Archive for category Iraq

Iraq: Exxon Mobil Leads The Charge North, As The Shine Of The South Wears Off

May 23

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq | 1 Comment

Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.
But increasingly, some executives say, Kurdistan’s potential is also coming up in boardroom discussions, as sluggish output, red tape and infrastructure bottlenecks in the south take some of the shine off the central government’s oil program.
Oil majors are now waiting on the sidelines, watching the outcome of Exxon’s balancing act between Baghdad and Arbil, the northern capital. France’s Total is the latest company to provoke Baghdad’s ire by acknowledging interest in Kurdistan.
“What companies are trying to do is get to the point where they are investing in the north and the south,” said one industry source working in Iraq……Firms have experienced problems getting visas for contractors and security staff, delays in bringing in armored vehicles and holdups securing operating licenses. Such hassles make Kurdistan’s offerings look more tempting by comparison.
“Every delay we face cuts off a significant part of the internal rate of return,” said one oil company source. “Sometimes I wonder if we picked the wrong region.”

This is some interesting business going on in Iraq. Oil companies are playing a risky game in Iraq, and yet they are the actors that will more than likely drive Iraq to ‘pull it together’. It also looks like Exxon Mobil is leading the charge in this game as well.

I say this, because the divisions in Iraqi parliament/central government, along with corruption, is causing oil companies to seek safer and more stable leadership/relationships to do business with in order to keep extracting and shipping oil. For example, Exxon has signed contracts both in the North and the South, and it looks like they are starting to lean more towards moving north with the hopes that this will send a message to parliament. Of course parliament reacted by saying they cannot bid on any more contracts in the south.

The other area of interest with this, are the contracts signed in the disputed areas. Specifically the area near Mosul, which is the second largest city in Iraq.  I could see Exxon having all sorts of problems in that region unless some serious deals were made, and I was curious as to what the motivation was?  Perhaps the clues are in the state of affairs within the city itself. Check this quote from an interview with Mosul’s governor?

Mosul is an agricultural and oil region. However, it cannot properly and sufficiently use Iraq’s oil revenues. Mosul is also uncomfortable with the recent agreements between foreign oil companies and Arbil to extract oil from Mosul’s soil. For instance, Exxon-Mobil signed a contract with the KRG despite the fact that the site it will explore for oil is in Mosul. Nujaifi is holding talks with Exxon-Mobil and the KRG to resolve this problem. In addition, under the Iraqi constitution, Mosul should get 11 percent of Iraq’s oil revenue. However, it receives only 2 percent. According to Nujaifi, if the oil bill is not adopted and the oil revenues are not distributed evenly by the provinces, a political crisis will erupt. The poverty rate in Mosul is 23 percent, whereas it is 3 percent in the KRG. Nujaifi notes that the rising tension along the borders of Mosul is creating tension for them as well. As the KRG becomes more popular, it is impossible to explain the recent state of backwardness in Mosul.

I highlighted the key parts in this quote, and I think that is most significant. With poverty as high as it is, and a neighbor like KRG enjoying the good life, who do you think Mosul will want to do business with?  Especially if Iraq is only giving Mosul 2 % of Iraq’s oil revenue.  They are definitely getting the short end stick in this deal, and either the South pays up, or Mosul will probably join the Exxon party.

Also, the news of Kurdistan signing a deal with Turkey for a new pipeline that would completely shut out Baghdad is definitely some news to talk about here. That would mean they would have a way to capitalize on oil extraction without paying Baghdad. They could possibly bring cities like Mosul into the mix with this pipeline, and especially if Mosul can capture a better deal.

