Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

PMC’s Bad – Profit Motive

PMC’s are motivated by profit and work to prolong conflicts in order to maximize profit.
Charlier 10 (Afghanistan’s outsourced war Le Monde Diplomatique 02/09/2010 Marie–Dominique Charlier, http://www.e–ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/22DDA29D4BA662F7872576C5006FA59A?OpenDocument)KM

According to official sources in the French ministry of defence, the budget allocated to MPRI for drafting the ANA’s military doctrine is some $200m; the training of ANA troops will cost nearly $1.7bn. So the PMC’s have no interest in stabilising the situation or in the successful Afghanisation of the ANA. That would lessen the need for contractors, which would be against their financial interests. So they take great care not to pass on their knowledge, and prefer to deputise for Afghan organisations rather than giving them useful advice. Solidarity among PMC’s “General” Gulbahar, in charge of doctrine at the Afghan National Army Training Command’s doctrine office, says he has been given no target date for the handover of the drafting of ANA military doctrine to Afghan control. Gulbahar is not unhappy to be supervised: he is in fact a colonel serving in a position normally occupied by a general and has everything to lose by questioning the status quo. MPRI, therefore, has what amounts to a monopoly on the drafting of Afghan army doctrine, which allows it to justify the prolongation of its assisting role. But MPRI also shows solidarity with other PMC’s: the ANA’s logistical doctrine, drafted by MPRI, names DynCorp as the organisation responsible for providing logistics support to the ANA’s air corps, without specifying any restrictions or limitations on the duration of this role. The “training” element is highly profitable. The PMC’s are recruiting and training 800 instructors as part of a programme to combat illiteracy in the ANA, but their determination to secure the greatest possible return on investment has encouraged them to extend the duration of the training provided. It would seem that fostering the ANA’s own training capabilities is not a priority. The same applies to logistics (currently provided by RM Asia), another key element of the PMC monopoly: no deadlines have been set for the training of Afghan technicians. Here again, the financial interests of the PMC’s, which employ several thousand contract staff, differ from the military interests of ISAF: but they do not wish to see operational systems change too rapidly any more than they hope for a swift victory. They need to be able to influence events and, if necessary, to steer policy at the operational and strategic levels.

Instead of providing security, PMC’s profit from war

RT Politics 2010 (http://rt.com/Politics/2010-01-06/afghanistan-gold-mine-security.html, date accessed: 6/24/2010) AJK
Private military companies are being criticized for profiteering from the conflict in Afghanistan while the number of deadly attacks keeps rising and the local population remains in an insecure environment. General Khatool Mohammadzai from the Afghan National Army notes, “This is war. President Karzai says it will take fifteen years for our army to be able to stand on its own. When the President talks, I know he has considered everything, so he must be right.” But does this mean for the next 15 years the country will be unstable until the government gets it right? That is the reason foreign security companies give to explain why they are in the country. At least 17 of them are operating in Afghanistan, including the infamous Blackwater, which was accused in 2007 of killing civilians in Iraq. Regardless, not even foreign contractors are still unable to prevent bomb explosions, so the feeling of fear and panic is everywhere. Yama Saifi, former owner of Shield Security Company, says that sentiment wasn’t around when it was his job to provide security for the cabinet. That was before the Taliban came to power and people then were not afraid of random suicide bombings like they are today. “I really don’t believe most foreign security companies are actually here to provide security. It is very clear they come here to make money. I am sure Afghan security companies can provide better security than them. And anyway, they use our people; it’s just that all the directors are from abroad,” thinks Yama Saifi. There are big bucks to be made in Afghanistan. Each of the hundreds of non-governmental organizations working in the country put aside between thirty and forty percent of their budget for security. Even the US army and foreign militaries use private security companies.

PMC’s Bad – Profit Motive

PMC’s are at their core profit driven corporations who will always seek to cut corners to maximize profit.

