Privatize National Defense

This is my first debate on these forums, and I could not have asked for a better first opponent. And before I begin again, I would just very quickly point out that my opponent has brought in imperialism into this debate. To my opponent, is the root of "evil imperialism" not spurred by free market principles and private sector companies hoping to make a profit by opening up new markets? My opponent's proposals to privatize national security and cut the government out of the military industrial complex equation would actually lead to imperialism as unregulated defense companies would instigate wars and advertise threats in other countries in order to make a profit. You see the biggest pitfall of private armies and the -never before done- war insurance companies my opponent proposes is that they just really aren't a smart or viable idea - sociably, militarily, or economically. And I have used history to explain the ineffectiveness of defense companies and private armies - paying particular attention to examples where special interest, ideology, and greed outweighed any obligations to defending the state; while also trying to explain with some math the huge financial costs of defending a country and why it would not be economically possible or convenient for insurance companies to assume the financial risks. At the end of the day, it is still federal agencies who are "invited in" (not depended on) to assume the burden of risks deemed too great for the insurance companies to handle. The federal government cannot go bankrupt from war debts and total war the same ways that private companies would. The government and its armies at the end of the day is also held accountable and safeguarded by elections from the people, it cannot be "bought out" the same way a private company and corporation can. It can be lobbied, but not bought out. I also stand by the troubling history of mercenary groups making wars more dangerous for their sponsoring nations - from the Hessians in America to Backwater in Iraq. And I also believe Hitler's brown shirts is a fair and important example of moral misconduct from security establishments. Though my opponent challenges the context of these examples as "directly hired independent fighters by states" or as independent paramilitary groups, "independent of the government" by definition makes them private armies where a government has had no responsibility in the organization, direction, or use of force. And while not all my examples were legalized firms or security establishments, -which my opponent correctly suggests- many were - including Hitler's brown shirts; and their nature and history is what we can expect if we privatize defense and let private entities dictate defense policy. I say again, National Security is too Important not to be left to the military. My opponent has admirably defended his proposals with free-market principles, but in the real scheme of things, true cost efficiency in war and disaster is not measured in dollars saved or dollars gained, but actual number of lives saved and problems solved. So long as insurance and defense companies are driven to make a profit, which they must in order to survive, they will always come up short when it comes to assuming the risks and responsibility for national defense. These are two important areas where the need to make money is incompatible with the need to win a war, which must sometimes be fought at any cost.