Feral Jundi

Monday, August 2, 2010

Industry Talk: Use Of Force And Riot Control For Contractors

     What I wanted to do here is go over a very tough problem for contractors, that really has not been addressed by the industry or today’s war planners. The latest incident in Kabul serves as an example of a real problem out there, and that is what happens when contractors are the victims of riots? Worse yet, what happens when they are the targets of ‘agents provocateurs’ in war zones, who are trying to create riots as a way to attack contractors or the military? Because these guys in Kabul could have ended up like the Blackwater contractors who were burned and hanged on a bridge in Fallujah Iraq.

     So with this post, I wanted to find out what contractors could do in these kinds of situations. I decided to put up a section of a FM manual on how the military deals with riots, but as you can see, there is nothing in these FM manuals on what contractors can or should do in such situations. I don’t even know of any civilian schools that train contractors to deal with such a threat, and especially for small teams in one or two vehicle motorcades.

     With a quick search, I did come across an article about Xe having CS gas in Iraq, and the outrage and shock that caused. But of course, the only reason why they would have such a thing is so that they could have something other than bullets to disperse a crowd with. As it stands now, if contractors are not allowed to use non-lethal munitions like CS gas or whatever, then of course contractors will be put in a position of either A. standing there and die by the hands of a violent crowd or C. shoot their weapons in self defense. A stone can kill a man, and especially when a hundred stones are thrown at that man. Shooting your weapon to defend self or others, is a main theme of the Rules for the Use of Force, but of course it would be far better if there was a way to not use that weapon. If using CS gas to disperse that violent crowd could be the non-lethal ‘B.” solution in this incident, then to me that is logical. And yet contractors are not allowed to have this stuff, or it is ‘shocking’ if they have it?

     The other question this brings up is what are the appropriate riot control or just riot survival tactics for a small team that is entrapped or involved in a similar situation as the guys in Kabul were? For that, I urge contractors and companies alike to war game the appropriate response to such a thing, and figure out what works for you in your neighborhood. Talk it up with the local military forces and get some suggestions from them if you are stumped. Find those in your team who have law enforcement or military police backgrounds who might have experience in riot control and figure out the best SOP’s. Because no one has yet to write a chapter in the FM manuals or give out any kind of guidance to this massive contractor force operating outside the wire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     I also think this is of strategic importance, because it would be far better if contractors were implementing SOPs for dealing with crowds that did not endanger the various regional strategies, or overall COIN strategy in the war. Something to think about, and I would like to hear what you guys think. –Matt

——————————————————————

FM 3-19.40 Appendix B

Use of Force and Riot Control Measures

The I/R facility commander provides guidance to all MP guard forces in the appropriate use of force to protect internees and internment facilities and to control unruly and rebellious internee populations. This includes establishing uniform procedures that govern the use of force, weapons, and restraining devices. He ensures that a QRF is organized and trained to respond to disturbances inside and outside the facility—whether prisoners are creating a disturbance or there is a Level I threat against the facility. Supporting MP units train squad- to platoon-sized QRFs and squad-sized elements for extraction and apprehension teams. (See FM 19-15 for more information on civil disturbances.)

USE OF FORCE

B-1. When force is necessary, use it according to the priorities of force and limit it to the minimum degree necessary. (See AR 190-14 for the use of deadly force.) The application of any or all of the priorities of force, or the application of a higher numbered priority without first employing a lower numbered one, depends on and will be consistent with the situation encountered. Per AR 190-47, the priorities of force are—

First: Verbal persuasion.

Second: Show of force.

Third: Chemical aerosol irritant projectors (subject to local and HN restrictions).

Fourth: Use of physical force (other than weapons fire).

Fifth: Presentation of deadly force.

Sixth: Deadly force.

B-2. The I/R commander coordinates with the higher echelon commander and the SJA. He designates representatives who are authorized to direct the use of firearms and riot control agents during riots or disturbances. He includes the rules for using these means in appropriate plans, orders, SOPs, and instructions. He specifies the types of weapons to be used, which are not limited to shotguns and pistols for guarding prisoners.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Industry Talk: BLISS Could Be State’s New LOGCAP, And More Clarification About WPPS

     Thanks to David Isenberg for posting this on his blog and bringing it to everyone’s attention.  I think this is some interesting information that came out of this letter between Richard Verma and Sen. Claire McCaskill. If in fact BLISS becomes the new LOGCAP for DoS, this could be a pretty sizable contract.  That’s ‘if’ they cannot bring State under the current LOGCAP.  We will see how it goes.