On Sunday, Iraqi Kurdistan unveiled an agreement to sell oil through Turkey into the international markets, thereby leaving Baghdad completely out of the loop. The Kurdish oil minister Ashti Hawrami said Iraqi Kurdistan will construct a huge 1 million barrel per day pipeline over the next 12 months through which oil and gas will be carried through Turkey.
“We envisage the building of a new pipeline taking Kurdistan’s oil, particularly the heavier component part to Cihan,” Hawrami said at a conference with Taner Yildez, the Turkish energy minister.
Baghdad believes such an arrangement contravenes Iraqi laws, while Kurds assert they can sign any contract regarding their natural resources according to the terms of the constitution.

Oil fields like this also provide jobs to the locals and infuse money into the local economy. Security will be crucial–which means local security companies will be a huge player in this. (although if you look at how MEND operates in Nigeria, you could see the same thing happening in Mosul with insurgents) The question here is would Baghdad send the troops to protect these oil fields? lol Probably not, unless they are included in the oil deal. That is where this get’s interesting, and I am sure criminal groups and insurgents are looking at how they could use this to their advantage.

The other thing to look at is if Exxon and other oil companies have another pipeline they can use, that is being managed by a government that knows what it is doing and is stable, then I could totally see how this would be a better bet for those companies.  This is also another signal to Baghdad that ‘hey guys, if you come together and square away your house, then you too can enjoy the same prosperity as the Kurds’.

Or, the Iraqi government can try to exert influence or pull some military moves up north, but good luck there. lol The Peshmerga and terrain will dictate otherwise.

So we will see how it goes. My guess is that Exxon and others will continue to play the North against South in order to keep extracting. They will keep these two players of the country competing for these companies and their capability. That back and forth interaction, might be the kind of business that will force the country to square itself away in order to finally realize their oil extraction goals. The alternative is to be driven apart.

There is a lot of money in the ground, and if Iraq wants it, it will have to do business with the companies that know how to get it out and into the market. That takes compromise and leadership, and a divided parliament and corrupt government in the south will only force companies to take the path of least resistance. -Matt

 

map+of+kurd exxon+deal+ +IndependentIraq: Exxon Mobil Leads The Charge North, As The Shine Of The South Wears Off

 

Analysis: In Iraq, oil majors play north versus south
By Patrick Markey and Peg Mackey
Thu Apr 5, 2012
In the weeks before Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that Exxon Mobil had signed up to explore for oil there, executives at rival Shell faced a dilemma over whether or not to join the U.S. oil major in its foray north and risk angering Baghdad.
The fields in the autonomous region offered rich potential, an easier working environment, better security and attractive contracts. That seemed a winning combination for smaller oil companies already working there, such as Norway’s DNO, even though they struggled to collect profits.
But at the 11th hour, industry sources say, Royal Dutch Shell backed out and decided to focus on a $17 billion gas deal in the south rather than sign exploration contracts with the Kurdish Regional Government, which the central government could dismiss as illegal and could prompt reprisals.
Shell’s caution, Exxon’s silence on its deals and this week’s renewed dispute between Baghdad and Kurdistan over export payments reveal how delicate is the balance companies must manage between a central government and a Kurdish authority locked in a struggle over who controls Iraq’s vast oil wealth.
The dispute over oil is at the heart of a wider disagreement between Iraq’s central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish region, which are also increasingly at odds over regional autonomy, land and political influence.
Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Iraq: Foreign Military Contractors Spearhead Effort To Train Iraqi Forces

May 17

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq, Training | No Comments

“This is the model that Iraq is very comfortable with –low .U.S presence in uniform, a lotta contractors, and they’re getting the quality instruction, the quality training that they really need,” Lieutenant General Robert Caslen

Here is a quick story and update on some more contractor training programs in Iraq. But in this case, this is training that the Iraqis want and need.  Perhaps the Police Development Program that DoS is running should take some notes?

What is interesting is that the article listed some numbers.  Check it out.

But they left behind the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I), a group of about 157 military personnel under U.S. embassy authority, and some 600 civilian contractors, mostly retired soldiers.?They are working with the Iraqis on everything from training on new equipment, such as U.S. M113 armored personnel carriers and M1 Abrams tanks, to military education.

