There is an assumption of war; society imagines a man in uniform, representing their nation, however, that depiction no longer holds true. Our world is becoming increasingly commercialized and controlled by corporations. This is manifested by the private military market’s success. Private military companies, or PMCs, are on the rise all over the globe (Mahoney). Moreover, their applications are expanding to become all-encompassing companies of war. At these one-stop-shops, PMCs handle everything from back-end logistics, training and consulting, to tactical battlefield roles (Thomas). Moreover, these PMCs not only have a vast range of abilities, but they are also exceptionally versatile in the types of missions they are contracted for. Companies take on jobs handling matters from employment in Iraq to counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia(Thomas). Private military companies are popping up all over the world, and their employment is not limited to serving high paying nations. Private individuals can hire their own private army and wield them as they wish. With the dissipation of the taboo against mercenaries, there is much regarding the direction of these contractors and their employers–particularly our governments–that many find unsettling. We are entering a new age of war, where approximately half of deployed forces in war zones are PMCs (Gilsinan). The US military is in a state of evolution–with major technological advances and the privatization of military personnel–there is much changing in today’s military world; however, with corporations becoming the next military superpower, governments must follow a fine line that allows PMCs to operate ethically and with a positive impact.

Mercenaries are not a new-found concept. that has been only recently implemented. They have been around longer than the more known method of a national military deployment to wage wars. Medieval individuals with power, ranging from kings to popes, frequently hired private fighters to battle on their behalf well before this turn of events (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). However, the use of a national military begun to be a more prevalent method in 1648 when the Peace of Westphalia ended Europe's Thirty Years' War and marked the rise of the modern state system. (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Then, in the 17th century, state governments sought to monopolize the use of force within their region (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Thus, they attempted to eradicate violence committed by non-state actors, including mercenaries. Even so, the industry did not dissipate. Rather, the industry was driven underground until recent years (McFate, The Modern Mercenary). After, once again, re-establishing itself as a norm of war, PMCs have grown at a grand scale and are a pivotal piece of modern warfare. 

Contemporary private military companies operate in a multi-billion-dollar industry; consequently, one cannot expect large firms in the industry to act as anything other than a sophisticated and disciplined multinational corporation. These companies are not hiring hitmen from the shadows. Rather, seasoned Fortune 500 executives are creating quarterly profit reports for investors, and their companies are being bought and sold on Wall Street (Kulwin). These companies have a vast variety of clientele ranging from governments, individuals in the private sector, and humanitarian organizations. PMCs have a clear and seemingly unwavering allegiance, not to a nation or ideology, but to money(Kulwin). Unfortunately, this clear-cut allegiance does not correlate to an unambiguous system of operations. Issues lie in the intricacies of certain missions and clients. This is illuminated most clearly through the idea of international vigilantism–which has created doubt in the industry before. 

Vigilante mercenaries are not unheard of and has happened in the recent past. In 2008, Mia Farrow, a well known and wealthy actress, approached Blackwater–a notorious PMC started by Erik Prince. and after being forced to rebrand itself due to an international scandal, now goes as, “Academi”–and a few human rights groups to end the genocide in Darfur (Bruer). There was a clear and admirable plan. Blackwater would stage an armed intervention in Darfur and establish refugee camps (McFate, The Modern Mercenary). They would then provide protection for civilians fleeing the Janjaweed–gunmen who were massacring entire villages (McFate, The Modern Mercenary). Concurrently, human rights organizations would employ a media campaign to catalyze an international movement to discontinue the genocide (McFate, The Modern Mercenary). Although one can appreciate the virtue of this act, Blackwater was apprehensive about intervening. The primary concern being that their actions would violate international law. However, some felt that the action was just as the international community had failed to enforce human rights laws and stop the genocide. There were also many other concerns to such a complex issue. Interventions could have undermined peaceful diplomatic endeavors that were going on at the same time (McFate, The Modern Mercenary). Additionally, the Blackwater intervention could have forced the United States and Sudan into a war–as Blackwater and other leading individuals were Americans (McFate, The Modern Mercenary). Blackwater choose to decline the contract. The United States was too large of a client for Blackwater to upset. However, such reservations expressed by Blackwater could–and most plausibly will–be of little concern to a more aggressive PMC soldiers from places such as Chechnya or El Salvador–which both have a surplus in skilled soldiers for hire. If these types of mission’s result in success–without any reprimand from the international community–PMCs would enter the “free market for force” and we would see “PMCs and clients [seeking] each other out, [negotiating] prices, and [waging] wars for personal gain (McFate, Pg. 4).” Private military companies must have limits to clientele and for what they can be hired for, otherwise these armed companies will create chaos and execute a political agenda all for money. It is advantageous for governments and PMCs to be wary of the ramifications that exists if private military companies develop a political agenda as a means to earn more money. Moreover, both must acknowledge and accept that these companies must be limited to particular missions and particular clients. If PMCs entered the world of vigilantism, they will stray further from effective tools of war, to global weapons for hire. 