Isenberg 9 (David Isenberg, Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq, December 28, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david–isenberg/money–isnt–everything–its_b_405089.html)KM

One can argue about many different aspects of private contracting but you can't have an honest discussion unless you are willing to acknowledge the profit motive. To paraphrase the old sports quote, money isn't everything; it's the only thing. Trying to wrap private contractors in the Stars and Stripes as a way of describing their motivation is simply not credible. Those wanting detail on this should read this law journal article "Wrapping Themselves in the American Flag: The Alien Tort Statute, Private Military Contractors, and U.S. Foreign Relations. That is why it is important to ponder what Jake writes. Here is what he says: The first thing you need to understand is that the private security industry is made up of a group of for-profit corporations, businesses and individuals. Despite the fact that the term Private Military Company (PMC) contains the word 'military' there is almost nothing about the modern PMC which resembles the military. Certainly not in the areas of discipline, accountability, oversight, capability, capacity, troop welfare, tactical prowess or quality of leadership. Private security contracting is the ultimate game of market capitalism. It makes Wall Street competition look like a child's game. Private security contracting is a lion's den of ferocious and vicious cut–throat competition where the law of jungle is all that exists. Only the strongest survive and they will do by consuming the weak. I don't say this in a gratuitousness derogatory manner. I am just stating the facts as they are. Money, profit, the–bottom–line, what ever you choose to call them are the sole and driving force behind these businesses. While PMC’s will often cloak themselves in patriotic terms and talk about their contribution to the country's foreign policy this is all window dressing. Were they really and truly motivated by patriotism or service to country they would provide their services at a deep and significant discount in an effort to 'contribute' to the cause. But this is not the case and again I do not begrudge the companies for doing what companies do...making money. But have no illusions about their motivation as it will drive all their decision making and this may or may not be aligned with your own personal best interests. However, once you realize this and come to terms with the fact that in this industry money is always the primary and most cases the sole motivation for existence they are able to see other facts more clearly and learn to operate in a world which really has many unwritten codes but very few enforceable laws. The primary facts, the common laws of contracting if you like, are: No one person or even small group of contractors, no matter their tactical skills, will ever stand in the way of company profit. The clients needs and wishes will almost always trump contractor/employee requests or requirements because it is the client who pays the invoices which create the profit. Corners will be cut at every possible opportunity in an effort to reduce costs and thus increase profits. This will manifest itself in nearly every aspect of the operation from the equipment chosen, the maintenance cycles, the quality of the staff, staff training, the site, the facilities, the salaries, per diem, travel expenses, work rotations/shifts, etc, etc... Some companies are more egregious than others but all do this to some extent. Just remember, no matter what, the profit train is not one you want to jump out in front of as it will run over you every time. If you ever find yourself standing between your convictions on one hand and the impact to company profits on the other you better have your go-bag to hand because you're about to be placed on the next thing smoking and headed outta town. There may come a day when a company is formed which puts the well being of the employee and the client ahead of the all–mighty profit margin but to my knowledge that company does not currently exist. pp. 8–9.
Profit motive devolution of the military creates a world of perpetual war for money and a police state in the US.
Lendman 10 (“Outsourcing War – Rise Of Private Military Contractors (PMC’s)” Stephen Lendman 1–19–10, http://www.rense.com/general89/outs.htm)KM

5. Increasing PMC use also "raises some deep questions about the military itself." How do you retain the most talented combat troops when they can sell their skills for far greater pay? Also consider the uniqueness of the military. "It is the only profession that has its own court system, its own laws; the only profession that has its own grocery stores and separate bases;" its own pensions and other benefits for those staying around long enough to qualify. So what happens when it's transformed into a business with profit the prime motive? Simple - more wars, greater profits. The same idea as privatizing prisons – more prisoners, fatter bottom line. Another consideration is also worrisome. Given America's imperial ambitions, global dominance, permanent war agenda, and virtual disregard for the law, public distrust is growing for politicians who never earned it in the first place. Given the Pentagon's transformation since 1991, the number of services it privatized, and America's permanent war agenda, what will conditions be in another decade or a few years? How much more prominent will PMC’s be? How much more insecurity will result? How soon will it be before hordes of them are deployed throughout America as enforcers in civilian communities outside of conflict zones, with as much unaccountability here as abroad? What will the nation be like if it happens?