Feral Jundi

Monday, June 25, 2012

Industry Talk: G4S Chief Predicts Mass Police Privatization

“We have been long-term optimistic about the police and short-to-medium-term pessimistic about the police for many years. Our view was, look, we would never try to take away core policing functions from the police but for a number of years it has been absolutely clear as day to us – and to others – that the configuration of the police in the UK is just simply not as effective and as efficient as it could be.”

I have seen this quote and others in several places and it is causing a little bit of a stir. But along the lines of what I was talking about with my prior post, there is some serious cost saving and efficiency benefits by privatizing this stuff. The problem is explaining the process to the public, and battling biased media or unions that only benefit from the current system.

This quote was the other one that I liked.

Taylor-Smith said “budgetary pressure and political will” were driving the private-sector involvement in policing but insisted that the “public sector ethos” had not been lost.
“I have always found it somewhere between patronising and insulting the notion that the public sector has an exclusive franchise on some ethos, spirit, morality – it is just nonsense,” he said. “The thought that everyone in the private sector is primarily motivated by profit and that is why they come to work is just simply not accurate … we employ 675,000 people and they are primarily motivated by pretty much the same as would motivate someone in the public sector.”

That is awesome he said this, and as a security contractor, I feel the same way. I am sure other contractors out there feel the same too, and bravo to Taylor-Smith for speaking his mind on this. –Matt

 

G4S chief predicts mass police privatization
Private companies will be running large parts of the police service within five years, according to security firm head
Matthew Taylor and Alan Travis
Wednesday 20 June 2012
David Taylor-Smith, the head of G4S for the UK and Africa, said he expected most UK police forces to sign up to privatisation deals. Photograph: Guardian
Private companies will be running large parts of the UK’s police service within five years, according to the world’s biggest security firm.
David Taylor-Smith, the head of G4S for the UK and Africa, said he expected police forces across the country to sign up to similar deals to those on the table in the West Midlands and Surrey, which could result in private companies taking responsibility for duties ranging from investigating crimes to transporting suspects and managing intelligence.

(more…)

Friday, May 25, 2012

Quotes: Secretary William L Marcy On The Paris Declaration And Privateering, 1856

Lately I have been delving into privateering history, and Secretary of State William L Marcy comes up now and again. Even John Arquilla was quoting stuff about Marcy in some of his work, so I thought it would be cool to do some digging.

I was able to find an old article written about Marcy’s mission to the Congress of Paris, and the debates he was having with the other members of that congress about the terms of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. This of course is the treaty that banned privateering.

With that said, Secretary Marcy is the reason why the US is ‘not’ a signatory of this treaty.  His reasons were pretty simple as the quote below says.  Privateering is a tool of warfare that smaller sovereigns can use, that lack the resources for creating navies that can compete with the larger countries with more powerful navies. It was the great equalizer of the time, and the US was not about to give up that tool of warfare.

Privateering is also an ‘offense industry’ that creates an industry that attacks weakness with strength (Sun Tzu). That ‘weakness’ is a poorly defended and dispersed commerce (and logistics/source of wealth) of an enemy, and the ‘strength’ is an industry that only grows with each prize that it captures. (today’s piracy is a prime example)

The strength does not come from one vessel, but of thousands of vessels, all hunting and canvassing the seas, looking for their prey. And all of these vessels are competing with each other over enemy prizes. The successful privateers grow their fleets and expand upon their winning strategies, while the competitors of these successful privateers watch and learn and try to mimic what they are doing to be equally successful.

This system of free market warfare also works well with The New Rules of War that John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt put together.(watch this video about the concept) That privateers are the ‘small and many’, that go up against the enemy’s ‘large and few’.  Privateers also fit well within the concept of ‘swarming’, because privateers do not set out in large battle groups or flotillas–they attack from all and any directions in small groups, and at the time and choosing of each individual privateer. There is no large navy, for a large navy to attack….