600 hundred contractors training the Iraqis? I imagine that figure includes support contractors as well, because for every trainer or soldier, there is the logistical support in the background that keeps them going. That is still impressive. But what is equally important is the public private partnership that is going on to make that happen. 157 military personnel are there, helping to implement this training and advising as well. -Matt

 

size0 army.mil 89168 2010 10 22 061023Iraq: Foreign Military Contractors Spearhead Effort To Train Iraqi Forces

 

Foreign military contractors spearhead effort to train Iraqi forces
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Explosions throw up clouds of smoke near Iraqi soldiers with armored vehicles, who check for casualties, spot enemy forces in the desert ahead of them and then open fire.?But the blasts are only simulated artillery fire and the “enemy forces” are pop-up silhouette targets, not gunmen and vehicles.
That is just as well for these soldiers on a training exercise, as the puffs of dust kicked up by bullets downrange indicate that their aim is often off the mark.?An Iraqi company commander led his soldiers in the exercise at the massive Besmaya military base southeast of Baghdad, but it was a foreign contractor who controlled the scenario.?It was the contractor who ordered the targets raised and lowered amid the sounds made by .50 caliber machine guns on the armored vehicles and the chatter of M-16 rifles.?Contractors, who also assist soldiers in preparing for drills and with after-action reviews, are at the forefront of U.S. efforts to train Iraqi forces.?Negotiations on a post-2011 U.S. military training mission broke down last year over Iraqi reluctance to offer the trainers immunity from prosecution, and almost all American soldiers left the country last December.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Iraq: Iraq Police Development Program–Will It Be Scrapped Or Just Reduced In Size?

May 14

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq, Law Enforcement, Training | No Comments

The trainers are mostly retired state troopers and other law enforcement personnel on leave from their jobs back home, and a number of officials who criticized the program questioned what those trainers have to offer Iraqi police officials who have been operating in a war zone for years.
Mr. Perito said that the State Department never developed a suitable curriculum and that instead, advisers often “end up talking about their own experiences or tell war stories and it’s not relevant.”
Retired Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, now a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, who oversaw the training of Iraqi security forces from 2007 to 2008, said, “The evidence suggests that the State Department never really engaged the Iraqis to find out what they need and what they want.”

In an effort to ‘right size’ the US mission in Iraq, and adjust to Iraq’s desire to enforce their sovereignty, we are seeing an adjustment happening.  Which makes sense and is totally reasonable. It is the Iraqi’s show now, and it will be very difficult to sell them on a massive program that they think they do not need or even want.

Or, like the quote up top and what SIGIR identified in the report, that DoS should work a little harder at creating a curriculum or program that the Iraqis actually like and want more of. And that would take talking with them, and using some kind of metrics to determine what is working with the course, and what is not.(as SIGIR recommends)

Also, more work needs to be done to convince the police commanders and leaders of Iraq that courses like this actually do increase the effectiveness of their police. But that takes action, not words, and the service out in the field must be evaluated and surveys taken in order to get a feel for what is effective. That old Jundism of ‘get feedback’ comes to mind.

Another point was brought up in the article below that was interesting. And that is security for these police advisers in Iraq. With the military gone, the security these days for operations are contractors.

The Iraqis have also insisted that the training sessions be held at their own facilities, rather than American ones. But reflecting the mistrust that remains between Iraqi and American officials, the State Department’s security guards will not allow the trainers to establish set meeting times at Iraqi facilities, so as not to set a pattern for insurgents, who still sometimes infiltrate Iraq’s military and police.

So as Iraq hassles contractors, or as the Iraqis do a terrible job of securing places that these advisers might visit or the people they might train, that operations in this environment becomes very complex and dangerous. But it isn’t impossible, and security contractor will make it happen–just as long as DoS is working hard about the issue of how Iraqis treat security contractors.

