The debate over private military contractors has heated up, for obvious reasons, in recent days. John Robb weighs in here with the now obvious point that PMC's constitute an essential part of our Iraq operations. Reihan Salam, blogging for an about-to-be-hitched Ross Douthat, says that, given the types of conflicts we are likely to see in upcoming years, PMC's will be needed more than ever. And Robert Kaplan (never missing an opportunity to weight in on such matters), is unsurprisingly bullish: "The private sector can offer trained personnel, whether on land or at sea. Rather than go back to a military draft, we're more likely to see the further privatization of war.") No one mentioned above, however, even attempts to explain why it would be such a bad thing if democratic countries were forced to convince their citizens of the necessity of war (or, at worst, institute a draft). Sure there are counterexamples, but as a general rule it seems like very bad news that America can simply hire a bunch of mercenaries whenever it feels the need. Moreover, Reihan writes, "To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about abuses committed by PMCs. That is a failure of the US and Iraqi governments, but not of PMCs as a matter of principle." Maybe. But plenty of anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that PMC's, in general, are more likely to commit abuses. --Isaac Chotiner