Blackwater in Iraq: When private companies claim neoconservative responsibility

Sunnie Hwang

Mercenaries have a long and complicated history. In the past it was private companies that funded expeditions to faraway lands to conquer new territories and gather resources. Arguably, the Dutch East India Trading Company was the first major wholly private military. Recently, Private Military Companies (PMCs) have come to fill the niche created by the end of the Cold War and downsizing of national militaries. Peter Singer defines private military contractors as “profit-driven organisations that trade in professional services intricately linked to warfare. They are corporate bodies that specialise in the provision of military skills - including tactical combat operations, strategic planning, intelligence gathering and analysis, operational support, troop training, and military technical assistance.” 

PMC personnel receiving combatant status is both a blessing and a curse for all parties involved. Legitimate national military personnel require combatant status to justify their behaviour on the battlefield. Without this, and the other laws applicable in international war, the soldier is simply carrying out murder. Prisoner of War status is also crucial for those captured by the opposition, as it protects troops against human rights abuses. By denying PMCs this status, they occupy the ambiguous position of providing military type services without the same rights as national military personnel. However, categorising private military contractors as anything other than civilian holds the danger of legitimising their behaviour and transforming the blame of violent actions as necessary in the course of war. 

Blackwater, currently known as Academi, is one of the largest private military employers with multiple contracts with the United States defence forces and a large combat presence in Iraq. As a private company, Blackwater is an illegitimate force spreading political ideologies and foreign policy. Those concerned with PMCs financial motives need not worry, as the company argues that it is doing more than just providing military services for monetary gain. Being motivated by financial gain can seem unethical as the conventional idea of soldier is one of noble and selfless do-gooder. However, the international community cannot expect all those who engage in warfare to have motives akin to Kantian principles of moral purity. As far as war goes, the intention and actions of the warrior – whether he be national military or a private contractor – is irrelevant in the grand scheme of war. Why the Blackwater security guards fired on innocent civilians at Nisour Square is far less important than the fact they did this with intent to kill. Their motives behind firing their guns pales in significance to the fact that they did. Weber argues that universal morality applies in all situations, but those with pure moral and ethical motives do not necessarily behave in the right way for war.

With this in the back of our minds, let us turn to the notion on PMCs intervening in foreign nations with the intention to spread the Western ideals of democracy and liberty. Blackwater was largely unknown until March 31st, 2004, when four Blackwater contractors were killed and their bodies hung for the world to see in Falluja, Iraq. Since this incident the growth of PMC presence in Iraq has ballooned to equal the amount of U.S. troops.  PMC personnel have come under scrutiny since they entered Iraq, with accusations of violence, disrespect and immoral war conduct. Unethical behaviour in war does occur, but it is less so the motive behind this behaviour and more about the intention. This moral Kantian argument also extends to those authorising and hiring PMCs. The end of the Cold War, and subsequent growth of PMCs in the past two to three decades has failed to see effective oversight in the recruitment, vetting and supervision of private military contractors.

PMC advocates call to praise the prosecution and conviction of the four Blackwater security guards by the U.S. justice system as a victory for the accountability of private contractors hired by national governments. While a step in the right direction, supervision and accountability in the realm of private military companies and contractors remains highly unregulated. States PMCs operate in largely lack a willingness or ability to prosecute wrongdoers. Kirkuk 2006, two civilians killed. May 2006 en route to Baghdad airport, a civilian killed and his wife and daughter severely injured. Erbil 2009, three women wounded. While disturbing, these incidents are a mere fraction of the overall numbers where private contractors have abused the grey area they occupy. Arguing for the spread of Western democratic ideals and under the guise of legitimacy bestowed upon PMCs by state-funded contracts, private security contractors have committed atrocious acts and rarely been brought to justice. The video below highlights an incident as those described:

Near the end of the video, Cenk Uygur outlines why neoconservative and PMC justifications for participating in Iraq fail 

As leaders in the global political arena, the United States has failed to recognise the dangers of handing over so much power to an unregulated, private force. The rapid rise of PMCs is responsible for the absence of supervision, and retroactive regulation is unlikely, particularly as the Obama administration has approved new contracts to increase the number of private military personnel in Iraq as U.S. troops prepare to decrease their military presence. Following the neoconservative political ideologies of the George W. Bush administration, companies such as Blackwater consider their duty as global security companies to spread the ideals of Western democracy and liberty. In this sense, it is not private companies intervening in foreign nations because they are being paid to do so. Rather it is from an ideological standpoint these company executives decide to take on clients. Should the international community continue to allow these private corporations to act on behalf of national governments to implement Western ideologies they claim to believe in?

Combatant or civilian, the international community must decide where private military contractors sit in the battlefield. The ambiguity brought forth by different theorists and interested parties only allow the abusers to violate international rules of war without fear of prosecution. Whether they are massacring civilians in Nisour Square  or running over innocent women like in the video above, these actions make it difficult for the international community to believe Blackwater take on their clients to push the neoconservative agenda to better the lives of people in foreign lands. Rather, the neoconservative appeal serves as justification for the noble cause, instead of accepting contracts based solely on financial gain, Blackwater wishes to appear motivated by the “right” reasons.