salary : £3,000 to £4,500 per month

location : Iraq

job term :Temporary or Contract/Full-time

reference : js/cca/psd

contact : Conor O’Callghan

posted on : 29/10/08 at 16:40

deadline :17/11/2008

CP /PSD/Security Specialists - Fixed installation - S.Iraq

We are currently looking for 4 PSD/CPO’s specialists to work on a oil camp in Southern Iraq in support of seismic exploration in a remote area of Southern Iraq.

      I wanted to introduce a book from a friend of mine that the readers might be interested in. I have not had a chance to read it, but it sounds like it is getting good reviews on Amazon.  Rob is the real deal and he has quite a story to tell.  Check it out.  -Head Jundi

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

The down-to-earth memoir of a modern mercenary via Harvard . . .

This is the tale of Rob Krott, a U.S. Army officer who after leaving active duty found adventure in the early days of the wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Somalia. Stripped of the glamour and mystique surrounding the mercenary profession, Save the Last Bullet for Yourself is a no-holds-barred look at private soldiering in the 1990’s, pulling no punches in chronicling the role of modern day soldiers of fortune in the most violent, bloody, ethnic conflicts of the past decade.

     I am not a member of IPSSC, but these guys offer a cool little resource for the industry for a nice price.  Check out the website, and you can get a feel for the types of services they offer.  These guys are just one more resource for our community, and that is a good thing.  -Head Jundi

—————————————————————–

Welcome to the IPSSC Members Web Portal & Information Center

This site is primarily reserved for members of the IPSSC member community and serves as a networking resource and information exchange. Full access to this site requires registration and membership to IPSSC.  

So what is the IPSSC?

     Ok, this is cool.  I am glad that David Isenberg is trying to add some clarity to this thing.  He kind of echoes a few of the points that have been covered here on FJ.  I am just glad that this story is getting the attention it needs, so that guys know what to expect and how to deal with it.  -Head Jundi 

—————————————————————–

Dogs of War: Losing sleep over SOFA

Private military contractors fret over Iraqi-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement

By DAVID ISENBERG

Published: Oct. 31, 2008 at 7:43 PM

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) — If, as now seems possible, Iraq and the United States cannot finalize a Status of Forces Agreement governing U.S. troops there, private military contractors will be sighing in relief.

The agreement, known as SOFA, is basically a document signed by a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces there. The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military issues such as the locations of bases and access

to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. 

At the end of the Cold War, the United States had permanent status of forces agreements with approximately 40 countries. Today the number has grown to more than 90, meaning the United States has agreements with 46 percent of the more than 190 nation-states comprising the world community. 

The Iraq SOFA covers everything from prosecuting violations of law to establishing operational command and a deadline for withdrawal. The United States wanted it to be completed before Dec. 31, when the United Nations mandate, Security Council Resolution 1790, covering the presence of foreign troops in Iraq expires.

Without a signed SOFA, U.S. troops will lack legal authority to remain in Iraq. U.S. officials say they would have to cease operations and confine troops to bases unless some other arrangement, such as an extension of the U.N. mandate, could be worked out.

     Why is it that the security contracting community is always treated like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge?  We are the second largest force in Iraq, yet we are treated as insignificant or irrelevant when it comes to any conversation about our service there.    

     So with that said, this show was a little hard to listen too.  There is absolutely no voice representing the security contracting community in this forum.  I am actually kind of disappointed in PBS NewsHour for putting together such a one sided deal.   

   I think the biggest thing that kind of ticked me off, was that all of the contributors in this conversation, completely ignored the realities of the war in Iraq, during the times that they were referring to.   I really don’t know how else to convey how dangerous and tenuous these kinds of operations were then and now, and there was a total disregard for this fact during the show.  How else do you go down the road as a security specialist, guarding a convoy that every insurgent in Iraq would love to destroy?  Or worse yet, to be dealing with an environment where all vehicle are potential bomb laden threats.  The roads are dangerous, and keeping alive the client in a war zone is not easy or pretty.

    Or that the reason why we were called upon in the first place to do our thing in Iraq, was because the DOD and DOS did not have the man power to get these jobs done.  We are and were very important to the war effort, and this guys did not cover that aspect very well at all.  Did PBS think to post how many men Blackwater lost in Iraq?  Like I said, the conversation was a little one sided.

   Also, security contractors are a service provider.  If the client (DOD and DOS) wants to use us, then it is on them to determine the rules and what we can or can’t do.  With that said, I have had to sign numerous legal documents to operate in Iraq.  I have always understood that I was accountable for my actions and that I was covered by UCMJ, which really is the only legal system we should fall under while over there.(in my opinion) Likewise, if UCMJ was properly applied to contractors, then maybe Iraq would have seen more justice served.  But yet again, politics and the desires of the Iraqi people are what dictate the conditions of the SOFA, and not what is practical or fair. 

    The other thing that bothers me, is this mention of a fully operational and legitimate Iraqi legal system.  Maybe the courts are set up all nice, complete with well briefed judges, but the law enforcement side of the issue is in severe question.  How do you collect evidence, secure a scene, and question witnesses, in the middle of a war zone?  During the Blackwater incident, that is exactly what they came up against.  That evidence and witness questioning, was tainted by a war environment.  That the enemy could very well set up a situation to frame companies, as a tactic of war, and take advantage of this kind of chaotic environment.

   Now don’t get me wrong, I want Iraq to succeed and gain total independence from the US and Coalition. I want it to be a success story, just like everyone that has been a part of that war.  But it is my opinion that we need to slowly transition toward Iraqi independence, and do it very carefully and base all of our moves on results, and not politics.  What I am afraid of, is that politics will force these issues, and guys could get hurt during this transition period.  And when the war is finally finished, then maybe we can trust that justice and the law can be fairly administered.   

   I think we can fall under Iraqi law legitimately one day, and I think we should.(that’s if we are all still in their country when the war is over)  But do I think Iraq is at the level where justice will be fully served, and especially in the middle of a war?  I have my doubts, and I would like to hear some more experts out there weigh in on the issue to alleviate some of these doubts.   

    As for the DOS not falling under the SOFA, that is an interesting angle.  It could be that the guards of DOS are privy to more sensitive information, and that if they are brought up before an Iraqi court of law, that this could cause OPSEC/PERSEC problems.  But the DOD has the same situation as well. Or the State is just trying to protect Blackwater right now, because they know that Iraq is out for blood.  The current agreement got this far like that, so there must be intent for that part to be in there.

     I don’t know, and I am just speculating right now.  But this is the kind of thing I am talking about.  Who is going to explain this stuff to the guy on the ground?  That’s why I recommend to all employees of companies working in Iraq, to demand that the company explain the details of the SOFA to them as soon as an agreement is passed.  -Head Jundi 

——————————————————————- 

Click Here to Hear Podcast 

Transcript

Security Contractors Left Out of Iraq Status of Forces Pact

Blackwater security contractors in IraqA draft Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Iraqi governments gives Iraq “primary legal jurisdiction over contractors with the U.S. and their employees.” But disagreement has arisen over whether the provision applies to State Department contractors, such as Blackwater USA, or just Defense Department contractors. The NewsHour’s Dan Sagalyn prepared this report.

   The thing I wanted to note in this story, besides the fact that I loath the mufsid Shabaab, is that they were able to get a VBIED into the compound to detonate.  Who was the security manager of that facility, because obviously they dropped the ball.  Have they not witnessed the attacks in Pakistan or when the UN was attacked by VBIEDs in Iraq–where is the memory of that?  You must control vehicles, and you must treat each one as a threat until they have been searched.  And the searches need to be happening far away from the people.  

    You would think that this would be common sense, no matter who is running operations out there.  I just shake my head when I hear about ‘vehicles or people’ slipping past security and detonating.  If care was taken to prepare the defense and implement a best industry practices security plan, maybe this kind of thing could have been prevented. My guess though, is yet again a organization (the UNPD) was paying peanuts, and they got monkeys.  Pay the money for quality security professionals and security equipment, and give your employees the best shot at survival out there. It is the right thing to do, and to me, your number one priority is to protect your people so they can do their good work. -Head Jundi      

——————————————————————- 

Suicide attacks kill dozens in Somalia

Three car bombs attack UN, diplomatic and government institutions in the breakaway Somaliland region

Wednesday October 29 2008 17.14 GMT

A wave of synchronized suicide attacks on UN, diplomatic and government institutions in northern Somalia killed up to 31 people today.

Three car bombs detonated in Hargeisa, the capital of the breakaway Somaliland region. Another two vehicles exploded in neighbouring Puntland, which, like Somaliland, has been relative peaceful compared to the rest of the country.

   A couple of things to note with this article.  You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.  If companies want to do business in Afghanistan, then they are going to have to invest in security.  Obviously this ‘guard’ was not thoroughly vetted or that the security company tasked with watching their employees did not keep up with a ‘constant’ vetting process.  

    But vetting costs money, and if business does not want to pay for that expenditure in a contract, then they will get substandard guard service.

    The other thing I wanted to mention, is that the salaries need to go up in Afghanistan.  If we are to follow the Iraq model, then we can deduct that the Taliban are going to continue their attacks in the cities.  That they will continue to attack businesses, create chaos, and try to scare any foreign interests away.  This tactic will hurt the government and hurt the war effort, and hurt the local populations. And if the people lose faith in the Government’s ability to protect them, then that only helps the Taliban cause.  

