The Pros And Cons Of Private Military Contractors

In a developed world encompassed by advanced technology, democratic governments, capitalist economies and liberal agendas, transparency, liability and predictability must be at the forefront of all triumphant political matters. These crucial components, however, are not present in the private military contractor industry. There is plenty to be said for the goodwill, dedication and efficiency of some private military contractors, yet, as I will explain throughout the course of this essay, there is no positive aspect of PMCs that can outweigh the critical negatives. This is because, in essence, private military contractors lack the transparency that must be expected by the United States government and people—as this lack of transparency funnels into a chaotic question over human rights and responsibilities—which, in turn, impedes U.S. productivity and international relations. This is a risk that the United States cannot afford.

troops and help the U.S. arrive at its objectives, one would expect those contractors to share the same objectives as the nation they are working with. Unfortunately, given the nature of PMCs, this is not always the case. According to Micah Zenko, “…there are three times as many (30,820) contractors in Afghanistan than U.S. troops (10,000), 12,033 of whom are Americans” (Zenko, 3). This means that of the 30,820 contractors in Afghanistan, less than 40% are American—and we do not know what makes up the remaining 60%. Additionally, “the Pentagon lacked the ability to document the work each contractor is performing. It also found that even when the government has information on contractors, it's often inaccurate and doesn't reflect the actual work being done” (, ). Given this lack of transparency, how can we be sure of the loyalty and precision of these unknowns, and why is the U.S. ultimately held responsible for their