If you are on this program and disagree with what was said in this NYT’s article or what was said in the SIGIR, definitely come up in the comments section and speak up. Also, if anyone at DoS wants to come up and speak about the program on this blog, by all means feel free to do so. Although DoS did make a public statement in regards to this article, and I posted that below along with the SIGIR report done last year about this program. -Matt 

 

U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police
By TIM ARANGO
May 13, 2012
In the face of spiraling costs and Iraqi officials who say they never wanted it in the first place, the State Department has slashed — and may jettison entirely by the end of the year — a multibillion-dollar police training program that was to have been the centerpiece of a hugely expanded civilian mission here.
What was originally envisioned as a training cadre of about 350 American law enforcement officers was quickly scaled back to 190 and then to 100. The latest restructuring calls for 50 advisers, but most experts and even some State Department officials say even they may be withdrawn by the end of this year.
The training effort, which began in October and has already cost $500 million, was conceived of as the largest component of a mission billed as the most ambitious American aid effort since the Marshall Plan. Instead, it has emerged as the latest high-profile example of the waning American influence here following the military withdrawal, and it reflects a costly miscalculation on the part of American officials, who did not count on the Iraqi government to assert its sovereignty so aggressively.
“I think that with the departure of the military, the Iraqis decided to say, ‘O.K., how large is the American presence here?’ ” said James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador to Iraq, in an interview. “How large should it be? How does this equate with our sovereignty? In various areas they obviously expressed some concerns.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Publications: Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 2nd Quarter FY 2012

May 13

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Industry Talk, Iraq, Publications | No Comments

Check it out. Contractor use has only increased in Afghanistan, and in Iraq we have seen a draw down from the last report. I thought what was equally interesting was the increase of contractor use in ‘other’ locations. 14,618 ‘other location’ contractors last quarter versus 24,765 for this quarter. It would be cool if they actually broke down these other locations? All said, the total amount of contractors are just a little more than last quarter, but not by much.(151,995 last quarter versus 152,959 this quarter)

What is also curious is the decrease in the use of local nationals from the last report, and the increase in the use of American and partner contractors in Afghanistan. I am wondering if that is a direct result of all of these incidents of green on blue attacks, or because of poor quality services performed by local Afghans?  Who knows, and it is hard to say what is happening with the numbers there.

As to security contractors, we have seen a huge increase in use for Afghanistan. Last quarter we were at 20,375 folks, and now we are at 26,612. So we must be doing something right.

Although Iraq has seen a pretty sharp decline in security contractor use. Last quarter we were at 8,995 and this quarter we are at 3,577. But that is still a significant security contractor presence presence in post war Iraq.  This might stabilize as well, after all of the ‘right size’ initiatives that DoS was working towards. But who knows and it might go lower.

The other cool deal in this publication was the mention of the new ANSI standard for security companies. Under Sec 833 of the FY2011 NDAA, the US government will use third party accreditation services to see what companies meet the ANSI standard.  So it will help the government in picking companies for contracts that at least meet ANSI. And if companies want to play, they will have to live up the ANSI standard. Or that is the theory, and we will see how all of this translates out in the field.

This is still a great deal, and in this report they mentioned the concept of ‘best value’ and how this ANSI standard can help them find the best value companies out there. But hopefully this will not be the only metric.  Reputation, and how they treat their contractors should be other areas of concern, as examples of how they should pick.

It was funny though that they threw in that other term ‘technically acceptable’.  It sounds like some in government are still hanging on to LPTA as the way to go for contracts, and that is just dumb. Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable contracting is how you get these ‘race to the bottom’ gigs like TWISS, and it is just a dumb tool for security contracts. LPTA might work for finding a contractor to mow your lawn and no one really cares if they screw up.  No lives will be lost and the lawn will be cut regardless.

But for security, you want the best value for the dollar–just like you would choose a doctor or a lawyer.  Because with these types of contracts, lives ‘are’ on the line…-Matt

 

Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 2nd Quarter FY 2012

Tags: , , ,

Iraq: No Iraq Visas Issued to USG Security Personnel Since December 2011?

