An examination of the top private military firms in the United States war with Iraq (2003--2008) and their impact on democratic government

his dissertation investigates the transfer of security and defense services from the federal government into the hands of private military firms (PMFs) and identifies the consequences of that privatization on democratic governance in the United States. Exploring the 1990s through the United States war and occupation of Iraq (2003-2008) from a comparative case-study research strategy, my research identifies: (1) the major private military firms employed by the US government in its war with Iraq and their relationship to the federal government in terms of corporate executives' past ties to the federal government and campaign funding of federal office-seekers; (2) the cost and range of services which have been privatized by PMFs in the 1990s as compared to Iraq; and (3) how the privatization of security and defense services by PMFs in the US war with Iraq (2003-2008) has impacted democratic governance in the US in the areas of oversight, transparency, regulation, and popular control. Privatization of public services often leads to the reduction of oversight and transparency by democratic governments and their citizens. In addition, the privatization of public services has often led to adverse impacts on the regulation of those services as well as public policy being carried out which is not popularly supported (popular control). In my study, this outcome is expected to hold true in the case of Iraq, as well. To be sure, my research has found that: (1) there are more than 100 PMFs with more than 7,000 contracts operating in Iraq employing ten-times the number of contractors than during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, with some of the top-earners such as Kellogg, Brown, and Root "earning" federal contracts in excess of...