As predicted in Slogger, the print media pile-on on military contractors is in full swing. The latest big daily to weigh in is the Los Angeles Times with T. Christian Miller's revelation that there are now more contractors than soldiers in Iraq.

Miller had to use FOIA’s to pull some of the numbers but even then, some large companies are still off the radar and official sources differ drastically on the actual count. It’s an article designed to promote more questions than answers among readers as the public begins to ask, “Who are those guys?”

That question has been answered by a trickle of books, documentaries and and now long form print articles up until this spring. But the pros and cons, cost versus benefit and even total scale of for profit war operations has yet to be thrashed out in the public arena. And after all it is the American public that pays for the CIA to have more contractors than employees in some areas or that is left to wonder about the working conditions of contract laborers building our U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

Currently here are two opposing viewpoints on the use of contractors. One led by reporter Jeremy Scahill (author of the book "Blackwater") who panders to a left of left audience who trembles in fear at the concept of a vast Christian right wing conspiracy that is spawning private armies of neo-brown shirts. Their demon god is Erik Prince and Blackwater and their seminal event is Blackwater’s descent on New Orleans (which formed the seeds of Scahill’s book).

In the leftist version all contractors are heavily armed, burly and at the beck and call of shadowy corporate Lex Luthors. Much of that opinion and mistrust is shaped by a noticeable lack of exposure to the industry and the leading components.

On the other side are the argument leans towards the right and they strongly endorse the frequent and less than subtle use of America’s most powerful weapon: The dollar. Companies like DynCorp and Halliburton are simply government sanctioned vessels used to flow billions of dollars through the U.S. private sector into shattered areas. In the rights versions, these companies are simply strip mining years of military or government training and experience and sending them to Iraq to allow the army to focus on warfighting rather than cleaning toilets or changing light bulbs. This side's view of the contractor is a patriotic American who has signed up to support a war on freedom and never mind the few bad apples that tarnish the group. The truth of course, is in between and as Miller's article points out, American's make up a tiny part of the massive force currently on the ground.

The daily cost is purported to be high but the long-term costs are zero. Once a contractor has done their job, they fold their tents and slip away into the night. If a soldier is added not only is there the expensive recruiting and training but there is the lifetime of paychecks, social support and retirement. The same hidden “legacy” cost that is killing old-line American businesses like airlines and car manufacturers.

Kosovo is the most recent example of what happens when a fire hose of cash is sprayed on smoldering dissent. The model can be traced back to Japan and Germany but really has its roots in common sense. If the locals have jobs, they are less likely to sit around and get into trouble.

Part of rapid rise of the private contractor is due to former oilmen Dick Cheney and George Bush’s comfort with the idea of outsourcing major chunks of foreign policy and stability operations the other precursor is the equally rapid shrinking of the traditional military. A postwar animal created to fight tank and artillery batteries against the Soviets that is slowly being transformed into smarter, lighter, faster, cheaper version of Team America backed by an even larger army of Builder Bobs’

The reality seems to be that this administration is crudely and arrogantly bringing to life the next generation of warfighting. The administration has only been forthcoming when senator's demand answers, hold hearings or journalists send in stacks of Freedom on Information Act requests. It appears that in the current administration making a profit from war is not discussed in public, but pursued vigorously in private.

To be fair the lean towards for profit war is the same post Cold War stance that requires rapid violent response against non state players, tiny fractured hotspots and long term investment in unfriendly regions to bring peace.

The Pentagon’s new marching orders are to reach and touch anyone who seeks to destabilize the world order. A concept Thomas Barnett not only pioneered but captures with humor and eloquence during a recent presentation at TED.

The problem is that the government has not been forthcoming with the extent to which the privatization of U.S. military and State Dept efforts have been scaled. The only time the American public reads or sees a contractor in action is either after a violent episode or investigation into contract abuse. It would be fair to say that the attempts of the industry to explain their newfound success have been clumsy at best.

In addition the industry has appeared to adopt the same arrogant, privileged approach (often mandated by their client, the U.S. government) towards earnest exploration by congress let alone the media. The focus on educating the taxpayers who provide the funds for this expensive transformation is now directly on the plates of a number of Democratic representatives and will result in legislation.

The media can also be blamed for being slow off the mark to fully comprehend the vast scale of for profit operations in theaters of war. Any meaningful coverage to date has been left to academics, filmmakers, authors, analysts and those in the vanguard like Peter Singer (Corporate Warriors), Deborah Avant(The Market for Force), David Isenberg (BASIC), Nick Bicanic (Shadow Company), David Phinney (Iraqslogger), Robert Greenwald (Iraq for Sale) and Pratap Chatterjee (Corpwatch). It has taken ten years for the topic of private military corporations to hit the mainstream and five years for the mainstream media to invest time and people to investigate the phenomena in the Global War on Terror

Now print journos like Steve Fainaru (Washington Post), T. Christian Miller (LA Times) and Bernd Debusmann (Reuters) investigations have paid off.

Miller’s watershed piece focuses on the vast scope and scale of for profit activities in Iraq. Companies that are virtually unknown in the US are shoulder to shoulder with better-known names like KBR or L-3. What is disturbing is even the U.S. government freely admits it has no idea how many contractors are on the battlefield.

Miller’s best guess is 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreigners and 118,000 Iraqis make up this massive work force. “Best guess” because Miller points out that

" But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.”

Miller also points out that there is concern about the use of privatized for profit violence in the battlefield. He builds on previous articles that have highlighted alleged and egregious violations of moral conduct by individual security contractors working for companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Aegis

"We don't have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That's dangerous for our country," said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene."

The other concern is the use of trafficked labor to perform functions once performed by U.S. soldiers and employees.

“Middle Eastern companies, including Kulak Construction Co. of Turkey and Projects International of Dubai, supply labor from Third World countries to KBR and other U.S. companies for menial work on U.S. bases and rebuilding projects. Foreigners are used instead of Iraqis because of fears that insurgents could infiltrate projects.”

The public is slowly coming to terms with what is essentially a for profit civilian army slowly transcending the traditional army in Iraq. Depending on how the debate goes this can be viewed as a positive shift towards keeping the peace with a disposable private sector option or the growth of a shadowy, nomadic band of hired hands that continues to show a lack of transparency and accountability.

Now that the big dogs have been unleashed and the election looms we shall see how the debate ends up.