But according to a joint statement issued by commission co-chairs Michael Thibault and Christopher Shays, the State Department may also need to more than double its private security force, from around 2,700 today to 6,000 or 7,000 personnel.
*****
All I have to say, is wow! That is a lot of jobs for the industry. I posted awhile back about the DoS’s coming requirements in Iraq as troops draw down, and it is amazing to me that congress or anyone covering this would be surprised by what will be required of this contractor force. Rescuing downed air crewmen or diplomats won’t be the only jobs for these types of forces, now that the troops will be gone. Other scenarios might present themselves as well, and taking care of these problems was usually the task of troops.
With the troops in Iraq, the mission of searching for and destroying mortar teams or rocket teams was their task. (even counter sniper missions, but DoS and others have always had their own contractor designated marksmen) But now that the troops will be leaving, who will take over these jobs? The Iraqis? Well I hope for the sake of the DoS and their various camps throughout Iraq, that they trust the Iraqis enough to take care of these kinds of attacks. Because as the troops leave, I think attacks will surge, and the insurgency or others will be focusing on making the phased withdrawal look like a bloody retreat. That means an increase in attacks, and it is what I would do if I was the enemy.
With that said, it does not surprise me that DoS would want this kind of hardware and manpower. It would also not surprise me that the missions of contractors will include a lot more responsibilities. Rescuing downed crewmen in aircraft or sending quick reaction forces to aid convoys and motorcades in trouble will require equipment and capability that mimics what the military had for such operations. Anything less, and now you are putting those crews at risk, as well as putting the lives of folks doing work in the field at risk. Congress must know that if DoS does not have dedicated reserves, either military or contractors, that it cannot safely do what it has to do.
I will take it a step further. Contractor QRF’s will be the ones responding to these indirect and direct attacks on the bases, and these QRF’s must have all the tools necessary to do the job. Whatever a platoon in the military has, a contractor force should have, and I see no reason for limited that QRF or hamstringing them by only allowing them small caliber weapons with limited range or capability. I say contractor QRF’s, because what happens when the Iraqis refuse to do the job? It’s either use that contractor QRF, or sit in your base and take fire indefinitely, and watch as your casualties grow and your compound gets reduced to ashes and rubble? Or you could send up a Blackhawk with weapons mounted on it, and that contractor crew will have to take care of the problem from the air.
My point with all of this, is that in order for us to achieve this troop draw down, as well as maintain a civilian presence in Iraq so we can continue to help that government stay on track, congress is going to have to face some realities. I think that is the overall message that DoS was sending to congress, and it is the message I got out of all of this. The way I see it, security contractors are all they have….. unless congress wants to implement the draft or halts the troop drawdown. But then of course you have Afghanistan and all their troop requirements. So yet again, we are presented by a scenario where contractors are the best thing we got in order to fill a manpower/security vacuum, during a crucial phase of a war….. Your welcome. lol –Matt
——————————————————————
U.S. Contractor Use in Iraq Expected To Rise
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS
12 Jul 2010
As the U.S. military pulls troops and equipment out of Iraq, the State Department will have to rely increasingly on contractors to perform such services as flying rescue helicopters and disarming roadside bombs, a congressional commission warned.
That is not an ideal solution but none other seems available, members of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan said during a July 12 hearing.
While the Defense Department works to reduce its dependence on contractors, the State Department will have to greatly increase its use of hired help.
“Boy, that really troubles me,” said Dov Zakheim, a commission member and former Pentagon budget chief. “You’re going to be getting contractors not only doing what they’re doing today, but doing things that are inherently governmental.”
In a scenario spelled out by commission Co-chairman Michael Thibault, if State Department employees working as trainers for the Iraqi police come under fire from Iraqi insurgents, the injured might well have to be rescued by contractors because U.S. military forces are pulling out of the country.
Thibault, who described being rescued by an Army helicopter during his own wartime service, said he would be leery about being rescued by a contract pilot, who he said is unlikely to be as well-trained as a U.S. military pilot.
