O Ye, O Ye, O Ye....

Now come the days of the interested media, blogger, and academic!

Whew, as you can see by the post, I took some time off to tend to personal things, but boy-howdy, in my absence, there now seems to be a plethora of interested parties and publications on how the private sector and security fit together.

First, props and kudos to the people who are the long-haulers on the topic; Doug Brooks, president of the IPOA, David Isenberg, who is over at BASIC, Robert Young Pelton (better known to friend and foe alike as "RYP") who is somewhere in the world today, Peter Singer,at Brookings, and Deborah Avant who was at GWU, but I heard she may have transferred to UC-Irvine. Oh, and some Brits who have been doing this longer than most as well. Good to all of you for being, "first to market" in some way or another.

Now, we have some new kids on the block as well who are trying to become the experts of record; The guys over at the Virginian-Pilot, Bill Sizemore and Joanne Kimberlin who did the Blackwater piece last summer, Jay Price and Joe Neff at the Raleigh News & Observer, who did a series on the tragic, barbaric incident in Fallujah, T. Christian Miller from the LA Times who has done a few pieces on contractors, Steve Fainaru from the Washington Post, and some others.

Newer academic material is coming from Laura Dickinson at the UConn School of Law, Martha Minow at Harvard law School has also written on the topic. Steve Schooner from GWU writes on the complex contractual issues, and a new book by Professor Paul Verkuill at the Cardozo School of Law has just come out as well. Not to be outdone, Simon Chesterman and Chia Lehnhardt at NYU law School are also releasing a book soon on the private security "phenomena".

So... Why? Why is everyone so interested? Is it because of all of the sensationalism that surrounds private security companies? Is is because they see it as a way to make some money while fulfilling a publishing requirements? Is it because they have a particular political agendas? Is it because they hope to be part of a new administration next year as an "expert"? I think it is all of the above.

The question is, to what end will all of these self-serving reasons add to a desperately needed debate on the private sector's role in global security operations? Every time I go to one of these conferences I see the same thing; a conference that has chosen a sliver to focus on without regard for the way that sliver eventually fits into the greater picture. Sometimes, it's about law, sometimes, it's about contracting, and sometimes, it's about the future, but never has there been a conference that has brought together all of these necessary pieces so that everyone who is publishing on the topic can actually see the forest for the trees that they have been concentrating on.

To the credit of some, the debate and dialogue has changed recently. Indeed, some naysayers have recently written articles that call for a renewed look at the private sector's capacity to enhance government operations. Not that they've seen the light exactly, but they have come to despise, I think, the polemic rhetoric and the sensationalism more than the questions they may have about the efficacy of concept.

Most importantly, I think, is that the dialogue is moving forward, that as a matter of public policy, people are actually beginning to engage, not just debate, and that finally, the smarter kids in the class are seeing things from a broader perspective, not just from their own nerdy position.

Alas, we have many miles to go before we can fully evaluate the current and future impact of using the private sector to enhance government operations, but I am certain all of you will be there to write about it and keep us "posted"!