Regulation surrounding mercenaries is scant, however, the market’s current construct is providing the industry with stability and order (Thomas). Currently, the United States is employing PMC’s, that are both domestic and foreign, on a grand scale (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Many PMC’s are based out of the United States and employed by the US government (Thomas). Moreover, there are PMC’s that are not based in the United States, that are still employed by the US government(America's Addiction to Mercenaries). In this new age of war, the United States places a heavy reliance on PMCs. Although the use of Mercenaries is not a novel strategy that the US has only recently employed. During World War II, approximately 10 percent of America’s armed forces were contracted (America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Today, however, the US government is overusing private military companies and overly reliant upon them. This is illuminated by the proportion of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan leaping to over 50 percent (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). It took approximately a decade for the private military industry to expand from a multimillion-dollar industry to a multibillion-dollar one (Thomas). The US government hires not only these large corporations of war, but the market has proven so lucrative that warlords in many areas have turned to mercenaries as a means of profit (Thomas). Warlords like Matiullah Khan, a local Afghani PMC are employed by the US to protect an integral NATO supply line (Mcfate, Pg. 12). However, Matiullah Khan–who operates without government license or oversight–has been suspected of conspiracies with drug smugglers and the Taliban to further his profits and prolong the war (Mcfate, Pg. 12). Matiullah Khan’s behavior is exemplar to a major problem with the private model of war, fighting becomes prolonged for a greater profit yield. As a result, it is the responsibility of these governments to ensure proper use and clear guidelines for these mercenaries. 

Within ten years, the US department of Defence increased spending on contracts from, one hundred sixty-five billion dollars to four hundred fourteen billion(Gilsinan). By 2010, the DOD was spending fifty-four percent of its total budget on PMC contracts–this is not including the amount spent by other government agencies(Gilsinan). The United States has a clear dependence on PMCs, which is illuminated by them, in 2010, deploying 175,000 troops and 207,000 contractors in war zones such as Iraq(Gilsinan). The US’s heavy reliance of PMCs has created a monopsony. The US is a super client that most PMCs want to work for, consequently, many PMCs mirror the beliefs of the US in aspirations to keep and grow their contracts(Gilsinan). However, the US’s heavy use of PMCs has instituted the new norm of private military force in international relations. Despite this new norm, much about private militaries remain as roadblocks in the way to their full-scale usage.

The line between offence and defense gets blurred very quickly in war, and mercenaries have a “willingness to blur the lines to serve their purpose (Thomas).” Moreover, many people’s assumption is that contractors are aligned with governments and working toward a common goal, when in truth they have opposing goals (Bruer). This is supported by the many cases where contractors have been arrested by the military for their actions. Most notably, in 2007, there was a mass shooting in Nusoor Square, Baghdad that resulted in the death of 17 people (Bruer). When traveling through Nusoor Square, Blackwater claimed that their convoy fell under attack (Bruer). However, over thirty witnesses traveled from Iraq to share their testimony to what really happened (Bruer). The seven mercenaries involved were convicted of open firing without provocation. Hasan Jaber–an attorney that was shot three times while driving through the square–describes the event as “horror (Bruer).”  He continues to explain, “People running out of their cars were being shot at. ...Anything that moved in Nusoor Square was shot. Women, children, young people, they shot everyone (Bruer)." It is this bending of rules that makes mercenaries such effective military organizations. Overly aggressive behavior in private military companies are common. The idea that the mission takes precedence over morality and legality is what makes mercenaries so dangerous, yet so effective. Blackwater conducted over a hundred thousand missions, and none of their employees was ever killed or injured (Bruer). This is, in part, due to this very behavior that many disapprove of PMCs for. In the mind of these private soldiers, operating with these blurred morals is what gets results and keeps them safe(Thomas). However, their unparalleled effectiveness does not justify the many deaths caused by their grey moral code. Therefore, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Nicholas Slatten, a Blackwater sniper at the time, to a term of life in prison (Bruer). Slatten was convicted of a first-degree murder charge (Bruer). Blackwater workers Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard were, also, sentenced to 30 year each, plus one day (Bruer). 

PMCs operate in murky water with very limited regulation; consequently, scandals, like the one in Nusoor Square, occur too often. Insufficient regulations surrounding PMCs can be attributed to the fact that these companies are multinational corporations operating in areas of conflict, where there is often little to no order (Thomas). Consequently, governments and international law makers have found it exceedingly difficult to govern these companies. Nevertheless, a transnational system of standards which govern private military contractors has emerged. The system has established a set of norms of permissible behavior for PMCs. Moreover, it has created multiple procedures to monitor and enforce these provisions (Avant). Although these provisions are non-binding, they have led to changes in governmental regulations(Avant). This is exemplified by many of US government agencies now including them in contracting requirements(Avant). Although these developments are just a start, they are creating a set of standards for PMCs which previously didn't exist in the industry.

Despite a lacking moral code that needs governance, there is much about private military companies that employers find attractive about them. PMCs ability to blur the lines to achieve the mission, is not only a major concern regarding the PMI, but it is also what so many find attractive about them. The allure of PMCs is derived from their ability to maneuver through areas of conflict with limited regulation and accountability (Mahoney). Private military companies provide an almost effortless way of circumventing democratic accountability (Avant). This is because–unlike the Pentagon or CIA–they do not report to congress. Moreover, they can shelter themselves from inquiries by stating that their actions cannot be shared in order to protect proprietary information, nor are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, as they are private and not part of the government (Avant). This makes PMCs the ideal team for dangerous missions requiring plausible deniability. Moreover, PMCs allow governments, such as the US, to wage war outside of the public eye. This can be attributed to the fact that deaths of mercenaries leave a much smaller ripple in the media's eyes than fallen American soldiers do(McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). One of the most valuable traits if PMCs, aside from their efficiency and ability to succeed, is they allow the US to evade their obligations of the truth to the public(McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). The US government has heavily used private military companies to distort the perception of its’ involvement in areas of war. Thus, they have been able to affectively lower the barrier of entry into conflict. For example, the Obama administration sent 4,647 troops to Iraq in 2014–the maximum allowed under the current troop cap(McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Despite this, these troops are only a glimpse of reality to what is actually occurring. The U.S. government has an additional 4,970 contractors onto the ground that remain out of the public's radar(McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). The United States’ heavy use of mercenaries indicate a serious dependency on these companies. This dependency on the private military industry to wage war is a “strategic venerability” that leaves America at risk for being unable to engage in war without the private sector(McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries).

The United States’ dependence, which can be illuminated by their spending on PMCs, on these firms has vastly accelerated the growth of the industry. Within ten years, the US department of Defence increased spending on contracts from, one hundred sixty-five billion dollars to four hundred fourteen billion(Gilsinan). By 2010, the DOD was spending fifty-four percent of its total budget on PMC contracts–this is not including the amount spent by other government agencies(Gilsinan). The United States has a clear dependence on PMCs, which is illuminated by them, in 2010, deploying 175,000 troops and 207,000 contractors in war zones such as Iraq(Gilsinan). The US’s heavy reliance of PMCs has created a monopsony. America’ role as the primary client for the industry has lead to PMCs mirroring the beliefs of the US in aspirations to keep and grow their contracts(Gilsinan). However, the US’s heavy use of PMCs has instituted the new norm of private military force in international relations. Now, more nations are utilizing these new companies of war. As the market diversifies, PMCs will not properly govern themselves. This is because they will no longer be limited to only serving the United States. As this becomes increasingly true, more guidelines regarding the operations of PMCs will need to be implemented to maintain order. 

Private armies have cemented themselves as an instrument of war. The industry is a resilient, multibillion dollar one, and it is unlikely that it will quickly disappear. Moreover, the United states has legitimized the employment of these PMCs, to other nations and individuals around the globe, by being so heavily reliant on them. The PMI is not going anywhere, with clear evidence of it expanding in the near future (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Private military firms are being established all around the globe making employing a firm accessible from anywhere in the world. Also, globalization of military firms has allowed companies to hire specialized soldiers from all over the world to fight for the firm. This, along with technological advances and the countless niches in the market indicate that the industry is likely a permanent one (McFate, America's Addiction to Mercenaries). Consequently, the PMI will likely expand well beyond what it is today and governments must collaborate and walk a fine line with strict moral standards to combat the nefarious nature of mercenaries in combat zones. It is evident that the United States’ efforts to independently regulate and use private security has resulted in deception to US citizens and provided PMCs with too large of a gray area to morally operate under. Instead, the US and other consumers should discuss the advancement of the global regulatory standards that has recently been implemented. To maximize the efficiency of private military companies while remaining ethical, a binding global standard is needed if these companies are to be operating in all parts of the world.

With major technological advances and changes in strategies, our military in in a state of evolution; moreover, due to the now commonplace use of mercenaries, after being unused for so long, governments must regulate how these companies are utilized and set precedents in the market. Private armies can aid governments significantly in many ways ranging from specialized, small scale missions to large training campaigns. However, PMCs have a natural tendency to blur the lines in aspirations of achieving their mission at hand. This bending of the rules must be acknowledged and limited to avoid incidents such as the mass shooting in Nusoor square. Moreover, guidelines must be drafted to avoid PMCs perpetuating war for profits. PMCs have already become cemented in the fabric of our warfare, and is not going anywhere, so it is paramount that large nations–like the United States–are very careful how they choose to utilize these private soldiers. To ensure proper use, international guidelines need to be drafted to limit who can currently employ these PMCs and under what circumstances can these companies be employed under. Lastly, it is imperative that the US develops a greater transparency about their utilization of private military companies, so that private military companies do not become a tool for deception. Private military companies have proven to be a valuable resource, but they know must be governed more strictly as they become increasingly prevalent to ensure morality and proper behavior.
