US national security privatization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| The Conservatism series, part of the Politics series |
| Schools |
|---|
| Cultural conservatism |
| Liberal conservatism |
| Social conservatism |
| National conservatism |
| Neoconservatism |
| Paleoconservatism |
| Ideas |
| Fiscal conservatism |
| Private property |
| Rule of law |
| Social order |
| Traditional society |
| Organizations |
| Conservative parties |
| Int'l Democrat Union |
| European Democrats |
| Movement for European Reform |
| National Variants |
| Australia |
| Canada |
| Colombia |
| Germany |
| United States
|
| Politics Portal |
In October 2004, a conference was held at Middlebury College, entitled "The Privatization of National Security." Sponsored in part by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the conference discussed the privatization of functions historically considered the sole province of the military and intelligence agencies of the United States government. One participant, Peter Feaver, said that: "In fact what we’re seeing is a return to neo-feudalism. If you think about how the India Company played a role in the rise of the British Empire, there are similar parallels to the rise of the American quasi-empire" [1] (pdf)[2].
The conference discussed the "outsourcing" of some services within the U.S. intelligence and military sectors. This involves the transfer to the private sector of services previously provided or managed by government (for example, to a private detective agency), a practice that, in the U.S., is simply called "privatization."
 |
This article related to U.S. politics is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
