Thoughts on Private Security Firms

This week’s reading, “Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics,” by Rita Abrahamsen and Michael Williams was of particular personal interest because of my dealings with private security firms in my professional life. Years ago, I served as a military contracting officer in Afghanistan and was part of a team responsible for contracting Afghani security firms/personnel to help protect US bases within the country. The discussions my team and I had about awarding security contracts to Afghani companies were related to some of the issues detailed by Abrahamsen and Williams. The authors cite success stories tied to private security firms in Africa, but I’d like to look at how private firms have the potential to be less effective than a government sponsored security unit.

From my experience in Afghanistan, I’m of the belief private security firms are not always as capable as government sponsored units. My point of view stems from the contracts my team was responsible for. Many of our private security contracts were issued to Afghani firms composed of properly vetted Afghani personnel who had spent their whole lives living around the base they were assigned to help protect. This creates an interesting dynamic since those who want to attack a particular base would have also likely grown up and spent their whole lives close to the base. To me, it would seem difficult for a security guard to arrest or use deadly force on a “bad guy” who may have very well grown up a few homes down from the guard. This type of dynamic would not likely give anyone under the protection of an Afghani security firm a warm and fuzzy feeling. Granted this type of scenario may be rare for most firms, but it shows just one risk in trusting the capabilities and motivations of guards working outside the realm of government control.

Our Afghani guards were also often late and not vigilant while on post. This stemmed from the fact that their interests weren’t directly aligned with that of the people who hired them (the US military in this case). Some of the guards were just after a paycheck and had no vested interest in the success of the base they were assigned to protect. This type of mentality is another risk for government reliance on private security firms. A state’s willingness to give up some of their national security sovereignty to a security firm with interests not aligned with their own can certainly have negative consequences. 

I fully realize the rise in the use of private security firms around the world isn’t going to slow down, and despite the examples I gave, I do believe they can be effective. As shown by Abrahamsen and Williams, they can often be an incredibly useful tool for governments. I can even cite other personal examples from Afghanistan where private security firms proved useful. However, I believe they must be used responsibly and not to excess. There has to be certain instances where governments insist on using their own forces rather than issuing a contract. Governments around the world need to identify which aspects of their security are able to be contracted out and which ones MUST stay inherently governmental.