Although under the swarming concept, this industry kind of shuns large companies to do this.  A swarm has to be cost effective, if it is to be done by a single privateer company. Most would prefer to go after low hanging fruit or easy prizes. But if the money was there, swarming could easily be cost effective. Today’s pirates are experimenting with swarming and the market will determine if this is a profitable venture.

On the other hand, an industry of thousands of privateers versus the commerce of an enemy totally presents itself as a swarm. No one controls it’s actions, it attacks when and where it wants. There is no admiral directing the attacks of all of these vessels, and that is what makes it a unique attack group. The only controls in this type of industry, are a simple Letter of Marque.

Most of all, the concept of ‘finding’ works really well with privateers, because each private vessel is purely focused on ‘finding’ prizes. Their livelihood depends upon it, and those captains that are best at finding prizes, wins. Investors hire them specifically because of their success rates, and they depend upon these captains for profit. An example would be commercial fishermen, and how important a good captain is for finding fish and to covering the costs of investment–both internal and external.

All of these attributes combined, is what makes privateering an asset for nations. Secretary Marcy knew this as well, and our leaders knew this when they decided not to be a signatory to the Paris Declaration.

Finally, I mentioned before that private industry was important during times of war, because this nation uses an All Volunteer Military system. The problem with this system is that during the post war era, a citizenry demands a peace dividend, and their politicians give it to them. The military is then reduced in size and cost, and everyone is happy–until another ‘9/11’ happens.  And then we must go to war with the military we have, and not the one we wished we had.

Or during that war, it becomes unpopular for whatever reason–like it drags on and on, or there is an uptick in deaths, or the economy is doing well.  Finding volunteers during those times is tough. Or when a nation’s war plans becomes a victim of politics, with changing leadership or alliances crumbling because of issues in their home countries, and manpower issues arise during those time periods.

Man power requirements are always changing during a war, and war planners and politicians need tools to meet the needs of those changing man power requirements. Using privateers and private industry during times of war is a tool that gives our leaders the means to deal with the ups and downs, beginnings and ends of war or multiple wars. Private industry is what makes an All Volunteer Military work in this kind of environment, pure and simple. I think Secretary Marcy and others realized this back then about privateering, and today’s leaders realize how important private industry is for our current and future wars. –Matt

*For an excellent history about the Paris Declaration and why the US did not sign it, check out this downloadable book.  It is called “The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris”, written in 1887 by Francis Raymond Stark.

 

 

They tell us, “reserving the right to make what havoc our overgrown navies may choose to inflict upon your tempting commerce, we demand that you exempt our commerce from the only means of retaliation you possess, the system of privateering.”
We reply, “The terms are unfair. Equalize them by declaring your public and our private armed vessels under the same prohibitory rule, and we are with you. Otherwise, we are constrained to deny that privateering is or ought to be abolished.”

 

quote of Secretary William L. Marcy, about the Congress of Paris and terms of treaty, August 12, 1856.

 

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Quote: Hammurabi’s Code And Contracting

Filed under: History,Industry Talk,Quotes — Tags: , , — Matt @ 12:19 PM

This is a great quote and a pretty effective rule. lol It is a reminder that there was a time some 4,000 plus years ago, when kings actually understood the concept of creating ‘effective’ rules that held contractors responsible for their work.

It is also why I keep hounding on this idea that SAMI, the ICoC, and associations like the ISOA should all have enforcement mechanism or effective grievance processes in place to keep their members in line and to allow contractors and clients a way to get justice.

If there is a violation of the code/rules that these companies signed onto within these organizations, then there must be effective punishments for those violations. If there isn’t, then how could any client or contractor respect the company’s association with these groups? Where is the value of such an arrangement, other than some kind of perceived value to somehow attract more business for members with ‘the stamp’?

I say make that membership worth something, and enforce the codes and rules with fair and effective punishments. To actually kick out members or fine them, as opposed to looking the other way because of the money that those companies pay to be a member. (which right there shows the conflict of interest that can happen with these groups)

Because there is another problem associated with not enforcing codes and rules. If one member violates the organization’s rules/codes, and nothing is done about it, then what will the other members think?  Better yet, why would the other members even follow these rules/codes, if the organization has not effectively dealt with those companies that violated them? Food for thought…  –Matt

 

“If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.” –Hammurabi

Link to code here.

 

 

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Quotes: Trident’s Tom Rothrauff On The ‘Killer’ Pirates His Men Stopped–Twice In 72 Hours!

Filed under: Maritime Security,Quotes — Tags: , , — Matt @ 12:21 PM

This is significant because this quote below gives the back story on the video that was posted awhile back of the actions of an armed security detail on a vessel. Of course many folks speculated about what happened, and came to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. Some called for investigations and questioned the tactics used by this security company, while others showed support and cheered them on. My position on the matter was to hold judgement, because I wasn’t there.

Now that that a better picture of what happened has come out, I am floored. These guys were up against a determined foe armed with RPG’s and AK-47’s, that tried to attack them twice in 72 hours! So under the circumstance, the video and the actions of these men makes total sense.

It is also a warning to other companies, that eventually pirates will test the waters on how to take down vessels that are armed. That the low hanging fruit called ‘vessels without armed guards’ is going away, and pirates are re-tooling and gaming this new reality. And like the quote below stated, this armed security team fought off this killer PAG not once, but twice in 72 hours….’twice’. Bravo to Trident Group for stopping them. –Matt

 

Armed guards of Trident Group, stop the killer pirates!

In an emailed statement to Lloyd’s List, Trident president Tom Rothrauff said:

“This action came 72 hours following another attack by this exact same pirate action group against this very same vessel. Further, the same PAG had attacked a tanker in the week prior, so this was a killer PAG. Our team acted with poise, and used every rule for the use of force as prescribed by the US Coast Guard in PSA 3-09.

“The skiff was identified as carrying RPG’s and AK 47’s. The team was compelled to wait before they initiated warning shots until the master gave permission to the team to release repelling force. When the warning shots were fired, it just so happened that the skiff opened up on our team at the exact same time.”

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Quotes: Putin Backs ‘Private’ Defense Company Idea

Filed under: Quotes,Russia — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:14 AM

This just popped up on the radar and I thought I would share. Russia already has a defense industry that provides all sorts of equipment and weapons world wide. But you don’t hear too much about Russian PSC’s or PMC’s aside from body guard work in Moscow. But that could change according to this quote below.

With that said, could we see a day where a Russian PMC (with the blessing and quite wink of the state) is contracted to fight and win a war in some region of the world? A victory that would be mutually beneficial for both Russia, and that client?  And like Putin said, it would be  “an instrument in the pursuit of national interests without the direct participation of the state.

Even for this Syria deal, Russia sent military advisers and they are getting some heat for that on the world stage.  Perhaps they are thinking now that maybe a private force would have been a better choice politically?  Or for legal reasons, they can wash their hands of any involvement, just because the state does not have any ‘direct participation’. I also imagine that Russia has been watching how the west uses private industry in it’s current wars, and taking notes.  Interesting…. –Matt

Edit: 04/18/2012- David Isenberg posted an excellent article about this deal. Especially the legal mechanisms that would support or hinder Russia’s move towards more foreign usage of PMSC’s. Check it out here.

 

Putin Backs Private Defense Company Idea
11/04/2012
Russian Prime Minister and president-elect Vladimir Putin on Wednesday supported the idea of private defense companies that would provide protection services and military training programs abroad without the participation of the Russian state.
The idea was proposed by A Just Russia deputy Alexei Mitrofanov during Putin’s report to the lower house of parliament, the State Duma.
Putin said that was “an instrument in the pursuit of national interests without the direct participation of the state.”
“I believe that it should be considered, thought over,” he said.
Story here.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress