If it is not known yet, I was describing Army of Two, a third-person shooter that was created and released by Electronic Arts. It is a game that took an issue that was of importance to people and brought it to a different perspective. With the war occurring in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and with our servicemen dying for a war that many don’t believe is a war worth fighting, it has been brought up time and time again just how much to use private contractors.

Before I go further, allow me to take a moment to explain what a private contractor is. Commonly called soldiers for hire or mercenaries, private contractors are those that are hired by the Department of Defense to get particular jobs done that the military can’t get done or can’t spend time getting done. For instance, the mercenaries may be tasked with simple bodyguard positions. But, it can be argued that they have been given tasks that are a bit more unethical, which is why the military has been using them.

But, why do I mention Army of Two rather than the numerous other games that are based around private military corporations (PMCs)? In Army of Two, there are two senators that are dueling with each other while you are fighting your way through each mission. One is pushing for the passing of a bill that would privatize the military completely. He believes that it would be better for the nation because, as is said in the game, private military soldiers don’t suffer nearly as many casualties than normal soldiers which – in real life – is a falsified fact. But, furthermore, he believes that the nation would not lose its men and women to wars that are unnecessary when the PMCs can get the job done more effectively. The other senator argues that the PMCs would abuse this power and therefore opposed the bill entirely.

I agree with the senator who opposed the bill.

One very general question comes up when the topic of PMCs appears and that is: who do they listen to? Looking five paragraphs down on this article, the issue is raised about who exactly the civilians report to. Where is the chain of command? When looking at the military, you have the chain of command and you answer to the person above you. But, who does the contract answer to?

The problem with that question lays is the fact that there have been reports of abuse of the powers given to the contractors. In Iraq, there have been numerous reports of contractors opening fire on civilians when they posed no threat. Despite the fact that they ‘say’ they were a threat, there is a good chance that this was a falsified story to make the killing of these civilians legal. But, who am I to judge? I wasn’t there.

Another thing, though, is whose laws do they follow? An American soldier follows the laws set forth by the military code of conduct. What about the contractors? They are not American soldiers. They are also not Iraqis. So, they don’t have to follow the laws of either military’s code of conduct. Whose rules do they follow then? They can abuse the power and that is a fear that many people have.

So, for the issue of privatizing the military completely, I disagree completely.

However, Donald W. Campbell brings about a very interesting point in his article about the privatization of military training. He stated: “With a commercially run training service, the company will be responsible contractually for ensuring concurrency with platform systems as well as evolutions in doctrine and operating procedures. Too often in today’s environment, the training system is procured and, once it is fielded, it is always competing with the actual weapon system for budget and resources. Guess who wins that battle more often—the weapon system or the trainer?”

The training tends to lose its effect in comparison to the weapon systems because the military feels that the weapon systems ensure that they’re the best in the world. But, it’s at the expense of the training of the soldiers. To combat this, the United States should hire private contractors to train their soldiers because it’ll create a competition between companies to provide the very best training for the soldiers at the very best price. And, furthermore, it will be the company’s responsibility to provide the very best training for the soldiers or lose out on further deals.

Do I think that the military should rely on PCMs in combat? Only if they have rules. Without rules, they can run rampant. Do I think that the military should experiment with the outsourcing of training? Yes. Competition breeds quality.

But, do I think that PCMs should be able to offer brigade size units to fight in low intensity conflicts? According to J. Cofer Black, the President of Blackwater USA, “There is a clear potential to conduct security operations at a fraction of the cost of NATO operations.” I call it owning an army that answers only to you. A bit dangerous, no?