The United States is justified in using Private Military Firms abroad to pursue its military...

Arguments 1 and 3"An example of this would be delivering for supplies and meals that were damaged or destroyed all together."Exactly how likely is it that that particular PMF will be hired again? Reputation is important to every industry, especially so when making purchases that could involve a risk to human lives. Messing up in such a way that you described is something that the PMFs simply can't afford to do. As their goal is to make a profit, they will minimize mistakes like this to the greatest extent possible. Because of the incentive that the drive to profit provides, PMFs likely will try harder to do things correctly than soldiers would because soldiers have no such incentive."The Defense Contract Audit Agency has identified more than $10 billion in questionable costs from PMFs."This comment lacks both a source demonstrating that this is in fact truthful and a reson why "questionable" costs are costs that could have been used for other things. Anything can be questioned. Until evidence is shown to substantiate the clam that these funds were actually wasted, it is unreasonable to assume that they were.Argument 2In response to this argument, I will refer you back to the definition of "justified". Justified was defined in the first round as "Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason". In most instances, it is extremely difficult to correctly determine the consequences of an action ahead of time. This does not detract from the reason that the ation was done in the first place, which you have not provided any argument against. Your argument was focused on the PMFs interfering in military operations, ratther than showing that the reason itself was not legitimate, which is the focus of this debate.Source of StatisticsWhile the Secretary of Defense may have those opinions regarding the way the use of contractors occured in the past, it has no bearing on how they are used now or will be in the future. Pages twenty-eight and tewnty-nine of the document provide a plan for training contingency contracting personnel. These plans were made in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, among others. To solve a problem, you first have to acknowledge that the problem exists, which this source does. Such training will enable the US to get the most benefit out of the services provideed by contractors. PMFs are AbusiveYou are correct in your assertion that abuses by PMFs have occured, however, you neglect to mention the numerous examples of abuses by US soldiers. After the Abu Graib abuses committed by the private military contractor, US soldiers continued to abuse prisoners. They also killed people who were attempting to surrender, in a clear violation of acceptable conduct. [1] In the video, an Afghan citizen describes the abuses against him commited by us soldiers. PMFs have more reasn to reform their actions than soldiers do because of their nature as privately-owned businesses. As ddemonstrated by such websites as Angie's List [2], the public perception of a service provided by a buisiness is very important. If a business is viewed poorly by the public (as abusive PMFs are), then they are unlikely to be hired. It is in their best interest not to be abusive, so they will put every effort into preventng such things from happening. This incentive does not exist for military perrsonnel, because the US military is not a business.Sources[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.youtube.com...[2] http://www.angieslist.com...