Posts Tagged Industry Talk

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

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

“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: , , ,

Industry Talk: KBR In Bidding To Privatize British Police Forces

This is an interesting one, just because of the shock that the British press is having about KBR getting involved with the bidding. But of course, this is the British office of KBR bidding on this, and that is why they are able to participate. But check out this title of an article written in the Guardian.

Guantánamo Bay contractor on shortlist to run UK police services

US firm KBR, which helped build detention camp, among consortiums bidding to run police services in West Midlands and Surrey

Now that is funny.  Really emphasize the fact that KBR built that prison…Dorks. From the same article, here is a statement from KBR.

“KBR is not involved in policing, our objective in the privatisation of the police force is to get more police doing actual police work while KBR brings operational efficiencies to the back office with the objective of achieving an overall lower cost of service while improving service levels,” said a spokesman. “We are an operational support company whose capabilities are transferable to critical, uniformed, command-led environments such as the police.”

Not only that, but I don’t see the US press having a fit when Aegis (the US branch) bids and gets US contracts. Hell, they won a massive contract in the early days of Iraq, funded by US tax dollars, and that is what put Aegis on the map.lol Or how about the Embassy in Afghanistan contract (KESF contract, and check out news about it at SOCNET), which is currently in the process of transitioning from AGNA to Aegis. Aegis of course is owned by Tim Spicer of Sandline fame, and that company had history too–just like KBR.

So with that said, I wish KBR luck and I certainly hope the bidding process and following contracts give these British police forces a good service. I also wish Aegis good luck with the US embassy contract. -Matt

 

US military-industrial giant KBR in bidding to privatize British police forces
May 02, 2012
Giant US military-industrial company Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) is in the running to win a slice of a controversial £1.5 billion (US$2.43 billion) contract to transform the West Midlands and Surrey police forces in Britain, The (London) Times reported.

Hailed as the largest police privatization scheme in the UK, it has been suggested the private companies who win the contract will be tasked to perform several police functions — including patrols, detention and criminal investigation.

KBR, a former subsidiary of the Halliburton group, has attracted its share of criticism over the large contracts it won with the US government during the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The corporation also helped to build the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The Times reported that it was among four groups shortlisted to win the British police contract, a number whittled down from more than 200.

A KBR spokesman said its bid was the first time the corporation had attempted to get involved in regular policing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Afghanistan: So Will Contractors Be Thrown Under The Bus With The New SOFA?

This is a very important deal, because with these Status of Forces Agreements contractors can get left behind and disregarded–even though they are a vital part of the post war mission. We saw this with the quick and highly political exodus from Iraq, and I would hate for us to experience the same thing in Afghanistan. We have so many lessons to learn from past SOFA mistakes, and to ‘not’ create a fair and comprehensive SOFA with Afghanistan that actually covers contractors would be profoundly idiotic.

So what I would like to do here is get folks talking about this future SOFA, and let DoS and our law makers know that contractors in Afghanistan must be taken care of in this agreement. That our lives are just as important as soldiers and our services will be crucial to our long term strategic goals in Afghanistan. From reconstruction to training Afghanistan’s military, contractors will be there doing good work.  They need protections in order to be effective and continue that work.

I would also like to see law makers and diplomats confront Karzai on this idiotic scheme called the APPF. Even the SIGAR has identified that this program is deficient. Are we going to wait until an incident happens–like a rogue APPF guard killing clients?  Or watch as guards that are poorly trained and equipped, do a horrible job of protection–and then insurgents easily kill or kidnap clients? pffft…

The latest quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (or SIGAR) released on Monday also chronicles how corruption in the country shows no signs of having let up.

The report’s most urgent warning concerns the “imminent transition” from private security contractors (PSC) to the state-owned Afghan Public Protection Force.

Steven J. Trent, the acting special inspector general, expressed concerns that as many as 29 major USAID projects costing nearly $1.5 billion are at risk of full or partial termination “if the APPF cannot provide the needed security.” About half that amount has already been spent.

And whether it can is very much an open question, Trent wrote. The U.S. embassy, the Afghan government and the U.S.-led military forces agreed a year ago to check the progress of the Afghan Public Protection Force at the 6-, 9-, and 12-month marks.

“The 6-month assessment, completed in September 2011, found that the APPF was not ready to assume any of the essential PSC responsibilities to meet contract requirements — such as training, equipping, and deploying guard forces,” the report pointed out. “[T]he December assessment, which would have been at the 9-month mark, has not yet been made public” and “the deadline for the 12-month assessment has passed.”….

