Interesting little interview with a former Security Chief with DHS about Dyncorp at the border, and the future of contractor use by DHS.  -Head Jundi 

——————————————————————- 

The Future of Security Contracting on the Border?

November 17, 2008

As the former chief security officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Dwight Williams directed and managed security matters related to the department and its 200,000 employees and contractors for close to three years. Williams, a 30-year security veteran whose resume also includes over a decade with the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, now serves as a vice president overseeing security at DynCorp International, a private defense contractor, which he joined in June 2007. CSO caught up with Williams for his thoughts on the future of homeland security and its increasing partnership with private contract firms.

CSO: Dyncorp has had a presence with contract security forces on the border, as well as with contingency efforts in the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina. Drawing upon your expertise both with DynCorp, and previously with the Department of Homeland Security, do you anticipate an increasing private presence in homeland security efforts?

Williams: From its formation, DHS relied heavily on contractor support to stand up the organization and roll out new initiatives. From my experience, it was a public-private partnership that worked very well. I am certain the private sector will continue to play a prominent role with DHS, particularly in the development of new technologies to protect the homeland and by providing surge support in response to natural or man-made disasters.

Other key roles for the private sector include the protection of our critical infrastructure and government facilities, thus freeing valuable government resources to concentrate on detection and elimination of threats to our way of life.

PARAMETERS

US Army War College Quarterly

Autumn 2008, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3

Website Here

Contractors:  The New Element of Military Force Structure

By Mark Cancian

From Parameters, Autumn 2008, pp. 61-77.

Read the Whole Report Here

Conclusion

There is still a great deal of hand-wringing related to “relying on mercenaries” and nostalgia about returning to an all-military warfighting force. As a result many are in denial with regard to contractors. But it is time to move forward. The experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown what future conflict will look like when fought by an all-volunteer force. On the whole the record is vastly superior to the experience in Vietnam, a war fought by a conscript Army. 

     I wanted to post the first little bits of reaction towards the NAF Report. You can see how the report is starting to be used by the various media outlets. At least the Air Force Times article seemed to be more balanced and gave both sides of the issue. -Head Jundi

——————————————————————-  

Obama urged to review use of private firms in war 

Reuters, Saturday November 15 2008

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The Obama administration should move away from using private contractors in active battle areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and dramatically step up oversight, a Washington think tank urged on Friday.

The U.S. military has long used private contractors in fighting its wars, but Washington’s reliance on non-uniformed civilians has sharply increased over the past five years, the New America Foundation said in a new report.

It said the ratio of military personnel to private contractors is now around one to one, and some experts believed there are more contractors than troops in Iraq, compared to 50 to one during the 1991 Gulf War, according to the report.

    Well I am glad these folks are at least on our side when it comes to the SOFA.  This is a little old, but it is good reference for what the New America Foundation is producing.  So their hearts are in the right place, but they still have to make a better effort to connect with the industry they are writing about.  I promise we won’t bite. LOL -Head Jundi  

—————————————————————— 

U.S. Contractors Shouldn’t Face Iraqi Courts

By Maria Figueroa Küpçü, Michael A. Cohen, New America Foundation

Wall Street Journal | August 22, 2008

More must be done to hold security contractors accountable for their actions — but this is not the way to do it.

      Boy, where do I start with this thing.  First of all, in their panel of experts and contributors to this report, I didn’t see any security contractors?  What is up with that?  You would think these guys would at least bring in a couple of actual guys that have done the job out there and could give some perspective about the industry.  I was never contacted about this, nor have I seen them advertise on the forums.  The only names I recognized were Robert Young Pelton and David Isenberg.  Pelton is a travel author who writes books about traveling to war zones, that also wrote a book about security contractors. Isenberg has a column about the industry over at UPI, and that is it for input about the industry. The rest of the panel were experts in foreign policy and other related fields. I think they would have produced a better product if they would have actually included us ‘grunts’ that have some ground truth input about the industry.

      The other one that killed me about this report, is they made the suggestion that security contractors should only be used for static security posts in the war.  That PSD and Convoy operations should be done by the military.  Where I disagree on this, is this completely limits operational capability for the companies over there that are operating on their own.  And this also rips away the military to serve civilian supply efforts.  So will these civilian companies pay the military to do these services.  How about for transporting employees for leave or for medical situations?  Will the military provide an on call shuttle service for us civilians operating at these camps?

     Wow, I had no idea the Professional Services Council would get involved with the process, but that is cool.  I didn’t even know they existed, and at least someone cares about us.  Although, seeing how this was sent almost a month ago, the SOFA(Status of Forces Agreement) writers and negotiators have been notified and I really haven’t seen a focus on these issues.  When the final product comes out and the agreement has been signed, then we will see if Condoleezza Rice was really listening.

   Also with the letter, they mentioned how this SOFA could impact a Afghanistan SOFA in the future.  That if you do not protect civilian contractors with a sound agreement in Iraq, that Afghanistan might push for the same type of agreement in that war zone.  It is about precedent and it is about doing the right thing, and that the DoD and DoS both have an opportunity to take a stand about how important we are in the war effort.  Especially as we draw down in Iraq, and build up in such places as Afghanistan and Africa. 

    The other thing that is interesting about the PSC, is that they are another resource you can use to bring up issues in the industry that need attention.  -Head Jundi

——————————————————————

PSC Urges Contractor Protections in Iraq SOFA

In a letter sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on October 8, PSC outlined its concerns regarding the development of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq that may exclude basic protections for contractor personnel supporting the military and reconstruction efforts in the country. Of particular concern is the fact that a fledgling Iraqi legal system and the general in-country environment may not provide adequate due process procedures for detained contractor personnel.

    Now that Obama is President, what exactly are his views about about the security contracting industry?  I know Obama wants out of Iraq, and soon, but how would he go about it in January of next year?  Will he implement a 16 month draw down, like he promised during his campaign?  And if he does pull the troops out of Iraq in this fashion, how will he deal with the other non-military programs and reconstruction deals going on in Iraq?(read the SIGIR statement below, second story) 

    With that said, here are some interesting stories that give food for thought as to how Obama might view security contractors.  The way I see it, it will be kind of hard for him not to use us for a withdrawal plan in Iraq, unless he wants things messy.   

   Or let’s say he stays the course in Iraq.  And if the SOFA is agreed upon, then it is all systems go and we do a slow, ‘results’ oriented draw down(out by 2011 I believe).  In this case, we will still need guys for the TWISS, GRD, and CMD programs over there, unless Obama is magically able to produce troops to fill the ranks of all positions over there.  I don’t see it. 

   Then there are the troop numbers.  If Obama wants to get rid of us, then he will have to increase troop numbers some how, and dramatically.  Recruiting has not been easy, just to get the guys and gals we have now.  If he wants to get more recruits, then they will probably have to pay higher salaries to attract those youths that voted for Obama in the first place.  I don’t see it personally, because going to Iraq or Afghanistan is not the popular thing with today’s youth. And seeing how the youth vote was Obama’s bread and butter, I just don’t see him trying to sell the military to them.  Maybe not, and we’ll see.

     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.

   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.