Friday, August 13, 2010
Industry Talk: NATO Slack Forces US To Send More Soldier And Contractor Trainers To Afghanistan
This story is interesting for a couple of reasons. Awhile back I wrote a post that dealt with this type of problem specifically, and how contractors are the ones who will be taking up the ‘slack’. Matter of fact, that is part of the title of the post. Afghanistan: So As NATO Falters Or Members Leave, Will Contractors Pick Up The Slack?
One thing that struck me was the numbers mentioned in this story about how many contractor trainers are over there now. I think that number is much larger than the 2,000 that is mentioned. I could be wrong, and I only say this because DoD really hasn’t been that accurate with their contractor accounting. Still, 2,000 contractor trainers is pretty significant.
The other part that I wanted to mention, was the idea that it takes NATO so long to spin up the required amount of manpower, and yet there was no mention on how fast it takes contractors to be spun up and sent over. Of course NPR did not want to minimize the capability of the US military, but in all honesty, private industry is the winner for speed of deployment and quantity needed when it comes to training stuff. Hell, the only thing that slows down contractor deployments, is the lack of government CORs needed to manage the whole contract to ensure it is properly carried out. lol But in this race, we excel.
The three month training deployment that the 82nd Airborne finished was pretty cool too. Three month deployments are nice, and private industry is the king of utilizing short deployment contracts like this. Could we see the military do more of these types of deployments? I know the troops would probably dig it.
I also wanted to give a big thanks and pat on the back to all of those contractors out there who are a part of this massive training effort in the war. You are an essential part of today’s strategy, and today’s war planners and strategists might not appreciate what you do, but I certainly appreciate the hard work you are doing.
My guess is that there will be more work coming too, so definitely keep up an eye on all the forums and job boards if you are planning to get into the training side of the business. –Matt
——————————————————————
NATO Slack Forces U.S. To Send Afghanistan Trainers
by Tom Bowman
August 13, 2010
American soldiers — and even private contractors — are spearheading the effort to build an Afghan army and police force, so American and NATO troops can one day leave. But Pentagon officials and military officers say NATO nations still aren’t doing enough.
A few weeks ago, hundreds of artillery troops and air defense artillery soldiers from Fort Sill in Oklahoma and Fort Campbell in Kentucky started heading over to Afghanistan. They weren’t part of the so-called surge in combat troops. Instead, Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed orders for them to work as trainers because European nations were too slow in helping out.
“We’re still not getting NATO able to force-generate and deploy forces in the numbers that we need,” says Army Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, who leads the training effort in Afghanistan. “So Gates said, ‘OK then, I’m going to give you another unit.’ “
It was the second time this year Gates said OK to more American trainers because NATO wasn’t picking up the slack. An 800-soldier battalion from the 82nd Airborne Division just got back from Afghanistan on a three-month training mission, designed to serve as a “bridge” to more NATO troops.
But with the NATO troops still not arriving, the troops from Oklahoma and Kentucky were sent — for a year.
That’s annoying some members of Congress.
“NATO members who for whatever reason do not send additional combat troops or who intend to reduce their combat troop presence in the near future should at least be willing to provide trainers who operate away from the heavy fighting,” Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said at a recent hearing.
NATO is willing — to a point. It has sent about 900 trainers to work with Afghan soldiers and police. The U.S. has sent more than twice that number. American private contractors have sent 2,000.
Cool Stuff: The Peltzman Effect, Spontaneous Order, And The Roundabout
I read this article a couple of days ago, but this little snippet was what stuck in my head. It was cool to see John Stossel build a ‘snow mobile’ out of these ideas, and to learn about Spontaneous Order and the Peltzman Effect. You learn something new all the time, and perhaps some of you out there, or even myself, will build something out of these concepts in the future?
