Feral Jundi

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Afghanistan: The US Embassy Is Attacked, And Yet Nothing Said About Security Contractor Performance?

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:42 PM

Boy, this latest attack in Kabul was an interesting incident. Purely because I have yet to hear anything at all about the security contractor performance during this whole deal.

Now I will tell you what I have heard that is not making the news, and that is at least one Afghan security guard was wounded on the compound itself. I have also heard that the tower that the Taliban were using in this attack was a major concern of security contractors that have been posted at that site over the years. It is the high ground, and positions like this are always a concern. But what was done about it? Because I am sure the RSO’s over the years had received an earful about it.

I have also heard that there weren’t any M-2’s or MK-19’s used to decimate those enemy positions in the tower. At those distances, something like a M-2 .50 cal. could reach the tower and pour some hate on it.  It might have saved some lives, and yet I am hearing that the military component of the defense did not respond with such tools? I could be wrong here, and I would like to be corrected on this. Because I am sure the contractors didn’t have those tools or authority to use those kinds of weapons. (The video below shows the fight at ISAF, and I don’t see any heavy weapons being used?)

Either way, I would love to hear from any contractors or soldiers that were on scene on any of those compounds that were involved in this fight. Because it is just odd to me that we spend this much money on the WPS guys and the KESF guys, and everyone else in between, and there is nothing at all about their good work and sacrifice? It is actually in poor taste that the DoS, ISAF or NATO refuses to say anything at all about our industry’s contribution in incidents like this.

The other reason why I wanted to post this is to give any of the companies and DoS/ISAF/NATO a chance to communicate about the contractor performance during this deal. Because as we speak, the media and new media folks out there are filling in the vacuum of information with their narrative.

You have folks like POGO that have been excellent at pointing out the deficiencies of companies like AGNA, but currently is spinning this latest deal as if AGNA performed poorly in this incident? And yet POGO has not one shred of information to support anything of the sort. So instead, they go off on the past performance of AGNA to leave the reader with the idea that they ‘must have performed poorly during this incident’. That is what I mean by narrative, and DoS and company silence is doing more harm than good.

Hell, if you want, I could spin this as a deal where the contractors performed well?  I could just assume that because not one diplomat or federal employee was killed or injured, that the defense was excellent. Or I could use quotes from guys like General Carsten Jacobsen:

He said the attack proved the security of the Nato and US embassy compounds, which were not breached, and said the Afghan forces responded “very well” and quickly.

But instead, I would like to draw some conclusions based on facts. So help me out folks, and don’t let others who could care less about the facts control the narrative.

Now of course the DoS/ISAF/NATO is probably instructing AGNA or other companies not to make any press releases, or there is some contract stipulation against such things, but still?  It is just horribly odd to me that there is not a mention about the very people that put their lives on the line to defend the property and people of these compounds during such a publicized attack? –Matt

(definitely ‘like’ the US Embassy in Kabul, ISAF and NATO let them know on their wall what you think)

Edit: 9/15/2011- Supposedly there were two contractor injuries. Thanks to a reader for the information.

Edit: 9/16/2011- Ok, I have had several reports from readers that contractors were engaged in combat during this deal. Meaning, they were using their weapons to defend against attackers. Which I am glad they did, and I certainly hope they killed some of these Taliban attackers? Nothing confirmed as far as how many Taliban were killed by contractors. There were also multiple RPG hits within the compound.

 

 

Statement from Ambassador Crocker on Attacks of September 13, 2011
Yesterday was a long and difficult day for the U.S. Embassy, for ISAF and for the residents of Kabul.  We witnessed both cowardly attacks by an increasingly desperate insurgency, as well as instances of enormous courage and dedication on the part of ISAF troops and especially the Afghan National Security Forces.  It was Afghan police and soldiers who bravely ended the attack on the embassy and stopped further strikes on Kabul Airport, two police stations, and a local high school.  We mourn the Afghan civilians and the brave troops and security forces killed in these actions, and wish a full recovery to the wounded, which include Afghan civilians and American and partner-nation troops.  We offer condolences to the families of these innocent victims.??The attacks serve to highlight the weakness at the core of the insurgency.  Unable to confront ISAF and newly-trained Afghan troops on the conventional battlefield, they have turned to launching attacks on high-profile facilities like the U.S. Embassy in an attempt to garner headlines.  Yet their actions backfired. Afghan security forces showed they were up to the task of thwarting such operations and are willing to sacrifice their lives to reclaim their communities and country.  Unlike the insurgents, the ANSF took great care to avoid civilian casualties. The transition to Afghan-led security is on track, as we turn our focus to long-term efforts for supporting a more secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan.??As Secretary of State Clinton said yesterday, “We will be vigilant, but we will be continuing with even greater commitment to doing all we can to give the Afghan people, who have suffered so much, a chance at a better future for themselves and their children.”
Press release here.
——————————————————–
UPDATED: U.S. Embassy Statement
September 13, 2011
The U.S. Embassy confirms an attack occurred today in the area of the U.S. Embassy, including RPG and small arms fire.  Four Afghans were injured in the attack on the embassy compound, none with life threatening injuries.  They included three Afghan visa applicants and one local contract guard.


Our thoughts are with these individuals and the other victims of the terrorist attacks that happened today in Kabul.  We appreciate the response of the Afghan National Security Forces whose operations stopped the attack on the embassy compound.
Press release here.
———————————————————
U.S. Embassy Statement
September 13, 2011
The U.S. Embassy can confirm an attack has occurred in the area of the U.S. Embassy, including RPG and small arms fire.  There are no casualties at this time among Embassy personnel.
Press release here.

 

5 Comments

  1. Thanks for highlighting our blog piece. We appreciate the feedback!

    You’re right that the majority of our piece centered on AGNA’s past performance. And I understand how that focus could cause you to interpret our post as suggesting that AGNA “must have performed poorly during this incident.” And the piece did include one sentence that is unintentionally vague and could read as though we were suggesting that AGNA's security was weak during the attack: ("There is no indication, at this point, that inadequate security contributed to yesterday’s attack") But that wasn’t at all the point we were trying to convey. And we'll update our piece to clarify that.

    Rather, we were attempting to illustrate that—as evidenced by the attack—Kabul remains a dangerous environment. And as such, security of the Embassy is absolutely essential.

    Like you, we were very interested to know how well AGNA performed during the attack. But as you documented on your own blog, there was very little information available at the time. And AGNA representatives conveyed to us that they were contractually barred from discussing the attack in any detail.

    That being the case, I think it was appropriate for POGO to highlight AGNA’s past performance in the context of the attack because the attack helped to illustrate that the threat to the Embassy is not just theoretical—it is in fact very real.

    You note on your blog that POGO has “been excellent at pointing out the deficiencies of companies like AGNA.” But if that’s true, shouldn’t we also push to ensure that those companies are held accountable? The State Department announced over a year ago their plans to replace AGNA. But AGNA is still responsible for guarding the Embassy.

    Based on subsequent discussions with security guards in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity and press accounts, POGO has no reason to believe that AGNA performed poorly. We have since requested comment from the State Department on AGNA's performance and will update our piece if we get any response.

    But regardless of how well they performed during this particular attack, it is troubling that a firm that the State Department announced would be replaced, ostensibly for their inability to handle the contract, is still responsible for guarding the Embassy. And the recent attacks served to highlight that concern.

    Thanks again for the feedback. Have a great day!

    Comment by Jake Wiens — Monday, September 19, 2011 @ 9:01 AM

  2. Jake, thanks for the response. From the reports I am getting, contractors certainly did perform well during this incident. So I certainly hope that POGO will pursue this and get a statement from State about their excellent performance. Not one federal employee or diplomat was killed or wounded, and the enemy was stopped.

    You and I might not like AGNA or how State has not been able to get a new company in there, but that does not mean that the guys on the ground do not deserve our praise for doing well in the face of such a complex and deadly attack?

    Comment by Feral Jundi — Monday, September 19, 2011 @ 2:11 PM

  3. That building/ tower where the insurgents attacked from reminds me of a few buildings that surrounded the Government Center in Ramadi. Incomplete and abandoned, the structure offered multiple locations of which to conduct an "attack by fire" onto the Government Center. However, we were afforded multiple tools of which to repel such attacks. M-19s denied the enemy defilade of which to hide – an essential tool in urban combat. Additionally, the M-2 would punch through walls and limit the enemies ability and staying power.

    I've never been to Kabul but I sure as hell hope that the government is allowing the contractors to utilize the essential tools in providing high-risk security.

    Comment by Jason A — Tuesday, September 20, 2011 @ 7:00 AM

  4. Absolutely Jason. Weapons like that could have certainly been beneficial for the defense.

    Comment by Feral Jundi — Tuesday, September 20, 2011 @ 11:19 AM

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress