Abstract
Whereas the values, attitudes, and motivations of soldiers serving in their countries' armed forces have been widely studied, to date we know very little about the motivations and occupational self-perceptions of individuals working for the private security industry. Using data obtained through an online survey, this article explores the values and attitudes of more than 200 private contractors with law enforcement backgrounds and operational experience providing armed security services in conflict regions. Contrary to media-dominating images of ruthless, money-grabbing mercenaries, respondents in our sample displayed attitudes comparable to those of military professionals, adhering to high levels of professionalism and ethical conduct and motivated largely by altruistic factors.
Keywords
Introduction
While President Obama pledged to withdraw military forces from Iraq, the Multi-National Force-Iraq awarded $485 million in contracts in August 2009 to five private security firms to provide security for U.S. bases. The use of security contractors has boomed since the war in Iraq began in the spring of 2003. In 2008, an estimated 30,000 contractors provided armed security services in Iraq. 1 Indeed, outsourcing increasingly dominates military operations, as private actors motivated by profit are believed to be more efficient and effective than public actors motivated by a more diffuse sense of the common good. 2 However, the profit motive may get in the way of a company’s—and by extension their employees'—commitment to serving a greater good. For instance, accounts of human rights abuses and shooting incidents involving contractors have called into question the merits of outsourcing security functions to the private sector and the suitability of some of the contractors hired to fulfill those functions. 3
To date, we know very little about the people who sign on with private security firms. In this article, we explore the values and attitudes of private security contractors based on the result of an online survey administered to more than 200 American security contractors with operational experience in the provision of armed security services. 4 Respondents in our sample were law enforcement officers who had joined a U.S.-based security firm and completed at least one tour of duty on contract with the Department of State in a conflict region. Since contractors assume roles traditionally reserved for military professionals, we employed a number of value-scales previously used in cognitive research examining the values and attitudes of officers and soldiers. Specifically, the survey employed scales designed to assess respondents' levels of patriotism (PAT), warriorism (WAR), Machiavellianism (MACH), social dominance orientation (SDO), masculinity (MAS), job engagement (JOB), and support for regulatory provisions about their ethical conduct (ETH).
After a brief overview over the evolution of the private security sector, its public image and the attitudes and motivations reported to be shaping the provision of nonmilitary security services, we present the results of our data analysis and conclude with some recommendations for the future of outsourcing security functions to the private sector and the utility of using contractors in peace and stability operations.
The Private Security Sector: Image and Attitudes
Throughout history, states have hired outsiders to fight their battles. “In some eras,” Singer argued, “these private entrants into conflict were individual foreigners, brought in to fight for whichever side bid the highest, known as ‘mercenaries' in common parlance. In other periods, they came in the form of highly organized entities. For both, the important factor was their goal: private profit, derived from the very act of fighting.” 5
Traditionally, civilian contractors have been employed by the U.S. military to supplement or support, but not deliver, combat functions. In the current Iraq and Afghanistan operations, however, contract employees increasingly also serve in quasi-combat roles, protecting fixed sites such as oil pipelines, military bases, or government buildings or providing convoy security or personal security detail. As of September 2009, there were 12,684 private security contractors in Iraq, of which 11,162 were armed (88%). According to the Department of Defense, the number of armed security contractors had increased by 140% from 5,481 in September 2007 to 13,232 in June 2009. 6 In Afghanistan, the increase is even more pronounced. Between December 2008 and September 2009, the number of armed security contractors increased by 236% from 3,184 to 10,712. 7
A number of industry observers have attributed the boom in the privatization of security functions to rising demand for the provision of security services in the rapidly expanding field of peace and stability operations. With the end of the cold war, militaries were downsized, investments in the “peace dividend” rose, global threats became “more varied, more capable, and more dangerous.” 8 Given large budget cuts and accompanying force reductions, the emerging need for international interventions to curb civil war, ethnic strife, and genocide, and a rapidly growing demand by weak or besieged governments for contracted fighting services, “it seems only rational for private groups to fill the pressing security gap left by governments.” 9