Yep, that inspires confidence….

Either way, the SOFA must include provisions that allow security contractors to continue offering their services without being hassled or imprisoned by Afghanistan–like what is going on in Iraq.  Or these reconstruction programs will just have to pack up and leave….because obviously the APPF is such a horrible option and Afghanistan could care less about this aid. So what do you think, and what would you like to see in this new SOFA, or are contractors destined to be ‘thrown under the bus’? -Matt

 

U.S. – Afghan agreement short on specifics
By Mike Mount
05/01/2012
President Barack Obama and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement that outlines cooperation between their countries after the withdrawal of U.S.-led international forces in 2014.
With little detail and few specifics in the document, U.S. officials say it paints a broad stroke of what the U.S.-Afghanistan relationship will look like from 2014 through 2024.
Officials said the document highlights military, diplomatic and economic relationships between the two countries without offering specifics on troops levels, economic assistance and the status of diplomatic relations.
With some 88,000 U.S. troops operating inside Afghanistan, the document does state that there will be no permanent U.S. bases in the country after the 2014 withdrawal, officials said. The agreement also allows for the possibility of U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to train and conduct counterterrorism operations to go after what a White House fact sheet described as “targeting the remnants of al Qaeda.”??The U.S. and Afghanistan will begin negotiating a new Status of Forces Agreement. The United States will also designate Afghanistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” to provide a long-term framework for security and defense cooperation,” according to the White House statement.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Publications: Selective Privatization Of Security: Why American Strategic Leaders Choose To Substitute PSC’s For National Military Forces, By Bruce Stanley

This study argues that when political leaders chose to reduce their nation’s military force structure, they may face conflicts beyond their anticipated scope and duration. Such decision- makers are left with no choice but to legalize and legitimize the use of PMCs resulting in the increased use of PMCs as a deliberate tool of foreign policy.

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper and posting his commentary about it. What makes this so significant is that the author of the paper is actually using qualitative and quantitative analysis to prove exactly what the reason is for the rise of the use of private security contractors. It is this kind of analysis that can be pointed to as ‘empirical’ evidence for what is really going on with this industry. Here is what David had to say about the paper:

Considering how many times over years I have critiqued the private military and security (PMSC) industry for making claims without providing evidence to back it up, it is always noteworthy to find that rare person who tries to fill that empirical evidence gap.

Absolutely. This is important stuff, and especially for those that are policy makers in government. It is also important information that companies can use for strategic business planning.

I also really enjoyed the use of economic theory in this paper. In essence, this model of dissertation is pretty close to what I would use for something like Offense Industry.  It is also interesting to point out that the author did come across some speed bumps when it came to incomplete data.

To be accurate in analysis, you need good data. Because the US government didn’t record as well as they could of, all of the contractors involved with this war and what they did, that studies like this one can suffer a little. The author pointed this out, but he was able to come to some interesting conclusions.

