Consequences of privatization of security .:. in practice in Iraq

The details are clear on this one. Any security change, as the article notes, is scary and likely to result in problems. However, when it is the Green Zone and elections are coming up, are corporate concerns more important? Would this change happen if these were public force (i.e. US Military) units instead of private force units? Probably not. The hand off would be delayed or there would be a significant overlap, something that is simply not possible with these private companies. From Green zone security switch causes anxiety:

Though the entrances and perimeters of the zone are patrolled by Iraqi forces and some coalition troops, much of the interior -- including the embassies and the 12-story Council of Ministers building -- is guarded by a private security company.    

British-based Global Strategies Group lost the contract for the job in an open bidding process and handed over responsibility on Tuesday to Triple Canopy Inc., a Virginia-based company formed after the 2003 Iraq war by Delta Force veterans.  

This is one of the most significant items:    

Another concern is that Triple Canopy employees have been recruited mainly in Latin America and speak little English. Global Strategies relies heavily on British-trained Nepalese Gurkhas and Sri Lankans, a majority of whom speak at least some English and often speak it well.

I wonder if the Latin American soldiers were details in the bidding process and if said process including evaluation criteria on the military impact of this. Generally, the ability of Private Military Companies to interact with regular military is ignored. In this case, it is clear that is not possible.

This and similar contracts are approved by the civilian leadership, in this case the State Department, and not the military leadership.