Therefore, any security move for any nation cannot avoid having political implications since this act as benchmark to access the capabilities of the political leaders to offer protection to their citizens.
Over the years, many nations have viewed security as the sole role of the government and hence they have seen military jobs as a different kind of job. Many have considered security as an aspect that they have paid for through tax remittances and therefore they have been the biggest opposes to the idea of privatizing security for quite some time (Singer, 2008, p. 8). In the United States, the whole concept of privatizations traces its way back in the 19th century by the use of private firms in the rail service provision.
Security privatization was one of the largest privatization initiatives that the United States embarked on in the 20th century during the Second World War by privatizing part of the defense functions (Chesterman & Fisher, 2009, p.16). The motivation for this government to private collusion was the increased need for operational and technical support during that time of the war. Ever since that period, this kind of partnership has never ceased between these public and private companies. This trend in security partnership especially in the military has given rise to numerous private security firms (PSCs) which have specialized in a range of activities, which the United States government has been keen to privatize. The major areas that these companies have concentrated on include assessing security risk, offering intelligence support, strategic planning, technical assistant and operational supplement (Singer, 2008).
The ramifications that the privatization of security offers all lie in the political arena since security from the onset was a government role which the political leader as the steers. Several analysts discuss that as much