Veteran-Recruiting Non-Governmental Organizations: An Emerging Actor in Humanitarian Response
The 2016–2017 Battle of Mosul would have been unrecognizable to Henri Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Unlike the defined front lines in the Battle of Solferino, where Dunant witnessed the suffering of the wounded, 21st-century armed conflict is characterized by the proliferation of asymmetric warfare, non-state armed groups, and the targeting of humanitarian workers. As the security dynamics in today’s conflict zones increasingly render conventional humanitarian operations unfeasible, a new type of humanitarian actor has emerged: veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations. These entities hire military veterans with combat experience, bringing both advantages and challenges to traditional humanitarian principles.
Veterans tend to have a wide range of technical and leadership skills and are accustomed to working in insecure, unstable settings. Some also have highly specialized skills that enable them to provide efficient and effective medical care in complex operational environments, performing at a high level in high-stress, high-risk situations. After leaving the military, these skills can be assets in an equally wide range of professions across the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors.
However, the presence of military veterans in the humanitarian space has generated concerns about safeguarding the fundamental values of humanitarianism — namely, the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Foremost among these concerns is that the presence of veterans blurs the distinction between military, paramilitary, and private security actors on the one hand and humanitarian organizations on the other, thereby increasing the risk to conventional humanitarian entities in conflict. Meanwhile, others contend that the erosion of respect for humanitarian principles in modern warfare requires even traditional humanitarian organizations to deviate from their longstanding practices.
Despite the significance of these debates, little structured attention has been given to the emergence of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations in humanitarian response in modern armed conflict.
What is a Veteran-Recruiting Non-Governmental Organization?
We define veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations as non-governmental organizations that are either founded and led by veterans or that emphasize hiring veterans as stated on their website or social media. Examples include Team Rubicon, Global Response Medicine, and the Global Surgical and Medical Support Group. Other entities such as the Spirit of America, which claims to be recognized by Congress and approved by the Department of Defense, deploy alongside U.S. troops and diplomats in the field. All these organizations are transparent and explicit about their recruitment of veterans. Team Rubicon describes itself as “A veteran-led humanitarian organization, built to serve global communities before, during, and after disasters and crises.” Samaritan’s Purse reports that it is “staffed by veterans who have served in the toughest conflict zones in the world … to operate in challenging, kinetic conditions in developing countries.” The Global Surgical and Medical Support Group defines itself as a “501(c)3 Non-Profit Humanitarian Organization,” stating that “Veterans, especially those with medical qualifications … can find an incredibly unique opportunity to apply their entire range of skills in the service of others.” These organizations do not exclusively recruit military veterans. Rather, to address the unique needs encountered in the challenging operational environments where they work, they gravitate toward a community with the necessary skillset. This happens to be the veteran community.
New Actors in the Humanitarian Space
The Battle of Mosul highlighted a nexus of tensions between modern conflict dynamics, international humanitarian law, and conventional frameworks of humanitarian response. In 2016–2017, a U.S.-backed coalition of Iraqi and Kurdish forces sought to retake Mosul from the so-called Islamic State, leading to a protracted urban siege that devastated the local civilian population. Conventional humanitarian actors such as Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Committee of the Red Cross declined to operate in Mosul due to security concerns. To fill the gap in frontline care, the World Health Organization contracted numerous less-traditional organizations to run its trauma stabilization points located near areas of heavy fighting. These organizations included NYC Medics and Samaritan’s Purse. In addition, private health-service firms such as Aspen Medical supported the humanitarian response, showing that veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations are not the only new actors in this space. Such actors appear to have an unclear obligation to adhere to international humanitarian law.
The outcome was controversial. In accordance with the principle of humanity, civilian lives were saved, although it is unclear how many. This came at the expense of the principles of neutrality and independence, as those involved with the humanitarian response embedded with Iraqi special forces and other military elements for security.
The Mosul response was criticized by Médecins Sans Frontières, who saw it as the manifestation of Colin Powell’s infamous remark in 2001: “NGOs are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team.” Individuals involved in the response were reported to have worn “Make Mosul Great Again” paraphernalia and used local security forces to screen for combatants outside a hospital. Other non-World Health Organization-contracted non-governmental organizations were filmed returning fire at snipers.
Since this time, veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations have come to play a bigger role in modern humanitarian response, often filling a void left by conventional humanitarian organizations. Despite this development, little is known about the scope and scale of the operations of these new humanitarian response actors. Many questions remain pertaining to the range of stakeholders with whom they engage, the way they do so, and the implications of their activities for international humanitarian law.
