The controversy over the activities of private security contractors in Iraq reached new heights in the past few weeks with the accusation by the Iraqi government that employees of Blackwater, one of the major American security forces providing protection to American officials in Iraq, had murdered Iraqi civilians. These accusations led to a suspension of Blackwater’s right to operate in Iraq, a suspension that was partially lifted when it became apparent that senior American political officials would then be left without security.

This past Sunday the New York Times ran an investigative article on private security contractors operating in Iraq. Several of the facts revealed there, if they are true, are quite troubling. First, as has been well-known for several years, private contractors are recruited from elite military forces around the world, including our own Special Forces and SEALs. The contractors are paid significantly higher salaries and often have better equipment and shorter tours of duty than do their counterparts in the military.

Further, private contractors operate in a gray area legally. By a decree of Paul Brenner when he was head of the provisional authority in Iraq, private contractors working for the U.S. are exempt from Iraqi law. Although Congress passed legislation in 2005 subjecting these contractors to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which our military personnel operate, this legislation has never been implemented fully. This means, in effect, that private security contractors need not follow the strict rules of engagement that must be followed by our troops.

On the one hand, the job being done by private security contractors in Iraq is enormously difficult. By one estimate, more than 100 contractors have been killed in the line of duty. Without the 20,000 to 30,000 private contractors at work in Iraq, the American military would have to take on the tasks the contractors now perform. This would require a substantial increase in troop levels, something that is both practically and politically implausible. But, nonetheless, serious questions about these contractors must be asked and answered.

First, how can we permit these private armies (in the old days they would be called mercenaries) to operate without the same legal restraints under which our own troops operate? To my mind, permitting private contractors to operate without rules will enrage Iraqi citizens and turn them against our own military. Brian Tamanaha, a leading expert on the “rule of law” has commented that it will be impossible to convince Iraqis that they must establish a democratic government under the rule of law if we exempt private contractors. This situation smacks of hypocrisy.

Second, how can we retain our best military members when they can join private contractors and be better paid and better equipped in the same place and doing the same jobs? To me this is simply an insult to our troops. At the very least, the military should have the same quality of equipment and benefits as the private contractors.

Increasingly the federal government has been “outsourcing” functions once performed by government employees. In no area has this been more troubling than in the military. We have moved to a model where, in effect, we have two militaries. One works for low wages, must fight Congress to get adequate equipment, and must obey strict rules of engagement in the field. The second operates in a shadowy world, is better paid, better equipped, and far less restrained in its operations.

How can this make sense? It is time for Congress to investigate these private armies and bring the full facts to light.