What Are Private Military Companies (PMCs), And Why Are They Controversial?

A photo showing Ugandan PMC soldiers undergoing training in Iraq in 2011.

Modern warfare in the 21st century has changed to something far beyond the simple battlefields and strategies of the past. Although state militaries play the most prominent role within conflicts, a new, more dangerous breed of combatant has emerged: Private Military Companies (PMCs). PMCs are private organizations that offer military services for hire to governments, corporations, and terrorist entities. The rapid growth and significance of PMCs make it the center of a controversial role within today’s political climate. 

Using hired soldiers to boost military power is not a new practice. From medieval mercenaries in Europe to privateers of the colonial era, non-state combatants have always played a role in warfare. The modern PMC industry developed after the Cold War, where the collapse of the Soviet Union left thousands of trained soldiers unemployed. This happened all while many Western nations were decreasing the size of their state armies. Despite the Cold War having ended, there were many global conflicts, particularly in West Asia and Africa, that created a need for military expertise and soldiers. 

An initial success of the PMC industry came from Executive Outcomes, one of the first modern PMCs, and it gained fame in the 1990s for stabilizing the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Angola. This achievement was significant, as for decades, even national armies and United Nations’ peacekeepers couldn’t achieve those results. Later, PMC firms like Blackwater, DynCorp, and Aegis Defence Services started to become used by even large nations like the United States, which utilized the help of PMCs for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001. These PMCs offered many services, including security for diplomats, intelligence, and even training for soldiers. 

Besides just basic military support, PMCs can also offer a wider, more specialized range of services. Simply put, their activities can mainly be categorized into three categories: combat and security operations, training and advisory roles, and logistics. 

First, combat and security operations mostly entail PMCs either directly participating in combat or providing armed protection, assets, personnel, or infrastructure. For example, Blackwater, a famous PMC firm, was often tasked with protecting U.S. diplomats in foreign missions. Second, many PMCs train national armies, police forces, and state militias. This is primarily because PMC soldiers often have a wide and deep range of experience with combat. The U.S. and other governments have relied heavily on these PMC soldiers to train combat forces across continents. Third, some PMCs handle the supply chains of transported goods. They gather intelligence and analyze it as well in order to best support their clients. 

By outsourcing work to PMCs, governments can conduct large-scale operations without actually expanding their official military. However, the use of PMCs has introduced ethical and legal controversies that have sparked international debate.

A photo of three PMC contractors training for combat.

One of the main issues with PMCs is the inability to hold them accountable, especially on the international stage. For example, the 2007 Isour Square Massacre, in which Blackwater contractors killed seventeen innocent Iraqi civilians, has become a global symbol of the accountability problem. Although some contractors were initially prosecuted, they were not convicted successfully. 

Furthermore, governments face a dilemma when holding these PMCs accountable: they rely on PMCs for success in military operations, but they risk domestic and international criticism if these companies overstep boundaries.

Of course, some supporters mention that there have been efforts on both the national and international stage to regulate PMCs properly. The Montreux Document (2009), for example, outlines ethical obligations and best practices for PMCs. However, the problem is that it is non-binding. Similarly, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers sets ethical standards and is accepted by dozens of countries, but yet again, enforcement is weak.

Many countries, especially the U.S., have implemented national laws that govern contractors’ behavior. However, controversies and scandals still exist because jurisdictional gaps persist. For instance, contractors working in war zones often operate in legal grey areas, where neither the host nation’s laws nor the hiring nation’s laws fully apply. Therefore, this lack of clarity regarding legal boundaries cultivates an environment ripe for human rights violations. 

Some supporters argue that PMCs allow governments to act more efficiently and covertly, especially in politically sensitive situations. In such cases, deploying national troops might cause public backlash and instill distrust among the people in the host nation, whereas PMC soldiers will likely go under the radar. However, critics see this as a pernicious erosion of democratic oversight. Unlike state-managed soldiers, PMC employees aren’t obligated to the same legal system, codes of conduct, or chains of command. Because they exist in such a murky legal environment, their operations often occur under classified or poorly regulated contracts. 

Purely from a government standpoint though, PMCs are good because they are quick and effective. Contracting private firms is also typically cheaper than maintaining large standing armies, as governments only have to pay for services when they need it. Furthermore, PMCs don’t need to be painstakingly recruited or trained, which allows for rapid deployment. 

However, these are only short-term benefits, and they mask the issues of long-term dependency and strategic vulnerability. Overreliance on private corporations means that important military functions, such as logistics, training, and combat, would fall under private interests rather than public control. This would create a problem of military-industrial dependency, in which national defense becomes a tool used to make profits rather than ensure public wellbeing.

Overall, Private Military Companies play a delicate role in modern geopolitics. Although they provide crucial military, protection, and logistical services in dangerous environments, their involvement in international conflicts often raises questions about accountability and the ethics of warfare. The privatization of war risks transforming one of the most important obligations of a nation—protecting its people—into a commercial enterprise where morality and welfare become optional.