Uncomfortable Conversations
To address this information gap, we generated a balanced dialogue as a “conversation-starter” about the emerging role of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations in modern humanitarian response. We sought to elicit perspectives on both sides of this debate to improve communication and transparency between conventional humanitarian organizations, veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders in international humanitarian response. In our experience, dialogue on this topic is frequently characterized by a degree of antagonism that precludes productive engagement from all parties.
We explored this topic by interviewing 15 stakeholders in humanitarian response, including both conventional humanitarian organizations and veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations. The interviewees included organizational leaders, medics, surgeons, career humanitarians, and veterans. In addition, we convened a workshop called “New Actors in the Civ-Mil Space” at the 2024 Civilian-Military Humanitarian Coordination Workshop hosted by Brown University and the U.S. Naval War College. While veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations represented a minority at the workshop compared to conventional humanitarian organizations and U.N. agencies, balanced representation was ensured by an approximately 50/50 composition of interviewees between veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations and conventional humanitarians.
The participants in the Brown workshop were split into three breakout groups to address the following questions. First, how is the presence of new actors in the civilian-military space impacting the four core humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence? Second, how is the presence of new actors in this space impacting the acceptance of humanitarian actors? Third, how can we ensure that the concept of “do no harm” as well as respect for local host community cultures and norms are upheld in the presence of new actors? Recruitment for workshop participation ensured that veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations were represented in the three breakout groups.
The breakout groups identified a broad range of themes and sub-themes in their discussions. These included the “instrumentalization” or jeopardizing of the humanitarian principles; the implications of diverse financing structures and a lack of transparency; definitions, as in whether veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations should be considered a distinct category from conventional humanitarian actors; acceptance of new actors by the conventional humanitarian community as well as host communities; and the future implications for access to conflict zones and the protection of humanitarians.
“This Really Freaks Me Out”: Challenges to the Humanitarian Status Quo
The presence of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations in humanitarian situations poses challenges to “business as usual.” In the words of one conventional humanitarian, “[Veteran-recruiting non-governmental organization involvement] really freaks me out, but I’m trying to stay constructive.” Many conventional humanitarian non-governmental organizations feared that veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations’ tendency to engage with security actors diluted what it meant to be a “humanitarian,” endangered the humanitarian principles, and placed humanitarians at risk. Among interviewees, there was a perception that while some veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations may understand international humanitarian law, they were more focused on “helping the good guys.” However, it is often unclear who the so-called good guys are in a conflict. As expressed by one interviewee:
The risks are obvious … the lines are blurred, and because the lines are blurred, the truly neutral humanitarians are at risk and will be much more likely to become a target.
Others felt that sharply critical perspectives amounted to a knee-jerk reaction to a challenge to the status quo. Such individuals felt that the emergence of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations reflected the changing security dynamics in modern conflict. Rather than good or bad, these individuals felt that the role of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations was inevitable, and that any risks associated with this should be mitigated through constructive coordination. As one workshop participant stated:
We have a bunch of people challenging the status quo and we don’t like it — we’re calling them veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations as if they’re a different entity and we’re part of some exclusive club that’s deciding whether or not to accept them…
This sentiment was shared by representatives from veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations themselves:
The problem goes beyond these groups … the whole humanitarian field is an outdated model that isn’t working. It’s a Cold War construct where there was a humanitarian space, where you had people that understood and respected international humanitarian law. And for a lot of places that is no longer really relevant.
Despite these concerns, even critical conventional humanitarian actors acknowledged that veterans’ military experience provided benefits, stating that conflicts such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars created a “wholly different type of person with massive field experience whose skills aren’t fully used in civilian life.” Veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations were perceived as more efficient and better able to mobilize, react, and deliver than conventional actors. Such “nimbleness” was attributed to having technical skills, security expertise, and comfort with ambiguity that allowed veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations to quickly enter places conventional humanitarians could or would not. On the other hand, this agility was also seen as a product of a tendency to avoid official structures and coordination mechanisms. Veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations were also seen to have a leg up with respect to building trust and camaraderie with local military and security actors. Beyond their experience of operating in insecure environments, other benefits identified included a strong sense of morality and non-financial incentive structures, discipline, professionalism, adaptability, language and cultural skills, and a strong analytical approach to skills transfer. These benefits could be attributed to the fact that many veterans had special operations forces backgrounds.
