Feral Jundi

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

PMC 2.0: Bullets and Blogs–New Media and the Warfighter

Filed under: PMC 2.0,Publications,Technology — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 11:37 PM

    Hear me now. All of you CEO’s and upper level management throughout all of the companies need to pay attention.  If you do not have a new media strategy, then you are in the wrong.  Just think of it this way.  Companies invest in vehicles, armor, training, and weapons to protect their contractors, so they in turn can protect their client.  So why are companies not investing in new media protocols in order to protect their clients from information warfare attacks?

   If the enemy attacks your motorcade in a population center, then films the exchange of fire and then purposely shoots a few civilians and then films that, and then claims that they were shot by contractors. Then they post it on the internet immediately afterwards and spreads that poison throughout the new media battle space.  Then all those journalists and contractor haters, along with the John Q public, all take it in and label your company as evil, and without question.  Is your company set up to defend against that? Can you defend against a Nisour Square style propaganda attack?

   How about journalists using new media to promote personal agendas, as opposed to being fair or balanced in their reportage?  Guess what?  That’s a threat to your client as well.  Is your company set up to defend against that? It should be, because if you were fully involved with new media strategy and counter-attacks, then you would have the foresight to do what is necessary.  It is called being prepared–one of the many tenets of Jundism.

   The report below can be summed up in one main theme:

Recognize that the winning strategy is “information engagement,” not “information control;” 

Embrace new media as a significant enabler of “that element of combat power called  information;” 

   So is your company set up for ‘information engagement’?  From the looks of it, most of the companies out there are doing a terrible job of information engagement.  And believe me, I am a security contractor who also happens to be a new media practitioner, and I have yet to see any of the companies take the necessary measures to operate in the new media battle space.  At least the military is talking about it, and bravo to them. –Matt

——————————————————————

Executive summary

Winning in the new media battlespace: Workshop top takeaways

For the U.S. military, new media and the Global Information Environment (GIE) present sustained challenges and opportunities. In recent years, new adversaries — armed with new media capabilities and an information-led warfighting strategy — have proven themselves capable of stopping the most powerful militaries in the world.

The current and future geo-strategic environment requires preparation for a battlespace in which symbolic informational wins may precipitate strategic effects equivalent to, or greater than, lethal operations. It demands a paradigm shift away from an emphasis on information control and towards information engagement. It will require cultural and organizational change within the Department of Defense (DOD) as it adapts to the world of digital natives – its own savvy Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines and their communicative expectations, proclivities, potential and risk; as well as its current and over-the-horizon opponents. Most of all, it will force the sustained adaptation and transformation of the way the U.S. military thinks and fights.

(more…)

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Strategy: Private Military Contractors and U.S. Grand Strategy, By David Isenberg

Filed under: Publications,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:56 AM

   Awesome.  This is the kind of conversation we need to have out there, and I applaud David for his work on trying to start that conversation.  And just a hint to the guys over at Small Wars Journal, or anyone else that claims to be students of this war and strategy. There are over 240,000 civilian contractors in this war, with 1,168 killed and over 37,000 injured.  Why there is no mention of PMC’s/contractors and grand strategy in the same sentence, is beyond me. We are very much a part of this war, and we do have an impact on strategy for these wars and future wars. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Private Military Contractors and U.S. Grand Strategy

10/15/2009

The debate over whether and how to utilize private military contractors (PMC) often seems like childish name calling, e.g. “You’re a mercenary.” Such rhetoric is silly and prevents people from facing underlying realities.

What nobody wants to discuss is that the U.S. government’s huge and growing reliance on private contractors constitutes an attempt to circumvent or evade public skepticism about the United States’ self-appointed role as global policeman. The U.S. government has assumed the role of guarantor of global stability at a time when the American public is unwilling to provide the resources necessary to support this strategy. Private contractors fill the gap between geopolitical goals and public means.

As the United States relies more heavily upon military contractors it reinforces the tendency to approach global crises in a unilateral, as opposed to multilateral manner. U.S. use of PMCs is inevitable until people grasp the key point: contracting is both part of war and part of maintaining a global military hegemonic presence.

Such a policy is not without problems. As Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations about his experience of the corporations that were contracted to perform British government services — such as the East India Company, the Halliburton of its day, left him too skeptical to suggest privatization: “These companies… have in the long-run proved, universally, either burdensome or useless.”

ISBN : 978 82 7288 324 8 • Isenberg Private Military Contractors PRIO Report 1-2009.pdf

Monday, August 24, 2009

Publications: Contractor Support of U.S. Operations in USCENTCOM AOR, Iraq, and Afghanistan-as of June 30, 2009

Filed under: Afghanistan,Iraq,Publications — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 10:55 PM

 . There was a 19 % increase (from 10,743 to 13,232) of armed DoD PSCs in Iraq compared to the 2nd quarter FY 2009 census. This increase can be attributed to an increased need for PSCs to provide security as the military begins to drawdown forces and to our continued improved ability to account for subcontractors who are providing security services. 

. There was a 20% increase (from 4,111 to 5,165) of armed DoD PSCs in Afghanistan compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. The increase correlates to the build up of forces in that AOR. 

    As promised, here is the link and a quick summary of the latest Program Support report on DoD contractors.  The most important statistic that you guys need to tell your friends, and enemies, is the one on security contractors up top. That and we now outnumber the troops in Afghanistan.

   Now remember, this is an increase from the last report, and not some yearly report.  So the numbers are skyrocketing, and as far as I can tell, we have a very important role in both wars.

(more…)

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Publications: State Department Amends ITAR To Add Temporary Export Exemption for Body Armor

Filed under: Gear Review,Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:25 AM

   Good information to know.  If anyone else has anything to add, let me know or post it up in comments so we can get it out to the industry.  Cheers. –Matt

——————————————————————

State Department Amends ITAR To Add Temporary Export Exemption for Body Armor

August 7, 2009

The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to add an exemption for the temporary export of body armor for exclusive personal use to destinations not subject to restrictions under the ITAR § 126.1, and to Afghanistan and Iraq under specified conditions, effective August 6, 2009.

In order to use the exemption, the protective equipment must be for the individual’s exclusive use and must be returned to the United States. The individual may not re-export the protective equipment to a foreign person or otherwise transfer ownership. The protective equipment may not be exported to any country where the importation would be in violation of that country’s laws.

The U.S. person declaring the temporary export of body armor to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should use CBP Form 4457, “Certificate of Registration for Personal Effects Taken Abroad.” In the event the body armor is lost or otherwise not returned to the United States, a detailed report about the incident must be submitted to the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance. The report should describe all attempts to locate the body armor.

Interested parties may submit comments at any time by any of the following methods:

E-mail: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with an appropriate subject line.

Mail: Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTN: Regulatory Change, Section 123.17, SA-1, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0112.

This notice may also be viewed on regulations.gov.

For further information, contact Director Charles B. Shotwell, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, Telephone (202) 663-2792 or Fax (202) 261-8199; E-mail: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change, Section 123.17.

From the blog Official Export Guide

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Publications: GAO-09-351 Summary–Background Screenings and Other Standards for PSC’s

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:31 PM

   This is great, because it is a metrics for how the DoD is doing in regards to fixing this stuff and addressing each of these areas.  So it would be cool to check on this report in the future to see how far along the DoD has come.  But going back to leadership, someone needs to motivate the DoD to make this happen, and that someone should be Secretary of Defense Gates.

   Personally, I think he needs to make an official statement that recognizes the legitimacy and the good work of security contractors in this war, then crack the whip to insure these recommendations become ‘implemented’.  I say legitimacy, because that would shut up those freaks out there, who still contend that we are a bunch of blood thirsty mercenaries that care only about money.  I also mention good work, because despite the few incidents in which have been negative, there have been hundreds of contracts that have helped out tremendously.  The CMC projects come to mind, and that program removed tons of munitions off the battlefields in Iraq, thus resulting in less munitions being used by the enemy. Or the thousands of missions contractors have performed, protecting convoys or personnel with their lives, and sometimes losing their life. –Matt

——————————————————————

Contingency Contract Management: DOD Needs to Develop and Finalize Background Screening and Other Standards for Private Security Contractors

GAO-09-351 July 31, 2009

Highlights Page (PDF)

Full Report (PDF, 50 pages)

Recommendations (HTML)

Summary

Currently in Iraq, there are thousands of private security contractor (PSC) personnel supporting DOD and State, many of whom are foreign nationals. Congressional concerns about the selection, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions in Iraq are reflected in a provision in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that directs DOD to develop guidance on PSCs. This report examines the extent (1) that DOD and State have developed and implemented policies and procedures to ensure that the backgrounds of PSC employees have been screened and (2) that DOD has developed guidance to implement the provisions of the NDAA and (3) that DOD and State have addressed measures on other issues related to PSC employees in Iraq. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed DOD and State guidance, policies, and contract oversight documentation and interviewed agency and private security industry officials.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress