So listening to the radio out here in Berkeley one constantly hears righteous denunciations of Haliburtuon, their sub-sub-sub contractors Blackwater and the role of private companies in the Iraq occupation. Now there may be valid reasons to think that private military contractors are harmful but I’ve yet to hear anyone even really try. Instead the fact that private companies are performing military duties is usually cited as if it was an obvious harm itself. Even more puzzlingly one often hears a condemnation of the military contractors on the grounds that the Bush administration wouldn’t be able to support such a massive military presence in Iraq without them.

Trying to be charitable one might try and interpret these individuals as arguing that private military contractors are bad because the Iraq war is bad and they make it easier for the administration to extend the war. While this is a reasonable argument it is incompatible with the usual aim of those bringing up the role of private contractors in Iraq: to marshal further reasons to condemn the war. Moreover, it is in direct conflict with the accepted wisdom of where Bush went wrong in Iraq — entering the conflict without enough troops to stabilize the country. Also most demands for a prompt withdrawal are justified by the price being paid by our honorable young servicemen in Iraq (they certainly don’t present evidence that withdrawal would best serve the Iraqis). Presumably if your objection to the continuing occupation is that the costs to the US military is to high even if it might be somewhat beneficial to the Iraqis for us to stay longer you should welcome private contractors as they lighten the burden that our soldiers must bear¹.

Even more strangely much of the opposition to military contractors seems to focus on the fact that private companies are making a profit on the war. Part of this seems to result from the bizarre belief that since every contractor and subcontractor involved is making a profit somehow the American public must be getting a bad deal. This is tantamount to arguing that the federal and state governments should always build bridges themselves rather than contracting it out to private companies because those companies will be making a profit. At least those who note that the rate companies like Blackwater charge to supply troops are much higher than the wages of US troops are only being foolish not falling into simpleminded anti-profit bias. The military only hires companies like Blackwater when they actually need them and that flexibility demands a premium². All that really matters is whether the US army could hire more soldiers to take over these jobs at a cheaper rate than what companies like Haliburton and Blackwater charge and unless we plan on staying in Iraq for many many years this is highly unlikely³.

The worry that these companies now have a profit interest in the war is slightly more reasonable but seems inconsistently applied. When we use private air carriers to fly our troops over to staging areas or send wounded soldiers to private hospitals for treatment no one seems to worry about the profit interests of these companies. Moreover, the political influence of small mercenary companies like Blackwater is minuscule compared to that of companies like Lockhead and TWA and their interest isn’t continuing war but in increased funding for new military technology which the war in Iraq has curtailed.

Ultimately this whole issue perfectly illustrates how intellectually bankrupt the whole debate over the war really is. Those supporting a continued occupation seem more concerned with rhetoric about supporting the troops and not making their sacrifice meaningless (i.e. the sunk cost fallacy) rather than any evidence that the occupation is likely to pay off. Those demanding a pullout seem more interested in throwing together a bunch of emotional ploys (isn’t it horrible that we hire mercenaries) than in making a coherent argument. The war in Iraq is a perfect example of the sort of failure of public opinion “The Myth Of The Rational Voter” postulates. People take their positions because they have an emotional reaction to the war (support troops/repulsed by war) and it is more appealing to group up with others who have similar emotional reactions rather than actually consider the issues and potentially be forced to support something you find distasteful. Of course when people realize their decisions will really have massive effects on millions of lives (instead of just being something to bitch about over lunch) they tend to get a lot more serious which is why the congress (thankfully) can’t really bring itself to shut down the occupation.

Of course this isn’t to say their aren’t real concerns about the use of mercenaries but thankfully someone else has already written a nice post explaining why these are often overblown.