I hope it is obvious to the readership here about my disdain for this APPF concept. It is a horrible idea and it will lead to folks getting killed or hurt. I would like to be wrong on this, but there are just too many factors building up to make it a really bad idea in this current environment.
Karzai is a corrupt leader and this force will be a tool to feed his corruption. Does anyone really think that the APPF will be the type of government sponsored security force that will really do a good job for the companies it is assigned too? Does anyone really think that the APPF will do better than the police or military when it comes to competency or service? Does anyone think they will have any real recourse if a guard is caught using drugs or stealing from the company they are assigned to protect? Think about it….because this force answers to Karzai and not to you the client and consumer of this forced service.
Also, why even create a separate force? Just assign military and police to protect these companies, because at least they would have somewhat better training and competency than this force. But not much.
But the really big one here is that these companies will have Afghans with guns protecting them. With the Quran burning incident and the latest shooting incident where a soldier went on a killing spree in a village, the environment for companies will not be that favorable. With these recent developments, Afghans have been killing western forces or enemy sympathizers have found their way into the system to make attacks. Politicians like Karzai are not helping things either with their outbursts against the west, and of course the Taliban is in the back just stirring the pot and loving it. That is the reality.
The other one that kills me is this fake re-assuring tone that some of these companies are communicating after signing these contracts with the APPF. Louis Berger-Black and Veatch made a classic statement.
“We welcome this security transition as a natural step for Afghanistan,” said Bill Haight, representing the Louis Berger – Black and Veatch joint venture.
Oh really? lol And meanwhile companies are writing the New York Times and telling them how paranoid they are about this whole deal–and rightly so. Just read the article below. Here is another quote that says it all.
The executive also said he and others at his company’s Washington headquarters knew that some employees in Afghanistan were keeping weapons in their rooms in case their compounds were attacked, and that management had so far turned a blind eye to the practice, which goes against local law.
That stems from the idea that this company’s employees do not trust a force like the APPF to protect them, and they are probably paranoid about an APPF guard shooting them. That is what happens when you do not have a trusted force of western security that can come between you and your contracted local force.
That is the appropriate combination to have, and now with the APPF, it will be all local guards with very little insurance against them–if they decide to turn or had enemy combatants within their ranks.
On the brighter side, if you are wanting to track the progression of the APPF, then check out NATO’s website dedicated to training. They have posted quite a bit about the APPF, to include those companies signing contracts and gaining licenses to use this force.
If you have anything to add to this, definitely voice your concerns here because it will be read. I have yet to see any real comments posted at the NATO site with posts that discuss the APPF. But definitely comment there so they can read your concerns. Keep up the pressure with your company as well, and don’t let your safety become a non-issue. Also continue to communicate with the ISOA and with your elected officials in the US about your concerns. –Matt
Security Fears Lead Groups to Rethink Work in Afghanistan
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and GRAHAM BOWLEY
March 10, 2012
WASHINGTON — The management at a company that does aid and development work for the American government knows that some of its employees in Afghanistan are keeping weapons in their rooms — and is choosing to look the other way. At another company in the same business, lawyers are examining whether the company can sue the United States Agency for International Development for material breach of contract, citing the deteriorating security in Afghanistan.
An Afghan government plan to abolish private security companies at the end of this month, along with the outbreak of anti-American demonstrations and attacks in the past month, has left the private groups that carry out most of the American-financed development work in Afghanistan scrambling to sort out their operations, imperiling billions of dollars in projects, officials say.
(more…)
