But are these fears and events simply fabricated fictional narratives, or is there a dark reality lurking behind the plot?The Military Times reports that the Department of Defence (DoD) have unveiled a new policy which will allow undocumented immigrants to join the military, and is deemed a new path for gaining citizenship in the US. Estimates have shown that between 1.2 and 2.1 million children; teenagers and young adults do not have legal immigration status, yet qualify for the program – known as Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MANVI).The national interest in these cases is the ability to speak languages vital to national security such as Arabic and Chinese; but as well as foreign language expertise, the recruits may also have specialised health care training. MANVI is open to young immigrants without a VISA who immigrated to America with their parents before they were 16. But most importantly of all they must be approved under Obama’s DACA program, which Immigration Equality explains calls for ‘deferred action’ for undocumented young people - a discretionary benefit by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) meaning that after a background check and subsequent approval, the immigrant can apply for employment authorisation but this does not guarantee legal permanent residence and the rights can be revoked.

Thousands of 'noncitizen' soldiers are deployed each year

Military Times reports that an average of 5,000 ‘noncitizens’ are recruited a year, with a majority of them being permanent residents or hold ‘green cards’. In 2006, the DoD began to recruit individuals with temporary visas, such as students and tourists, as they had highly-valued skilled such as proficiency in foreign languages.But some officials are doubtful that the immigrants may still bear these skills, as living in the US for so long may have lost them their mother tongue. “We’re just not sure how many within that existing population of DACA would have the linguistic skills to quality”, said a defence official.“These are kids who entered the country at a fairly young age and have basically grown up in the United States, so the limit of their language talents would probably be the language they received at home”.The new policies have certainly sparked controversy, for some because they simply don’t like the thought of immigrants bearing the national shield, but for others the concern lies on the concept that PMC soldiers are ‘discount’ fighters to fill the gaps.

Blackwater, now called Academi, is one of the most high-profile PMCs

 One of the most high-profile military contractors is Academi, formerly known as Blackwater. Article 13 reports that recently sent 400 troops into Eastern Ukraine to help control the separatist conflict.Yet the firm gained worldwide notoriety as a contractor for US forces during the Iraq war. But what sent shockwaves across the globe was a shooting incident in September 2007, when 17 civilians were killed and 24 wounded in Nisoor Square, Baghdad. In addition, a congressional report found that between 2005 and 2007, Blackwater employees were involved in at least 195 shootings in Iraq – 163 of those incidents where Blackwater guards had fired first.Britain’s lead military contractor Aegis has also come under scrutiny, as List Verse points out that in 2005 a ‘trophy video’ was posted on a website unofficially affiliated with Aegis, showing Scottish or Irish men massacring innocent Iraqi civilians. The sickening footage caused a media outcry and strong condemnation of the military service, stamping them with the reputation of abusing and killing civilians with little to no provocation. Charges were never pressed against the soldiers, although Aegis was carrying out internal investigations into the incident, investigative files have not been disclosed to the public.PMC fighters have also attempted to overthrow governments. How Stuff Works reports that South-African founded military contractor Executive Outcomes, led a coup to topple the president and thus overthrow the government in Equatorial Guinea. Ex British Army officer Simon Mann, who ran the company, was arrested in Zimbabwe and was slammed by international communities and the media for leading a team of mercenaries.

Kathryn Bolkovac (left) exposed the DynCorp sex trafficking ring

But most shockingly of all are links between contracted soldiers and sexual assault and human trafficking. List Verge details that DynCorp, one of the world’s most powerful PMCs received allegations from two whistleblowers that employees stationed in Bosnia had been abusing civilians, engaging in intercourse with minors and even selling them as slaves to each other. One was former Nebraskan police investigator Kathryn Bolkovac, employed by DynCorp as a UN peacekeeper, who exposed the sex trafficking ring and an elusive cover-up of it by bosses.The company reacted by sacking Bolkovac and the other whistleblower, who both then took DynCorp to court and won both cases – resulting in the lid being lifted on the scandalous activities of employees and 2010 Hollywood blockbuster thriller The Whistleblower, starring Rachel Weisz, depicting the events.How Stuff Works claims that although it’s easy to see why many critics slam PMCs as mercenaries, a majority of contracts rarely engage in conflict. The term mercenary, from its Latin roots, essentially means someone who serves merely for wages. And the worldwide average base pay for a contracted militant is $165,000 (over £101,000), says Article 13.Yet although the use of mercenaries is strongly condemned, it is increasingly becoming the norm. With the new announcements from the DoD of policies to deploy more contracted soldiers and the changing face of war.“The United States has relied and continues to rely heavily on private military and security contractors in conducting its military operations”, writes human rights expert Jose L. Gomez del Prado for Global Research.“The human rights violation perpetrated by private military and security companies are indications of the threat posed to the foundations of democracy itself by the privatization of inherently public functions such as the monopoly of the legitimate use of force”.