One thing that I would like to add to this article is the ‘roundabout‘. I like the roundabout, because it is the best mixture of channeling traffic efficiently as well as putting more decision making in the minds of drivers. You enter the thing, you are channeled throughout the entire process, and you decide when to turn out. There is also a faster flow of traffic, and less idle time which equates to better fuel usage in those areas that use the system. And according to these guys, they are safer and more efficient. There are some signs for the roundabout, like to indicate it is coming up or to yield to oncoming traffic, but it is not nearly as sign intensive or as confusing as the standard traffic stop in the US or elsewhere. –Matt
—————————————————————–
From John Stossel’s Private Industry Does It Better, Page 2
August 5th, 2010
It’s Friedrich Hayek’s “spontaneous” order in action: Instead of sitting at a mechanized light waiting to be told when to go, drivers meet in an intersection and negotiate their way through by making eye contact and gesturing. The secret is that drivers must pay attention to their surroundings — to pedestrians and other cars — rather than just to signs and signals. It demonstrates the “Peltzman Effect” (named after retired University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman): People tend to behave more recklessly when their sense of safety is increased. By removing signs, lights and barriers, drivers feel less safe, so they drive more carefully. They pay more attention.
In Drachten, Holland, lights and signs were removed from an intersection handling about 30,000 cars a day. Average waiting times dropped from 50 seconds to less than 30 seconds. Accidents dropped from an average of eight per year to just one.
On Kensington High Street in London, after pedestrian railing and other traffic markers were removed, accidents dropped by 44 percent.
“What these signs are doing is treating the driver as if they were an idiot,” says traffic architect Ben Hamilton-Baillie. “If you do so, drivers exhibit no intelligence.”
Story here.
—————————————————————
By Wikipedia
The Peltzman effect is the hypothesized tendency of people to react to a safety regulation by increasing other risky behavior, offsetting some or all of the benefit of the regulation. It is named after Sam Peltzman, a professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
From the foreword of a talk by Peltzman at the American Enterprise Institute:
Sam Peltzman is one of the few economists, and probably the only regulatory economist, to have an effect named after him — the “Peltzman effect.” The Peltzman effect arises when people adjust their behavior to a regulation in ways that counteract the intended effect of the regulation. So, for example, when the government passes a seatbelt law, some drivers may respond by driving less safely. It turns out that the Peltzman effect has widespread application and has spawned, like much of Professor Peltzman’s other work, a veritable cottage industry for economists.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Jobs: Contingency Special Operations Team, OCONUS
Blackice Security put this one out, and I figured I would get on the band wagon and put it out as well. My guess is that there will be a huge requirement for bodies on this contract, and many companies are looking at those numbers and making their moves.
As for VxL? I have never heard of them, so job seekers beware. They have provided a phone number and email, so feel free to contact them if you have questions. I would also be curious if any of the readership have some input about the company?
I am not the POC or recruiter for this company, and please follow the directions and links below to apply. Good luck and let me know how it goes. –Matt
—————————————————————–
Careers with VxL
VxL is always seeking highly qualified, experienced professionals who possess absolute dedication and the will to excel in everything they do.
Our review and screening process is intensive. All candidates are subjected to comprehensive investigations, psychological screenings, and drug tests. All candidates must additionally demonstrate proficiency in their area of expertise, and physical fitness. Certain standards, such as weapons qualifications and physical fitness, have a pass / fail score that must be met, other standards are less empirical. Candidates are not expected to be perfect – but our analysis of your capabilities will be uncompromising. For those candidates who successfully pass all screening requirements, you will find working with VxL to be an experience like no other.TO APPLY FOR ANY POSITION:To apply, you may click on the ‘APPLY NOW’ link following the job description. You may also email us at careers@vxlenterprises.com or call us at 202-449-3824. Be sure to reference the position title and code.
Current Opportunities
Professional Instructors and Operators wanted ISO the Department of State WPS Program:
All VxL operations are based on our ‘Contingency Special Operations Team’ (CSOT) support concept, which maximizes operational readiness and scaleability while promoting a sustainable ‘career path’ for our personnel. As such, our team members are not hired for specific programs – rather, they are hired based on the full scope of their capabilities and integrated into the CSOT program where they are able to support any number of requirements.
Currently, we are accepting applications from highly qualified personnel who, while assigned to a CSOT, have the capability and requirements needed to support various training and operational requirements of the WPS Program (formerly WPPS II). *The WPS program in particular is contingent upon award – however, the CSOT positions in general are NOT. Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of WPS award status.
For a more detailed position description, qualifications, and brochure, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Industry Talk: DoS Faces Skyrocketing Costs As It Prepares To Expand Role In Iraq
Officials in Washington said that the Defense and State cuts were interconnected in several ways, including the expectation that the Iraqi military could assist in providing security for an increased American civilian presence as the U.S. military relinquishes that task.
But while Iraqis are providing some help, officials said they were not yet comfortable depending on them. “We want to work with both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in bolstering our security,” a senior administration official said. “That has to be worked out in terms of the availability of trained personnel, and it will take time to achieve it.
“I’m not saying it’s never going to happen. I’m just saying it’s not going to happen tomorrow.”
*****
You guys think? lol What is interesting about what is going on now, is everyone on the hill is looking at things they can cut. And if defense is getting cut, all those congressmen who will lose jobs for constituents back in their districts because of these defense cuts, will certainly lash out to make sure others feel the pain. So of course they will attack budgeting for other programs that are not as protected as defense.
But reality dictates. The quote up top is the one thing that I keep thinking about. Can we depend upon the Iraqis to protect the DoS in Iraq? Or better yet, why have the DoS in Iraq in the first place, if they will not have the funding to move off the bases (which would require ‘dependable’ security). Obviously these requests for security related programs and equipment is necessary in DoS’s view, because they do not feel they could depend upon the Iraqis. The cheapest option would be to depend upon the Iraqis, but in this case, the Best Value option would be to take all things into consideration, and get their own capability.
The question is, can they sell this to congress? Because instead of going cheap on security, it sounds to me like they are cutting bases and programs. The only place they are going cheap for security, is cutting the fortification process for some Iraqi police stations. So yeah, the smart thing to do is not even open up a base if you cannot afford proper security for it. That also cuts into the overall mission in Iraq that DoS had in mind, which is essential to getting Iraq to a point of stability and good governance. Either way congress goes with this, State will always have to default to ensuring security is at it’s optimum. Especially if congress will not assign more troops to Iraq for DoS protection duties. –Matt
——————————————————————-
State Dept. faces skyrocketing costs as it prepares to expand role in Iraq
By Karen DeYoung and Ernesto LondoñoAugust 11, 2010
As the last U.S. combat troops prepare to leave Iraq this month, the State Department is struggling to implement an expanded mission that it has belatedly realized it might not be able to afford.
Beginning in September, the State Department will take over all police training in Iraq from coalition military forces, and it has proposed replacing its current 16 provincial reconstruction teams spread across the country with five consular offices outside Baghdad.
But since planning for the transition began more than two years ago, costs have skyrocketed and the money to pay for them has become increasingly tight. Congress cut the State Department’s Iraq request in the 2010 supplemental appropriation that President Obama signed late last month; the Senate Appropriations Committee and a House subcommittee have already slashed the administration’s $1.8 billion request for fiscal 2011 operations in Iraq.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the outgoing commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and other U.S. officials are urging lawmakers to reconsider their plans, citing concerns that waning resources could jeopardize tenuous security gains.
“We can’t spread ourselves so thin that we don’t have the capacity to do the job in the places where we put people,” said Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew, who has told Congress that State will not deploy civilians where it cannot protect them. “If we don’t put people in a place where they have mobility, where they can go out and meet with the people and implement their programs,” he said, “there’s very little argument for being in the place we send them.”
The State Department has signaled in recent weeks that it will need up to $400 million more than initially requested to cover mushrooming security costs, but lawmakers seem in no mood to acquiesce.