To meet this growing demand for security services, a number of security firms began to actively recruit former soldiers and police officers to deploy to the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other postconflict countries. Especially during the initial stages of a peacebuilding operation, the provision of protective and security services is paramount to the successful stabilization of war-torn societies. The need for attitudes and skill sets in civil-conflict stabilization and nation-building different from those employed in traditional warfighting has been widely documented in these pages. 10 Moskos, Williams, and Segal argued that postmodern military identity required a peculiar adaptation in the context of peace and stability operations characterized by five fundamental organizational traits: (a) increased coordination and communication between the civilian and military spheres; (b) a reduction of the rigid differences within the services regarding rank and combat versus service support roles; (c) a shift in understanding of the military’s purpose to include stabilization and peace operations; (d) the need to seek mission legitimacy from the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or other supranational organizations; and (e) the internationalization of military forces, as nations increasingly sought to build coalitions to solve international problems. 11 In a recent assessment of this postmodern military identity using a sample of American officers, Franke and Guttieri found overwhelming support for increased civil–military cooperation in both combat and noncombat operational settings, a clear recognition on the part of military professionals that the current purpose of the military must include stabilization and peace operations, and an endorsement for coordination with allies, international, nongovernmental, and other civilian actors in contemporary stability operations. 12
More and more, the military’s responsibilities in postconflict contexts include constabulary duties, leading to an increasing role convergence between soldiers and police officers. Campbell and Campbell attributed this role convergence in a recent study to: (a) the militarization of the police as a result of a rapid proliferation of police paramilitary units—that is, special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams—to address domestic threats posed by terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and transborder crime; and (b) the increased involvement of the military in “collaborative constabulary activities and in police training. Such collaborative involvement is not limited to the development and transfer of useful military skills, tactics, and procedures but also often involves the transfer of military attitudes and orientations.” 13
At the same time, Campbell and Campbell hypothesized a constabularization of the military in which “the soldier’s traditional ‘war-fighter’ job is also undergoing significant changes, requiring him or her to assume roles in peacebuilding deployments ‘more aligned with police work than soldier work.’” 14 Of course, already half-a-century ago Morris Janowitz had predicted that soldiers might reject those less-honorable police-like duties. 15 And the Campbells confirmed: “The argument here is that an army’s ability to win wars rests on its ability to use maximum coercion, including lethal violence; and this requirement is diametrically opposed to the constabulary commitment to use minimum force.” 16 As a logical consequence and in an effort to demilitarize peacebuilding, the U.S. Government outsources many of the police-like armed security duties to the private sector which, in turn, contracts individuals with military or law enforcement experience, offering them salaries that dwarf basic military or police pay.
Some observers have argued that the prospective of extraordinary monetary gain was a central motivator for individuals to sign on with these firms. 17 Indeed, private security firms pay considerably higher wages than does the military at the comparable skill level/rank. In the early days of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, for instance, a security contractor could reportedly earn between U.S. $500 and $750 per day. 18 Although pay-scales have decreased since those early days, sufficiently skilled contractors from Western countries are still assumed to be paid between U.S. $3,000 and $6,000 a month, with additional allowances of up to U.S. $2,000 when working in particularly dangerous areas. 19 Clearly, “when a guy can make more money in one month than he can make all year in the military or in a civilian job, it’s hard to turn down,” explained one of the original founders of the now defunct North Carolina-based security firm Blackwater USA. 20 Not least due to their comparatively high wages, many commentators have likened individual security contractors to greedy, ruthless, and unscrupulous mercenaries, “freelance soldiers … who, for large amounts of money, fight for dubious causes.” 21
Media reports of alleged human rights violations further accentuated the image of security contractors as amoral mercenaries. For example, employees of two firms offering translation and interrogation services to the U.S. military were reportedly implicated in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, 22 and a number of reports drew attention to sexual harassment, and even rape, committed by male contractors either against female colleagues or local Iraqis. 23 The most serious allegations of human rights violations, however, concern shooting incidents. To date, the most widely reported case occurred on September 16, 2007, when Blackwater security guards, while escorting a U.S. diplomatic convoy, engaged in a firefight in crowded Nisour Square in the heart of Baghdad City that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.
