Clausewitz’s Theory as a Guideline for the Role of Private
Military Companies and the U.S. Army in Iraq.
September, 2010
University of Groningen Faculty of Arts
Supervisor: prof. dr. P.M.E. Volten
Name: M.W. Amerkamp Student number: 1331620
Table of Contents
Introduction 3 Chapter 1 9 Introduction 9 The Book 10 Clausewitz’s Theory 11Strength in numbers 12
Remarkable trinity 14
Nature of War 15
Recap 16
Chapter 2 18
Early developments. 18
Charter Company System 19
The end of military companies 20
A new revival: the end of the Cold-‐War 20 Transformation in warfare after the Cold War. 21
Non-‐state actors 22
Labor Market 23
Flood of weapons and materials. 24 Inability of the United Nations and Western States to Act 25
Change in Warfare 26
Privatizing the industry 27
Corporations of War 28
Conclusion 29
Chapter 4 – Blackwater USA – A profile 31
Introduction 31
Beginnings 31
Security in Iraq 33
Controversies 34
Hurricane Katrina 35
Blackwater Today: Xe Services 36
Chapter 5 – Iraq and Clausewitz 37 Strength in Numbers and the Center of Gravity 37
Strength in numbers 37
Center of gravity 40
Remarkable trinity 42
Nature of war 44
Means and goal. 45
Conclusions 47
Literature 49
Introduction
The 5th of March 2004 marked the day that the general public became aware of the prominent presence of private security companies in Iraq. That day, four members of the private security company Blackwater USA were killed in an ambush, set on fire and their charred bodies hung from a bridge across the Euphrates river in Fallujah, Iraq. 1 The brutality of this act and the images released created public outcry around the world. It led to a massive invasion of the Fallujah area by the United States military, becoming one of the most violent campaigns the army had undertaken since the ‘War on Terror’. 2 This public outcry was not only because of the cruelties done to these (American) Blackwater mercenaries, but also because the public became aware of the presence of private security companies in active combat areas. Up until the Iraq war, the presence of these private military companies (PMC) was not well known to the general public. It was a well-kept secret that civilian contractors played crucial roles in conflict areas. However, the existence of these companies has a history throughout centuries. These mercenary corporations operated and still operate in a shadow, supported by contracts from not only governments but also rebel groups and corporate entities.
The use of mercenaries in combat situations is not a new phenomenon. As far as the middle ages, the use of foreign citizens in a national army or force has been common practice. The former East-India Company of the Netherlands was also an active user of foreign nationals in their company for security reasons. This has been a recurring trend during the past ages.
The use of private, commercial companies to take over state responsibilities comes in conflict with the traditional idea that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. According to Max Weber, the state can control and maintain armies, declare war and
1 David Barstow. “The Struggle for Iraq: The Contractors; Security Firm Says Its Workers
Were Lured Into Iraqi Ambush.” New York Times, April 9 2004. Accessed June 3, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/world/struggle-for-iraq-contractors-security-firm-says-its-workers-were-lured-into.html.
2 Scahill, Jeremy. Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
make use of violence. 3 But this monopoly on violence is not entirely accurate anymore, and current and past developments suggest otherwise.
The use of PMC’s has accelerated particularly since the end of the Cold War. This historic event caused an excessive flood of former soldiers and weaponry onto the private market. Because the Cold War came to an end, nations such as The United States and the former Soviet Union had an excess of soldiers and materials that were no longer of use. Along with this development, small regional conflicts started to erupt. These conflicts were kept in check during the Cold War, but started to explode in the 90’s. The inability of small, corrupt and dysfunctional states led to an opening of the market for violence and conflict resolution. Other developments such as the privatization revolution and the transformation of the type of warfare were other accelerators of the presence of PMC’s.
These developments have led to several problems. Due to the increase of private, commercial and non-state companies in violent situations, the monopoly of the state on the use of violence has come into serious jeopardy. Current trends show that PMC’s are increasingly taking over more tasks that have traditionally been attributed to state sphere. These tasks are not only on the logistic side of a war, but also include violent actions such as active combat roles and personnel security. Other tasks involve counter-intelligence and active information gathering. 4 This has resulted in a multi-billion dollar industry. 5 PMC’s receive huge contracts from the United States’ Department of Defense, but also from oil companies, NGO’s and rebel forces. As long as the price is right, PMC’s will be able to fulfill the need.
Several benefits of these developments can be suggested in economical, politic-military and judicial areas. By using PMC’s, armies can relocate their soldiers to other areas that are in need of assistance. For example, food provision, the building of camps, site security and other secondary tasks. This relieves soldiers of these tasks and can be used for more core tasks. But the private sector can also be active on more core tasks. This is because PMC’s are known to have better equipment and
3 Max Weber. Theory of Social and Economic Organization. London: Free Press, 1997. 4 Titan corp. employees were actively involved in the extraction of information and torture at
the Abu Ghraib prison in Bagdad, Iraq.
5 Liu, Hin-Yan, “Leashing the Corporate Dogs of War: The Legal Implications of the Modern
technological skills than the personnel of the army. This leads to specialization in several fields, such as air reconnaissance, intelligence gathering or deep penetration of enemy territory.
However, several major negative sides to this development can be claimed. Responsibility issues arise when PMC’s come into conflict and commit crimes. International law is unclear on the responsibility and jurisdiction of these companies and their employees, and it is thus that there exists a grey area in international law concerning private military companies. PMC’s benefit from international instability, and it is thus in their interest for a continuation of unrest. It can be questioned if these PMC’s serve the interest of their employers (ie. governments, NGO’s, other companies etc.) or their own interest. Since the PMC’s are commercial companies, their main interest is making a profit for their owners and shareholders. The public lacks any influence on these companies; there is no voting right as there is with state-sponsored violence in democracies. Another issue that needs to be explored is the fact that transparency lacks in this area. It is still unclear how many PMC’s are active in the troubled regions and what their goals are; partly because of the use of ‘black’ contracts from the CIA and Department of Homeland security. These contracts are kept away from the public eye. On top of this, a clear and structure control structure of PMC’s in Iraq is lacking, which leads to the lack of transparency and accountability of PMC’s. It is estimated that there are more than a hundred thousand contractors (this includes mercenaries and non-combative contractors) active in Iraq, reaching a 1 to 1 ratio compared to active American soldiers. Out of these hundred thousand contractors, not a single person has ever been put to trial for a crime: a hard to digest fact. 6
The use of private military companies, which lay outside the jurisdiction of the government, also poses questions towards the ‘remarkable trinity’ theory conceived by leading political and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. His theory suggests a trinity of three forces; passion, luck and chance and thirdly reason. According to Clausewitz, there has to be a balance between these three forces in order for a just
6 David Herszenhorn, “House’s Iraq Bill Applies U.S. Laws to Contractors,” The New York Times, October 4, 2007, accessed on June 3 2010,
war. Passion is attributed to the people, luck and chance to the army and reason is considered a part of politics. This trinity suggests that these three forces have to be balance with each other, like a magnetic field. And only if they are in balance, it is possible to fight in a legitimate war.7 Almost 200 years have passed since Clausewitz conceived this theory in his book “Vom Kriege”, and modern developments may have lead to a shift from his theory. The use of private military companies in the conflict may have resulted in a shift away from the theory set forth by Clausewitz.
The influence of commercial interests in conflict areas, whether it is oil interests in Iraq or the diamond mines in Sierra Leone, is enormous. Clausewitz claims that a theory that undermines any of the three forces (state, military, people) is not in touch with reality and will not lead to a legitimate and successful war. However, his theory has been established around the start of the 19th century, and it can be claimed modern developments have moved away from his theory. These developments concern not only technical issues, such as a change in warfare and materials, but also changes in interests of parties involved. It is thus of interest to research if the war in Iraq and the role of private military companies are still aligned with Clausewitz’s, or if there has been a shift away from his theory. The ‘magnetic field’ between the three forces, as Clausewitz classifies it, may have become disrupted, or possibly have seen an addition of a fourth force: corporate commercial entities. 8 The current development of PMC’s and the war in Iraq will be related to Clausewitz’s theory according to his three main theoretic points.
My master thesis will focus on these issues. It will discuss the relationship between the state and private military companies. This is a relevant discussion since the power of private military companies is increasing, and this has a big effect on how not only NGO’s and commercial companies spend their resources, but also the tax payers money from the government. The divide between the state military and private commercial entities such as Blackwater is becoming unclear. The monopoly of a state on the use of force is fading, and this could potentially be met with negative consequences.
My findings will be tested against the theory set forth by Clausewitz, and will look if the United States has followed Clausewitz’s points, or whether a disengagement has arisen between United States policy and Clausewitz.
The main thesis will be: To what extent has the use of private military companies in violent conflicts and the war on Iraq marked a departure from the traditional theory of Clausewitz?
I have chosen this subject because of several reasons. Firstly, the role of PMC’s in conflict areas is increasing. Currently, for every soldier in Iraq there is one private contractor. This increase is pared with major financial investments from governments, multinationals and non-profit organizations. Taxpayer’s money is spend on not only the national military, but also increasingly on commercial entities such as Blackwater that are taking over traditional government areas. This leads to the second reason: the decline of the monopoly the state has on violence and force. With the state privatizing areas in which they had a traditional monopoly, the influence and authority of a state could possibly be in decline. These are serious matters, because with the current pace of privatization the future of the monopoly on violence and combat come in question. It is thus critical to research how the role of PMC’s has developed, and what the benefits and disadvantages are of these developments. The theory developed by Clausewitz will be beneficial for this research, as his theory deals with control of violence and the justification for it. A trinity maintains this control: people, state and military, but current developments may suggest otherwise.
Additionally, Clausewitz is chosen as the basis for theory because he is still one of the leading theorists on war theory. His ideas are still taught at leading institutes such as Point West and other military academies.
Chapter one is dedicated to the theory conceived by Carl von Clausewitz. It broadly discusses the early life of Clausewitz and how he became one of the most prominent war theorists of modern times. I have chosen three of his main theories, and discuss these in detail. These three main theories, strength in numbers, the remarkable trinity and the nature of war, help analyze way in which the United States went to war, and what the role of private military companies are in this process.
Chapter two deals with the history of mercenary companies. The use of mercenaries and military companies has seen a long tradition: ever since the Middle Ages soldiers-for-hire have been active. It describes the changes and developments the private military industry has seen since the end of the Cold War. These transformations have been enormous, and the characteristics of a private military company have changed over the years. The benefits and disadvantages on the use of these companies are discussed.
Chapter three focuses on the company formerly known as Blackwater USA. It describes how Blackwater was able to become the biggest private army in the world, with at its highest point consisting of 40.000 soldiers and advanced warfare material. The influential roles of their management board, consisting of former high-ranking officials in the American government and intelligence agencies are discussed. Likewise, the controversies surrounding Blackwater shed a light on the situation in Iraq, and serve as an example of the roles of PMCs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, chapter four brings the two previous chapters together and I analyze how current developments relate to the main points of Clausewitz’s theory. The ‘War on Terror’ in Iraq forms the case study, which explains what the role of PMC’s were in Iraq. I analyze whether the United States has followed Clausewitz doctrine when planning the war on Iraq, or if it has seen a departure from his theories.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz was born on the 1st of June 1780. He had five brothers and sisters, of whom two others would also become a general. His father, Friedrich von Clausewitz, fought during the 7 Year War as a lieutenant for the Prussian army. When this war came to an end, he was dismissed of active duty. 9 Clausewitz joined the rank of cadet at the age of twelve, which was not uncommon in his day and age. Only a year later, in 1793, he was in active combat duty, when the battle at Mainz took place and Clausewitz was sent to the frontline. After this battle, Clausewitz returned to Neuruppin, where he started his academic career.
In 1801 Clausewitz joined the Berlin Institute for Young Officers, where he could continue his studies, with a special interest in Machiavelli and Emmanuel Kant. Here he would lay some of the foundations for his future book, Vom Kriege. 10 At the Berlin Institute he met Gerhard von Scharnhorst, who would become a close ally of Clausewitz, a mentor and his best friend. Clausewitz graduated as top of his class in 1804. He was promoted to lieutenant and joined the ranks of the patriotic and reform movement of which Scharnhorst was also a part. At the same time he became the adjutant of the prince August, the son of Prince Ferdinand.
When Prussia was about to choose the French side in the upcoming war between Napoleon’s France and Russia, Clausewitz expressed his dissatisfaction with this alignment and quickly resigned from the army. Along with other Prussian sympathizers he joined the Russian army and became a lieutenant colonel. He had some successes with his tactics, but was severely hindered because he did not speak the Russian language. After the war was over, he had great difficulty going back to the Prussian army, but as a Russian military detachee he managed to go back. 11 He was able to come back as a personal assistant to Scharnhorst, and worked himself up to becoming the head of the new military academy in 1819. 12
9 Clausewitz, 7.
10 Ibid, 7. 11 Clausewitz, 9.
As head of the military academy he started his work on what would become his masterpiece, Vom Krieg. At the start of 1827 he had completed the first 6 books and was working on book 7 and 8. He studied hundreds of battles from the past, and processed the results along with his own experiences as a military man. Clausewitz was transferred to the function of artillery inspector, which would become fatal for him. A cholera plague broke out, eventually infecting Clausewitz. He passed away on the November 16, 1831, at the age of 51. 13
The Book
Clausewitz’s book, Vom Kriege, was published post-mortem by his wife, Marie von Clausewitz. Because Clausewitz felt his work was not complete, and too theoretic, he had the intention of rewriting all of his work. His sudden death prohibited him of completing this task, and it is thus that only his first book is considered as a finished work.
His work is based on experiences from the Napoleon wars with Prussia and Russia, especially during the French revolution. This revolution was not only present in France, but there was another revolution taking place within the army and the way wars were fought. The battles were broader and more massive. Related to this change, was the increased mobility of armies. Because of technical developments, artillery and soldiers were able to move quicker between battle areas, and the effected the way battles progressed.
However, more importantly was the spirit that was present among the French soldiers that fought during these wars. This impressed Clausewitz. They were not motivated by money or personal gain, but by more psychological reasons. These reasons were related to the revolution that took place in France. The soldiers fighting this war were patriotic and truly believed in the reasons of fighting. In essence, they had passion to fight, which, according to Clausewitz, made them more reliable and trustworthy as a soldier, compared to mercenaries.
Clausewitz’s Theory
In order to adequately test the ideas set forth by Clausewitz against the current war in Iraq and the use of private military companies, it is necessary to critically select a few major themes from his extensive theory. This selection will help analyze the role of the United States Army and their use of private military companies. By selecting several key themes from Clausewitz extensive work, a clear and concise analysis can be made in chapter four. The selection of three major themes is done because Clausewitz covers many aspects in his book and it would be virtually impossible to use all of his themes for my analyses. Additionally, because his theory was written 200 years ago, several aspects of his theory are outdated and not relevant anymore. This is in part due to technological advancements made throughout the centuries, as well as a changed political climate and economic developments. However, key elements remain timeless and serve to analyze current developments.
I have chosen the following three major themes within Clausewitz theory: • Strength in numbers (including center of gravity),
• Remarkable trinity,
• Nature of war (including the political aspects of war).
These themes are discussed accordingly in three separate sections. In these sections I discuss the analytical value and importance of these themes. Direct quotations from Clausewitz work give insight into his idea and work. In chapter four I analyze the current developments in Iraq according to Clausewitz theory, and how they relate to the use of private military companies.
Strength in Numbers and center of gravity
Strength in numbers
The strength in numbers theory is one of his points that Clausewitz deals with in chapter eight of his third book. In this chapter, Clausewitz argues that the biggest possible army should be fielded in a conflict:
“In tactics, as in strategy, superiority of numbers is the most common element in victory… It thus follows that as many troops as possible should be brought into the engagement at the decisive point” 14
His argument is supported by his extensive research done on major battles in the past. These battles have made him come to the conclusion that fielding the biggest possible army a nation can gather for the specific situation, will give it the advantage over the other side, which fields a smaller army. This is one of Clausewitz primary strategic points that he makes. This sounds like a logical conclusion, but when I analyze the troop deployment of the United States Army in Iraq, we see that this is not the case. It shows that not utilizing the full capacity of the United States Army, and opting for the ‘shock and awe’ tactic, has proven to be one of the worst tactical moves made during the ‘War on Iraq’. The use of private military companies and mercenaries in Iraq, at one point even surpassing the number of actual soldiers, is one of the direct results of this. It is thus a valid and important to analyze in my discussion of the ‘strength in numbers’ theory.
Additionally, in the above quote Clausewitz specifically mentions the largest possible army should be brought into the engagement at the decisive moment. This decisive moment also refers to the center of gravity, which will be the subject in the following part.
Center of gravity.
The center of gravity theory focuses on using force on the critical point, which will move the enemy off-balance. Major forces should be focused on this center of gravity, which is regarded as the premier point of power and strength for the enemy. When this point is targeted and toppled or even destroyed, the enemy is weaker and more likely to collapse. As Clausewitz puts it chapter four of book eight:
“… one must keep the dominant characteristics of both belligerents in mind. Out of these characteristics a certain center of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed.” 15
It is therefore of the greatest importance to be able to identify the correct center of gravity before the battle. This is a delicate situation, as it is not easy to identify the correct center of gravity. Laying the focus on the wrong center of gravity could lead to an outcome that is not wanted and could make the original situation even worse. These centers of gravity refer to the source of strength of the enemy, which can found in numerous areas. For example, specific locations, manpower, the capitol, ally armies or ideas can be considered as the center of gravity. It can also be centered in public opinion:
“Among alliances, it lies in the community of interest, and in popular uprisings it is the personalities of the leaders and public opinion.” 16
Clausewitz claims that it is of grave importance to locate the correct center of gravity, and this responsibility lies with the war planners within the army. During the lead up to the ‘War on Terror’, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who were both politicians, were two of the major advocates for this invasion. As I discuss in chapter four, this created confusion between their role as politicians and war planner. This could have led to the selection of a wrong center of gravity. For the ‘War on Terror’, as will be discussed in chapter four, the United States placed its center of gravity in taken over Bagdad and ousting Saddam Hussein.