But the State Department appears to have little choice. It lacks its own force of personnel to fly helicopters, disarm bombs or provide dozens of other services that U.S. military personnel now provide. And the military is scheduled to reduce its Iraq footprint to 50,000 troops in August and be out of that country by the end of next year.
In Iraq, the State Department has relied on the military to recover damaged vehicles and downed aircraft, manage contractors, protect convoys, provide emergency response forces, provide communications support, gather intelligence and more.
In a letter to the Pentagon this spring, the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service complained that its capabilities are “inadequate to the extreme challenges in Iraq.”
In many countries, the State Department relies on its host nation to provide for emergency needs, security and other services. But Iraq is in no condition to do that.
Thibault said the State Department will have to more than double its force of 2,700 security personnel. And department officials have asked to keep military equipment, including helicopters and mine-resistant armored vehicles.
The State Department also asked to be allowed to continue using the Army’s LOGCAP contract and Defense Logistics Agency support to buy food, fuel and other necessities.
The commission criticized a lack of coordination between the two departments as the military moves toward handing the Iraq mission over to the State Department. In a report, the commission has criticized Congress for failing to provide money to pay for support the State Department will need as the military withdraws.
Much of the July 12 hearing, however, focused on whether the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) included enough discussion of the military’s increased reliance on contractors.
Thibault complained that the 2010 QDR says even less about using contractors than the 2006 document did. “The new QDR pays scant attention” to planning for contractor use in wartime, he said.
In 1973, when Richard Nixon was president and gasoline was 37 cents a gallon, the Total Force Policy, which created the all-volunteer military, “made a pretty clear statement” about the importance of contractors, Thibault said.
But today, “37 years later, they are still not fully recognized or incorporated in planning and training.”
Other commission members counted the times “contingency contracting” – the hiring of contractors for war-zone duties – was mentioned in the QDR.
“There are only three specific mentions,” said Charles Tiefer, a law professor. “We have two wars going on and more contractors than troops in those wars, yet the QDR has basically two mentions of things having to do with contractors.”
There are “just two mentions,” said commissioner Clark Kent Ervin.
Kathleen Hicks, deputy undersecretary of defense for strategy, plans and forces, offered her own word count. She insisted that the 2010 QDR contains 12 references to contractors compared with nine in the 2006 document.
Hicks said policies on planning for the use of contractors and reducing their numbers have been thoroughly spelled out in instructions from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Story here.
——————————————————————
Doubling the State Department’s Private Army in Iraq?
July 12, 2010
By Nathan Hodge
The U.S. military is scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but a super-sized diplomatic mission will be staying on in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone. And that means the State Department’s army of private security contractors may more than double.
In a report issued today, the Commission on Wartime Contracting noted that the State Department still relies heavily on the military to support its operations. Military units do everything from flying medical evacuation missions and sweeping highways for bombs to responding to rocket attacks and sending out armed quick-reaction teams in an ambush.
Absent U.S. armed forces, contractors may have to take on more of those jobs.
“As U.S. military forces leave Iraq – taking with them some vital services well ahead of the final exit target of December 31, 2011 – State will have no practical alternative to meet its continuing security and support needs in Iraq than by greatly increasing its contracting,” the report states.
The State Department has already put in a request for some serious military equipment, including two dozen UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and 50 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected trucks. But according to a joint statement issued by commission co-chairs Michael Thibault and Christopher Shays, the State Department may also need to more than double its private security force, from around 2,700 today to 6,000 or 7,000 personnel.
As readers may recall, the State Department previously employed the firm formerly known as Blackwater to provide bodyguard services and operate a small air force in Iraq. But after a 2007 shooting incident in Baghdad, Blackwater (now called Xe Services LLC) was barred from working in Iraq. State has also outsourced security tasks in Iraq to two other private security firms, DynCorp International LLC and Triple Canopy Inc., under an umbrella contract called Worldwide Personal Protective Services II.
Story here.