Just Finished Reading: Just Warriors, Inc – The Ethics of Privatised Force by Deane-Peter Baker (FP: 2011)

They’ve probably been around for as long as humans have been engaging in organised warfare – those who fight for gold rather than land, or state or family. It’s where the name ‘Freelance’ comes from, where knights hired themselves out to princes fighting in faraway places for money and with the opportunity for glory or just the fun of the fight. Today they’re known as mercenaries or, in a less pejorative and more politically correct sense, private contractors or variations thereof. In more recent years still we know them as organisations such as Executive Outcomes and Blackwater as well as other less well-known company’s whose business is security, personal protection and, very occasionally, actual war fighting. This is a state of affairs the author argues (and I agree with) which is not only here to stay but one set to grow in the future. But is that a good thing? Surely privatised violence is inherently a bad thing that can only erode a state’s legitimacy and lead to all kinds of regrettable outcomes? After all mercenaries have no honour, no loyalty and no reason to be trusted with the lives of others. Right?

I did a unit of Military Ethics (called War & Peace Studies) as part of my first BA degree and really enjoyed it so this was, despite my philosophical muscles being a little rusty, right up my street. It took a while to get back up to speed on terms and Just War Theory but once there the book hummed along nicely. I quickly learnt exactly where the author was coming from because this was no even handed work of philosophy. Clearly he was pro-Combat Contractor, that was obvious from early on – but this did not distract from the good arguments put forward in their defence. Section by section the author logically demonstrated that there was little practical or philosophical difference between State soldiers and their private counterparts. Both exhibited courage, both had honour, and showed the understood military virtues – indeed generally private soldiers used to be state soldiers or police prior to them going private. The idea that what was once acceptable was no longer the case because of a change of direct employer was quickly dismissed. Indeed the only negative thing the author could point to was the fact that private soldiers could not be expected to lay down their lives if the mission or the circumstances demanded it. Potentially you could pay the expected grieving families an additional bounty for acts of sacrifice by private soldiers but you could not reasonably have such sacrifice written into their contracts. State soldiers however would understand that they might be called on to lay down their lives ‘for the greater good’ and then go on and do so and we would call them heroes because of their sacrificial actions. But apart from that? The author sees no significant downside and several (at least slight) upsides to employing mercenaries at least on some missions and in some situations.

Outsourcing war is coming I believe. I don’t think it will be completely privatised but I can see admin functions going to contract, logistics, satellite services (GPS, surveillance), guarding of base installations and even some ‘Special Forces’ units in their entirety. Commanders will be able to buy specialisms off the shelf as part of their deployment ‘in theatre’ with probably more flexibility than with state provided units at their disposal. There are financial, tactical and ethical advantages that can’t and won’t be ignored for long. Mercenaries have picked up a bad reputation over the centuries. This book goes part way towards addressing that. Interesting.