Chris Mayer
Journal of International Peace Operations
Volume 7, Number 3 – November-December, 2011
Co-authored by Chris Mayer and Lisa Hole
Afghan private security forces listen intently
IN August 2011, Part 159 to Chapter 32 of the Federal Code of Regulations (32CFR159) was published in its final form. This final rule, “Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating in Contingency Operations, Combat Operations, or Other Significant Military Operations,” applies to all U.S. Government agencies using public funds for contractor-provided security functions at any tier during such operations. Although separate from the Montreux Document Initiative, the provisions of the final rule are entirely consistent with Montreux and promote a consistent, high standard for armed private security providers across the U.S. Government.
It will come as no surprise that governments have relied on the private sector to provide security functions for many years – both in the United States and overseas. Over the last few years, Congress and the media have criticized the U.S. Government for its use and management of private security contractors (PSCs) in Iraq and Afghanistan. What has grabbed the headlines is the inappropriate behavior of PSCs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and allegations of the U.S. Government’s lack of oversight and control. The media has not been so quick to point out that these PSCs undertake valuable tasks that enable relief, recovery, and reconstruction by protecting the people performing these activities from terrorists and other violent criminals. PSCs often put themselves in harm’s way to protect U.S. Government property and personnel who contribute to a region’s return to stability. The media has also failed to acknowledge the steps that the U.S. Government has taken and continues to take to improve the performance and oversight of PSCs.
