The growth of private security firms has been swift over the last few decades, and Blackwater is one of the more notable success stories in that industry. The troubling thing about Blackwater is the current desire to download functions to them that were previously proprietary to the military.

While I'm sure beancounters can show why this makes financial sense, I think it raises some ethical questions, and some deep policy issues. And I don't see much willingness to address either, from the folks who should be doing so.

  A mercenary force exempt from the laws of war, whose CEO is a major campaign contributor to the Warlord in Chief, I mean President...what's not to like?  I'm sure George Washington would have loved Blackwater-forget these useless state militias and professional armies...let's hire some Hessians and give the Brits a taste of their own medicine!  Really, the degeneration of professional armies into mercenary forces is an invitation to corruption on a massive scale, as well as a sign of transition from popular rule to tyranny or oligarchy.  Pace Magellan, some companies really are bad, and Blackwater is one of them. 

I don't really believe in the notion of companies being good or evil. Companies try to maximize shareholder value, and beyond that, they either operate illegally or legally. I've yet to see any evidence that Blackwater is operating in any way that is illegal. If there is poor regulation or oversight, it is the fault of the USA military who determines their rules of engagement. If there are employees of Blackwater who are breaking the law, they should be prosecuted, and again, it's up to the US government to do so.

The idea of a huge, private army is a little scary though. If Al Qaeda were to offer them more money, would they switch sides? How does that work?