How Can Private Military Companies Enhance American Grand Strategy?
The United States’ position as a global hegemon is imperiled by revisionist nations such as China and Russia. Washington’s military apparatus is stretched thin by American administrations gifting the U.S.’ military inventory. As such, America has invited challenges to its superpower status. If left unchecked America’s global influence would gradually wane, eroding its ability to defend the homefront. The United States must seek to diversify its operational portfolio to preserve a favorable uni-polar order. Private Military Companies (PMCs), private companies providing military-grade security and logistics, would provide the United States with unique skillsets to counter increasing threats and to succeed in furthering its national security.
PMCs provide the United States with an enhanced skillset lacking in America’s military. The United States structures its forces in the Westphalian style of warfare, or state v. state conflict. This school is characterized by the archetypical mass forces in which the victor is determined based on superior strategies, technologies, and military heft. Although useful against other states, such as China, Westphalian warfare is useless against terrorists, cartels, and other sub-state actors. With rudimentary technologies at best, sub-state actors are aware of their inability to face head-on states practicing the Westphalian school; therefore, they have perfected asymmetrical warfare: guerilla tactics, sabotage, and suicide bombings are sub-state actors’ modus operendi. A state would fumble its successes by going against such a foe as the Westphalian model has a set standard of engagement. It cannot accommodate the chaos of asymmetrical warfare. This is apparent in the U.S.’s Houthi policy. Although bombing the Houthis, a sub-state actor, the United States, a scion of Westphalian warfare, ultimately failed to end their campaign against merchant vessels in the Red Sea.
Encouraging PMCs within America’s national security posture would resolve such a flaw. Trained in a similar school of war, PMC’s can neutralize sub-state actors with greater efficacy. PMCs would know how a terrorist would think, fight, and operate and execute the best counters to maximize results. The advantage of sub-state actors would be obsolete, thwarting their proliferation. Why should America needlessly lose its F-16s or M1 Abrams in counterterrorism when it can hire PMCs to lead precision led sorties into enemy territory as an alternative? PMCs also have the experience in recruiting contractors from within the field of operations, as seen from DynCorp’s actions in Liberia. Having locals as combatants would ensure that operations would remain covert and secure hearts and minds in the region, improving mission success.
PMCs offer a cost-effective solution to America’s security dilemmas. The annual salary for PMC contractor is less than an American servicemember; additionally, Washington does not have to provide benefits (healthcare and retirement funds) for PMC contractors. Therefore, in the scope of supplementing American operations, such as serving as security for CIA operatives, it would be expedient to invest in PMCs as a cost-effective solution for small covert operations. This would free up American forces to be deployed elsewhere, say Qatar or Germany, to enhance American force posture. Furthermore, the loss of a PMC contractor lacks the moral consequences of the death of an American servicemember. For instance, the American public would not care if a paid contractor died in preserving the American status quo in the Middle East, if they were even aware. It was not the objectives of the Iraq War and the Libya invasion that Americans admonished; rather, the unnecessary loss of American lives. By increasing the roles of PMCs within its national security policy, Washington may conduct more expansive and riskier operations, think high-value assassinations, without the added baggage of ethical constraints.
In the era of limited wars, PMCs would be able to limit threats to American service members and improve success rates for American operations. With the execution of ‘Operation Midnight Hammer,’ the United States coordinated bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, the United States has adopted limited warfare as a tool to achieve political objectives. Limited wars are swift, have limited casualties, and avoid forever wars. If the United States were to employ limited wars in the future, say Venezuela or Nigeria, having PMC’s serve in a support role prior to the operation would supplement American military strategy. Indeed, Constellis’ advanced analysis group (AAG) provides expert risk assessment and snapshots of strategic environments. Having a second opinion would prevent bias in strategic analysis and refine the tactical components of an operation.
PMCs are businesses; their sole purpose is to make a profit. Therefore, it is expected for PMCs to entertain moral hazards when drafting contracts with the United States Government. PMCs would attempt to exploit as many loopholes as possible from the contract to ensure maximum returns. These moral hazards would also extend in the field. When guarding an installation or capturing a high-valued target, it would be reasonable for PMCs to restrain their abilities to prolong the overall operation, thereby increasing the potential pay for their services.
The solution to this problem is simple: have greater federal oversight. American agencies should include conditions of work within PMC contracts that would require them to constantly update the respective agency about their successes, failures and overall progression in their operation. These constraints would grant the government greater agency to continue or suspend the current contract, forcing greater accountability for PMCs.
The costs of the United States global ambitions have stretched its military portfolio thin, offering vulnerabilities for belligerents to exploit. The United States must seek to offshore supporting and logistical duties to focus more on expanding its influence in the spheres of the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East. This would not completely replace American servicemembers in Washington’s national security policy; rather they will supplement the military apparatus with its expertise in threat analysis and exposure to high-risk environments. With PMCs, Washington has a market rich with contractors skilled in specialized asymmetrical warfare at its feet.
Image courtesy of Levi Schultz via Wikimedia ©2016. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