While the United States Army did not fight a popular uprising (at the beginning of the war), nor an alliance of states, the public opinion of the Iraqi people play a major role in the ‘War on Terror’, and have altered post-war Iraq. This will become important when I will discuss the center of gravity that was overlooked by the United States Army. As I will analyze on the ‘war on terror’, the United States Army and its war planners have focused on the wrong center of gravity, and this has resulted in the current problematic and violent state of Iraq.
15 Clausewitz, 595-6.
Remarkable trinity
Clausewitz’s remarkable [wünderlichte] trinity is one of his major contributions to the theory. This theory makes up a large part of book one, which is regarded as his only true complete work. Concerning the trinity, he states:
“War is more than a true chameleon that slightly adapts its characteristics to the given case. As a total phenomena its dominant tendencies always make war a remarkable trinity – composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason alone.” 17
Accordingly, he places these three aspects with three entities:
“The first of these three aspects mainly concerns the people; the second the commander and his army; the third the government.” 18
This remarkable trinity considers three forces, which have to be in balance with each other, almost like a magnetic field. The balance between these three forces shows that Clausewitz places war in a wider social and political context. 19 He claims that any theory that excludes any of these three factors is not a just war. A war should balance itself between these three factors, like magnetic poles. 20 This is an important aspect, as it places the legitimacy of a war not just at the hands of military leaders, or politicians, but also the people.
analyze the role of mercenaries in the war in Iraq. These (non-American) mercenaries lack the “primordial violence, hatred, and enmity”, because they fight solely for a paycheck.
Clausewitz’s theory also separates politics from the military institution. This is an important distinction to make. This distinction became difficult in the lead up to the war in Iraq. As mentioned, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both politicians, were actively involved in the planning of the war, and are considered to have vetoed several suggestions made by high-ranking army officials.
Finally, I discuss a possible fourth dimension to the remarkable trinity. Because Clausewitz has written his theory over 200 years ago, it may be outdated on this subject. A new, fourth dimension may be added in the form of commercial interests. It cannot be denied that commercial interests have played an increasing role in war during the last decades, especially after the end of the Cold War. Financial influences from corporate entities into politics, and vice versa, may have had a decisive role in the decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
Nature of War
The last point that I discuss in relation to the war in Iraq and the use of private military companies is the ‘nature of war’. This is one of Clausewitz’s main points, and deals with what war really is. Clausewitz claims:
“The first, most supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaken it for nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.” 22
Ignoring or even not knowing the true nature of war can be disastrous. When war planners and policy makers know the true nature of war, they can take the correct actions to reach the goal and accordingly plan for this. This goal should always be the main focus. In the case of Iraq, the official reason for going to war was bringing democracy, ousting Saddam Hussein and his supposedly biological weapons from the
country. However, other motivations may have played a role in deciding to go to war with Iraq. Financial reasons have been said to be one of the primary reasons. This would lead to confusion within the nature of war, which as a result, led to the problems Iraq faces today.
According to Clausewitz, war should never be seen as “something autonomous”, but always as an instrument of policy:
“The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and means can never be considered in isolation from their purpose.” 23
Confusing the means with the goals can have severe consequences and this is exactly what happened in the United States. The means, war, can only be seen in relation to the goal. But when war becomes the goal, trouble arises and comes in conflict with Clausewitz’s most famous point:
“It is clear, consequently, that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means.” 24
This means that war functions as an instrument of policy, and has to have a goal in policy. War is a political element, and cannot stand on its own. Fighting for the simple reason of fighting is not just. It can be suggested, as I analyze in chapter four, that the current developments in Iraq suggest that this is the case: confusion between the means and goals. This, in part, has been a development due to the involvement of private military companies. They profit of fighting and a continuation of violence and instability in Iraq is beneficial to their business. This confusion between ends and means is discussed in chapter four.
Recap
In this chapter I have discussed the major points from Clausewitz’s theory that I have used to analyze the current situation in Iraq, in relation to the use of private military company. These points have been chosen because they represent the major points from his theory, and will help my analysis. The situation in Iraq and the use of private military companies are tested against these points by Clausewitz. These points, strength in numbers, the remarkable trinity and the nature of war are the most relevant
Chapter 2
The use of mercenaries for fighting in battles is as old as fighting wars itself. It is jokingly said that it is the second-oldest profession in the world. 25 These mercenaries were not only individuals fighting for personal gain, but also as organized forms working in groups as if they were a company. Their goal was the same: profit. Mercenaries and the private military companies (PMC) they worked for are older than the state system. In fact, many states have been created with the help of these mercenaries. It can thus be stated that a state’s monopoly on violence is thus rather the exception than the rule, as can be judged by looking at history.
The following sections shortly discuss the origins of private military companies. It looks at the developments these companies have gone through, and what major events in history have shaped the influence of mercenaries and PMC’s. After the brief history of PMC’s is discussed, the conditions which caused the rise of PMC’s in the 20th century are analyzed. These conditions have enabled private military companies to grow to the force they are now. This is a relevant subject to analyze, as it will give insight into how the importance of private military companies was able to develop.
Early developments.
In early societies, the maintenance of active armies was a problematic matter. It was expensive to maintain an active army all year round and the use of weapons was only meant for upper class men. Before the peace of Westphalia in 1648, the state system was not created and the world was divided into smaller city-states. This meant that kings, who wanted to expand their territory trough battles, did not have the massive population to fill out the army. Additionally, these soldiers were only available for short periods of time between harvesting.26
The hire of foreign fighters was thus a logical result. They could be hired for a battle and afterwards the king or prince could disband them. This meant that when
25 Sarah V. Percy, “Mercenaries: Strong Norm, Weak Law,” International Organization 61,
(Spring 2007), 367.