Original Article Neon Nettle: http://www.neonnettle.com/

For many military analysts, the mobile, dispersed combat style of IS tells us that unless air attacks are backed by a robust ”boots on the ground” strategy, they will not have much bearing on the outcome of this war. Actually, with the fiasco in Mosul, we saw how the Iraqi army with its manpower and weapons superiority disappointed everyone. Serious doubts on the operational effectiveness of the Kurdish peshmerga were voiced even by the political elites of theKurdistan Regional Government (KRG). It is unlikely to expect a domestic actor to fill the strategic void against IS. In Iraq today, the most pressing security issue is the lack of a ground force with adequate training, experience and equipment that could confront IS in an effective fashion.

What about asking PMCs, which have tactical warfare capabilities equivalent to those of the militaries of developed countries, for help in filling this strategic void? Some argue that PMCs may be an economically feasible, politically viable and flexible option. In his Sept. 7 article in Stars and Stripes, Seth Robson notes that, maybe knowing these strategic advantages of PMCs, the US Army Contracting Command posted a notice last month seeking contractors willing to work on an initial 12-month contract, who should be “cognizant of the goals of reducing tensions in Iraq and providing a range of capacities, including force development, logistics and planning and operations.”

According to Ale Lake, the private contractors have long been waiting for this notice. He notes on Sept. 13, “None of the five current and former contractors who spoke with The Daily Beast expected a replay of last decade’s Iraq war. But they all said a major opportunity was coming — both for them, and for [US President Barack] Obama, who could use the private armies as a way to conceal just how many people will be fighting in this new conflict.”

In the same vein, some suggesting that we are desperately in need of another “surge” strategy to re-establish the “Sunni Awakening Councils" contend that the private contractors who could be drawn from the ranks of retired special operations troops and spies once so integral to the Awakening campaign in 2007 would provide this experience and expertise. Then one may conclude that the Second Contractors' War may be near for Iraq.

This second contractors' war, however, may be different. According to a reliable source from the security community of a coalition member state, some among the security circles of the Muslim states participating in the coalition — carrying the debate one step further — have been discussing the option of raising a “private Muslim Expeditionary Force,” which comprises “hired” ex-elite security personnel from the militaries and police units. During their visits, US officials have already been trying to figure out the scale and potential use of private security markets for discreet regional mobilization of the Muslim military contractors against IS.

In fact, the rapidly developing IS incursion is forcing the Iraqi government not only to buy more US weapons and supplies, but also to payroll an army of mercenaries and private contractors, previously hired by the US Defense Department. Recently, more than 5,000 specialists have been serving in Iraq as private contractors in the sphere of security. They are currently working as analysts, military trainers, security guards and translators — some 2,000 of them are Americans.

As one may remember, after the 2003 invasion, the United States depended on a large number of private contractors to carry out many tasks that in earlier times would have been largely performed by personnel of national militaries. That’s down from 157,800 at the height of the US military surge there in 2009. According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), between 2003-2009, 93 companies provided security services worth $5.9 billion in Iraq, and the annual global budget of the private security industry in 2008 reached $100 billion.

A PMC strategy provides low-cost, political advantageousness (more private contractors means fewer soldiers returning home in coffins) and strategic flexibility, as it is easier to bend, deny or break a PMC strategy than a military strategy). However, whether the implementation of a PMC strategy is a sound solution as some suggest or not remains to be a question.

Three incidents from the time of the First Contractors' War remind us to be careful about the possible re-utilization of the PMCs in Iraq. In 2004, the gruesome killing of four Blackwater employees by a mob in Fallujah led to a long and bloody assault by US Marines. In addition, there was contractor involvement in the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. Ann Hagedorn, the author of the famous book "The Invisible Soldiers," writes: "In the weeks after Fallujah, the news surfaced that at least 22 of the interrogators accused of torturing the inmates at Abu Ghraib were private military contractors." Blackwater employees who were protecting a convoy in Baghdad in 2007 were also accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians, including women and children. The United States brought charges against those involved in the killings. The case has not closed yet.

Following my somewhat scholarly article that examines the “unintended” consequences of the use of private contractors in Iraq during the First Contractors' War, I offer here some questions directly relevant for the use of PMCs against IS.

• When deciding on the use of PMCs, which tasks should be considered as inherently governmental and which should not?
• During the selection and contracting process, are contracts awarded competitively? What agencies of government need to approve PMC contracts? When are cost-plus contracts awarded?
• What is the legal status of private contractors during the implementation of missions by PMCs? To what laws are PMCs and their employees accountable? Can they be tried and prosecuted? If so, who has the responsibility to do so?
• Currently in Iraq, is there any oversight mechanism regarding the administrative oversight and evaluation? What agency has responsibility for oversight? Does the agency have adequate staffing for oversight?
• Do military forces operate with or alongside PMCs with respect to effects of the use of PMCs on regular military forces? Are military forces demoralized by working with PMC forces who are paid much more for the same risks? Does the military experience higher rates of retirement and resignation when PMCs are hiring?

These are vital questions Iraqi officials should ask, because the operational use of the PMCs outside the control of the Iraqi government can undermine the path to self-sufficient military and police forces. More importantly, while the private security business may be seen as a job opportunity for Iraqis, the multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian characteristics of Iraq must be taken into consideration. Any PMC heavily staffed with a specific ethnic/sectarian minority may become a challenge to the authority of the government, threatening national security and the future of Iraqi democracy. Iraq, as a sovereign state, should set the rules of the game in the contracts.