Feral Jundi

Monday, May 28, 2012

Veteran News: Memorial Day– The Hero Dead Still Play Their Part…

The hero dead cannot expire:
The dead still play their part.
-Charles Sangster

For this year’s Memorial Day, I wanted to find a quote and theme that best described my feelings about the sacrifice and service of our dead military and contractor heroes of wars past and present.

The dead speak to us every day, and they speak loudest on days of remembrance. They tell us not to forget what they gave to this country. They tell us not to forget the cost of war, and to be damned sure that future wars we fight are worthy of the blood and sacrifice of heroes.

But they also want us to live our lives. A life that they would be proud of if they were to visit us today. They would want us to keep our heads up and go forth into the world to live a life fulfilled. To raise our families, lead our communities, prosper and be happy, and to live honorable lives.

So remember the hero dead today, and every day. But also remember that the hero dead still play their part in our lives and in this country, and we should by inspired and guided by what their deaths say and by what their deaths mean. –Matt

 

 

Friday, May 25, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Call To Action: Instructions For How To Submit A Contractor Casualty For The Defense Of Freedom Medal

This is an important post, and in the past I have discussed the Defense of Freedom Medal before, but never discussed the process of getting a killed or wounded contractor their medal.  This medal is the equivalent to the Purple Heart that the military gives to wounded or killed soldiers. It is my intent with this post to empower companies and contractors with the information necessary on how to submit a casualty for this medal.

I will also put a link to this post on my Contractor Casualty Statistics page so it will be easy to find for those who want to come back to it. The links below, highlighted in blue, are also important to read.  These are the memos that detail how this works, and what is required. Please forward this information on to the companies if you are a friend or family member of a contractor that was killed or wounded, and they have not been recognized for their sacrifice. If the company in question is no longer in existence, then I would recommend contacting the Army Incentive Awards Board directly with the email below.

One other possibility is to get a DBA focused law firm to help out in the process. Here is a link to one law firm that has commented on the particulars of this medal.

Also, there is no record of every recipient from what I can gather. Wikipedia had an entry dedicated to contractors that received this medal, but it only lists four.  I know there are more out there, and I will keep an eye out for a source that tracks this. Good luck out there and let’s make it happen! –Matt

 

 

Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom

1. Purpose: The Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom (DFM) is established to acknowledge civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DoD) who are killed or wounded in the line of duty. The medal symbolizes the extraordinary fidelity and essential service of the Department’s civilian workforce who are an integral part of DoD and who contribute to the preservation of national security.

2. Description: The Army’s Institute of Heraldry developed the medal.
      a. Medal: The eagle and shield exemplify the principles of freedom and the defense of these freedoms on which our country is founded. The laurel is emblematic of honor and high achievement.
      b. Ribbon: Red, white, and blue are our National colors. The red stripes commemorate valor and sacrifice. The wide blue stripe represents strength. The white stripes symbolize liberty as represented in our national flag. The number of red stripes represents the four terrorist attacks using hijacked airplanes, and the single blue stripe represents the terrorist attack on the pentagon on September 11, 2001. This day, more than ever, united this country and brought to the forefront our heroic civilians.

3. Certificate: A DA Form 7499 will accompany the medal.

4. Eligibility: The medal shall be awarded to any DoD civilian employee meeting the definition of ’employee’ under title 5 United States Code, Section 2105, and who is eligible for an award under DoD 1400.25-M, Subchapter 451, ‘Awards,’ including employees of non-appropriated fund activities, when killed or wounded by hostile action while serving under any competent authority of the Department under conditions for which a military member would be eligible for receipt of the Purple Heart. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense has discretionary authority to award this medal to non-Defense personnel who are otherwise qualified to be awarded the medal based on their involvement in DoD activities.

5. Criteria: Eligibility criteria for the medal are aligned as closely as possible to those for the Purple Heart for members of the Armed Forces; this medal differs from other medals in that it is not ‘recommended.’ The employee is ‘entitled’ to the medal if the employee is eligible under Section 4 and if the conditions or criteria in this paragraph are present. Hostile action may involve, but is not limited to, the use of conventional or nuclear weapons, chemical or biological agents, explosives, or missiles. The medal shall be awarded to employees who are killed or who sustain injury due to hostile action against the United States of America, or killed or wounded while rescuing or attempting to rescue any other employee or individual subjected to injuries sustained under such conditions. The wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer, and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

6. Limitations on Awarding Medal: The medal is authorized for the incident of death or the first wound suffered under the conditions indicated above. The medal itself may be awarded only once; however, for subsequent events that would require the award of the medal, a device will be awarded to attach to the ribbon of the medal.

7. Posthumous Awards: The medal may be awarded posthumously and, when so awarded, may be presented to a representative of the deceased member’s family.

8. Responsibility and Approval: The approval authority for the DFM is delegated as specified in the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) memorandum dated March 24, 2009, subject: Delegation of Authority Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom.