    Yet again, the market dictates.  If big business is scared off because of this stuff, then they are scared off.  But if the upcoming US administration and the current Afghani administration wants to keep business there, then they are going to have to get busy in either protecting them or giving some kind of incentive to keep them there.  

    And if you are a company representative that is doing research about security in Afghanistan, all I will have to say is pay up if you want to play.  Just like the shipping industry is starting to see the light about security in the Gulf of Aden, you too will have to make security adjustments to be able to operate in Afghanistan.  That’s if you think that buck is worth the effort there.  

    But if you do want to stay, one adjustment that you can do is guard your high level company leaders with substantial security.  That is a no brainer to me.  Pay the money, and get yourself a protective detail that knows their stuff.  Or continue to think that no one wants to kill you? 

     Now I will not suggest low profile or high profile security, because that is up to the guy on the ground that is assigned to protect you.  All I will suggest is to pay the money to get a professional group that has your best interest and life in mind when they make decisions, and they have the experience to back up those decisions.    

    The other adjustment is that if you are going to hire local nationals to do your security, then you should have a security expert review that contract.  Pay the money for a guy that comes highly recommended and is trustworthy, to act as quality control for the security services provided and to help write up a good contract in the first place.  Pay a good salary, and keep him around for awhile.  You cannot just hire a local company, and expect quality service–you need a third party to watch them.  You actually have to pay attention and watch that service like a hawk, and ensure that you are getting a quality product.  But yet again, that costs money.

    Hopefully we will see the adjustments needed, to give those that are over there doing business, the best chance of survival.  You see this played out time and time again.  Security is something you should not be going cheap on, if you care about your employees and want to do business in a war zone. -Head Jundi  

——————————————————————-

Killings increase Westerners’ fears in Afghan capital

October 26, 2008

KABUL (AFP) — The gunning down of three Westerners in the Afghan capital in less than a week is a sharp reminder that Kabul is no longer a safe haven in a country gripped by violence, expatriates say.

Saturday’s shooting of a Briton and a South African, along with an Afghan, outside the offices of the international shipping company DHL appears to have been the result of a dispute unrelated to a growing Taliban insurgency.

Nevertheless, it feeds a sense of insecurity with international residents already concerned by Monday’s killing of a British-South African aid worker and a series of attacks against expatriates this year.

“It is the unpredictability of security incidents which is making it difficult,” said Anu John, who has been in Kabul for 15 months employed by an international non-government organisation.

“The security seems to have deteriorated significantly in the last three to four months… the changes are pretty visible,” she said.

     Good little article, and this should give you an idea where we are headed with the war in Afghanistan. -Head Jundi 

—————————————————————— 

Beyond bin Laden

Petraeus: Success in Afghanistan will require a long-term commitment

By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Oct 20, 2008 10:59:39 EDT

Incoming Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus questioned whether al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden continues to play a significant operational role in the terrorist network and said that even if bin Laden were killed, his lieutenants would ensure al-Qaida stayed in business.

“You have to ask what bin Laden is actually doing these days, besides hiding,” Petraeus said in an Oct. 15 interview with Army Times. “To say that he has been reclusive would be a bit of an understatement. To question what impact his leadership has is reasonable, given his very limited public pronouncements [and] very limited communications with subordinate leaders.”

   Alright guys, you know who you have to write to, in order to make sure they get it right.  If you want Hollywood to control the story, then don’t say a thing.  Or write this guy on his blog, and let him know how you feel.  Invariably, Hollywood is going to screw up anything they get their hands on though, and I really am not too motivated about this film.  

   Even if the writers have the best of intention, the guys with the money are the ones that dictate the narrative.  And seeing how Hollywood has completely screwed the pooch with how they have treated the troops and their service in Iraq, I really do not have much faith in this thing.  I could be wrong, and these guys might have the intention of producing a quality product that honors the sacrifice of those that died in that company and in the industry, but I doubt it. 

    On the other hand, Hollywood has been screaming for action in the Sudan, and several actors have mentioned Blackwater as a possible tool to save lives there.  But if this film is meant to be another hack job, then I will be disappointed but not really surprised. -Head Jundi

Preliminary poster for Blackwater film.

Blackwater film by Ron Shusett & John Chadwell moving forward

October 25th, 2008

By John Chadwell

For those who might be interested in the progress of mine and Ron Shusett’s screenplay, “Blackwater,” I just wanted to let you know that it’s moving forward, perhaps not as rapidly as we would like it to, but all the same it’s still very much alive.

There has been some reorganization with the producers that is not entirely clear to me, but we’ve been told that there are investors lined up to back a slate of films, including Blackwater, now under the Shusett Productions banner.