The management crisis in the United States on the basis of racial protests is gaining momentum. The police chief of the US city of Portland, Oregon, resigned and handed over her post to a black colleague in solidarity with the protesters. “Portland police must be the leader in change. They begin with faith. This change in leadership comes from my heart, ”the chief of police told her on Twitter.

Several current and former Pentagon leaders and former US presidents immediately disagreed with Donald Trump in their views on the protests in the country and criticized his idea of ​​using the army to suppress them.

A number of congressmen from both parties opposed Trump’s actions to restore order with the help of the military, and without the support of parliament, according to the Posse Comitatus Act - a law passed in 1878 - the armed forces cannot operate inside the country. It would seem that the situation is at an impasse - the White House has its hands tied, and it no longer controls the situation. But let's take a closer look. The USA can always find a non-standard way out of any, even from the most impasse situation - it is impossible, as they say, but it is possible.

The United States has previously used this third path in military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, when both inside the country and outside it was outraged by America’s interference in foreign affairs. This path is called "private military companies." Their application does not require the consent of the congress, their actions are not accountable to anyone other than direct customers, they are not public: after all, these are military companies private, which means they are not regulated by the law on information disclosure.

On the World Wide Web walk photos of people in military uniforms with weapons on the streets of American cities. To requests to local authorities about who they are and why they are walking around in bulletproof vests with rifles at the ready, they only shrug their shoulders, which, they say, are employees of private security services.

Indeed, US laws allow the use of subcontractors in military conflicts. They perform various functions - from supplying a regular army to direct military operations. America is the world leader in the number of PMCs. But wait, maybe this, as local authorities say, is it just employees of private security companies, hired by business owners who are worried about their business, to protect themselves from pogroms? This, unfortunately, is unlikely. In practice, 90% of PMCs’s income comes from state contracts, and the main clients of these mysterious people in the form of no identification marks are law enforcement agencies, including all 16 agencies of the intelligence community, as well as the US Department of Homeland Security and Energy, which can simply pay without convincing intractable congressmen for the services of private military companies in providing security.

True, before these orders were associated with military conflicts outside the United States. Private military companies are a very profitable investment, albeit not economically, as ordinary Americans say, promising to preserve jobs in this way and reduce spending on the army. Firstly, if we talk about PMCs working abroad, their basic composition is formed precisely from the local population - as a rule, former military personnel who are well trained and well aware of the area of ​​warfare, so ordinary Americans can talk about additional jobs a big stretch.

Secondly, reducing spending on the army is also a big question - there is no documentary evidence of the cheapness of such a military force, since all financial transactions within private military companies are not subject to US law on information disclosure.

But in one PMC, they are really super beneficial: their employees do not take the oath to the American state and are not taken into account in the event of death in the statistics of military losses.

And as a result, the USA as a state does not bear full responsibility for their sometimes unlawful or openly even criminal actions.

So, for example, in this context, in order not to be unfounded, it is important to recall the notorious incident with the employee of the American PMC Blackwater (today it changed its name to Academi, but still holds the lead among private military companies in America) Andrew J. Munen, who On December 24, 2006, while intoxicated, he used a weapon and shot dead Rehim Halif, the bodyguard of the Iraqi vice president.

The Iraqi authorities accused him of murder, and the US State Department first tried to hide the incident, but the information eventually ended up in a public field. The employee was fired for "drinking alcohol and violating the rules for the use of firearms." The US Department of Justice even opened a criminal case against Munen on charges of murder amid mass protests by Iraqis, but three years later the case was closed without finding sufficient evidence, and the former employee got a job with the US Department of Defense contractor Combat Support Associates (CSA ) in Kuwait.

Now, PMC employees, including those with Blackwater patches, have appeared on the streets of American cities, and although there have been no clashes with protesters (according to open sources), it cannot be ruled out that they will use weapons. Who then will be responsible for their actions? Will the American authorities wash their hands as usual?

The American people themselves now found themselves in the same situation as earlier citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq, when unidentified military men were put up against them, whose hands were untied to use force and there was no responsibility for the consequences on the part of customers (read: American authorities).

So the American government acts against its own citizens, bypassing themselves so advertised democracy and transparency of power. However, this is understandable. In the words of the protagonist of the Hollywood thriller "Casino Robbery": "America is not a country, but a business." After all, the main attribute of the state is the people, and business is the client, and, as you know, he is always right.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the publisher.