9. Nomination Format: Forward a memorandum, along with a DA Form 1256, containing the following:

     a. General personal information: For government employees: provide name, SSN, title, series, grade, organization and location.

     b. Specific information regarding injury/death: Description of the situation causing the injury/death in detail to include the date, time, place, and scene of the incident, and official medical documentation of the employee’s injuries and treatment. The description must be well documented, including the names of witnesses and point of contact (POC) for additional medical information, if needed.

10. Army Contractor Nominations: The Secretary of Defense will consider nominations of contractor employees for this medal. Nominations for contractor employees will consist of the attached form, completed and submitted to the Executive Secretary, Army Incentive Awards Board, along with a report from a medical treatment facility or professional and a signed release to permit discussion of medical information by those who review the award nomination. Submit one copy of the memorandum and supporting justification to:

ag1cpaiabsecretary@conus.army.mil.

Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom
Consideration of Eligibility
for Contractor Personnel

1. Name of individual (first, middle initial, last.) Mr. John Doe
2. Position title. Senior Project Engineer
3. Name of contractor company and name/phone number of POC. ABC, 1234 Main Street, Anytown, Virginia 22222. Mr. Harold Barnes (888) 555-4748.
4. Title of Component office for which contractor worked and name/phone number of Component POC or project manager. Headquarters, Department of the Army, IMCEN. Mr. Sam Jones (877) 555-4410.
5. Date and location of the event, which caused the death or injury. September 11, 2001; Pentagon. Mr. Joe Smith, Acting Director, Information Management Center, certifies that this employee was in a duty status on September 11, 2001.
6. Describe the circumstances of the individual’s death or injury, e.g., the event that caused the death or injury and how it occurred. Mr. Doe was working in the Pentagon, Room 1C543, when terrorists crashed a commercial aircraft into the Pentagon. He was hit on the head by falling debris from the ceiling and walls of his office.
7. For injuries only (1) describe the nature of the injury and the treatment protocol (treated and released, number of days hospitalized); (2) identify where treatment occurred (treated at medical facility or by private doctor and provide name of facility/ physician and phone number if available); (3) describe extent of immediate care, (treated with aspirin, x-rays taken, etc.), and (4) describe extent of continued care if considered necessary (outpatient care, physical therapy, etc.) Mr. Doe sustained blunt force trauma to his head and was admitted to Polaris Hospital Emergency Room where he was taken to the operating room and received fourteen stitches to close the wound in his head. He received medical treatment at the hospital until September 18, 2001. He had physical therapy appointments once a week for several months.
8. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: MG Thomas Smith, Commanding General, U.S. Army XXXXXX, signed memorandum recommending approval.

Content last reviewed: 5/22/2009-ALV
References
Memo, May 20, 2009 – DFM Reporting Instructions

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

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

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 1:49 PM

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

 

 

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.

(more…)

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Cool Stuff: The Historic Launch Of Falcon 9–Private Industry Enters The Space Race!

Filed under: Cool Stuff,Space — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 11:27 AM

Today, though, “Falcon flew perfectly!!,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wrote on Twitter moments after the launch. “Feels like a giant weight just came off my back :).”
At a press conference held after the launch, Musk said that “every bit of adrenalin in my body released at that point,” and that the elation he felt was like “winning the Super Bowl.”
“I would really count today as a success no matter what happens for the rest of the mission.”-National Geographic

This is awesome news and congrats to Elon Musk and the team at SpaceX. The company had to delay the launch by a couple of days due to some issues, but the second time was a charm. Now it will link up with the International Space Station and hopefully that will go without a hitch.

My latest thoughts on the private space industry and security, is that government is now relinquishing it’s monopoly on space. And space, strategically, is the ultimate high ground. My concerns in this case, would be the protection of space property like satellites from those wishing to destroy or hack that stuff. Or state and non-state actors exploiting cyber weaknesses of these systems that control this space hardware. Or worse yet, actually causing crashes or glitches in space launches, as a way to take out the competition in the space market.

Can you imagine a terrorist group, taking control of a rocket like Falcon 9 and crashing that into the ISS?  Or plowing it into some key satellite that is vital to national security? Or causing a rocket to fail on launch, and crashing that thing purposely into a population center?

Also, if you look at how much money each launch costs, then you can see how this industry might fire up some serious corporate competition/sabotage.  Especially between private companies and countries.  If one country is dependent on a private company, and then another country with a state sponsored commercial space program attacks the systems of that private company, all so folks have no where else to go for space launches but that state sponsored commercial program, then you can see how this can play out.  This is not to say we will see Russia or China attack SpaceX, but it is definitely something to keep in mind. Especially with cyber attacks.

With that said, I certainly hope SpaceX and others are serious about security, both physical and cyber, because it doesn’t take much to ruin a business plan and mission.-Matt

 

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress