Feral Jundi

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Iraq: Command Post–What Will Iraq Be Like In 2012?

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:14 AM

This is a great discussion on what Iraq will be like in 2012. Of course this will be the ‘test year’ for the DoS and their massive contractor work force and security force in Iraq.

Also, this coincides with the Senate Armed Services committee about the exit from Iraq, and the security issues associated with that.  The exchange between Secretary Defense Panetta and Senator McCain was something else. But the big one with this hearing is that it helped to fill in some of the pieces about the contractor issue in Iraq, post US troops. It also brought up some of the same concerns issued in the past about this transition, and what the government’s official stance on it is. Here is a quote that I thought was interesting.

One consequence of the U.S. military withdrawal is that the U.S. State Department will require some 16,000 private contractors to provide security and other services, like transportation and medical evacuation, that had been provided by the Pentagon.
“No question there are risks involved here,” Panetta said about such a large, unprecedented reliance on contractors.
“Are there going to be risks associated with contractors? Yes,” Panetta said. “Do we have any other alternatives? No.”

If you would like to watch the entire hearing, here is a link for that. Check it out. –Matt

 

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Publications: Contracting In Conflicts–The Path To Reform, By John Nagl And Richard Fontaine

     Now this is a better product and I can tell they actually listened to their contributors.  So bravo to CNAS for putting together a great report.  If you look at the cast of contributors, you will also see that they took advice from guys like Doug Brooks, David Isenberg and a whole bunch of private military companies and military professionals. For the record, I was not a direct contributor, but I know some of the ideas of FJ made it out there in one way or another.

     For one, they actually brought in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a counter to Max Weber’s definition of the state. (the Second Amendment could also be looked at as a counter as well) I was beside myself when I read this in their ‘inherently governmental’ section, and I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they actually went there.  They did and bravo to them for having the courage to challenge this sacred cow of thought.

     This kind of sets the pace for the entire publication, because CNAS and all of it’s contributors were actually making the argument for the use of contractors in war time.  It is an acknowledgement of that ‘elephant in the room’ called contractors, and it is an excellent first step towards combining private industry and government for the good of the nation and the wars it fights. To me, it has always been about unity of effort and command, and ensure private industry only helps government, not hurt it.  If we can figure out how to achieve that unity of effort and command, I think the next step is what will really be radical.

     I have argued on this blog that today’s war planners, leaders and strategists should make an effort to at least acknowledge that elephant in the room called contractors or private industry.  We are getting there and I am enthused about the process.  But to me, the next level of discourse about private industry is how do you turn that animal into a war elephant?

     To me, it is not enough to just acknowledge our existence and say ‘oh well, private industry is that big dumb animal that we all have to get used to’. That is like using a pistol to hammer nails.  I would make the argument that instead, private industry should be looked at from a strategic point of view and the question should be asked is ‘how do we use private industry to help win our wars and maintain a position of strength in the world today’?  That is the next level of discourse about this subject, and that is the kind of thinking that could possibly lead to victory in our current wars. I say this, because there is a tremendous effort taking place to actually figure out how to regulate and utilize private industry during times of war, and this paper and current legislative action is proof of that process. So once we figure out how to shoot the pistol, as opposed to using it to hammer nails, we can then start discussing how to use that pistol in warfare.

     Now on to the paper.  Below I have listed some of the issues that popped up as I was reading it. Just little things that came to mind, that could help refine the product.  Ideas are cheap, and I throw them around freely here. I have also listed some interesting portions of the paper to give the reader a taste. Be sure to check out all of the contributors, to include Allison Stanger (she provided the forward). Enjoy and let me know what you think.-Matt

——————————————————————

Contracting In Conflicts: The Path To Reform

By John Nagl and Richard Fontaine

06/07/2010

CNAS

In both Iraq and Afghanistan today there are more private contractors than U.S. troops on the ground. This exploding reliance on contractors costs U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and has grown with inadequate government oversight.   This report – authored by Richard Fontaine and John Nagl – details the urgent need for comprehensive reform. The United States must embark on a path of ambitious reform that will require: new laws and regulations; an expansion of the government’s contracting workforce; a coordination mechanism within the executive branch; greater scrutiny, more transparency and clearer standards for private contractors; a strategic view of the roles contractors play in American operations; and a change in culture within the government.

Download the paper here.

Link to website here.

(more…)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Industry Talk: US To Switch Afghan Police Training from DoS CIVPOL, to DoD CNTPO, DynCorp Protests

   This is big news, because there is a lot of money riding on the current set up, and DynCorp was sitting all fat and happy on the CIVPOL contract as the incumbent.  Now that DoD is taking it over and issued a new task order, only companies that are pre-qualified contractors for CNTPO get to participate.  Those companies are Lockheed, NG, Raytheon, Xe, and ARINC.

   The general feeling I am getting about this latest move, is that the DoD wants to have more control over the training of the Afghan police, and give them training that is more military-like.  The reason for this, is so these poor guys can actually survive the war, so they can go on to be effective in their normal police work.

   The Afghan police are already fighting more war, than doing police work, so it makes sense to harden them up a little.  Not too mention that when you have cops teaching Afghan police forces to shoot PKMs or RPGs, then the realm of police work skills gets trumped by war fighting skills.  So yeah, DoD would be a better choice.

   The other one that was interesting, was the hearing at CSPAN about Afghan National Security Forces.  Executives from Dyncorp, MPRI, and Xe all made a showing at this thing, and they all had something unique to say about their little chunk of the war.  Which further emphasizes the CNAS report as to the importance of contractors in the war effort.