Although Blackwater claimed that the shooting had started in response to an ambush against the convoy, eyewitnesses and U.S. military officials at the scene testified that the firing had commenced without hostile provocation. 24 In its investigation of the Nisour Square shooting, the FBI concluded that at least 14 out of the 17 shootings were unjustified and that Blackwater guards had “recklessly violated American rules for the use of lethal force.” Although certainly one of the bloodiest, the Nisour Square shooting was by no means an isolated incident. A congressional investigation in its aftermath revealed that “Blackwater has been involved in at least 195 ‘escalation of force’ incidents in Iraq since 2005 that involved the firing of shots by Blackwater forces.” 25
Given the severity of these allegations, not surprisingly, industry expert David Isenberg recently observed: “Nowadays, people tend to label anyone who carries a gun while not a member of the regular military establishment a mercenary. Such people are supposedly uncontrollable rogues who commit unspeakable atrocities and wreak havoc.” 26
Almost 10 years ago, Mandel already concluded in these pages that “critics see all privatized security services as involving rabid mercenary ‘dogs of war,’ who exploit violence for personal gain, serve as agents for unsavory powers, or happily promote repression, turmoil, and human rights violations.” In contrast to industry critics, however, “many private security service providers see themselves as just another business fulfilling client needs in a manner requiring no special attention, and government officials often privately voice a strong belief that privatized security provides stability and saves lives in areas where nothing else would do the trick.” 27 This raises the question of whether and to what extent security contractors of today are similar to the mercenaries of old, motivated by adventure, testosterone, and prospects of monetary gain, or resemble a new breed of professionals providing armed security services in the gray zone between combat and peacebuilding?
Using data from a survey of some 200 American security contractors with law enforcement background and operational experience in at least one conflict region, we test the following hypotheses, derived directly from the discussion above: Contractor motivation: If the image of the profit-seeking mercenary that has dominated media reporting of the industry for more than a decade prevails, respondents should be motivated primarily by adventure, excitement, and profit. Contractor attitudes: If contemporary security contractors indeed resemble the image of the classical mercenary, we would expect them to display high levels of WAR, MAS, self-interest, and social dominance. At the same time, we would not expect them to be overly patriotic or show much concern for ethical behavior.
Data Analysis and Findings
The initial intent of this research was to examine the attitudes and value-orientations of a broad range of contractors working for private security firms providing armed security services in postconflict settings. Because of contractual prohibitions, we were not able to survey contractors currently deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, we administered our Security Contractor Survey to the members of the CivPol Alumni Organization, a nonprofit organization founded in 2007 to “promote the accomplishments of American police officers serving in post-conflict environments throughout the world.” 28 Active members of the CivPol Alumni Association are typically American police officers who have completed at least one tour of duty on contract in a conflict region. Usually, these police officers receive a leave of absence from their regular jobs and are recruited by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to participate in international civilian police activities and local police development programs in countries around the world.
At the time of survey administration, the CivPol Alumni Association sponsored some 1,400 active members, all of whom received an e-mail from the Association President with an Internet link to the Security Contractor Survey and a request to complete the survey online at their convenience. With this approach, it was impossible for the researchers to identify respondents, thus ensuring the anonymity of all information provided on the survey. Between March and May of 2009, 355 active CivPol Alumni Association members followed the e-mail link and responded to at least part of the survey (a 25 percent response rate). In all, 223 respondents answered every question on the Survey and were included in our response sample for data analysis.
All respondents in the CivPol sample were U.S. citizens with a law enforcement background and the vast majority were male (216 or 96.9%), White (77.5%), and married (77.1%). All respondents had completed at least high school (34.5%) and almost half (49.8%) held undergraduate and 15.7% held graduate degrees. Almost two thirds (136 or 61.5%) of respondents had served in the military and four-in-five out of those (108) had been directly involved in combat. Of the respondents with a military background, almost all had served as enlisted personnel (95%) and nearly three fourths (71%) were discharged at the ranks of E4–E6 (corporal or sergeant). Although comparing respondents with prior military service to those who had not served in armed forces revealed higher levels of PAT (see below) for the former, no other statistically significant differences were found as a result of prior military service. Similarly, length of employment in the private security sector did not reveal significant differences in respondents' attitudes and values. Therefore, we did not conduct any further tests comparing respondents in terms of their prior military service or length of employment in the private security sector.
At the time of survey administration, respondents had an average of 4.7 years of experience working for the private security industry, with a median of 3 years. About one quarter of respondents (23.7%) had less than 2 years of private security work experience, 44.9% had worked 2–5 years, 23.7% had worked 5–10 years, and 16 respondents (7.7%) had worked for more than 10 years in the private security sector. Almost one third of respondents (69 or 30.9%) reported that their job required them to “engage in actual fighting/security detail or security protection” and more than three quarters (171 or 76.7%) reported providing advisory and training services (multiple responses were possible to this question).
