The Instigator
tonynation
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
IncredulousVessel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Government Should Immediately Cease All Usage of Private Military Contractors.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 29902
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

tonynation

Pro

This will be a four round debate. I set it as five rounds to define the question and speeches in the debate. For whomever accepts, use the first round argument box to just acknowledge the question and round structure.

The Question: The Unites States Government should immediately cease all use of private military contractors. This does not include civillian companies who provide construction services to aid in rebuilding public infrastructure. Hence, the scope of the debate will focus on private military, military training and security companies where private citizens are employed.

Round Structure:

Round 1: Scope of debate and acknowledgement.
Round 2: First pro/affirmative speech and first con/negative speech.
Round 3: Second pro/affirmative speech and first con/negative speech.
Round 4: First pro/affirmative rebuttal and first con/negative rebuttal (no new arguments.)
Round 5: Second pro/affirmative rebuttal and second con/negative rebutal (no new arguments.)

If you would like to accept this challenge and participate with me, just acknowlede the terms and structure in the round 1 argument box and I will begin my affirmation of the question. Good Luck!
IncredulousVessel

Con

Scope of debate and acknowledgement.
Debate Round No. 1
tonynation

Pro

I argue that the US government should immediately end usage of such companies for military support. I begin with Contention One " The use of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) for security by the USA is on the rise.

Sub-point A: The number of PMCs used by the US is on the rise for security and troop support. (2) They are viewed as no more than hired mercenaries, destroying their effectiveness and legitimacy. (1) These companies are not regulated by the laws of the country in which they operate, frequently allowing them to use any means they feel necessary to "keep the peace." In Iraq alone, there are over 200,000 PMCs in operation.

Sub-point B: The Geneva Convention defines PMCs as mercenaries. Their use by the US violates international law. (3) Protocol one of the convention states that a mercenary "shall not have the right to be a combatant" in times of war. However, there is no means of enforcement of the convention to prevent the US from employing such contractors. We will see the impacts of this lack of enforcement in my next two contentions.

Contention Two " PMC use by the US destroys human rights credibility and leads to conflict.

Sub point A: PMC use destroys US human rights credibility. The US creates "rule-free" zones where PMCs are not held accountable for their behavior. (4) My original example is only one of many where the actions of PMCs have been in direct violation of worldwide human rights beliefs.

Sub point B: The USA is avoiding accountability over human rights while holding other countries to a higher standard. This creates a double standard which causes the US to lose their credibility in places where they are using the military to "keep the peace." These violations are illustrated by the continued use of deadly force by PMCs against innocent Iraqi civilians. This will cause a drain in US leadership and cause US missions to create democracy in other countries to fail. (5) Examples of these abuses that undermine US credibility are the Abu Gharib scandal and the shootings in Nisoor Square. (19)

Sub point C: The support of universal human rights must always be supported. If actions are taken to lessen the importance of human rights, especially by the United States, it will lead to massive abuses around the world and lessen the chance to create a peaceful and secure world. (6) The United States has been fighting oppressive governments for decades. For the US to be one of the regimes that allows such abuse destroys any chance the US has to fight against or punish for abuses in other countries.

Sub point D: The movements for democracy in the Middle East and other Asian countries are gaining momentum. Not only is US support key to the success of these movements, but the means used by the US and other supporting countries are instrumental in ensuring that these movements are successful. If the US fails to be a leader in human rights, the loss of credibility will cause the movements to fail. This will not only create instability and additional human rights issues, but cause the fight against terrorism to fail. (7)

Sub point E: The use of PMCs by the US independently destroys the capability to keep the peace and create stable governments. It teaches the emerging government that the military is not accountable for their action and can act independently of the government. It has been shown that this leads to corruption as the military established in the emerging government can be controlled by money and personal interests. (8)

Sub point F: If the US actions in the Middle East and Asia become a failure due to the methods used (such as PMCs), it the additional violence will spill over throughout the entire region, creating a powder keg for conflict. Another reason for the backlash is that the governments of countries in the region see the use of PMCs as the US trying to further their own economic interests instead of looking for the best interests of the region. Due to ethnic tensions that already exist, one more instance of abuse by a PMC could be the spark that ignites the region. (14)

Contention Three " Removal of PMCs would re-establish the credibility of the US and prevent massive conflict.

Sub point A: The US military can act successfully without PMCs. President Obama has been given force options but has not acted. This will also allow the US military to plan for future actions without assuming the use of PMCs. Military experts as well as independent experts all agree that removal of PMCs should take place immediately. (15)

Sub point B: Stopping use of PMCs now would set the precedent to not give them future contracts as well as shed light on the dark history of PMCs. This would allow the US to regain their human rights credibility. Additionally, it will show that the US does care about more than economics. It will show that the US cares about the plight of others who hope for democracy and peace. (16)

Sub point C, we find that: Ending the use of PMCs in Iraq, Afghanistan and the remainder of the region will shed light on the legal issues that exist. It will cause PMCs to become accountable for their actions. This means that if there is a need to use PMCs in the future, the violence and human rights violations currently committed by PMCs won"t happen. (17)

Bibliography

(1)Zoe Salzman, "Private Military Contractors and the Taint of a Mercenary Reputation" " NYU Journal of International Law and Politics " 07/20/08
(2)Steve Lendman, 01/19/10 - http://sjlendman.blogspot.com...)
(3)Richard Morgan, "Professional Military Firms Under International Law" " Summer 2008
(4)US Newswire " "AIUSA to Highlight Emerging Problems with Private Military Contactors" " 05/23/06
(5)Jennifer Elsea, "Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues." " 08/25/08 http://www.fas.org...
(6)Rhonda Copelan, New York City Law Review " 1999
(7)Les Campbell, " National Democratic Institute - 03/07/03 http://www.cgpacs.uci.edu...
(8)Fred Schreier, "Privatizing Security: Lay, Practice and Governance of Private Military and Security Companies." - http://smallarmssurvey.org...) pg. 61-62
(9)David Pugliese, "Big Boy Rules: America"s Mercenaries Fighting in Iraq" - http://findarticles.com...]
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(11) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(12) International Council on Security and Development " "Section II: Social, Economic and Political Realities in Iraq" " 2008 - http://www.icosgroup.net...]
(13) Bobby Towery, "Phasing Out Private Security Contractors in Iraq" - http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...
(14) Niall Ferguson, "A War to Start All Wars" " The Atlantic " 2007 - www.theatlantic.com/magazine/.../01/a-war-to-start-all-wars/305533/
(15) "How to End Impunity for Private Security and Other Contractors" " 12/08 http://www.humanrightsfirst.org...
(16) "Blackwater Firm Gets $120m US Govt Contract" " 06/18/10 -http://www.cbsnews.com...)
(17) Christopher Mandernach, "Warriors Without Law: Embracing a Spectrum of status for Military Actors" " 1997 - https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com...
(18) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
(19) http://www.humanrightsfirst.org...
IncredulousVessel

Con

IncredulousVessel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tonynation

Pro

tonynation forfeited this round.
IncredulousVessel

Con

IncredulousVessel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tonynation

Pro

tonynation forfeited this round.
IncredulousVessel

Con

IncredulousVessel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tonynation

Pro

tonynation forfeited this round.
IncredulousVessel

Con

IncredulousVessel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by daerice 4 years ago
daerice
Excellent points put forth by tonynation, I look forward to see this debate unfold.
No votes have been placed for this debate.