     But what I thought was most interesting in this letter was the clarification as to the fact that contractors will be operating this war equipment that DoD will be loaning to State. That is great, and it will be cool to see Blackhawks and MRAPs rolling out into the skies and roads of Iraq under the control of contractors.  I wonder if they will paint this equipment a different color? Like DoS blue/white/yellow? lol

    Also, will these MRAPS or Blackhawks be stripped of all the life saving electronics and communications stuff that our troops were able to use for the survival of their units?  Probably not, but who knows.  Today’s military hardware has a lot of useful stuff in it that could really come in handy for the contractors that have to operate it.

     One thing that is missing in this letter, is a question and response about the 14 security related functions that State identified, that might have to be done by contractors.  Stuff like EOD or counter mortar/rocket team operations. Or QRF/rescue stuff or other military type activities.  I say this because I have yet to see any answers as to how the DoS will treat contractors if they actually had to fire their weapons and kill enemy combatants while doing any of these 14 security related functions.  Or worse yet, what about firefights that unintentionally ended up in the deaths of civilians? Because the enemy loves to attack from population centers with the hopes of creating such an incident.

     Like I have said before, we might want the war to be over in Iraq, but the enemy could care less about our wishes. If anything, with a limited military presence and an Iraqi government and security forces still trying to establish itself, a lot can happen during the transition and drawdown. DoS must understand that the enemy has learned much from the propaganda value of such incidents like the Nisour Square incident. If they can recreate such an incident again they will gain much, and DoS and the US mission in Iraq will suffer yet again from the consequences.

     There are still many questions that come to mind, and that is will DoS support their contractors if involved in a firefight that accidently resulted in civilian deaths, or will they treat the contractor as if they were criminals?  Worse yet, will they hand these individuals over to the Iraqis, or will they insure these men are afforded the same protections and rights that the military or even diplomats would have received in similar situations? Will DoS implement rules for the use of force that are realistic and give contractors the best chance of success for the defense of personnel and property? Or will DoS even allow the proper weapons and tactics required for an effective defense (that could include borderline offensive operations), or even rescues? Stuff to think about and it will be interesting to see how this turns out. –Matt

Edit: 08/02/2011- Hat tip to Ms. Sparky on this news. Supposedly KBR was chosen for this. Check the comment below for the entire post.

——————————————————————

On July 9, 2010 this letter was sent to Sen. Claire McCaskill, from Richard D. Verma, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at DoS. (I posed the first question and answer, and the 5th question and answer. Follow the link to read the rest)

*****

1. Will private security contractors, including contractors under the State Department’s Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract, be operating the requested equipment, vehicles, and aircraft?

     The Department of State (DOS) does not presently maintain a cadre of qualified drivers/operators for some requested equipment, such as MRAPS, and, as such, would need to supplement current skill sets within its WPPS contract to ensure operational capability. If/when DoD provides the requested equipment, the Department will modify the relevant contracts to require that the equipment be operated and maintained by contractor personnel in accordance with manufacturer, DoD, or other applicable standards. Contract modifications will also require that contractor personnel possess the necessary qualifications and complete the requisite training to properly operate and maintain the equipment. An aircraft provided to the Department will be incorporated into an existing Department aviation support contract.

5. If the State Department’s request to use LOGCAP is denied, how does the Department plan to ensure that the next contract for life support services is as transparent, competitive, and accountable as possible?

     Should the LOGCAP [Logistics Civil Augmentation Program] be unavailable, the Department will follow Federal Acquisition Regulation competitive procedures in any separate procurement action. Due to long-acquisition lead-time involved, the Department has already initiated action to develop a competitive solicitation for the base life support requirements should it be unable to remain under the LOGCAP program. This solicitation is referred to as the Baghdad Life Support Services acquisition, or BLISS contract. If necessary, the Department could issue a Request for Proposals for the BLISS contract in a very short time.

—————————————————————–

Baghdad Life Support Services

Solicitation Number: SAQMMA10I0009

Agency: U.S. Department of State

Office: Office of Logistics Management

Location: Acquisition Management

(more…)

Monday, July 26, 2010

Iraq: U.S. Orders Pullout Of All Pinoy Workers In Iraq

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:07 PM

    Boy, this is a surprise.  My thoughts with this is that if Nepalese workers have to leave, that would include security contractors.  That is too bad because these are some excellent guys to have for security work.  I certainly hope these countries can work on lifting their bans, because all of these workers are bringing back money earned in war zones and spending it in their local economies back home. They are also providing a much needed service in Iraq.

     But yeah, if these countries do not want them in Iraq, then we should honor that.  But we should also try to be working the diplomatic angle with these countries. All of these folks want an opportunity to work in Iraq, and if Iraq is alright with that and things are safer than several years back, then I do not see the what the issue is. –Matt

Edit: 08/05/2010- It looks like Nepal has lifted the ban for their citizens.  It sounds like the Philippines is getting close to lifting their ban.  In the comments, I posted two stories that talked about both.

——————————————————————

US orders pullout of all Pinoy workers in Iraq

By Dindo Amparo

07/26/2010

Thousands of Filipino workers in Iraq are on the brink of losing their jobs after the US government ordered all its military contractors to send home expatriate workers whose country imposes a travel ban in Iraq.

The deadline for expatriation is August 9.

In a memorandum issued by the United States Central Command last July 20, Colonel Richard Nolan, senior contracting officer of the Iraw CentCom Contracting Command said: “All contractors in Iraq have 20 days from the date of this letter to ensure their employees comply with US and international law and understood their redeployment responsibilities under the term of their contract.”

The memo added: “It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that it is not employing people from countries prohibited from entry to Iraq.”

The decision of the US Central Command was also triggered by reports that some expatriate workers including Filipinos were abandoned by their contractors in various camps throughout Iraq, raising concerns about violations committed by various contractors including hiring workers from countries that have imposed travel and work restrictions.

The Philippines and Nepal are among those mentioned among countries whose nationals were able to enter and work in Iraq despite the travel ban imposed by their host governments.

(more…)

Friday, July 23, 2010

Jobs: Protective Security Specialist(U.S. And Australian)– Afghanistan, Iraq

     Here is a great opportunity for both our US and Australian security contractors out there.  Also, at the career portal you will find team leader positions for both nationalities.  I am not the POC or recruiter, and please follow the links below if you would like to apply. Good luck. –Matt

——————————————————————

Position: Protective Security Specialist – USA Citizen

Work Location: Iraq, Afghanistan

Date Posted: Thursday, July 01, 2010

Responsibilities

Purpose of the role: To perform personnel protective service detail as assigned by the Operations Chief or Detail Leader.

Key Tasks:

– Perform the day-to-day protective security functions as specified in detail orders.

– Driving the assigned vehicle whenever required in motorcade or similar operations or acting as response agent.

– Carries and operates equipment as specified detail orders

– Maintaining protective formation position during principal’s walking movements

– Participating in advance security preparations.

– Manning the security post at principal’s residence or manning the Command Post, as required.

– Serve as a member of an Emergency Response Team / Quick Reaction Force when assigned.

Requirements

– You must be a U.S. Citizen to qualify for this role

– Minimum of three years of experience

– Minimum one years experience in protective security assignments

– Experience can be gained in the employ of Armed Forces or any National, State/Provincial, Local or commercial entities providing high threat protective services trackAdHit.asp.gif

Apply here.

——————————————————————-

Position: Protective Security Specialist – Australian National

Work Location: Iraq, Afghanistan

Date Posted: Thursday, July 01, 2010

Responsibilities

Purpose of the role: To perform personnel protective service detail as assigned by the Operations Chief or Detail Leader.

Key Tasks:

– Perform the day-to-day protective security functions as specified in detail orders

(more…)

Industry Talk: The DoS Army, And Their List Of 14 Security Tasks That Must Be Filled As DoD Leaves Iraq

     State addressed some implications of the lost-functionality issue in Ambassador Kennedy’s April 7, 2010, letter to DoD: After the departure of U.S. Forces [from Iraq], we will continue to have a critical need for logistical and life support of a magnitude and scale of complexity that is unprecedented in the history of the Department of State. … And to keep our people secure, Diplomatic Security requires certain items of equipment that are only available from the military.

*****

     Ambassador Kennedy wrote, State would “essentially have to duplicate the capabilities of the U.S. military” using less effective gear, so “As a result, the security of [State] personnel in Iraq will be degraded significantly and we can expect increased casualties.”

*****

     I wanted to get this one out there as a reminder as to how significant this really is.  We are talking about a major effort here, and contractors will be front and center of all of it.  And because of the terms of the SOFA that outlines how many troops can be in Iraq, DoS and other civilian groups will increasingly have to look at new ways of replacing ‘lost functionality’.

     This post is also important in terms of cost in blood for this endeavor.  I just posted three Triple Canopy deaths in the Green Zone who were part of the Embassy protection force, and I wanted to make it very clear that the lives of these men tasked with protecting civilians in Iraq, are precious resources.  We must give these contractors the tools necessary to effectively do their job in Iraq and elsewhere, and if big brother military isn’t going to be around to back up these security forces, then some planning and new thinking about security needs to take place.  Hence why the DoS request for hardware and manpower and this Commission on Wartime Contracting report is so important.

     Definitely check out the entire report that the CWC put out about this matter, because they do bring up some interesting potential problems with this.  The point I got with the whole thing is that DoS definitely needs to get their stuff together if they want to effectively organize and manage this massive contractor effort.  From the logistics to the security, to everything involved with maintaining the Enduring Presence Posts-DoS will need to be organized and on top of this stuff.  State is also wanting to jump on the LOGCAP train, just so they can get some help in the logistics area.  Hopefully they can keep up and effectively manage all of this during the transition period, but like I mentioned in my other article, the enemy has their own agenda during this time period.

     The 14 security-related tasks were very interesting to me.  As was the questions asked about all the what-ifs?  The bottom line is that if DoS is going to have this massive security contractor army, and they are going to be asked to do some security functions that could put them in some legal trouble with the Iraqis, will DoS step in and protect their people?  I mean if you read through the 14 tasks, and you have that many guys with guns out there doing these kinds of tasks, the odds of engagements with the enemy will increase.  The odds of possible civilian casualties increase as well.  What protections will DoS offer to their ‘much needed’ security contractor force?  Because as it stands, the SOFA is not very kind to contractors and I know the enemy doesn’t care about that SOFA.

     I guess my point is, if you are going to use contractors for jobs that used to be done by the military, then you must give them the same protections that the military had.  I cannot see it done any other way.  And like the quote up top said, if DoS cannot have the same military hardware as the troops had, then their ability to protect their people diminishes.  If you look at a military infantry platoon, they have all sorts of weapons and support at their fingertips.  From tanks to mortars and artillery, to close air support and a whole myriad of lethal weapons.  Will this security contractor force have the same tools at their disposal?  No.  Will they have enough to adequately protect their DoS principles? That is the question that goes through my mind as the military packs up and leaves.

   Contractors can be very capable and be trained to a proficient level, but they are not supermen and they cannot make the enemy magically disappear if they decide to attack these EPP’s.  They must have the same rules of engagement, same legal protections and same tools that the military has right now in order to cover those 14 security-related tasks. That’s if they are asked to perform these tasks. It’s either that, or trust the Iraqis to do it?….(yikes)

    With that said, Ambassador Kennedy is partly correct in stating that the DoS will “essentially have to duplicate the capabilities of the U.S. military” using less effective gear. They will also have less legal protections, and less effective rules for the use of force.  I strongly suggest to State that if they do plan on going down this path, that they square away all of these loose ends and put at ease the minds of this contractor army. In other words, give them everything they need to be successful in their mission to protect you. –Matt

——————————————————————

Better planning for Defense-to-State transitions in Iraq needed to avoid mistakes and waste

July 12, 2010

‘LOST FUNCTIONALITIES’

The Departments of Defense and State have listed more than 1,000 tasks and functions that must be addressed in the DoD-to-State transition in Iraq. They range from real-estate management and portable toilets, to fire prevention

and environmental clean-up. To complicate the transition further, most of the functions rely on long-standing DoD relationships with the Government of Iraq that currently have few parallels at State. Of special concern is State’s “lost functionality” list—presented in a briefing to the Commission—of 14 security-related tasks now performed by DoD that

State must provide as the military drawdown in Iraq proceeds:

Recovering killed and wounded personnel

Recovering damaged vehicles

Recovering downed aircraft

Clearing travel routes

Operations-center monitoring of private security contractors (PSCs)

PSC inspection and accountability services

Convoy security

Explosive-ordnance disposal

Counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar notification

Counter-battery neutralization response

Communications support

Tactical-operations center dispatch of armed response teams

Policing Baghdad’s International Zone

Maintaining electronic counter-measures, threat intelligence, and technology capabilities

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress