North Carolina-based Blackwater USA is under fire in more ways than one. A September 2007 shoot-out in Baghdad raised questions about whether Blackwater guards acted appropriately, inappropriately or were manipulated by insurgent factions in order to provoke a sensationally bloody crossfire incident.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is said to be miffed that the US State Department renewed Blackwater’s contract in May without the approval of the Baghdad government. It has been reported that Iraq's Interior Ministry has drafted new legislation that would make private security companies "subject to Iraqi law and to be monitored by the Iraqi government." However, Mr. Maliki's spokesman said that the cabinet will not approve any laws regarding private security companies until the US investigation into the Blackwater incident is completed. To date, no charges have been brought in the United States against any Blackwater guards in the September shooting.

Blackwater has provided effective protective services to our diplomats and State Department personnel. While under their protection, no client has been killed or kidnapped, while more than 30 of their own employees have been killed defending US interests. Blackwater has conducted over 16,000 missions in a chaotic war zone. They have fired shots in fewer than 200 of these missions.

Blackwater holds only a small portion of the total security contracts in Iraq. Some of the controversy surrounding Blackwater undoubtedly stems from the conservative political leanings of its founder, Erik Prince. Prince acquitted himself well when testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in hearings following the Baghdad shooting incident. As further evidence of media attitude toward Blackwater, one only has to witness the virtual blackout on the reporting of Blackwater’s exemplary humanitarian response in the California fires of 2007.

The future of private security

The majority of private security firms working in the Iraqi conflict zone are professional and well disciplined. Many “low profile” security companies strive to operate as discreetly as conditions allow. Blackwater’s “high profile” operating posture has attracted some understandably unwelcome attention from various critics, many of whom have their own agendas.

The notion that American security companies hired to protect American government interests are “mercenaries” is ludicrous. Their function is restricted to guarding and protecting very specific US assets. It is imperative that only American guards who have been vetted by rigorous background screening be entrusted with this responsibility. They do not conduct proactive military offensive operations. They are not soldiers and they are not “private armies.”

The post-Iraq security industry will require a different approach. Unless coping with extremely chaotic conditions, the governments of most nations will not permit foreign security personnel to be armed with tactical weapons. The “foreign occupier” and the spurious “mercenary” label can be ginned up by political foes. The host country’s police and government security apparatus should always bear the primary armed protection responsibility. This has not been possible in Baghdad.

Essential players

Though the security contractor has emerged as a useful and necessary player, the future of “militarized” private protective services is currently on trial in the court of public opinion. While some extreme situations may warrant an aggressive, high profile image, more often, it is merely “security theater” that is virtually guaranteed to alienate public opinion. New controls, practices and tactics are evolving. It would be unwise for a security firm to build a business plan using the post-invasion Iraq experience as a model for future enterprises.

The “private armies” stigma raised questions on the domestic homeland security front when Blackwater deployed equipment and heavily armed security contractors to the Hurricane Katrina disaster area, including an SA-330J Puma helicopter. A press release on Blackwater USA's website confirmed that its contractors were on the ground in New Orleans, being used to secure petrochemical facilities and provide security services for the federal government. Private citizens were also reported to have hired Blackwater’s so-called “private soldiers” to provide bodyguard services and protect expensive homes and real estate in New Orleans despite repeated mandatory evacuation orders of all civilians by local, state and federal authorities. Accordingly, we should not be surprised if the “private armies” debate emerges as a homeland security issue in the upcoming US presidential election.

Has the concept of “private armies” reached its zenith in Iraq? Private contractors may have no place on the front line of future battlefields. Command and control authority is problematic. Civil liability exposure and legal accountability issues are daunting. Domestically, private military companies would be well advised to avoid the spotlight and tread lightly.

Nonetheless, the usefulness of private military companies in certain executive protection applications and in a variety of ancillary “rear guard” physical and technical security roles can remain viable and valuable. That should be quite enough to ensure the industry’s future. HST

Larry E. Harris, CPP, is board certified in security management by ASIS International. He has a 30-year military, police and private security background. He worked as a civilian contractor for the US Army in Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.