The Market for Security: Implications for the Fight on Terror

The rising prominence of private security companies (PSCs) is certainly transforming the traditional military landscape and giving rise to important questions regarding the future of force and security, especially whether defense, usually considered a public good falling under the responsibility of the government, can and should be privatized. Though our first instinct may be to distrust and disregard PSCs as valuable to the war effort, Singer warns that, "making a blanket, normative judgment about the entire privatized military industry is analytically incorrect and ethically unfair" because "just as the public institutions of the state have served both good and evil ends, so too can the privatized military industry." Private security companies present both benefits and risks, and I believe that the use of PSCs, deemed unconventional by some, could provide a feasible way to address terrorism, an unconventional threat.

            PSC's can transform warfare in the sense that privatization (and in turn, competition) encourages new ideas about how to deliver a service that requires fewer inputs, thus products and services can become cost-effective while still remaining efficient. Furthermore, PSCs can more easily recruit internationally and provide specialized forces, hiring people with particular experiences such as peacekeeping, or particular skills such as language proficiency. In addition, solely crunching the basic numbers presents a huge advantage to the U.S. government: contracting PSCs adds to the overall manpower and aids in achieving missions abroad. For example, PSCs could be used in the aftermath of U.S. missions to assist with nation-building, especially as the U.S. may not be able to uphold a long-term commitment politically. PSCs thus have the potential to transcend bureaucratic and political hurdles and even international borders without sacrificing quality and quantity, which may be essential in the fast-paced and unpredictable fight on terror- a fight that is hardly geographically contained. However, it is important to note the grave challenges and risks posed by private security companies. As Singer discusses, the use of PSCs is certainly not very transparent as there is less accountability and regulation. Private security companies could serve to completely undermine democratic control, leading to less public order, and unilateral resort to PSCs can influence states to take actions which its citizens may find objectionable. For this reason, in order to utilize PSCs for good in the fight on terror, cooperation among states, private companies, NGO's and citizens at the global level is a must. This kind of cooperation could generate professional, ethical and legal standards that PSCs could adhere to and be held accountable for. These standards would serve to enhance the legitimacy of PSCs as well as global security in the age of terrorism. What the future holds for reputable PSCs is uncertain; however, they certainly present vast potential for the global War on Terror, and perhaps for Glennon's paradigm.