Values and Attitudes
In order to assess their value-orientations and attitudes, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with 61 separate statements. Responses were scored on a five-point numerical Likert scale (from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”) and mean response values were calculated. Survey items measuring the same concept were combined into separate scales and mean scale values were computed. 29 The following seven scales were adapted from earlier research examining the identity and self-conception of military professionals (the exact wording of the scale items can be found in Table 1 ): 30
Contractor Values and Attitudes
Warriorism
In his classic 1957 analysis of “The Soldier and the State,” Samuel Huntington found that soldiers typically believed in the permanence, irrationality, weakness, and evil in human nature and argued that the traditional warrior believed in the inevitability of war, tended to be skeptical of international law and organizations as effective instruments for preventing war and only hesitantly accepted civilian control over the armed forces. 31 To measure their level of WAR, respondents were asked for their attitudes toward the military’s warfighting and peacekeeping roles, their own expectations to fight in a war, and the personal satisfaction they expected to gain from participating in warfighting and peacekeeping missions.
Patriotism
National attachment and patriotic motivations have been primary reasons for young people to pursue military careers and for enlisted personnel to make sense of their mission assignments. 32 To measure PAT in our sample, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements concerning their allegiance and loyalty to the United States and their attitudes toward serving and fighting for their country.
Machiavellianism
Following the writings of Machiavelli, Christie and Geis developed a series of hypothetical personality traits that someone who is highly self-interested and effective in controlling others (high MACH) should possess, among them a relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships, little concern with conventional morality, and a focus on getting things done. 33 To measure their levels of MACH, respondents were asked about a number of moral and ethical perceptions.
Job engagement
Psychological research has shown that individuals who view their job as an integral part of their identity will feel a personal commitment to doing well and, consequently, tend to perform better. 34 To get a sense of their JOB, respondents were asked about their commitment to and investment in their job and their investment in their job performance.
Social dominance orientation
Consistent with social identity theory, individuals create social categories and positive social identities primarily by comparing in-groups with out-groups along those dimensions most likely to generate a favorable outcome for the in-group/in-groups. 35 At the individual level, Sidanius and Liu labeled this predisposition “social dominance orientation” (SDO) that is “the degree to which a person desires to establish and maintain the superiority of his or her own group over other groups.” 36 To measure SDO among contractors in our sample, respondents were asked about their attitudes toward group hierarchies and equal treatment of groups.
Masculinity
Propensity for violence has often been correlated with high levels of MAS. For instance, Rosen, Knudson, and Fancher found expressions of hypermasculinity to be associated with military life and reinforced in male-only settings. 37 Given the high-risk, male-only context of armed security provision, we would expect contractors to display elevated levels of aggression, dominance, adventure, and risk-taking. These elements were the basis for the Brannon Masculinity Scale, a shortened version of which was used to assess the level of MAS among contractors in the present sample. 38
Ethical conduct
To further explore respondents' ethical perceptions—and to supplement the results of the MACH scale—respondents were asked about their attitudes toward respect for and enforcement of international law and human rights and conduct based on integrity, honesty, and fairness. 39
Results
Warriorism
Although the vast majority of respondents believed that “sometimes war is necessary to protect the national interest” (W2: 92.4%), that “the military’s primary focus should be preparation for and conduct of combat operations” (W4: 77%), and that war is inherent in human nature (W5: 71.8%), almost two thirds did not expect “to engage in actual fighting” when they decided to sign on with a security firm (W1: 60.5%).
Patriotism
Almost every respondent (96.0%) viewed his/her work as a security contractor “as a ‘calling’ where I can serve my country” (P1) and eight-in-ten (83.0%) agreed that citizens should show strong allegiance to their country (P3) and be willing to fight for their country (P4). However, the majority of respondents (50.2%) disagreed that “the strongest indicator of good citizenship is performance of military service in defense of one’s country” (P5).
Machiavellianism
Despite the strong belief about the inevitability of war (W5), the majority of respondents in our sample showed altruistic attitudes and a positive view of human nature: between half and three quarters disagreed that “it is hard to get ahead without cutting corners” (M6), “people won’t work unless they are forced to” (M2), “people have a vicious streak” (M5), and “anyone who completely trust anyone else is asking for trouble” (M4).
