Evolution of United States’ Private Military and Security Companies: The Case of Afghanistan 2001–2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The withdrawal of troops on 31 August 2021 which was carried out in accordance with the Agreement signed on 29 February 2020 between the U.S. government and the Taliban (an international terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation) marked the end of the international military campaign in Afghanistan which lasted twenty years. Assessing the preliminary outcomes of nearly a quarter-century of the US military and their NATO allies’ presence in Afghanistan, U.S. President Joseph Biden announced the end of “an era of major military operations to remake other countries”. Though the consequences of the Western coalition campaign in the area remain to be evaluated and they are unlikely to turn out to be unequivocal, the Atlantic strategy aimed at rebuilding and democratization of Afghanistan proved itself as bankrupt. Our research focuses on the way the twenty-year military campaign in Afghanistan affected the development of the U.S. private military and security companies (PMSC) industry. For these purposes, we, firstly, studied and traced the transformation of the private military and security services market in the U.S., and examined the changes of approaches and mechanisms used to contract PMSCs. Secondly, we analyzed the way the U.S. authorities addressed the challenges new market evoked, focusing on the measures of legal regulation that were applied to PMSCs, and the way the working of the U.S. institutional mechanisms was transforming. The final part of the research contains conclusions on the perspectives for the development of the American PMSC industry after the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan. We believe that due to its duration and continuity, the Afghan operation ensured a launchpad for the PMSC industry and provided conditions for private military and security companies to acquire and master high-end experience which in turn, contributed to the development of a certain market that goes well beyond the involvement of conventional human capital. It provided solutions for the production, utilization, and maintenance of the equipment and technologies, allowing the minimization of the direct participation of specialists in hostilities. Alongside the development of the American PMSC industry itself, the research studies the investigations conducted by the U.S. authorities into the cases of abuse committed by the contractors during their participation in Afghan war. It discusses the way this practice encouraged the transformations of United States procedures and mechanisms aimed at reducing malpractice when performing contracts and launched changes in U.S. legislation. It also demonstrates the lessons learned by the U.S. from the contractual practice with regard to the regulation of PMSCs. The research reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the American policy regarding PMSCs during the whole period of the military conflict in Afghanistan and helps to evaluate the success of the U.S. efforts in monitoring contractors across Afghanistan. To conclude, we reckon that considerable contractual experience acquired in Afghanistan ensures technological and procedural progress of the U.S. PMSC industry. Given the enduring rivalry between the U.S., Russia, and China, including in the military and technological spheres, the twenty-year experience of direct participation in hostilities by U.S. PMSCs boosted its competitive advantage compared to Russia and China, whose PMSCs still lack such an experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".