26 Peter Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca:
there was no fighting, the kingdom did not have to care (and pay) for their army. It also meant that they could hire trained and specialized fighters. These were men who were specialized in fighting, as it was a profession itself, just like there were fishermen, carpenters or farmers. They were called ‘free lance’, a term still used today. Especially before the development of firearms, the skill it took to successfully wield a crossbow or pike was massive. These skills were only preserved for the elite or free-lances. It led to specialized warriors, such as the infamous pike men from current Switzerland, who now function as the guard of the pope in the Vatican.27
Charter Company System
With the increase of standing armies consisting of a mixture former mercenaries and citizens, the need for the military companies was become smaller. However, as soon as newly discovered regions in the East became a viable source of income, states again saw the use of these private companies. The use of the chartered companies became important, which in essence was a form of private military company. This enabled private military companies to take on military roles outside from the government. 28
These chartered companies, such as the famous Dutch East India Company and the English East India Company would grow to become enormous institutions that were completely self-reliant. These companies amassed entire armies and naval forces that were even bigger than their home countries forces. They possessed cutting edge technology, sometimes even more advanced than the states. And just like the companies that were active during the Dark Ages, they recruited outside their home country. For example, the Dutch trading company hired Japanese and German merchants. 29 These massive forces were necessary to control the flow of spices between the East and West, as well as defending the settlements overseas. These chartered companies operated as if they were private armies, becoming fully self-sufficient. They provided for their own security, build outposts, transportation, set prices and fought battles with other companies.
27 Singer, 25-6.
The chartered companies not only received monopolies in the trade of spices between the east and west, but also in the territories they conquered oversees. These were territories that were in chaos and lacked structure due to the fall of their previous empires. Their profits were enormous because of they were completely self-sufficient. This success drove up their stock prices at the stock markets in Europe. As we will see, this parallels current private military companies. Like their predecessors, these current companies such as Blackwater are active in unstable areas, gain monopolies on certain tasks and areas and are incorporated at stock markets.
The end of military companies
The end of the 19th century saw the demise of the chartered companies. This was due to the situation in the Eastern countries stabilizing, and the need for big charter companies was becoming less. Prices for the traded goods also dropped. They were no longer financially beneficial, due to their sheer size. Outposts were abandoned or reduced and the trading companies began to fall apart.
A new revival: the end of the Cold-War
The aversion against mercenaries would continue to last until the end of the Cold War. After the Second World War, mercenary activity was linked to the apartheid regime in South Africa, mainly because of fighting over Rhodesia and the mining industry in Africa. This gave it a racist connotation. Additionally, mercenaries who operated throughout Africa were seen as a bunch of adventurous men who only fought for money and adventure without respecting any law. Famous examples of these were ‘Les Affraux’ (the terrible ones), in Congo and other regions of Africa. They were known for staging coups, fighting for corrupt governments or rebel parties. The structure of loosely connected mercenaries fighting for money, glory and adventure would soon change when the Cold War ended in 1989.
on the market that enabled these conflicts. With the fall of communism, the privatization developments seen in the West was making its way into other areas around the world, such as Africa, Asia and the former Soviet Republic. Privatization is thus seen as the second catalyst that has contributed to the developments in the private military industry. The following sections will thus be accordingly divided into two. The first section will deal with the transformation in type of warfare after the end of the Cold War and the second section will discuss the role of privatization that lead to the expansion of private military companies.
Transformation in warfare after the Cold War.
The Cold War was a period that saw two major superpowers standing against each other. The standoff was not only restricted to the United States and the Soviet Union: it left its mark around the whole world. The United States was not only actively trying to stop the spread of communism in their backyard (Latin-America), but also throughout Africa and Asia. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union supported (both financial and political) Left rebels in countries around the globe. While the Cold War has never seen a direct battle between the two superpowers, there was indirect fighting such as in Vietnam. This phenomenon, known as a proxy war, was about the spread of communism in Vietnam. Other countries were also held in its grip during the Cold War, but as soon as this was loosened internal stability ceased. These countries mostly had instable governments and had to rely on financial and military support from one of the superpowers. This lack of internal stability lead to the release of conflicts due to ethnic instability, financial or social problems. A power vacuum was created. 30
The end of the Cold War has seen several developments, which has accelerated the rise of private military companies. These developments are: the release of suppressed conflicts, the rise of non-state actors on the battlefield, the explosion on the labor market, the flood of weapons and materials and the inability of the United Nations to act as a stabilizing force in the world. These issues will be discussed in the following sections.
Internal instability and the release of conflicts.
The end of the Cold War led to an increase in internal instability in countries that were kept in balance during the Cold War. The countries saw internal struggle because of different ethnic groups or religions, but these struggles did not develop because of outside pressure from the two super powers. When this pressure was released, ethnic and religious groups saw the chance to finally pursue their believes. Because of the lack of a stable internal force that was present in these countries, such as former Communist countries and a dozen African nations, conflicts quickly spread across the borders. The lack of proper border control, as well as rivaling tribes being spread across states, led to this. A tragic example of this was the war in former Yugoslavia. This former state was kept in balance by their Soviet patronage, but as soon as this stopped (as well as financial support) conflicts started between different ethnic groups. Leaders (such as Milosevic) no longer had to justify their politics to their ‘big brother’, and could make their own politics. 31
In essence, the end of the Cold War meant the start of new wars. The two decades after 1989 has seen conflicts all over the world, which became a perfect breeding ground for the development of private military companies.
Non-state actors
Another result from the security gap that surfaced at the end of the Cold War was the rise of non-state entities in violence. This was partly due to the above-mentioned lack of internal security, but also because of the globalization trend. Non-state entities, such as terrorist groups, act cross-border without a clear home state. A perfect example of this is Al-Qaeda. This organization started to operate across state lines and used military tactics. The FARC in Columbia is another example of a non-state entity that became a major player in state violence. While starting as a rebel group fighting the government, they quickly became a leading cross-border narcotics traffic organization that has considerable influence. They build up a force, which encompasses modern warfare material and highly trained rebels. As we will see in
further discussion, these non-state entities started to resemble state armies. A big role in this development was the rise of PMC’s. The trade in narcotics and minerals meant that the rebel groups amassed massive funds that enabled them to invest in their force strength. For example, the Israeli Jamal Yousseff, a former employee of the Israeli company Spearhead Ltd., was training FARC mercenaries and sold weapons to the organization. 32
The borderless world system that started to appear because of globalization also enhanced the illegal drug trade, which in part financed these non-state actors. As will later be discussed, this is an example of the deterioration of the monopoly of violence by states. Non-state groups started to interfere in politics, sometimes with the help from private military companies. This is against the ideas brought forth by Clausewitz, as we will see in chapter 3.
Labor Market
The end of the Cold War led to another major impulse for the revival of PMC’s: the flood of former soldiers. It is estimated that around 7 million soldiers became unemployed by the end of the Cold War. Because of hyper militarization, both sides amassed massive amounts of soldiers and the majority of them were out of a job when the Cold War ended. 33 The majority of these unemployed soldiers came from former eastern bloc countries that dismissed (or at least, reorganized) their standing armies.
Likewise, the end of the apartheid in South Africa led to the release of a large number soldiers that were active during the apartheid regime (these formers apartheid soldiers would later create one of the most influential PMC’s Executive Outcomes 34
32 Anahad O’Conner, “Arrest in Plot to Sell Arms to Terrorist,” The New York Times, August
20, 2009, accessed July 30, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/nyregion/20sting.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pa gewanted=all.
33 Singer, 53.
34 Howard French, “Now For Hire: South of Africa’s Out-of-Work Commandos,” The New York Times, May 25, 1999, accessed on July 30, 2010,
35). Not only soldiers were left unemployed, also a large number of intelligence officers, such as ex-KGB agents, flooded the private military company market. For example, the infamous Alpha Group consisted of mainly former KGB agents that remained together after they became unemployed. 36
But not only active soldiers became unemployed: more importantly the whole war machine behind the armies saw cutbacks. The support and service industry that supported the military industry saw a reduction too. Companies were forced to cut down and a lot of knowledge and expertise transferred to the private companies. These companies filled out the gap that was created when the amount of conflicts increased in the 90’s. This led to a multi-billion industry, in which national armies became dependent on the knowledge and technology of private companies. This dependence on outside knowledge will be discussed further in chapter 3.
Flood of weapons and materials.
Along with the cutbacks in personnel, a large amount of weapons flooded the market at bargain prices. Especially from eastern bloc countries, the amount of surplus weapons was enormous. Weapon traders took advantage of this situation, and shipped large quantities of weapons to South America and Africa. For example, an AK-47 could be bought for only $60. 37 The groups that bought these weapons controlled mining locations or regulated the narcotic trade, which meant that they had the financial resources to buy these weapons.
But not only light weapons were sold. Also large amounts of heavier weapons and machinery flooded the market. Fighter jets, tanks or missiles were sold to these same rebel groups, drug cartels or private military companies. The latter especially reaped the benefits of this massive sale. For example, the American company CIC International paid $275 million for fighter jets and boats from the former army of
35 “Zuid Afrikaans Bedrijf Ziet Brood in Crisis op het Continent: Huurlingen Steunen
Rebellen Burundi”, de Volkskrant, September 25, 1996, accessed on 15 June, 2010,
http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article694237.ece/Zuid-Afrikaans_bedrijf_ziet_brood_in_crises_op_het_continent_Huurlingen_steunen_rebellen_Bur undi.
eastern Germany. 38 This company is a weapons dealer that delivers weapons around the globe, including to regimes in South America and Africa. 39
Because of the massive sale of excess weapons and materials, private military companies were able to expand rapidly into large companies that could be active in multiple areas and have a larger presence. This also led to companies such as Sandline, Armorgroup and Blackwater to have a more advance army than smaller nations in Africa and South America. The services that these companies were now able to offer were more varied and advanced than armies in poor countries in Africa and South Africa. Before Executive Outcomes became part of the Sandline group, they were considered as the most capable and advanced army on the African continent, only behind South Africa’s national army.
The flood of cheap weapons and personnel meant PMC’s were able to be active in multiple areas. A company could offer their services to the FARC in Columbia, while at the same time be fighting on the frontlines of Congo. This greatly inflated the influence PMC’s had in the security industry.
Inability of the United Nations and Western States to Act
The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of a period of great instability with the release of numerous conflicts that were kept suppressed by the great powers. When this suppression was let go, conflicts blossomed. The former superpowers did not feel obliged to step in and take their responsibility. This was due to their focus on their own internal problems, after a 40-year period of danger. Besides the Gulf War, the United States felt it needed to focus on its internal issues. The responsibility of the former super powers was not only military wise, but also financial. When financial aid to the countries in Africa and Asia stopped, they were unable to maintain internal stability. This lead to rebel forces and other oppressive movements to able to start their fighting.
The United Nations failed to anticipate this problem. States who turned to the United Nations for assistance were met with inadequate response. This was due to the
38 Otfried Nassauer, “An Army Surpluss – The NVA’s Haritage,” Bonn Interntional Center for Conversion, http://www.bicc.de/uploads/pdf/publications/briefs/brief03/brief3.pdf.
inability of the United Nations to operate as a peacekeeping force. Because the United Nations is highly politicalized, it is extremely difficult to come to a mutual understanding and understanding. Conflicts in interest between states and the voluntary nature of peacekeeping operations hampered the United States in being a forceful and strike full institution.
States were not likely to send their soldiers to areas of conflict where they do not have a clear interest in. 40 This means that any loss of a soldier in a foreign area not critical to the save being of the home state will meet a lot resistance at home. A prominent example of this was the failed interference by the United States in Somalia. Their peacekeeping efforts in the Somalian capitol Mogadishu resulted in the loss of lives on American side, and led to the retreat of the United States. 41 This disaster, the most prominent military failure since Vietnam, led to the pullback of American interventionist politics.
Change in Warfare
The failed interference in Somalia also marked a shift in the type of warfare. Earlier conflicts revolved around two sides big standing armies, wielding massive amounts of equipment and trying to make a big impact. But Somalia marked a shift. Here, the enemy did not have a large army with sophisticated weapons and machinery. Instead it relied on guerilla warfare as its mode of operandi. And of instead being fueled by only a dictator with financial benefits on its minds, the guerilla warriors were extremely passionate about the reason they were fighting. It marked a shift to a more ideological based warfare. This also enabled warriors to have a bigger impact with less manpower and financial resources. It showed that one did not have to possess enormous amounts of capital to make an impact, an indication of the way Al-Qaida and other jihadist organizations would work.
40 Singer, 59.
41 Donatella Lorch “Last of the U.S. Troops Leave Somalia; What Began as a Mission of
Mercy Closes With Little Ceremony,” The New York Times, March 26, 1994, accessed on
This presented all sort of problems for traditional armies such as the United States. It marked a shift in warfare that would become predominant in the years to come, and with the struggles and problems in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result.
This shift towards a different type of warfare marked a period in which private military companies became an important force. These companies proved to be able to adapt rapidly to the changing battle scene. Because these companies are smaller (although this is changing now) and are most cost effective, they are able to react quicker to changing situations. PMC’s are not tied to a massive bureaucratic system, which enables them to be more agile in response to situations.
Additionally, the increase in technology also enabled PMC’s to become an important player on the battlefield. Because increase in technology requires massive funds, smaller countries or rebel forces are not able to invest in new technology. Instead, they turn to PMC’s for their expertise. PMC’s are able to become an expertise in one specific field and focus all their resources on this area. For example, air reconnaissance or digital warfare are specific subjects that require great invest. They are able to lease out this expertise to private parties. These changes in technology is termed “Revolution in Military Affairs”, a term frequently linked to private military companies. 42 Even though advanced technology has played a major role in recent warfare, the struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan show that technology is not the only parameter for a successful struggle. Becoming too dependent on technology might lead to deterioration on the social aspect of warfare (winning the hearts and minds). These issues will be discussed further in chapter 3 when I will discuss the ideas that Clausewitz had with the social aspect of warfare and the use of private military companies.
Privatizing the industry
The end of the Cold War not only let to a revolution in warfare, but also brought the capitalistic market system around the world. The communist system had proven unsuccessful by the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and these states turned to the capitalist system. In England, Margaret Thatcher was one of the leading forces behind the
privatization revolution. Their success was a role model for the route the IMF and World Bank took. 43 During the 90’s, the privatization revolution accelerated and a lot of traditional governmental industries were privatized. This was due to the idea that the economy had to run more efficient. It started with industries such as postal services, garbage collection and later turned to running state prisons and national private security. This was not just exclusive to western states. Third world countries also started to privatize their industries, but sometimes went further than in western world. Some countries privatized their tax collection and their whole military industry. This opened the door for PMC’s who saw the opportunities, which were created. Along with internal instability in the region and opposing factions, it created fruitful situation for PMC’s to offer their expertise, equipment and manpower.
The move to privatization of the warfare industry was a small step from there.44 It led to a flood of knowledge and technical know-how from governmental positions to the private industry, were a lot more money was to be made. This has resulted towards a situation where national armies need outside help from these privatized companies to maintain their weapons, vehicles and bases.
Along with the privatization revolution came globalization. Numerous big companies in the United States outsourced their business to more profitable regions. Of these companies were also major players in the military industry. This privatization and outsourcing trend also meant that the step from privatization of the industry towards privatization of war was a quick one. 45
Corporations of War
Big companies saw the profit that was to be made in the war industry. This has lead to mergers between big, traditional companies with smaller private military companies. For example, Halliburton has bought up numerous smaller PMC’s, as well as Wackenhut and the newly formed Aegis. These companies are publicly traded companies and have to answer to their investors and shareholders. Here lies a problem with legitimacy. These large corporations have profit motivations, as this is the nature
43 Singer, 67. 44 Singer, 66.
45 Ian Traynor, “The Privatization of War,” The Guardian, December 10, 2003, accessed on
of private businesses. But when their business is creating security in unstable areas, a conflict arises. When an area is secure and there is no need for any more involvement from PMC’s, there is no work for them. PMC’s are less likely to promote a situation where a state is capable of maintaining its own internal stability. 46 This is adversative to their primary function: profit generation. Clausewitz has discussed it indirectly for this development, and warned for the confusion between means and goals. This development is discussed in chapter four, and deals with the confusion in the nature of war.
Conclusion
One can come to the conclusion that the current private military company sector has become a booming industry that employs thousands of former soldiers and generates billions of dollars. While history has never seen a period with the complete removal of mercenary activity, the period after the end of the Cold War marked the prominent presence of PMC’s in conflict regions.
The end of the Cold War brought stability between the United States and former Soviet Union, but lead to the destabilizing of regions in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and Asia. Conflicts were released in these regions that were previously kept suppressed by the two superpowers during the Cold War. The nature of these released conflicts were different from former conflicts. The main actors in these conflicts were not clearly identifiable as before; this was due to the conflicts revolving around narcotics trade, areas containing valuable resources or ethnic conflicts. Western states were not prepared to deal with these types of conflicts and the will to intervene was also not present.
This opened up possibilities for private military companies. After the Cold War ended, there was an enormous release of former soldiers and weapons material. This enabled private military companies to expand relatively cheap. Expertise flooded from traditional government organizations into private organizations, because (financial) rewards were higher here. This was also in part due to the privatization and globalization revolution that started in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher
46 W. Reno, “Internal Wars, Private Enterprise and the Shift in Strong State State-Weak State
and soon spread around the world. Traditional government responsibilities (such as postal services, health care, prisons, weapons manufacturing) were transferred to the private sector, because it was believed to be more efficient. The step towards privatizing parts of the military was a small one.
The United Nations proved to be inadequate to contain the released conflicts. Because of the bureaucratic nature of the organization and conflicts interests of member nations, it was almost completely paralyzed from being effective. This enabled private military companies to fill the gap, and it proved to be a successful move. PMC’s became a booming business, working for not only governments but also private parties such as non-governmental organizations, multinationals, rebels and disposed governments and dictators.
PMC’s started to become prominent players in areas that were previously assigned to governmental institutions. Under the denominator of privatization, the PMC industry was a $100 billion dollar industry, and is expected to have doubled this in 2010. 47 Questions have arisen as to where these developments are leading, or have already led to. The state’s monopoly on violence, as claimed by Max Weber, is becoming indistinct. PMC’s are involved in violent conflicts, in both defensive as offensive roles. Numerous incidents have led to public outcry, but the presence of PMC’s keeps rising. Legitimacy issues have arisen. Clausewitz puts force exclusively under the state and law “… moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law …” 48
Clausewitz has also warned against the confusion between the means and goals of fighting a war. With the active role of PMC’s in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems that this confusion has arisen. The means, occupation and fighting out opponents, has become the goal. These are issues are discussed in chapter four.
47 Esther Schrader, “Companies Capitalize on War On Terror,” Los Angeles Times, April 14
2002, accessed on 3 august 2010.
Chapter 4 – Blackwater USA – A profile
Introduction
In order for a better understanding of the role of PMCs in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will be the subject of the research in chapter 5, it is necessary to gain an insight into the workings of an actual private military company. For this chapter I have chosen Blackwater Worldwide (who are currently named Xe Services, more on this later). I have chosen this company because of their reputation and prominent presence in the field of private security. There have been numerous controversies surrounding Blackwater in Iraq, with the result that they have been formally banned by the Iraqi government since January 2009. However, this does not mean they are not still active throughout the region.
The following chapter will discuss the origins of Blackwater Worldwide, with most notably the role of Blackwater godfather Erik Prince. Connections with the republic party and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were catalysts that helped Blackwater to grow into the company that they are today. Furthermore, the role of Blackwater in hostile areas will be explained, as well as their more ‘noble’ roles during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Additionally, the controversies surrounding Blackwater will be discussed. This will help as a basis for further discussion in chapter five, when the events will be related to Clausewitz’s theory.
Beginnings
The company Erik Prince founded in 1996, Blackwater USA, can be seen as the ultimate result of the privatization revolution that took place after the end of the Cold War. 49
Born in Holland, Michigan, Erik Prince grew up in a wealthy, right wing Christian family. His father, Edgar D. Prince, had acquired his wealth through several car related inventions, the most prominent being the lighted sun-visor, a commodity seen
in every car. 50 This led to an enormous wealth for the Prince family, and would serve as the financial base for the start of Blackwater.
After his father died, Erik Prince decided to invest a part of his inheritance into his dream he talked about with his fellow marines, when he was still in the Navy SEALS. This dream was to build a big, state-of-the-art training facility where law enforcement agents, soldiers and other security personnel could train with the best instructors and with the best equipment. The thought about the location where he could start his dream, and his decision was critical for the success of the company: he would start Blackwater right next door to Washington D.C. and the CIA headquarters in Moyock, North Carolina. Here he bought a huge piece of swamp, around five thousand acres and was known for its black water. 51
Business was good for Erik Prince and his Blackwater training facility. As soon as the site opened with high tech equipment, shooting ranges and conference rooms, law enforcement agents from all layers flocked to the site. From Navy SEALS, to FBI agents, from the Secret Service to ordinary cops, they were all content with the facilities offered by Blackwater, in part because of the private and secluded location of the compound. Its reputation spread out, and it was soon that it was regarded as the best facility in the field. 52 This landed their first contract with the American government: a contract to be an official training facility for government institutions. This first contract would lead to a prosperous future for Blackwater. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 would be the major turning point for Blackwater. Al Clark, one of the original founders of Blackwater alongside Erik Prince was quoted saying: “Osama bin Laden turned Blackwater into what it is today.” 53
The most known aspect of Blackwater, providing mercenaries, was born when Blackwater Security Consulting was formally formed in 2002.
In 2002, Erik Prince founded a new branch within Blackwater, namely Blackwater Security Consulting. This would be the most notorious branch of Blackwater, which would provide mercenary activities to the government and private companies. This
50 Scahill, 4-7. 51 Ibid., 32-3. 52 Ibid., 34.
branch was lead by former CIA operative Jamie Smith. The CIA connection would prove to be a fruitful connection. As soon as the consulting branch started, Blackwater was making hundreds of thousands of dollars from ‘black’ CIA contracts. These were contracts that were not revealed to the public, and details are still sketchy today. But what is known it had to do with the preparations for the upcoming invasion Iraq. In April 2002, it received its first public contract. This was also a CIA contract and dealt with the security of the CIA headquarter in Kabul, Afghanistan. 54
Security in Iraq
It was the invasion of Iraq, which made Blackwater famous in the private contracting industry. They received the contract to guard Paul Bremer, the newly appointed Ambassador of Iraq. Being the most threatened person in Iraq, he received a heavy security detail that included attack helicopters, armored vehicles and dozens of bodyguards, both Americans as well as foreign. Blackwater delivered all of these measures. 55 This meant that a private military company was in charge of one of the most key aspects during the beginning of the occupation of Iraq: keeping Paul Bremer alive. 56 It placed a PMC right at the center action and gave it a task that would traditionally been given to a government agency.
The security detail of Paul Bremer would become known for its Yankee style appearance. Sporting t-shirts and visible tattoo’s, the bodyguards terrorized the local population with their behavior. Aggressive driving and hovering fighter helicopters intimidated the locals, and it was not before long when Blackwater became notorious for their antics.
The prestigious contract for the protection of Bremer led to more contracts for Blackwater from not only government agencies, but also commercial companies. It showed how high-profile Blackwater was and that hiring PMCs proved useful. It opened up the way for numerous PMCs in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the most prominent being DynCorp, Control Risk Group, Aegis, Armorgroup and Triple
54 Scahill, 45. 55 Ibid., 47.
