Live from Erbil, Iraq, Week 8 Blog

What a fascinating moment in my life to be getting into these readings. Saturday was the first time we’ve been allowed to get out of the compound here for some leisure time, so I took my reading to a hotel to sit on their patio and read. As I ordered a cup of coffee and looked around me, I realized that it was likely that at least half of the people sitting around me were private security people. On my flight into Iraq last week, it was easy to tell who was flying in to do humanitarian aid work like me and who was flying in for some security reasons. The hulking figures, military tattoos, and tactical gear bags were a dead giveaway for the security types. (You could tell the aid workers by their grubby cargo pants, a hilarious stereotype come to life on that flight). So, reading the readings, particularly the Abramson and Williams article, I was reading them through the lens of the Mosul operation and the humanitarian response I’m involved in here.

I appreciated the nuance of Abramson and Williams to the role that non-state security actors/PSCs can play. The traditional IR approach to the emergence of these PSCs, assumes the zero sum relationship between the growth of non-state security actors and the shrinking legitimacy of the state. I went into the reading assuming this would be the approach of the authors. But, using theory and the African examples, this is not the approach they take. Rather, the authors talk about the ways that PSCs often support governmental powers. They support the goals of the state, reinforce the idea of the public good, and seem to be working inside traditional ideas about the purpose and legitimacy of security operations.

In exploring the Sierra Leone example, the authors say, “the authority and goals of the state are routinely exercised and negotiated with those of private security providers and their clients” (p. 8). I see this so clearly in the Mosul operation right now. A range of private and allied powers are assisting the Iraqi government to oust ISIS. PSCs are here to add value, complete specific tactical operations, and ultimately support state security. Even in a case where the state is quite weak and sovereignty easily eroded, all the actors come together citing public good and state security.

My experience of something like the Mosul operation is different than many of those in the class may have. In the case of a war, organizations like mine deal with the humanitarian fall out, focusing particularly on the immediate needs of children who are fleeing the war. Even as we aren’t involved in the military operations, we are central to a holistic care of the public safety of individuals impacted by conflict. And we ourselves have PSC actors which support our work. Aid workers aren’t armed, nor do we/can we travel with armed security, but we have staff with military experience tasked to assess risk, make recommendations, and get us the hell out of situations when they go sideways. There are UN coordination meetings where PSCs recommend how and where to set up new camps for those fleeing Mosul. PSCs assist the government actors here screening people fleeing Mosul.

The vast array of what PSCs do in the IR space goes far beyond groups like Blackwater. Their functions are numerous, and don’t necessarily lead to the erosion of the state. The state may be being remade in some ways and rearticulated, but many PSCs function within the traditional perspective of states having the ultimate authority within their territories. Rather than delegitimizing the state, PSCs are part of a shifting definition.