Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Jundism: The Milgram Experiment And The Importance Of Leadership And Questioning Authority
I highly suggest watching this entire show on Discovery Channel called ‘Curiosity: How Evil Are You?‘ The show basically conducts the original Stanley Milgram Experiment with modern day participants.
The results are shocking. The experiment showed that today’s society is equally as susceptible as those participants in the original experiment 50 years ago.
Milgram wanted to answer the question on how humans could violate their consciousness and moral code in the name of ‘following orders’. Here is a quote from wikipedia about the experiment:
“Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?” In other words, “Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?” Milgram’s testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.
So here is the really motivating part about this experiment that I wanted to share and get out there. In the show towards the end, they modified the experiment to have two teachers, with one of the teachers being an actor. That actor would refuse administering the shock as it got higher, and the experiment was to see if their fellow teacher who thought this was real, would refuse with them. That they would not follow orders, and follow the path of someone that chose not to shock the learner.
In the show, the non-actor ‘real’ teacher did refuse, and that is very significant to this post.
Jundism is about being the guy that does question authority or leads by example. To be a positive influence within your team, and not fall within the trap of group think. Within a group setting, everyone might have the same doubts about a certain task or person, but until someone comes forward and acts on those doubts, everyone will just go along. It is my hope that you the reader will recognize how important this is. Just watch the experiments if you don’t believe me.
In the video below, this woman was a real participant and practitioner of Jundism, who actually said no right off the get go. She did not go along with the experiment because she actually thought about it. She had the courage to do what is right and go with her guts and moral code.
But she was also very rare, and the show identified how very few people actually said no to giving shocks to the learner. Let alone giving the ‘killing’ or life threatening shock to a learner. It is quite the thing to watch all of these normal everyday people, actually go through the act of harming an innocent person, all because someone said to do it.
What I want to leave the reader with is that if you can fight peer pressure, fight the urge to just go along with the group, and actually question authority or the group, then you could potentially save lives or serious heartache within your company. And it doesn’t have to be serious stuff, and it could be just leadership by example for everyday things like ‘training, fitness, decision making, ideas, innovations, leadership, etc.’. But it could also be leadership by example in ‘integrity’ situations, or deals where a line could be crossed by individuals, and no one else is stepping up to say ‘hey, this is not right’.
There are many facets of a contract and mission where you have the opportunity to show how it is done correctly. If you are the guy that does things right, then you will have a good chance at bringing other folks with you on that path. –Matt
The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.
Maritime Security: Britain To Allow Armed Guards To Combat Sea Piracy
Outstanding news. Glad to see Britain taking the necessary steps to legalize armed guards on boats. It just makes sense, and seeing how most of the maritime security companies working right now are British, this will be an added boost.
Now the question I have is how will these new laws mix with Britain’s position on privateers or the Letter of Marque? They are a signatory to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. No telling what other treaties they have signed, and how these sanctioned armed guards fit into that bigger picture?
I would also be interested to see the firearms regulations on what the companies can actually use for protection duties. Remember, today’s pirates are using weapons of war, not firearms used for hunting. You must give these guards weapons that will give them advantage, or at least match the pirate’s fire power. Anything else is just unacceptable in my view. –Matt
Britain to allow armed guards to combat sea piracy
By DAVID STRINGER
October 30, 2011
Ships sailing under Britain’s flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia’s coast.
Cameron’s office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain’s announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
“The evidence is that ships with armed guards don’t get attacked, don’t get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward,” Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.
Aviation: Contract Aircraft, Non-military Aircraft Losses In Iraq And Afghanistan Wars
What I wanted to do here is put together a list of all of the contract aviation losses in both wars. Thanks to wikipedia, it was easy to organize this and put it all together. If anyone has information they would like to add, or if you see some missing aircraft losses in this post, let me know in the comments.
Also, if you follow the links, they will take you to the overall aviation losses in these wars. In Iraq, the Kiowa Helicopter and the Apache really took a hit. Lots of crashes and combat losses there. But they were also heavily used.
In Afghanistan, I would have thought there would be more losses on both the military and civilian side. The CH 47 was the top aircraft that crashed or was shot down. The Blackhawk was right behind this aircraft. Although this war is not over, and these numbers could reach Iraq levels in a few years.
The big one in Afghanistan is the necessary power to get up to those elevations, and the CH 47 is a work horse for that. Hence why this was the top aircraft that crashed, because it gets the most use.
The total losses for military and civilian aircraft in the Iraq war was 133 rotary wing (with 43 lost to hostile fire) and 24 fixed wing losses (with 2 to hostile fire, and 2 to friendly fire).
In Afghanistan, it is 103 rotary wing (with 17 lost to hostile fire) and 23 fixed wing (with 1 lost to hostile fire on ground).
With those statistics, you get a good idea as to what the real danger is of flight in the war zones. The enemy is certainly a threat, but the environment/pilot error/equipment failure is what causes the majority of these crashes.
Also, it would be great to see our military or some think tank go through all of these accidents and combat losses, and find out if there is a better aircraft that could have been used for these types of missions. Sometimes the best aircraft is not necessarily the most expensive or fancier aircraft, but the one that can perform the job in the worst kind of conditions specific to that region or war zone. A hellfire missile fired from a Cessna Caravan, is no different than a hellfire missile fired from an Apache helicopter.
I guess my point is, are we using the correct aircraft with the best survivability and capability for the job that is required? We lost a lot of Kiowas, Apaches, CH 47’s, and Blackhawks in this war, and you wonder if there are aircraft that could have been better suited for these missions?
The other thing to think about is legacy aircraft for these countries when we leave. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are purchasing and using Cessna Caravans, and that is a great multipurpose aircraft that they could use. It is also cheap to keep running and pretty dependable. But once we give these countries the really expensive aircraft to operate and maintain, then how do we expect them to be able to afford using these things? And even with our own operations and the state of the US economy, we should be considering all options for aircraft, based on the requirements of the mission. It is not against the law to be more cost effective in war, and I have to think that there are cheaper options for some of the stuff we are doing in these conflicts. –Matt
Contract aircraft, non-military aircraft losses in the Iraq War
2009
July 17, 2009 – An MD-530F contracted to Xe (formerly Blackwater) crashes at Butler Range outside Baghdad. Two pilots died. The cause was not known.
2008
November 13, 2008 – An Antonov An-12 crashes after takeoff from Al Asad Air Base, killing all 7 crew members. Six members of the crew and one passenger died, three of them were Russians. The crew also consisted of a Belarusian, two Ukrainians and an Indian citizen.
2007
March 7, 2007 – A privately-contracted Mil Mi-8 helicopter from the Republic of Georgia crashes due to technical failures, injuring its three Ukrainian crewmembers, and several Iraqi passengers.
January 31, 2007 – A Blackwater USA Bell 412 helicopter is shot down under fire near Karma during a flight between Al Hillah and Baghdad. A US military helicopter rescues the passengers and crew.
January 23, 2007 – A Blackwater USA MD 530F helicopter is shot down by hostile fire in Baghdad. All of the 5 man crew are killed in the incident, likely executed after surviving the crash. The remaining survivor was also killed under unclear circumstances, when another Blackwater helicopter descended to the crash site.
January 9, 2007 – A Moldovan Antonov An-26 crashes near Balad in the 2007 Balad aircraft crash, killing 34 of the 35 on board.
2005
May 30, 2005 – A Comp Air 7SL aircraft with the Iraqi Air Force crashes in eastern Iraq, killing four Americans and an Iraqi on board.
April 21, 2005 – A Bulgarian Mil Mi-8 is shot down north of Baghdad, killing the 11 civilians on board, including six American contractors, three Bulgarian pilots, one of them is executed shortly after the crash, and two Fijian guards.
Link to Wikipedia here.
—————————————————————-
Contract aircraft, non-military aircraft losses in Afghanistan War
2011
July 6, 2011: IL-76 cargo plane, registered 4K-AZ55, was destroyed in an accident near Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. The plane is said to have flown into the side of a mountain at about 12,500 feet (3,800 meters).The transport plane carried a total of 18 tons of cargo for the NATO-led forces at Bagram Air Base.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Jobs: Close Protection Specialist, Afghanistan
Thanks to Ken for sending me this one. I don’t know anything about Jorge Scientific Corporation, but it looks like they are in need of some highly qualified close protection specialists. If anyone has anything to add to this one, do so in the comments. I am not the POC or recruiter for this job, and follow the links and directions below if you would like to apply. Good luck. –Matt
Jobs: Close Protection Specialist, Afghanistan
Details
Location: VA – Afghanistan
Job Type: Professional Services
Other
Base Pay: N/A
Required Education: High School
Bonus:
Required Experience: At least 10 year(s)
Other:
Required Travel: Not Specified
Employee Type: Full-Time
Relocation Covered: Not Specified
Industry Defense – Aerospace
Job ID: 11185
Description
Jorge Scientific Corporation is a leading systems integration firm; we provide cutting edge defense and government solutions. We are currently expanding our Engagement Group and seeking a highly motivated Close – Protection Specialist to help support our efforts in the Global War on Terrorism in Afghanistan. The incumbent for this position will provide essential driving and protection of personnel and assets in support operational and administrative activities of the program within the Afghanistan Theater of Operations.Specific Duties:
Responsible for providing driving support to contractor personnel in high-risk areas
Responsible for planning, coordinating, and executing motor vehicle convoy operations in urban and rural environments IAW NATO and Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan movement control policy including but not limited to:
Route planning and analysis
Arrival and Departure procedures
IED Avoidance
Vehicle recover and self-recovery situations
Responsible for the force protection of embedded team members executing mentorship activities to Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police
Responsible for conducting weapons training, immediate action drills, and other security related activities required to accomplish operational requirements
Responsible for assisting research, analysis and written assessments on the purchase and implementation of new and current security equipment, vehicle and weapon employment in regards to protect program personnel
Carries and operates weapons as specified to accomplish daily operational requirements.