain sorts are so concerned about the Second Amendment, but often overlook that a core concern there was the "militia." Or, ignore that this was not just a matter of private citizens owning guns, but an armed citizenry that in various cases was used a public resource.
The fact this is overlooked is not too surprising ... just look at the utter failure of congressional use of their powers (especially of the purse) to chain the dogs of war. Thus, we had YET ANOTHER funding bill approved ... I am wary of giving money to beggars, since I do not know what how they will use the money (or I fear that I know too well). This is a bit much, since many are in need and charity often is a dubious enterprise. All the same, I rather on some level give money to a crack whore than this bunch. My "you won't use this for drugs, right" will also be about as useful as congressional concerns as well and the assurances publicly made in response.
But, I partially digress. The point is that we were told that ... get this ... even the professional military was to be looked upon with a guarded eye. Recall, they had in mind British regulars. Now, some are concerned with flag pins. [Link in effect seconds John Dean's sentiments that Republicans currently cannot be trusted with the federal government ... some still fail to grasp the point.] If the professional military is dangerous, and yes they are -- like fire, this does not mean they are necessarily bad in a given situation -- how about private paramilitary forces? The article also notes that the use of private forces allows us to go into affairs that we probably should not ... sort of the recklessness a second or third credit card might wrought.
[John Dean in his latest book noted that though Truman did not get a congressional declaration of war, he had their support for Korea. But, the delay and institutional requirements necessary for such a declaration matters even with some overall leaning.]
We should be concerned with properly regulating private military forces and with particular ones like Blackwater. But, this only touches upon the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately, it is a matter of public responsibility, including -- yet again -- delegating to others a job we do not want to do ourselves. "We" in part meaning the military, perhaps augmented by a draft (backdoor or otherwise) to fill the numbers needed for jobs traditionally done and/or better not done by private forces.
If we rather not use our resources, both monetary and personal, in this fashion, perhaps the enterprise itself is ill advised.
---
* Clown in chief used his fourth veto [perhaps to our benefit] to target a program to help children -- when House Republicans were on C-SPAN supporting him, I didn't hear a mention of Orin Hatch and other Senate Republicans (sadly, this time, House Republicans are blocking a majority measure, a veto override a problem in that body) who disagreed -- because he trusts the private sector. Just like in let's say retirement funds.
In a fashion, since he doesn't want to ban it there, I guess also stem cell research (two other vetoes, the other one against a lame Democratic move against Bush in Iraq). Apparently, it's okay when private forces hurt the American public. It's not the government, at least! Some, like Thom Hartman on Air America, overdo ire against corporations, while admitting we should not just do away with them. In truth, a healthy distrust of both government and corporations is useful, but also a realization that both have their place in our lives.