Apr 16

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq | 1 Comment

I recently came across a blog post by Diplopundit that was very interesting. They are reporting that no Iraqi Visas have been issued to USG security personnel since December of last year. This is not surprising and I posted about guys getting arrested and hassled last year and this year because of visa/paper work issues. Here is the quote and DoS has yet to refute this or comment over at Diplopundit.

“No visas have been issued to security personnel since December and there is no straight answer coming from the Department of State or the Ministry of Interior.”

What is funny is that the DoS stated this in their travel warning for Iraq.

“The U.S. government considers the potential threat to U.S. government personnel in Iraq to be serious enough to require them to live and work under strict security guidelines. All U.S. government employees under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador must follow strict safety procedures when traveling outside the Embassy. State Department guidance to U.S. businesses in Iraq advises the use of protective security details.”

We also know what the Oil Ministry thinks about private security in Iraq. lol

So how is it that anyone can legally provide this security throughout Iraq if they don’t have visas? So I take it that folks are just sitting at the embassy and not traveling throughout Iraq because their security is without a visa? Or I wonder if any other countries have been denied visas and the US is the only one? (There are various oil interests in Iraq, to include China’s, and I wonder how they are being treated?) Let me know what you think or if you have any updates? -Matt

Tags: , , , ,

Iraq: The Oil Ministry Wants To Ban Security Firms On Oil Fields

Mar 28

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq | 2 Comments

How I read this is that the Oil Ministry wants to pull what Afghanistan is wanting to do, and get paid for Oil Police to protect these oil companies. So what they do is demonize these private security firms so they can justify this action.

Which is fine except Iraq is going to run into the same problems as Afghanistan with their APPF farce. The Oil Police are probably still corrupt, and honestly I could see them dropping the ball on quality of service or even allowing an infiltrator or two to make their way onto these oil drilling sites or arranging for kidnap type deals. Until Iraq is free and clear of this insurgency and Al Qaeda, or free of Quds forces/Iranian influence, I would have to say that trust of the Oil Police would be pretty low.

And speaking to that trust, usually a company has a buffer between it’s employees out in the field and a local guard force. A protective detail that provides some comfort to these companies so they can operate and know they have a trusted force watching their back. Most companies already operate like that now–with a local guard force running the perimeter and a PSD force watching over and managing the local guard force.  It works well, but to take that buffer out of the picture is a big mistake. Especially in an active war zone.

I am also wary of cost. How much more will companies have to pay for this Oil Police protection? What will these companies have in the way of checks and balances if this force steals from them or does something in violation of a contract? In other words, you can fire a private security company, but how can you fire a government force–and especially if it is criminal/corrupt or provides poor service?

Personally, Iraq should do all it can to accommodate these oil companies. Let them have their private security, but also encourage them to contract local guard forces–which they already do.  Focus the Oil Police on actual police duties that would further protect these oil assets. Believe me, they have plenty to do when it comes to preventing attacks and crime against oil infrastructure. Private security also does not patrol out in the towns and cities, nor do they have arresting authority.  So why use the police as body guards, when they would be far more useful just being police?

We will see how this turns out. I am sure Iraq will do whatever they want, and this is more of the same when it comes to hassling PSC’s there. I am also wondering if they are treating all PSC’s like this, or just the western PSC’s?  I say this because if you look at the graphic below, there are oil companies from all over the world operating in Iraq. If there is any discrimination here, I would like to hear about it and please feel free to post that in the comments below. I would also be curious if this new statement violates any prior contracts or memorandums signed between Iraq and these companies? -Matt

 

20111228132834721734 20Iraq: The Oil Ministry Wants To Ban Security Firms On Oil Fields

 

Iraq bans security firms on oil fields
March. 19, 2012
With U.S. forces gone from Iraq, Baghdad has banned foreign security contractors, long abhorred by Iraqis, from the 12 major oil fields being developed by international companies, mainly in the south.
But the government may find that hard to enforce.
Iraq’s military and security forces, still being trained by Americans, have shown themselves incapable of maintaining stability and protecting these vital and vulnerable facilities amid a surge in political violence since the U.S. withdrawal was completed Dec. 18.
The order by Iraq’s Oil Ministry was issued Feb. 29 and signed by Director General Faisal Walid. The contractors, the ministry declared, will be replaced by Iraq’s Oil Police who “will provide the necessary protection.”
Whether the 31,000-strong U.S.-trained force is capable of shielding Iraq’s vast oil and gas infrastructure, that includes 4,500 miles of pipelines which Baghdad is expanding under a $50 billion upgrade program, remains to be seen.
The ban reflects a wider drive by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government to impose tough restrictions on the tens of thousands of private security personnel who remain in Iraq, and eventually to throw them all out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Iraq: Contractor Randy Michael Hultz Released By Militia After Nine Months, Two Other Security Contractors Remain Captive

Mar 17

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq | 4 Comments

The official said two other Americans who worked as contractors for security firms still are being held by militants. He did not elaborate, and spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Fantastic news and I am very happy that these militants finally gave Michael up. But what I am really hoping for is that these two other American security contractors also get released. I have to think that DoS is now pressing for the release of these other two contractors now that the ice has been broken for releases.

I do not know the details behind this and if anyone knows anything about Michael or these other two security contractors, or the company they all worked for, I am all ears.  What kills me is that Michael was not listed as a POW and I have no record of it. That to me is shameful, and how could the company or the government not make mention of this? Unbelievable…. -Matt

 

LON827 1336561lIraq: Contractor Randy Michael Hultz Released By Militia After Nine Months, Two Other Security Contractors Remain Captive

In this image taken from TV Saturday March 17, 2012, showing a man identified as Randy Michael, who is purported to be an American contractor, in Baghdad, Iraq, after he was released from captivity, handed over to the United Nations by Shiite lawmakers representing the hardline followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The United Nations mission in Iraq confirmed Saturday that it took custody of a man who was described as a U.S. citizen, who had been held captive by an Iraqi militia group for about nine months. US man captured by militia in Iraq released to UN

US man captured by militia in Iraq released to UN
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
March 17, 2012
Wearing a U.S. Army uniform and flanked by Iraqi lawmakers, an American citizen announced Saturday that he was being released from more than nine months of imprisonment by a Shiite militia that for years targeted U.S. troops.
The man did not identify himself. But at a bizarre press conference outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, lawmakers showed U.S.-issued military and contractor ID cards that identified him as Randy Michael Hultz.
Speaking calmly and tripping over Arabic names in a monotone voice, Hultz said he was grateful for his release.
“It was explained to me that this is a gift to me, my family and to the American people who oppose the war,” he said at the press conference that was held for Iraqi media.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Iraq: US Embassy Staff Might Be Reduced, And Iraq Continues To Hassle PSC’s

Feb 9

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iran, Iraq | 2 Comments

Approved movements have been subject to stops, detentions and confiscation of equipment without justification, impacting delivery of equipment, supplies, and materials to the US embassy, bases and offices throughout the country,” said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.
The Congressional Research Service said last May that the State Department estimated the number of security contractors working for it in Iraq would reach 5,500, “with some 1,500 providing personal security for diplomatic movements and an additional 4,000 providing perimeter security.”
Brooks said “our hope is that the US government will be a bit more proactive,” as the government and embassy, in “our impression, has not been very active in trying to help the Iraqis address this problem.

This first story below is from the New York Times, so take it with a grain of salt. lol And of course as soon as it came out, an edit was made that showed that the NYT jumped the gun a little on this. With that said, it is wise that if you are in WPS (mobile or static security), or one of the numerous contractors assigned to do convoy operations for logistics, then it pays to pay attention to this stuff.

The second story just emphasizes what Iraq is doing to security companies as they try to operate there. If the Embassy can’t get supplies, then point the finger at Iraq for holding up those convoys at the border or for hassling security contractors about paper work/visas/licenses that Iraq has failed provide or update.

In short, things in Iraq are getting a little dicey now that the troops are gone, and the US mission there is having to adjust to this new environment. This was to be expected and there will be many hiccups along the way. The US is also experiencing economic issues and an upcoming election. So cost savings will be a factor, and reducing waste in our overseas operations will be necessary if the current administration wants to show it is serious about saving money (and getting re-elected as a result).

But this administration does not want a failed Iraq mission under it’s belt. They have already cut the troops from Iraq earlier than expected, which is not the smartest thing strategically, but it makes sense politically. But cutting security will only add one more planet into alignment for a really bad situation or situations that could truly stain a political campaign. Security should be the last thing you mess with, and especially in that chaotic and extremely dangerous environment.

There is also politics and corruption in Iraq that is impacting operations. A visa or license or whatever is required for the companies to operate can be a simple and fair process if Iraq wants these companies there. Or it can be a complex and unfair process if these officials have other things in mind. Maybe they are looking for kickbacks, and purposely targeting foreign companies so that Iraq companies are able to secure all of this work. Especially for supplying the embassy, or for oil related security contracts. (Strategy Page is echoing the same thing in their post about PSC’s in Iraq and the Embassy)

Perhaps this was a concession when the Sunni-bloc came back in to join parliament? Perhaps there is a focus on attacking logistics using government and political mechanisms, so that the Embassy is forced to reduce in size so it can be weaker for an attack. Or get more Iraqis involved with working at the Embassy, so as to get more spies or even attackers on the inside?

Who knows? All I know is that there is a reason why Iraq is doing this, and that reason often revolves around money or extortion of some sort. Meaning ‘if you do this, maybe we will do this’. We see the same thing happening in Afghanistan, and maybe Iraq is taking notes from the Afghans on how to play the US. It is ironic to me that we have the largest Embassies in the world in both countries, have expended much American/Coalition blood and treasure in both countries, and yet simple matters like visas, licenses or even a MOU or SOFA cannot be worked out? That corruption in these countries is trumping our so-called ‘diplomatic’ missions there. Certainly we can do better and get better for what has been invested.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that there is a third party that has a say so in this matter. That would be the insurgents and jihadists in Iraq who are in the shadows and doing all they can to attack Iraq and the US mission there. You also have Iran doing what they can to exert influence. You can slash the staff at the Embassy, but the security requirement to protect that Embassy does not change. That’s unless the grounds of the Embassy are slashed as well and given back to the Iraqis.

But as you give up more ground, then that gives more ground to the enemy so they can maneuver closer for attacks. If patrols in the area decrease, then that means the enemy can launch more mortars/rockets, drive more VBIED’s, or use more suicide assaulters. So security is still essential and will be even more important as you give up more territory.

I could see the mobile side of WPS decreasing a little, but not by much. If there is still going to be 1,000 diplomats as opposed to 2,000 diplomats (if they are halved according to the article), then those 1,000 will still have to do their missions in Iraq. Or does state plan on never leaving their Embassy?

We could also have an extremely small footprint in Iraq, and bring it on par with the size of other Embassies in the world. But there are a couple of issues that are front and center for the US, which to me justifies a presence there. Oil, Iran, Jihadists and the continuing collapse of regimes in the Middle East because of the Arab Spring (Syria comes to mind). If we can keep Iraq functioning and focused on their oil goals, and goals for their nation’s well being, then that is a good thing. How many diplomats that takes and how we do that is out of my lane. But these are considerations when we think about why we are there.

Now the one thing that looked like it was getting a look for cuts was the police training contract, and that would also include all the logistics required for that. So that might be a big savings and reduction right there.