   One thing that was mentioned by Xe, which I think is a great suggestion, is to integrate military trainers with Xe trainers, to insure a quality product.  That way, there is no blaming Xe for a poor job, when in fact, there is direct military oversight and integration into the training.  This makes sense for unity of effort, and totally makes sense about getting everyone on board with the strategy of the war.  I say mix that chocolate with the peanut butter! lol

   Probably the best part of military integration with programs like this, is security.  It is big military that has the guns, the air support and the communications necessary to make any enemy’s day, a bad day.  So for these sites that are located up in the hills, where training and security go hand in hand, having some military folks around with the big guns, would be a nice insurance policy for the defense.

   Be sure to check out the thread on this subject at SOCNET, and I look forward to any input from the readership about this. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Afghan National Security Forces Contract Training

Friday, December 18, 2009

The December 18, 2009, hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting reviewed the adequacy and oversight of contract training for Afghanistan’s national army, national police, and border police — organizations critical for stability as the United States moves toward its newly stated goal of beginning withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country in July 2011.

At the end of November 2009, Afghan National Army strength was about 96,000; it is expected to grow to 134,000 by the end of October 2010 (40% growth) and is targeted reach 240,000 by 2013 (80% growth). The Afghanistan National Police was near 94,000 and is expected to be almost 97,000 strong by the end of 2009. While there is no programmed end strength set for 2010, the U.S.-led Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan has proposed growing the ANP to 160,000 by 2013 (65% growth).

(more…)

Friday, December 18, 2009

Publications: CNAS–Contractors in American Conflicts, by John Nagl and Richard Fontaine

   Ok folks, this is pretty important.  CNAS, like I have mentioned before, has the ears of the guys that advise the President on matters like this one.  As you can see, John Nagl is personally involved on this working paper, and you can read his stamp all over this thing. I have been waiting for this paper for awhile, and I am glad they are finally pulling the trigger.

   It is a quick read and the best I could come up with on this, is that CNAS is trying to make the administration feel better for using contractors in the war.  To say ‘it’s ok, we have been using them for awhile, and contractors are the way of the future’. Oh, and we are going to rebrand contractors by calling them ES&R contractors. (Blackwater, eat your heart out)

    You get the idea.  President Obama owns this ‘just war’ now and the increase in the use of contractors is under his watch.  Matter of fact, contractor use has gone up under his leadership, and in Afghanistan we outnumber the troops. Yee haw.  Finally there is a recognition of that fact over at CNAS, and this paper is proof of that.

   With that said, the administration needs ammo for the conversations they have with those who oppose the use of contractors within their party.  Especially with President Obama’s far left supporters and even his more moderate supporters. He needs us for this war, and his party needs some convincing as to the why.

   The reason why I mention the political aspects of this paper, is because the mention of Bosnia and the use of contractors there under the Clinton Administration was very much emphasized.  Nagl and company wanted the reader to know that contractors are not just a tool of the Bush administration and the Republicans.  That the Democrats have a pretty good history of using and enjoying the benefits of contractors during times of conflict as well. Or better yet, we are a tool of America and not some political party.

   So why do I like this paper?  Well it is finally a legitimization of this industry, and at the highest levels of defense think tankery.  CNAS has the ear of all the President’s men, and generals for that matter.  These guys are saying we are a necessity for the war and for future wars, and it is time to figure out how to properly use this tool of warfare called contracting.  It is about smart contracting and dealing with reality.

   Personally, I just think we need strong leadership to make the common sense/necessary decisions to square away contracting.  To demand quality service from contractors, trust but verify that service, and insure tax payer dollars are wisely spent. And then just apply Kaizen to the whole thing to make sure it remains kick ass. If you guys need more people in government to manage these contracts, then get off your ass and hire some folks to get the job done. We are in a recession right now, and I am sure you could get some more people to help out.

   Below I have also put up a few critiques of the paper. (bold is my statement, quoted chunks are CNAS)  One is about the new name CNAS came up for us–‘ES&R contractors’. It has a terrible ring to it. lol  The other is about a lack of proper historical reference–no mention of privateers or the Indian WarsBuffalo Bill Cody was a contractor that received a Medal of Honor, and no mention of that? Wow, talk about selective history recollection? The final one is just a little bit of slam on ‘smart contracting’.  We need good leaders who know their stuff, have the courage to do what is right, and takes care of their people.  Once we have those, then we can implement smart contracting or whatever strategy you want to pursue. Overall, good stuff and I can’t wait for the final product.-Matt

—————————————————————-

Contractors in American Conflicts: Adapting to a New Reality

Publication Type: Working Papers

Publication Date: 12/16/2009

Author(s): Richard Fontaine , John Nagl

When our nation goes to war, contractors go with it. Contractors have become an enduring feature of modern American conflicts, and the United States cannot now engage in hostilities or in reconstruction and stabilization operations without them. At their peak, there were more contractors on the ground in Iraq than American troops in uniform and there are more contractors today in Afghanistan than there are U.S. troops on the ground.However, while private security contractors (PSC) like Blackwater (now knows as Xe Services) have gotten the bulk of public and congressional attention,  they only compromise about 5 percent of all contractors in hostile environments – this working paper, which is part of the CNAS project Contracting in Conflicts , addresses the other 95 percent. That 95 percent represents the vast majority of all the tasks carried out by U.S. contractors in theater, and it has been plagued by its own set of problems – including insufficient oversight, inadequate integration into operational planning, and ambiguous legal status. In order for the United States to adapt to the key role that contractors will play in future hostilities, it must establish new policies and rules of the road.

PDF for paper here.

Edit: 12/22/2009 – CBS posted a story about this as well.

(more…)

Friday, June 12, 2009

Video: CNAS Conference

Filed under: Afghanistan,Video — Tags: , — Matt @ 2:46 PM

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress