Feral Jundi

   Walter and the rest of the media is a little late to this party, but we can deal with that.  Although it would be nice for the Washington Post to add a little balance to their articles about such things.  Like mentioning a crucial quote that Defense Secretary Gates gave in regards to security contractors.  Here it is, and I posted the story below this one as the source.

     “As recently as February, however, Gates called the use of private security contractors in certain parts of Afghanistan “vital” to supporting U.S. bases. A contract for the work also creates job opportunities for Afghans, he said.”

   Also, the article mentions the dangers of these forward operating bases in Afghanistan, as if that is a new thing or something totally unreasonable for a private security company to handle.  Guess what, we have been protecting bases for awhile now.(TWISS, etc.)  I think what this article was trying to get at is that somehow contractors would not be up to the task of actually doing the job they are contracted to do.  As if somehow Afghanistan is ‘too much for them to handle’.  Pffft.

   And then Michael O’Hanlon enters into the discussion with his thoughts on the matter.

“We don’t want to waste scarce Afghan army and police, so we must be creative,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution.

But O’Hanlon also said he is concerned that if contractors were to take over security at forward operating bases, they would be the first to see hostile fire, and they — not soldiers — would have to decide whether to employ weapons against an enemy.

Instead of hiring a private firm, O’Hanlon said, the Americans and Afghans could create a local version of Iraq’s Facilities Protection Service, the modestly trained but government-paid guard force that was pulled together to provide protection for government ministries in Baghdad and the oil fields. “We should create a different branch of the Afghan security forces that has minimal training,” he said.”

   Boy, maybe Michael should ask the troops at these bases if they would be down with this suggestion?  Or better yet, would Michael want his son or daughter protected by these forces or a more professionalized force managed by a western PSC or PMC–you know, the guys that have been doing this stuff for awhile in Iraq and Afghanistan?  How would a ‘more than likely’ corrupt, poorly trained and equipped local Afghani PSC be the better option for this task?

     Ideally we would have all coalition forces protecting these bases, but because we do not have enough, we are going to have to make some decisions that the troops and the DoD can live with. A decision that is a no brainer to me and a few others out there, but for some it seems like a really difficult choice. (I would love to help in that decision…I really would)

   What’s worse with Michael’s suggestion is that the Afghani’s do not even have enough police or military to fill out the current requirements for today’s operations. The Marines were screaming for more Afghani forces, and they are not there.  Nope, to me, PMC’s and PSC’s are totally acceptable for this kind of mission, and preferably western (combined with local national guards of course).

     Lets not forget that on these bases, it will not be all contractors pulling security.  Usually the quick reaction forces are comprised of military guys, with all the firepower and radios required to go after the bad guys outside the wire.  That is how things are set up these days, and it works.  I am sure that is the arrangement currently in place on these bases and with these contracts.  Thats unless the DoD is willing to issue military radios and heavy weapons to contractors now, along with the authority to use those systems to order up things like close air support.

   Now what has to happen for things to run properly is for the government to actually give a crap about monitoring the performance of these companies.  That means hiring enough COR’s (contracting officer representatives ) and get them out there to the FOBs to do their job. Also, give them the training necessary to do a good job of quality control.  You must get involved and care about the quality of service, or expect things to go wrong, and having plenty of trained and competent COR’s is a necessity.  There should be no excuses, and the government knows what it has to do.  How many commissions and journalists and industry experts do you need to tell you the same things over and over and over again there Uncle Sam?…..(can anyone tell that I am a little miffed?) It would be nice if Walter would have talked about that a little in this article, but I guess that is asking too much?

   And while I am at it, how about mentioning how many contractors have been killed or wounded in these wars, all in support of our fighting men and women? Or talk about the real reason why we are being used in this war….because we have an all volunteer fighting force, and it has been a tough sell in order to get today’s kids to go to this dance party called war.

     True, recruitment has gone up do to the recent recession, but it hasn’t been that great and it certainly will not last.  But contracting has been solid, and plenty of folks have signed on to the cause.  Matter of fact, 246,000 plus contractors have signed on to the cause, and continue to do so year after year.  They are lining up around the corner for these jobs in war zones and the chance to contribute to the war effort.

     We are the ones that feed, protect, shelter, entertain, clean up after, maintain gear and weapons for your sons, daughters, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, fathers and mothers.  Yet we continue to get this kind of treatment from the press and from the very folks that contract our services.

     Maybe President Obama should start up the draft, and we can staff these wars with nothing but military folks? (did I just say the ‘draft’, like Vietnam era style draft? I guess I went there. lol) An idea that I am sure he and the rest of the nation would certainly jump all over. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Military Weighs Private Security on Front Lines

Firm Could Have Broad Protection Authority in Afghanistan

By Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, July 26, 2009

The U.S. military command is considering contracting a private firm to manage security on the front lines of the war in Afghanistan, even as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says that the Pentagon intends to cut back on the use of private security contractors.

On a Web site listing federal business opportunities, the Army this month published a notice soliciting information from prospective contractors who would develop a security plan for 50 or more forward operating bases and smaller command outposts across Afghanistan.

Although the U.S. military has contracted out security services to protect individuals, military bases and other facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, this contract would award a commercial company unusually broad “theater-wide” authority to protect forward operating bases in a war zone.

“The contractor shall be responsible for providing security services, developing, implementing, adequately staffing, and managing a security program,” the notice said, adding that the contractor would have to be available “24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

The U.S. military currently has 72 contracts that provide 5,600 civilian guards, mostly local Afghans, at forward bases across Afghanistan, according to Lt. Cmdr. Christine M. Sidenstricker, chief of media operations for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. The intent of the proposed contract is to bring all “disparate and subordinate contracts” under single, theater-wide management at a time when the U.S. forces are expanding, she said.

The Army has not issued a formal proposal for a contract, but the notice says that interested companies should reply by Wednesday and that a formal request for proposals should follow. The “anticipated award date” for a contract is Dec. 1, according to the notice.

The request for information comes as Gates is moving to put soldiers back in charge of security roles that contractors have filled in recent years. Drawing on its experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Department recently organized a task force to measure the military’s dependence on contractor support in training and security, with the goal of determining an appropriate mix.

Lawmakers, too, have raised concerns about the cost of contractors and about outsourcing what have traditionally been government roles.

The Commission on Wartime Contracting, a bipartisan congressional panel, noted in a recent report that in previous wars, military police protected bases while other service members pursued the enemy. “Contractors are now literally in the center of the battlefield in unprecedented numbers,” the commission said, creating “a need to define specific functions that are not appropriate for performance by contractors in a contingency operation.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), chairman of the Senate subcommittee on contracting oversight, said her panel had “revealed major concerns about the use of private security contractors in Afghanistan.” She added that a hard look needs to be taken “at where we have gone wrong in the past, to ensure that the military does not repeat history.”

Afghan forward operating bases are often considered dangerous posts. An American soldier was critically injured this month when insurgents attacked Forward Operating Base Salerno, near the eastern border town of Khost. Two U.S. troops died July 4 at Combat Outpost Zerok, also near the Pakistan border, in an insurgent assault.

In the worst attack on an outpost, roughly 200 insurgents broke through security walls last year at an outpost in Konar province and killed nine American soldiers. Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, recently asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate whether security at the post was adequate.

With Afghan army and police officers totaling roughly 160,000, and the number of U.S. service members in Afghanistan set to grow to 68,000 by year’s end, the U.S. military is moving to protect the facilities where personnel will be based. But many experts say commanders do not have enough forces.

“We don’t want to waste scarce Afghan army and police, so we must be creative,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution.

But O’Hanlon also said he is concerned that if contractors were to take over security at forward operating bases, they would be the first to see hostile fire, and they — not soldiers — would have to decide whether to employ weapons against an enemy.

Instead of hiring a private firm, O’Hanlon said, the Americans and Afghans could create a local version of Iraq’s Facilities Protection Service, the modestly trained but government-paid guard force that was pulled together to provide protection for government ministries in Baghdad and the oil fields. “We should create a different branch of the Afghan security forces that has minimal training,” he said.

At a town hall meeting at Fort Drum, N.Y., on July 16, Gates said that the military had let contracting “grow without the kind of controls that we should” have had. The purpose, he said, was “to try and free up as many soldiers for actual combat duty, rather than having them do things that civilian contractors could do.”

Contractors, Gates noted, have done a variety of jobs, including running dining facilities and doing laundry, cleaning chores and security work. “So, we’re kind of going back through all of these roles, at this point, to figure out where military ought to be doing these things and where civilian contractors can be,” he said.

Story here.

—————————————————————-

US Eyes Private Guards for Bases in Afghanistan

Military considers private security contract for Afghanistan as US presence there grows

By RICHARD LARDNER

July 26, 2009

U.S. military authorities in Afghanistan may hire a private contractor to provide around-the-clock security at dozens of bases and protect vehicle convoys moving throughout the country.

The possibility of awarding a security contract comes as the Obama administration is sending thousands of more troops into Afghanistan to quell rising violence fueled by a resurgent Taliban. As the number of American forces grow over the next several months, so too does the demand to guard their outposts.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants to cut back on the use of contractors that now provide a wide range services to American troops in war zones, including transportation, communications, food service, construction, and maintenance. As recently as February, however, Gates called the use of private security contractors in certain parts of Afghanistan “vital” to supporting U.S. bases. A contract for the work also creates job opportunities for Afghans, he said.

But the use of private contractors in Iraq has been highly contentious. Since a September 2007 shooting of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad by guards employed by Blackwater (now Xe Services), critics have urged U.S. officials to maintain much tighter controls over hired guards.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that the Army published a notice July 10 informing interested contractors it was contemplating a contract for “theater-wide” armed security.

“The contract would provide for a variety of security services, to include the static security of compounds on which U.S. and coalition forces reside, and for the protection of mission essential convoys in and around forward operating bases located throughout Afghanistan,” the notice states.

No formal request for proposals has been issued. If the military decides to move ahead, a contract could be awarded by Dec. 1.

Story here.