Job engagement
Virtually all respondents were committed to performing well at their job (J1), cared about the outcomes resulting from their job performance (J4), and invested a large part of themselves into their job performance (J5).
Social dominance orientation
In all, respondents showed low levels of SDO, overwhelmingly believing in the equality of social groups and in equalizing conditions for different groups (S1–S9).
Masculinity
Respondents showed average levels of MAS (with mean scores right around 3.0 on a five-point scale), with three quarters of them stating they were not bothered “when a man does something that I consider feminine” (A6) and one third disagreeing that a man should “look somewhat tough” (A4) and that men should “not show pain” (A8).
Ethical conduct
Virtually everyone in our sample agreed that it was important to “respect the dignity of all human beings and adhere to relevant international law” (E1), to “minimize loss of life and destruction of property” (E2), to investigate violations of human rights and humanitarian law (E4), and to take action against unlawful activities (E5). Literally every respondent agreed that “integrity, honesty and fairness are key guiding principles for anyone deployed in a contingency operation” (E3). Despite adherence to these high ethical standards, fewer than half (49.6%) agreed that “one should take action only when it is morally right” (M3), while nearly one third (32.4%) disagreed. Further research should specifically explore the seeming paradox between adherence to general ethical principals and exceptions for ethic behavior/moral actions.
Motivation
In addition to their occupational attitudes, respondents were also asked to indicate in order of priority what motivated them to seek employment with a security firm from a set of nine predetermined choices (see Table 2 ). For the purpose of this analysis, we aggregated responses and classified a respondent’s top three choices as “very important,” choices 4–6 as “important,” and the last three choices as “less or not important.”
Most Important Reasons for Working as a Security Contractor (In Percent)
Contrary to media-generated expectations of profit motivation, only one quarter (25.2%) of respondents indicated that they were motivated by the fact that they could “make more money than in their previous job” and fewer than one-in-five (19.1%) listed “adventure and excitement” as among the most important reasons for signing on with the private security industry. Instead, in our sample of contractors, by far the most often cited reasons for working in the security sector were to “face and meet new challenges” (74.9%) and to “help others” (64.6%). About one third of respondents hoped that their work would make a difference (38.0%) and saw their contractor service as a way to serve their country (31.3%).
Correlating respondents' motivations for employment in the security field with their value orientations, as measured by their mean scale scores, did not render any statistically significant differences, suggesting a fairly balanced, professional, and homogeneous cohort of respondents. For instance, observing significant differences in terms of the WAR, MACH, or SDO scores of respondents for whom “seeking adventure and excitement” was very important to those for whom adventure and excitement was less or not important might have supported the commonly held view that contractors are primarily in it for the money, seeking a “well-paying, high-risk, adrenaline-packed thrill ride.” 40 Moreover, the fact that three-in-four respondents were motivated by new challenges, but only one-in-five sought adventure and excitement further suggests that respondents in our sample did not derive their primary gratification from behavior associated with mercenary-type activities.
By contrast, our findings suggest that signing on with the security industry is not all about the pay. Similarly, Scahill also found that contracting offered “a chance for many combat enthusiasts, retired from the service and stuck in the ennui of everyday existence, to return to their glory days on the battlefield under the banner of the international fight against terrorism.” As one former Navy SEAL interviewed by Scahill explained, “It’s what you do. Say you spent twenty years doing things like riding high-speed boats and jumping out of airplanes. Now, all of a sudden, you’re selling insurance. It’s tough.” For a 55-year-old police officer, the decision to sign on with Blackwater meant “the last chance in my life to do something exciting.” 41
Discussion and Conclusion
With more contractors than military personnel currently operating in Iraq and Afghanistan and with a sizeable number of them performing roles traditionally reserved for military professionals, we set out to explore the values and attitudes of individuals working for the private security industry. At the heels of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the Nisour Square shootings, much of the media reports and the academic research that has accompanied the rapid rise of the private security industry, has portrayed contractors as money-grabbing, gun-toting, thrill-seeking Rambo-type mercenaries with little to no moral inhibitions or concern for ETH. To date, however, there has been no systematic analysis of the values and attitudes that motivate private security contractors and inform their occupational self-conception.
