AVF vs. PSC, which better suits the USA?

In the debate over whether or not it is better for the United States to rely on the all-volunteer force as it does now, or rely on Private Security Companies during times of war, I personally believe that we should still rely on the all-volunteer force, and that using PSCs could potentially be very dangerous.

The use of PSCs brings up similar concerns that Machiavelli makes in his writings on the use of who princes should use to fight wars for them.  Machiavelli believes that paying others to deal with peoples’ and states’ problems of security is detrimental. PSCs are motivated by money and have no true loyalties to any group, much like mercenaries. Since PSCs are motivated by personal incentives and money, this poses the concerns that Singer brings up, that there is “the possibility that direct market incentives may encourage a firm to go ‘rogue’”. Or even worse, the possibility that if the enemy decides to pay a large sum for their services PSCs would change sides, since there are no ties to either country. Another major issue is that firms “maintain an interest in making sure that the client is satisfied”, and this might be harmful because not all buyers care about morality and human rights. Therefore, when human rights are violated in a war fought by PSCs there might be no accountability for these actions.

In the use of the pre-existing all-volunteer force in the United States, there would be little risk in soldiers switching sides during a war. This is due to the fact that these soldiers are motivated to fight for their country, a single identity under the unity of patriotism or a capable leader. Patriotism and being a citizen of the United States strengthens the soldiers’ ties to the goal of a war in protecting their country, giving them more of an incentive to fight and win. Unlike PSCs, these soldiers have other motivations besides monetary gains, which wouldn’t allow market incentives to sway their loyalty. An example of this would be the spike in military enrollment and enlistment after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Many citizens were motivated to sign up for the military in order to protect their country, and were united by patriotism after the United States was attacked. The motivation to protect one’s own against a common threat or enemy and avenge the deaths of innocents was incentive enough for new soldiers to enlist and old ones to sign up for more tours. Furthermore, even though human rights aren’t always respected during war, there are international guidelines for all countries and their military, which provide liability for violations of human rights, most of the time.

I believe that Machiavelli’s argument that a soldier or PSC is one that is ineffective because there is nothing really for them to lose, only to gain. Therefore, it is better for the United States to fight with soldiers that are citizens of the country since there are more loyalties and incentives to win. While I believe that the current all-volunteer force is the most appropriate for the present day, I realize that the PSC industry is still changing and the future of this industry is unclear. Maybe with more guidelines PSCs may turn out to be an alternative source of soldiers for nations, such as the United States to use in the future, as time and war changes with time.