Not All Veteran-Recruiting Non-Governmental Organizations Are Created Equal
Veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations are not created equal. These groups encompass a wide range of organizational profiles, standards, and types of ethos. Like conventional humanitarian organizations, some were seen as “short-term spotlight-seekers with unclear impact” while others seemed committed to sustained local engagement. At one end of the spectrum, some veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations are closely aligned with the standards, principles, and structures that govern the behavior of conventional humanitarians. At the other end, others are difficult to distinguish from government contractors and are proudly partial. For example, some provide training for partner special operations forces while others were felt to play “essentially an intelligence role,” collecting sensitive information from local human sources. The organizations that more closely resembled conventional humanitarian organizations felt it did their work a disservice to be associated with those that didn’t. They were equally critical of such activities as the conventional humanitarians:
I’m glad you guys are taking people out and doing great training and saving lives, but you can’t carry guns and wear camo if you’re a humanitarian aid organization. Those are the rules, and they exist for a reason.
Some veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations representatives felt that conventional humanitarians lacked nuance in their perception of veterans who engaged in humanitarian response:
[Conventional humanitarian organizations] are still dogmatic purists … they don’t distinguish between military and veterans … I’ve spent 14 years having this conversation with them and it goes like this: ‘Hey, I’m a civilian. I’m a civilian that cut my teeth in crisis zones while I was in the military. But subsequently I have worked in conflict zones and disaster situations as a civilian. Civilian veterans are civilians. Now you may have done this in the Peace Corps, or you may have done it with the military, but the fact is we are all civilians.’
Double Standards?
Do the same standards apply to conventional humanitarians and veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations? Representatives both from veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations as well as some career humanitarians felt that many of the criticisms raised could apply to the entire humanitarian sector, which one interviewee derided as “the largest unregulated industry in the world.” Another stated:
I don’t know that [conventional humanitarian organizations] really set a gold standard. I’d call it more like a tinfoil standard … There’s a problem with the whole sector, so I don’t necessarily see a specific problem here.
Such critiques included a lack of accountability for outcomes, “spotlight-seeking” to attract to donors (then needing a security escort for access to a conflict zone), and uneven commitment to local actors on the ground. Multiple interviewees believed veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations did a better job of supporting training (i.e., targeted transfer of specific knowledge or skills) and capacity building (i.e., developing strengthened capacity at a systems or organizational level) than conventional humanitarian actors that created reliance on expatriate assistance.
What Comes Next?
Accepting the divergent reactions to veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations — as well as the limitations of this designation itself — what constructive steps can be taken to improve communication, transparency, and coordination with conventional humanitarian actors? Three recommendations come to mind.
First, establish more precise definitions that classify “veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations” not by the professional backgrounds of their leadership and staff but by their organizational conduct. Specifically, conventional humanitarians called for strong delineation and different terminology to be applied to veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations collaborating with security actors. Conversely, representatives of such veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations expressed that they were not attached to the term “humanitarian.” As one stated:
If it’s a problem for Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Committee of the Red Cross to call us “humanitarian” then just call us a training group. I could[n’t] care less what we’re called, we’re just helping people.
Second, create uniform standards for adherence to humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law for actors calling themselves “humanitarians.” Some conventional humanitarians were so concerned by the implications of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations’ work that they felt a new protocol to the Geneva Conventions was warranted. Others felt that more moderate measures to establish standardized accountability mechanisms, accreditation processes, minimum standards for international humanitarian law training, and adherence to humanitarian principles would be sufficient to support the professionalization of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations and other emerging actors in the humanitarian space. The World Health Organization Red Book, which seeks to provide guidance for medical teams in conflict and insecure environments, was identified as a potential opportunity to establish such standards.
Finally, parties on both sides called for continued dialogue to foster transparency and improved understanding of the wide range of emerging actors operating under the banner of humanitarianism.
Taken together, these steps may help professionalize the activities of veteran-recruiting non-governmental organizations, promote coordination and communication with conventional humanitarians, and clarify both the positive and cautionary implications of their engagement in modern humanitarian response.
Hannah Wild is a resident surgeon focused on improving casualty care in low-resource conflict settings. She leads the Explosive Weapons Trauma Care Collective and is currently based in Burkina Faso.
Stanislava Mladenova is a global fellow at Brown University’s Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Studies, and formerly a fellow at the Irregular Warfare Initiative at the U.S. Military Academy. She is the author of “When Rambo Meets the Red Cross: Civil-Military Engagement in Fragile States.”
Image: Staff Sgt. JoAnn Makinano via Wikimedia Commons.
Jesus Christ is King