Our findings, based on a small sample of security contractors with law enforcement background who have completed at least one deployment with a security firm providing armed security in a conflict region, reveal a picture of the self-conception and attitudes of contractors quite different from the image dominating the media. Overall, respondents in our sample showed only very few significant attitudinal differences, a result certainly in part attributable to the homogeneous nature of the sample. From the data at hand, it is impossible to determine the extent to which the members of the CivPol Alumni Association are representative of contractors with different personal or professional backgrounds or of the industry as a whole. Consequently, we are unable to generalize our findings beyond the population of U.S.-American contractors with professional backgrounds in law enforcement. Future research should broaden the scope of the analysis by targeting subjects with different demographic, professional, national, and cultural backgrounds and from different firms working for a range of contracting agencies to assess the generalizability of the results presented here.
Despite these limitations, we can still draw some interesting conclusions. Contrary to expectations raised by the media, only one quarter of respondents in our sample stated that they were highly motivated to seek employment in the private security field by prospects of monetary gain. Moreover, only one-in-five cited “seeking adventure and excitement” as a prime motivator for their professional choice. Instead, respondents overwhelmingly mentioned the opportunity to face and meet new challenges and to help others as most important motivators. Consistent with earlier qualitative findings that many contractors wished to be “proud” of what they did, to do “something worthwhile,” to help other people, 42 our quantitative results suggest that there is a strong interest on the part of the contractors to be considered professionals in the provision of security. These findings, in conjunction with contractors' high levels of JOB and satisfaction and their identification with constabulary roles, reflect a professional commitment to police-like functions, but less so to warrior-like combat or peace enforcement roles. Moreover, our findings indicate that contractors in our sample did not view themselves as, nor did they want to be compared to, classical mercenaries. In fact, their law enforcement backgrounds seemed to prepare them well cognitively for constabulary roles and their strong adherence to ethical standards and high level of JOB indicate a high correlation between specialized skills and motivation for their operational responsibilities. This, in turn, may suggest a desire for the development of a corporate identity reflecting specialized skills in the provision of tactical security services in peace operations.
Although very much concerned with helping others—a sentiment consistent also with their low MACH and social dominance scores—almost all respondents viewed their work as security contractors as a “calling” to serve their country. Given the relatively large proportion of respondents in our sample with military background and combat experience, it is not surprising that respondents overall scored high on the PAT and WAR scales. In this respect, their scores were comparable to the scores of military professionals captured in earlier research. 43 Indeed, from the data at hand, it would appear that a large number of security contractors in our sample think of their current occupation as a logical continuation of their previous military and law enforcement careers.
Notwithstanding these findings, it is important to note that individuals' values and attitudes, as reflected in their responses to a survey, do not necessarily correspond to their actual behavior in the field. Behavior is always context-dependent and high scores on survey statements reflecting high moral standards may not guarantee ETH. Although a person might claim to respect human rights, in particular circumstances he (or she) may still behave unethically. Consequently, our findings cannot claim to make any statement with regard to actual behavior of contractors deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other conflict area. They merely illustrate the openly expressed attitudes and values of a self-select group of American security contractors with law enforcement backgrounds.
Nevertheless, these still preliminary results point to a desire for being recognized as professionals providing needed armed security services in the context of peace and stability operations alongside the military. At present, however, the lack of regulatory enforcement mechanisms combined with the highly fragmented nature of the industry, its multitude of firms, heterogeneous labor pool, and short-cycle deployment rotations have made it difficult for the industry to forge a common corporate identity through coherent and consistent professional socialization, training, and educational experiences. Although the nature of the operational tasks performed by armed contractors may encourage small group cohesion, it does not necessarily foster the development of a distinct professional identity. Unlike the military, there is no enforced conformity in all aspects of life for civilian contractors over an extended period of time that could forge such a common identity. 45
However, at a time when enforcement of industry regulations is still sporadic and inconsistent, recognizing the private security industry as a quasi-profession for the provision of tactical security services in postconflict stabilization contexts may boost the development of occupational control mechanisms and, in the long run, may allow for the strengthening of formal regulation. The private security industry is here to stay; recognizing it as a quasi-profession will likely enhance democratic control and accountability of a sector currently lacking effective regulation.
Footnotes
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was made possible in part through a small project grant provided by the German Foundation for Peace Research.