I wanted to post the first little bits of reaction towards the NAF Report. You can see how the report is starting to be used by the various media outlets. At least the Air Force Times article seemed to be more balanced and gave both sides of the issue. –Head Jundi
——————————————————————-
Obama urged to review use of private firms in war
Reuters, Saturday November 15 2008
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – The Obama administration should move away from using private contractors in active battle areas in Iraq and Afghanistan and dramatically step up oversight, a Washington think tank urged on Friday.
The U.S. military has long used private contractors in fighting its wars, but Washington’s reliance on non-uniformed civilians has sharply increased over the past five years, the New America Foundation said in a new report.
It said the ratio of military personnel to private contractors is now around one to one, and some experts believed there are more contractors than troops in Iraq, compared to 50 to one during the 1991 Gulf War, according to the report.
Experts say the number of contractors could rise further in coming years as the U.S. military reduces its presence in Iraq, and most agree that better oversight is long overdue.
After the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, lawmakers worried by reports of corruption and other abuses began examining the use of private contractors in Iraq, including the Army’s use of a sole-source no-bid contract with KBR Inc, a former unit of Halliburton Co, which was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.
The issue got even more attention in September 2007 after bodyguards from the U.S. security firm Blackwater Worldwide opened fire in a Baghdad traffic jam, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and wounding 24 more while escorting a convoy of U.S. diplomats under a contract with the State Department.
The guards from the North Carolina-based private security firm say they acted lawfully and fired in self-defense, but an Iraqi government investigation said there was no provocation. The U.S. government is still investigating.
Even critics of the Pentagon’s increased use of private contractors concede that the trend is unlikely to be reversed completely, but they are particularly concerned about the use of armed private contractors to protect military troops and equipment.
The New America Foundation cited what it called “a government-wide abdication of responsibility” in overseeing private contractors, holding them accountable, and integrating them into military planning and force structure discussions.
The group urged the new administration to expand current federal law to govern the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, beef up training, and better vetting of non-U.S. employees hired by private contractors.
Congress should also identify “red-lined” activities, such as interrogation, that should not be outsourced, it said.
Blackwater founder and chief executive Erik Prince attended the group’s news conference, and briefly introduced himself, but declined to answer any questions on the issues.
Human Rights First, another nonprofit group, also blasted the U.S. government’s “broad failure” to oversee contractors and hold them accountable, saying it had hurt the United States’ reputation as a world leader.
Kevin Lanigan, director of the human rights group’s law and security program, said he was hopeful the new administration would address the issue quickly, given Barack Obama’s interest in contractor reforms during his time as a senator.
“We can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, but … a new administration provides us an opportunity” to quickly address some needed reforms, Lanigan said.
Tara Lee, an attorney and expert on national security law, also spoke at the news conference, defending the use of private contractors and noting that private companies often provided language skills and others services the military could not.
She warned that efforts to increase the liability of contractors in war zones could prompt companies to withdraw.
She said she was particularly troubled by a new agreement that would let Iraq prosecute not only defense contractors, but U.S. military personnel if they commit serious crimes in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month said the final draft agreement, which creates a legal basis for American troops to stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year, would protect U.S. troops. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by Carol Bishopric)
——————————————————————
Report: Tighten reins on war-zone contractors
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Nov 15, 2008 11:21:50 EST
The U.S. should continue its reliance on private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan but transfer responsibility for managing private security personnel to the military police and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, a new report on Pentagon contracting concludes.
“Our view of why this should happen is the difficulty in ensuring control of these actors and proper accountability and oversight,” says co-author Michael Cohen, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. Security contractors, he and the other authors argue, should be limited to “inside-the-wire” operations.
The authors argue that the U.S. acted similarly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when it federalized the U.S. airport security force by creating the Transportation Security Administration. “It should follow its own example and move with alacrity to address the need to protect U.S. government personnel in war zones,” the report states.
The issue of Pentagon and State Department reliance on private contractors in the war zones has been hotly debated in Congress and elsewhere following a string of high-profile incidents in Iraq involving private security firms. These included contractors involved in the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal and several incidents involving the controversial private security firm Blackwater USA, including the September 2007 shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater guards escorting a convoy in Baghdad.
Getting rid of all contractors, as Cohen noted some on Capitol Hill have called for, is “unfeasible in the short term — particularly in stabilization missions, static defense,” where he said contractors play an important role. He pointed out that of the more than 190,000 contractors serving in Iraq alone, only 12,258 work in security jobs, and only two-thirds of those are armed.
But, the authors conclude, “We believe that those providing security services on behalf of the U.S. government — and charged with making life and death decisions — must … ‘wear the uniform’ and ‘take an oath’ to uphold the Constitution.”
Transitioning away from private security contractors would be ill-advised, countered labor attorney Tara Lee, who spoke along with Cohen and others during a Nov. 14 discussion of the contractor issue in Washington.
“I think it’s a really popular conclusion … and there’ll be no shortage of people saying what a fantastic recommendation that is,” Lee said. “I’m a little worried it’s just going to snowball” and start eroding the responsibilities now contracted out to private firms.
“What I would urge is when you identify a problem, we come up with a solution that symmetrically matches the problem,” she said. “And in this case, the identified problem is that there’s been an increased involvement by non-state actors that’s not being matched by a commensurate effort to manage and oversee that process.
“Now is probably not the right time” to take private security contractors out of the war zones,” Lee said. “This is a time when we need the best resources the United States has to offer.”
Beginning one year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, private contractors, including security contractors employed by the State Department in Iraq, had presumptive immunity from host nation laws by Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17, issued in June 2004.
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2004 made private contractors or any federal civilian agency or provisional authority supporting a Defense Department mission overseas potentially subject to prosecution in U.S. courts for crimes. In late 2006, Congress quietly passed a law that placed Pentagon-specific contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Pending legislation would govern the actions of all private contractors employed by any government agency outside the U.S. in connection with either a war or a contingency operation, with no requirement that the contract “support the mission” of the Defense Department, according to the nonprofit organization Human Rights First.
But overall U.S. authority to operate in Iraq falls under a U.N. mandate that expires at midnight on Dec. 31. The Iraqi government is now considering the final U.S. draft of a proposed Status of Forces Agreement. The Iraqis reportedly had demanded that all U.S. military and civilian personnel in Iraq be under the authority of the Iraqi judicial system.
U.S. officials reportedly balked but have since softened their stance, saying that American personnel should have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts except for serious or premeditated felonies committed outside their official duties.
The reports have been impossible to verify because no copy of the draft SOFA has been leaked.
One very interested observer during the Nov. 14 discussion was Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater USA, who thanked the panel during the question-and-answer session “for having a fact-based, non-hyperbolic debate on these issues.”
Blackwater has a five-year contract with the State Department that is reportedly worth $250 million per year.
Asked what Blackwater would do if a provision placing American military and contractor personnel under Iraqi legal jurisdiction were agreed to by the U.S. and Iraq, Prince replied, “I can’t make any comment because I listen to my customer, [and] hopefully they listen to us as to what our right and left flanks are. But I can’t say anything more about that now.”