Good post!

Sierra Leone. Liberia. Angola. Papua New Guinea. Afghanistan. Iraq. Nepal. Each of these nations has seen "private military companies" like Exec Outcomes, Sandline and Aegis operate relatively successfully in the last 15 years.

Your question about whether or not they are a legitimate recognized military force, or are they simply "enemy combatants" who happen to be fighting on our side in most of the places listed above is a damn good one. Had you asked me 5 or more years ago, I'd have said flat-out that they were not legitimate... they were mercenaries for hire with no one to answer to when they made "mistakes".

But, the line between "hired thug" and "professional soldier" blurs a bit now, if the only requirement for the latter is fighting for an established government. Every one of the governments listed above were officially recognized by the US as sovereign elected governments, and how they choose to develop and shape their individual defense and security forces is totally up to them. How many of these governments did not have the means (or the time) to recruit, train, equip and field regular standing forces for the defense of a government that the US recognizes as "legit"? A shockingly good example of the kind of brutality that these forces face can be found in the book A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Beah. 12 years old and forced to fight for the government forces of Sierra Leone, the story is a heartbreaking tale of tragedy and brutality that shows just how quickly things can get impossibly complicated for small, poor but legitimate governments with almost no means of production but substantial amounts of cash (Sierra Leone retains as much as 54% of the profits from the nationalized diamond mines in country).

I think the real question is, perhaps it is okay for such PMCs to hire themselves off to nations such as Sierra Leone or Liberia or Iraq... but what happens if they are hired by the Sudanesse? Or Syria? Or Myanmar? Were the forces of Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia in the early 90's thugs and murderers, or where they hired mercenaries fighting for the "wrong side"? I'm not talking about the drug-addicted children he had running around the streets of Mogadishu with rifles as tall as they were... I'm talking about the two- or three-dozen Eastern European, Soviet-trained professionals he had employed as his personal bodyguards and advisers. How does any rational human being NOT conclude that it was the efforts of THESE men that helped Aidid beat the Somali government, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, and the United States Army so badly that ALL THREE had to leave the country... and not the efforts of the drug-sodden, displaced farmers and herders that made up the bulk of his forces?

Here's another example: Let's say that Obama would call for the full and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq in the next four months. By July, not ONE US military personnel would be supporting the Iraqi Defense Force. Iraq then chooses to retain the services of a PMC to ensure that their military and security training is adequate to keep up with Iranian, Syrian and al Queida insurgent forces entering the country with the express purpose of destabilizing the government in favor of a radical extremist regime. Would the Iraqis be wrong for doing this? Would the people hired be "criminal thugs"? Should those men be recognized as legitimate military forces operating under the authority of the Iraqi government?

I say YES, they would be legit... a necessity, in fact.