One State Department program that is likely to be scrutinized is an ambitious program to train the Iraqi police, which is costing about $500 million this year — far less than the nearly $1 billion that the embassy originally intended to spend. The program has generated considerable skepticism within the State Department — one of the officials interviewed predicted that the program could be scrapped later this year — because of the high cost of the support staff, the inability of police advisers to leave their bases because of the volatile security situation and a lack of support by the Iraqi government.

Interesting stuff and I would like to hear what you guys think? Either way, I will keep my eye on this as it develops. -Matt

Edit: 02/10/2012- It looks like State is trying to clarify a little more as to what they plan on doing. Here is a quote below. Also be sure to follow Diplopundit’s take on the whole thing, because they are also questioning the security cuts (if made), and who would step in as replacements (maybe Iraqi security?). I doubt they would go this path and DoS is not about to put the lives of it’s diplomats at the hands of Iraqi security forces….quite yet.

The State Department has asked each component of the massive U.S. diplomatic mission in Baghdad to analyze how a 25 percent cut would affect operations, part of a rapidly moving attempt to save money and establish what a top official on Wednesday called “a more normalized embassy presence.”
“We’re going to be looking at how we’re going to do that over the next year,” said Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides. “What we’re not going to do is make knee-jerk decisions” that could jeopardize the security of the thousands of U.S. citizens working in Iraq, he said.

 

07baghdad 600 articleLargeIraq: US Embassy Staff Might Be Reduced, And Iraq Continues To Hassle PSCs

US Embassy in Iraq.

 

U.S. Planning to Slash Iraq Embassy Staff by as Much as Half
By TIM ARANGO
February 7, 2012
Less than two months after American troops left, the State Department is preparing to slash by as much as half the enormous diplomatic presence it had planned for Iraq, a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country.
Officials in Baghdad and Washington said that Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and other senior State Department officials were reconsidering the size and scope of the embassy, where the staff has swelled to nearly 16,000 people, mostly contractors.
The expansive diplomatic operation and the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Publications: Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 1st Quarter FY 2012

Feb 7

Posted by Matt in Afghanistan, Industry Talk, Iraq, Publications | No Comments

Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 1st Quarter FY 2012

Tags: , , , , ,

Industry Talk: Body Of UK Security Contractor Turned Over To Embassy In Iraq

Jan 20

Posted by Matt in Industry Talk, Iraq, Kidnap And Ransom, United Kingdom | No Comments

The family can now get some closure and I am glad someone had the respect enough to finally hand over the body. It also looks like these captors killed him and his fellow guards as they were trying to escape. Back in those days, kidnapping usually turned into death by head cutting, and I am sure that is what was going through these guy’s minds at the time of escape. Rest in peace to the fallen and my heart goes out to the families and friends. -Matt

 

Alan McMenemy 007Industry Talk: Body Of UK Security Contractor Turned Over To Embassy In Iraq

Alan McMenemy.

Body of UK hostage turned over to embassy in Iraq
January 20, 2012
The body of a British hostage kidnapped in Iraq in 2007 has been turned over to the U.K. Embassy in Baghdad, officials said Friday.
Alan McMenemy was one of five men kidnapped by Shiite militants in a daytime attack outside Baghdad’s Finance Ministry. McMenemy was part of a security detail guarding computer expert Peter Moore, who was released alive in 2010.
The bodies of the other bodyguards — Jason Swindlehurst, Jason Creswell and Alec MacLachlan — were returned in 2009.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement Friday that his thoughts were with McMenemy’s family and friends.
“They have waited so long for his return and I hope that this will allow them to find some peace after an ordeal that no family should ever have to suffer,” Cameron said.
The statement did not provide any detail as to how or under what circumstances McMenemy’s body was returned. He was long believed to be dead, and a second statement released on behalf of McMenemy’s widow Roseleen said that his body’s return “will allow us to properly grieve for him … we will draw some comfort from the fact that we have him home at last.”
Story here.

Tags: , , , ,