Risk Areas
2.3 Support for private militia and security companies
Explanation of risk area
Employment of private militia and security companies – to provide base security, escort convoys, or cooperate in kinetic and intelligence operations – can have longer-term consequences. Resources and support flowing to private militia can enable them to compete with state structures for the monopoly in providing security and using force; the combination of dependence on militia and lack of oversight of their actions results in a culture of impunity allowing militia to abuse civilians and divert public resources for private gain.
Consequences for the mission
Breach of the state’s monopoly on the use of force
Diversion of resources from legitimate governance structures
Creation of parallel power structures which can feed corrupt networks
Alienation of host nation populations
Reputational risk
Making the achievement of mission end state and exit strategy much more difficult
Examples
Case Study: Afghanistan: Corruption and the making of warlords
Support for private militia in Afghanistan
Employment of and support for private militia in Afghanistan enabled the growth of a warlord class possessing the means and will to use force, and capable of diverting resources for their own gain. Private militia were also notorious for mistreating civilians, extorting bribes, carrying out violent assaults, trafficking drugs, kidnapping for ransom, and illegal arms trade. In the long term, it has led to widespread abuses, endangered governance and security, and tarnished the reputation of international forces by association.
View case studyIndicators & Warnings
Reports of abuses, especially from civilians
Unreliable intelligence
Overbilling on services
Living beyond means