Summary
This dissertation was framed around the question of why there has been a rapid growth in the reliance on the private security industry in US foreign policy in the past two decades. More importantly this dissertation sought to demonstrate: first, that the use of private security contractors by the United States is not a new phenomenon; second, that the recent increased use of private security as an instrument of military policy or foreign policy may in fact be a consequence of deliberate policy decisions of successive presidential administrations; and third, that the security environment in the target state of an intervention is a factor that results in an increase of private security contractors. The goal of this dissertation was to move beyond most of the extant literature which describes the phenomenon, and develop theory that helps explains why there has been a rapid growth in the reliance on the private security industry.
This study argues that when political leaders chose to reduce their nation’s military force structure, they may face conflicts beyond their anticipated scope and duration. Such decision- makers are left with no choice but to legalize and legitimize the use of PMCs resulting in the increased use of PMCs as a deliberate tool of foreign policy. Using “supply-demand” theory as the theoretical approach, this dissertation built upon the three key influences emphasized first by Singer (2003) and then by others: the decreasing supply of national troops, decreasing national defense budgets, and the rising demand from global conflicts and humanitarian emergencies.
As the previous chapters demonstrate the basic theory and thus insights from the descriptive literature have value, however they failed to provide a fully exhaustive explanation of this important phenomenon. The additional elements added to the relatively spare theory resulted in a more convincing explanation of the increased use of PMCs. In sum, this study added precision to our understanding of the causes of the increased use of PMCs.
This chapter examines the findings of my dissertation, a few methodological problems, and suggests some areas for further research. The next section presents the theoretical discussion and empirical findings and conclusions from the qualitative and quantitative section. The section that follows provides a few suggestions on how to improve the research design. The final section offers a few policy prescriptions and areas for further research.
Findings
This study asserted that the private security industry fills vacuums created when the US government does not have the means or the will to fully provide domestic and international security. To understand the broader context of the private security industry’s relationship to mature democracies this dissertation focused initially on five hypotheses:
H1: When military outlays decrease there is an increase in the use of private security.
H2: When the size of a national military decreases there is an increase in the use of private military security.
H3: When the number of a military disputes, military engagements and militarized conflicts increases there is an increase in the use of private security internationally.
H4: When the duration of a military conflict increases there is an increase in the use of private security.
H5: When there is a decrease in bureaucratic controls and regulations there is an increase in the use of private security.
Three additional hypotheses were added to this study upon completion of the case studies. They are:
H6: When there is a force cap placed on the size of the military force there is an increase in the use of private security.
H7: When there is no host nation supporting the intervention there is an increase in the use of private security.
H8: When the security environment is non-permissive there is an increase in private security.
Using a mixed methods approach, the hypotheses were tested using both a qualitative and quantitative approach. The qualitative approached relied on the case method, using a series of structure focused questions to compare the outcome of three historical cases where the US used private contractors. As a result, the controlled comparison helped identify the outcome of the dependent variable, private contractors, and provided a historical explanation of private contractors in relation to a set of independent variables. In this instance, structured, focused comparison helped to tease out exactly how supply, demand and other pressures help to stimulate the rise of PMCs.
The quantitative approach relied on a statistical method, using interrupted time series to examine the use of private contractors by the US from 1950 to 2010. The quantitative component analyzed a larger time period and increased the generalizability of the findings. It also provided insight on the relative explanatory weight of different causal influences.
The findings of this research demonstrates that the three key influences asserted in the extant literature the decreasing supply of national troops, decreasing national defense budgets, and the rising demand from global conflicts and humanitarian emergencies are very important to understanding the rise of the private security industry in the past two decades. Yet as this dissertation shows the nature of the security environment in the target state and the reduction (or elimination) of bureaucratic controls in the acting state are also important to explaining the increased reliance of the private security industry. Two other variables that were prevalent in the case studies that may be a factor in the increased reliance on private contractors: limitations on the number of troops committed to an intervention, and the duration of the intervention.

So that is is pretty interesting. A company can literally look at the current situation and say that if their country decreases the size of their military force, the size of that military’s budget decreases, and there is a dramatic increase in conflict/emergencies, that the demand for force will more than likely point towards the use of PMSC’s. And you can see that going on throughout the world as we speak.

But the thing that I look at is the strategic uses of PMSC’s. I have always argued that this industry is a strategic asset, and not a liability–regardless of the few hiccups this industry has had over the years. We are what made the concept of an ‘All Volunteer Force’ work. Here is the quote that grabbed my attention.

Policy Implications
State policy makers may be able to use the results of this study to inform decisions on military budgeting, structure, or civil-military relations. As the worldwide economic crisis continues, policy makers faced with budget choices will look to reduce their military expenditures and possibly their military force structure. However, if they are faced with foreign policy problems requiring military intervention, then it should not be surprising if they substitute national military forces for private security forces. It is likely that more state policy makers may move towards the legalization of private security companies. Thus, the trend towards legalization leads toward further legitimization of the use of private security contractors. The US has certainly set the example in the past twenty years for other nations to follow.

This legalization process is the one thing that I am always on the look out.  The Letter of Marque is probably the most significant legal mechanism out there for authorizing companies to wage war in the name of the state.

As to current legalization processes, I would have to say that it has been slow and tedious. But we are seeing movement, and the Commission on Wartime Contracting is a prime example of that effort. I point to the recent legislation that members of this commission put forth–which helps to further legitimize this industry.

As the industry is further legitimized by lawmakers seeking better controls over it, then the comfort in using such a force for foreign policy increases.  Most of all, it allows this nation to enjoy their ‘peace dividend’ at the end of wars, but at the same time have a mechanism in place that can support a call up of force for whatever emergency or conflict that may come up.

The use of the ICoC and the standardization process that is currently going on throughout the world is another example. Efforts like this will further legitimize the use of private security and will help to increase it’s use. Even with the current grey areas of legal use, we are seeing the maritime security industry grow at an incredible pace. Armed guards on boats is definitely another example of this increased use of private security.

As for actual strategy, sometimes private force is the better option. It gives politicians the ability to quietly buildup or draw down for a conflict. Private forces fill in the gaps as the use of force is debated, depending on the current political environment. Meaning one day, a President might have a specific strategy for a conflict that a nation is involved with, and then within a month when that President is voted out of office by a President with a different strategy, then that military must be able to flex with that.  Private security is what allows for that flexibility.  Likewise, PMSC’s have been used by two Presidents of different parties, both with different strategies, and in multiple wars over the last ten years. Obviously someone likes us. lol

In fact, we have actually reached a point in the war where there were more contractors than military force in places like Afghanistan. Or that contractors became the primary force representing US interest in places like Iraq.

In closing, it is amazing to me that we have this massive officer corps for the military, numerous think tanks, and plenty of military colleges that all focus on the use of ‘military force’.  And yet, private force is making this much of an impact on the way we do business? Does anyone else see the imbalance here? Where are the think tanks dedicated to the use of PMSC’s?  Where are the PMSC colleges and universities? What institutions other than the military or business schools produce the future leadership of ‘private security and military companies’?

It is also odd to me that there are so few voices talking about this.  I can count on my hand, the number of blogs or journalists that purely focus on PMSC’s. It is nice to enjoy a niche like this as a blogger. But for how significant this industry is, and how fast it has grown, I would have thought that more folks would have come into the mix to analyze and synthesize about this industry. Interesting stuff, and it really makes you think. A big hat tip to Bruce Stanley for the work he put into this! -Matt

Link to paper here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Afghanistan: New Pact–US Ready To Defend Afghanistan For At Least A Decade After 2014 Drawdown

“If the Taliban are back in the political process, being imposed on us, the Afghan people will definitely resist, paving the way for another war to happen,” Zia Massoud told Reuters in an interview at his home in Kabul.

“If the Taliban want peace, we are ready to make peace, but if they want to fight, there will be a fight. That’s it. If you coddle them, give them a political address and other gains, they will never be ready for any talks,” he said. -Daily Outlook Afghanistan, January 21 2012

There are two deals with this that are of importance. Afghanistan is a strategic position for the US to keep tabs on Al Qaeda/Taliban in Pakistan. So having some type of presence in Afghanistan helps in that goal.

The second deal is that as troops pull out, the Taliban will increase their attacks and you will begin to see the strengths and weaknesses of the Afghan government rear their ugly head. Not that we haven’t seen this already, but when the Afghans are up against an enemy that has been fighting a professional military like the west, I tend to think that the Afghan army and police will have some issues. So having some kind of presence in Afghanistan as this new dynamic unfolds will be crucial.

With that last part, my attention is on the latest formation of Afghans whom have come together to show solidarity against the Taliban and an Afghan government that shows weakness in the face of the Taliban. This group is called The National Front, or what is basically the new Northern Alliance. One of the members of this new Northern Alliance crew is Ahmad Zia Massoud, the brother of the late Afghan ‘Lion of Panjshir’– Ahmad Sha Massoud.

Why is this important?  Because I think in a world where the Taliban are surging and causing a lot of pain, the weak leaders will crumble, and the strong leaders will rise to the top and meet the challenge of opposing the Taliban. My hopes are that Karzai crumbles, and goes back into his hole where he belongs, and the National Front grows a leader that can stick it to the Taliban and get Afghanistan on the right path.  Here is what the Asia Times had to say about the National Front.

“This is the first time that the leadership of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities [of Afghanistan] has come to a common line of thinking … In essence, the Northern Alliance is being resuscitated as a political entity. … As the Northern Alliance groups see it, Pakistani strategy is to wait out the period between now and 2014 – the date set for the US troop withdrawal – and then regroup the Taliban and make a bid to capture power in Kabul. Their strong show of unity in Berlin suggests that they will not roll over and give way to an exclusive US-Taliban-Pakistan settlement being imposed on their nation.”

So in my view, having some troops/contractors on hand to help train Afghan forces, and bide our time until ‘real’ Afghan leadership surfaces, could make for a good little alternate plan, on top of dealing with threats in Pakistan.

Kind of a repeat of 2001 where SF units were able to help the Northern Alliance deliver crushing blows to the Taliban.  In that case, Afghans truly feared and hated the Taliban, and were fighting them with a sense of purpose. I mean look at what the Taliban did to the Hazaras back in 1998?

On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500 defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead.

Now of course the Hazaras have done all they can to get back at the Taliban, but my point here is that there is some bad blood between the members of the National Front and the Taliban. These guys do not plan on living under Taliban rule–or under a government that appeases the Taliban.

I also think that common Afghans, many of whom are Pashtun, might have no problem with the Taliban. That is a nice attitude to have, seeing how the west has kept the Taliban from imposing their rule on the people. But if the Taliban do take over, look out. The people can kiss goodbye what little freedoms they enjoyed, and the Taliban will take them back into medieval times.  Pulling out the majority of troops and letting Afghans deal with this new potential reality might be a good thing. It would force people to re-evaluate what they really want–oppression or freedom?

There are other reasons to being in Afghanistan, like having an eye on Iran. But dealing with Al Qaeda/Taliban in Pakistan and being in position to support (if they need it) a new National Front as it forms are the ones that stand out to me.

As to the contracts in the future? One thing is for sure. If you sell Afghanistan military hardware, then you need the support/mentors/trainers to help them with that stuff. Also, all of those reconstruction contracts and investors looking to do business in Afghanistan will still need protection or advisers to help them navigate that place. (especially as the APPF falters) Also, diplomatic missions will continue to be important, hence WPS will still be in place. Then of course getting all of that equipment out of Afghanistan will be crucial as well. Here is a quote about how much money will be spent there in the future.

The U.S. pledged in the agreement to continue to fund Afghan security forces after 2014. It does not say how much money this will involve, but says it should be enough to support the force. U.S. officials have said they expect to pay about $4 billion a year to fund Afghan forces, but the funding would have to be approved by Congress.

On a side note with the equipment in theater, I am wondering how much we will leave versus how much will be taken out?  It is extremely expensive to get stuff into and out of Afghanistan, and perhaps we might see a lot more equipment just handed over to the Afghans? Compare that to Iraq and the massive operation to get equipment out of there.  Who knows, but I do know that contractors will be crucial to that effort.

In essence, what you are seeing in Iraq now, will probably repeat itself in Afghanistan.  So contractors will have utility in one shape or another in Afghanistan to make the transition go smoothly and support the continuing efforts. -Matt

 

Ahmad Zia MassoudAfghanistan: New Pact  US Ready To Defend Afghanistan For At Least A Decade After 2014 Drawdown

Ahmad Zia Massoud.

 

Afghan-US pact: US ready to defend Afghanistan for at least a decade after 2014 drawdown
April 23, 2012
Washington has pledged in a newly agreed strategic pact to help defend Afghanistan militarily for at least a decade after the country formally takes control of its own security, an Afghan official said Monday.
The draft agreement signed on Sunday also says the U.S. will only take such actions with Afghan agreement. The United States also pledged it will not launch attacks on other countries from Afghan soil, according to sections of the accord read out in parliament by Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta.
Afghan officials had previously said that they would not allow their country to be used to launch drone attacks into Pakistan or other neighboring countries after the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw by the end of 2014.
“Considering that stability in Afghanistan would be stability for Central Asia and South Asia, the United States emphasizes that any kind of interference in Afghan affairs would be a matter of concern for the United States,” he said, quoting from the Dari language version of the agreement.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

Industry Talk: ASIS Receives ANSI Approval For World’s First Standard To Support The Code Of Conduct For PSC’s

“This remarkable international effort demonstrates the importance of this industry sector in support of peace and stability around the globe,” says Dr. Marc Siegel, commissioner, ASIS International Global Standards Initiative and chairman of the Technical Committee. “PSCs need to conduct their business and provide services in a manner that respects human rights and laws. The standard creates a differentiator for PSCs to assure quality of services while maintaining the safety and security of their operations with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Now this is cool. With ANSI approval, the ICoC is one step closer to being an ISO standard.  Or basically a standard that is officially recognized world wide as the standard to judge or pick a company by. So if a company in India meets the ISO standard, then a client from the US could contract with that group and know what that minimum standard that company is abiding by–in order to have that ISO standard.

It’s kind of like this. ISO has been crucial to the automobile industry. It is what allows the global market place for cars to exist.  If a car made in China is made to an ISO standard, then that car can be sold in another market/country that has the confidence that it is safe and built to a standard that is internationally recognized. So that is the angle here for PSC’s.

A standard also helps in the principal agent problem. If the principal will only work with companies that have an ISO stamp, and that agent knows that principals will not look at their company unless they have an ISO stamp of approval, then you can see where the value is to both parties. Without that standard, then a principal has to use other less efficient means of finding out who is good, and who is not. But the big one here is that the ISO would have value, because to not meet those standards would make you not marketable. Especially if one company in the US, wants to work for a client in Europe–both parties would know the standard that is expected.

Why standards matter (from the ISO website)
Standards make an enormous and positive contribution to most aspects of our lives.
Standards ensure desirable characteristics of products and services such as quality, environmental friendliness, safety, reliability, efficiency and interchangeability – and at an economical cost.
When products and services meet our expectations, we tend to take this for granted and be unaware of the role of standards. However, when standards are absent, we soon notice. We soon care when products turn out to be of poor quality, do not fit, are incompatible with equipment that we already have, are unreliable or dangerous.
When products, systems, machinery and devices work well and safely, it is often because they meet standards. And the organization responsible for many thousands of the standards which benefit the world is ISO.
When standards are absent, we soon notice.
ISO standards:
-make the development, manufacturing and supply of products and services more efficient, safer and cleaner
-facilitate trade between countries and make it fairer
-provide governments with a technical base for health, safety and environmental legislation, and conformity assessment
-share technological advances and good management practice
-disseminate innovation
-safeguard consumers, and users in general, of products and services
-life simpler by providing solutions to common problems
Check out the ISO Cafe for more examples of the impact of this system.

Very cool and we will see how it goes. We will see how long it takes to get from ANSI all the way up to ISO, but this is a big step closer to that goal. Good job to all involved and a big congrats to ASIS. -Matt

 

ASIS International Receives ANSI Approval for World’s First Standard to Support the Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers
Alexandria, VA
April 20, 2012
ASIS International(ASIS), the preeminent organization for security management professionals worldwide, received ANSI approval for its standard, Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations – Requirements with Guidance(ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012). Developed by a Technical Committee comprised of more than 200 members from 24 countries, this standard establishes a mechanism for Private Security Companies and their clients to provide demonstrable commitment, conformance, and accountability to the principles outlined in the International Code of Conduct (ICoC) for Private Security Service Providers.
Private Security Service Providers including Private Security Companies (collectively “PSCs”) play an important role in protecting state and non-state clients engaged in relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts; commercial business operations; diplomacy; and military activity. The purpose of this standard is to improve and demonstrate consistent and predictable quality of services provided by PSCs while maintaining the safety and security of their operations and clients within a framework that aims to ensure respect for human rights, national and international laws, and fundamental freedoms.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Company Spotlight: CEO Stephan Crétier Talks About Garda And Role In Middle East

This is cool. The CEO of Garda was interviewed recently and it is neat to hear about some of the inner workings of Garda and their strategy in the market.

From what he said, they are trying to become the Walmart of private security. Interesting, but I think G4S has them beat there. lol But still, I think what is really cool here is that Garda became successful despite being in a hard place to do business.  It sounds like Quebec is a tough town in that regard, and for a private security company to excel is really unique.

I also perked up on his comment about their entry into Iraq. Here is the quote:

Q: Why the Middle East, given that it’s so fraught with danger and potential PR disasters?
A: You’re right, but at the same time you can have a PR disaster at Toronto Pearson, you can have a PR disaster in the shooting of armoured trucks. We’ve been extremely selective. People say, well, you’re just another Blackwater. But companies like Blackwater and Triple Canopy work as subcontractors to the U.S. government and army. We don’t. We work for NGOs in dangerous areas—oil and gas companies, reconstruction companies. We don’t work in war zones. When Iraq was at war, we weren’t there. We were in Kurdistan. We came in with the reconstruction of Iraq. In Afghanistan we are working almost exclusively with NGOs. We’re very specific about the type of business we want to do. We could do the same business as Blackwater, but it’s not the kind of culture we are looking at.

Interesting comment, but I do not agree. There are just as many complexities and issues working the oil/gas/NGO/reconstruction angle, as there are with working for a government like the US. I think the reason why Garda is not getting into that arena is because the market is filled with US PSC/PMC providers that are ‘preferred’ by the US Government and army, and not because of the culture. So for that market, they simply cannot compete.

I see this comment as more of the same when it comes to bashing US companies in order to differentiate and ‘elevate’ their company.  To say we are not like them, when in fact you are exactly like them, is telling. You provide a protective service to clients, and your culture is no different than a US company culture. (do a search on Garda or GardaWorld and they have had their fair share of issues–so their ‘culture’ is not immune despite the clients they choose)

Also, working for an NGO in Afghanistan, is working in a war zone. I think that comment was a misstatement. And if they are doing any convoy work or motorcades from Kurdistan to the southern Iraq or central Iraq, then they are operating in a war zone. And of course, Kurdistan has not separated from Iraq…yet, so working in Iraq is still working in Iraq. lol

Cool interview regardless, and check it out below. -Matt

 

MAC11 INTERVIEW02Company Spotlight: CEO Stephan Crétier Talks About Garda And Role In Middle East

In conversation: Stephan Crétier of Garda
On becoming the Wal-mart of security, and what exactly Garda is doing in the middle east
by Martin Patriquin
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Stephan Crétier stumbled into the security industry in 1994. Five years later, with a $25,000 second mortgage on his home, he bought and radically revamped the Montreal-based security firm Garda, best known for its armoured trucks and pistol-packing guards. Today, the company is one of the largest of its kind in the world with revenues last year of over $1.1 billion. Roughly a year after moving into the fraught security industry in the Middle East, four employees of GardaWorld, Garda’s global security wing, and Peter Moore, the man they were protecting, were kidnapped in Baghdad. Only Moore survived.
Q: You were actually on track to become a baseball umpire. Why the career change?
A: I was doing some minor league baseball in the U.S. It was really a question of looking down the road and asking, “Am I going to make it?” It’s a long road, and at the same time your friends are out of university and getting real jobs. One day, I decided it was enough, and I went back to Montreal. I worked for a small mom-and-pop [security] operation, and after five years I decided to start my own. The rest is history.
Q: You acquired Garda in 1999. What were the dynamics of the security services industry at the time that led you to believe you could make a serious go of this thing?
A: When I started the business—I don’t want to insult anyone, but it was security people in business instead of business people in security. We had security people trying to build a police-type model. We tried to replicate a model that existed in Europe in the early ’70s. Those companies really accelerated their growth when Europe discovered terrorism; [Europe] needed the help of a more modern and professional private sector to help take care of national security.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Industry Talk: 2011 Private Security Officer Deaths–CONUS

Thanks to Matt for sending me this link. This is the first time I have ever come across a compilation of PSC deaths for the US. This website has been keeping a record of such a thing for several years now, and their memorial wall is filled with security officers that have lost their lives in the line of duty. Also pay notice to the one statistic that caught my attention– that 11 security officers committed suicide while on duty in 2011. That is certainly disheartening. Check it out. -Matt

 

2011 PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER DEATHS
ATLANTA GA JANUARY 4 2012
In 2011, Private Officer International, a security-police organization worked with numerous state and federal reporting agencies, private companies and media entities to track, record and calculate the injuries and assaults on and the deaths of, private security officers in the U.S.
In 2011, more than 37,000 assaults against contract and proprietary security officers, loss prevention agents and private police were reported.
Those assaults resulted in more than 13,700 injuries.
There were also 114 “confirmed” security officer “on-duty” deaths as a result of a combiniiton of homicide, accidential, industrial and “unclassified” incidents. But actual death totals are believed to be 12%-20% higher and misreported in other worker classifications.
11 Security officers also committed suicide while on-duty.
The breakdown of the deaths were:
54 Gunshots
11 Stabbing
19 Trauma/Assault
10 Car Accidents
6 Industrial Accidents
14 Unclassified
The average age of the security officer killed in the line of duty was 38.
The states with the most incidents of security officer injuries, assaults and deaths included New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsyvania, New Jersey, Tennessee, Louisiana, Virginia, Indiana, and Nevada.
Link to Private Officer International here.

Tags: , , ,

Kenya: Private Security Grows In Response To Pirates

This is a great little clip of some hard charging Kenyan security professionals. Although it is obvious that the guys in the background are doing drills like that to perform as background for the interview– or dog and pony shows to promote the company. lol

If you are interested in further investigations into the Kenyan security market, here is a link to the KSIA mentioned in the beginning. -Matt

 

Tags: , , , , ,