Feral Jundi

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

News: President Obama and the Future of Security Contracting

Filed under: Industry Talk,News — Tags: , — Matt @ 3:01 AM

    Now that Obama is President, what exactly are his views about about the security contracting industry?  I know Obama wants out of Iraq, and soon, but how would he go about it in January of next year?  Will he implement a 16 month draw down, like he promised during his campaign?  And if he does pull the troops out of Iraq in this fashion, how will he deal with the other non-military programs and reconstruction deals going on in Iraq?(read the SIGIR statement below, second story) 

    With that said, here are some interesting stories that give food for thought as to how Obama might view security contractors.  The way I see it, it will be kind of hard for him not to use us for a withdrawal plan in Iraq, unless he wants things messy.   

   Or let’s say he stays the course in Iraq.  And if the SOFA is agreed upon, then it is all systems go and we do a slow, ‘results’ oriented draw down(out by 2011 I believe).  In this case, we will still need guys for the TWISS, GRD, and CMD programs over there, unless Obama is magically able to produce troops to fill the ranks of all positions over there.  I don’t see it. 

   Then there are the troop numbers.  If Obama wants to get rid of us, then he will have to increase troop numbers some how, and dramatically.  Recruiting has not been easy, just to get the guys and gals we have now.  If he wants to get more recruits, then they will probably have to pay higher salaries to attract those youths that voted for Obama in the first place.  I don’t see it personally, because going to Iraq or Afghanistan is not the popular thing with today’s youth. And seeing how the youth vote was Obama’s bread and butter, I just don’t see him trying to sell the military to them.  Maybe not, and we’ll see.

    And then there is Afghanistan and the global war against mufsid, which Obama has stated that he plans to make a priority.  That means more troops and more logistics. But where is he going to get the troops in the meantime to make this stuff happen?  The reality is that if wants to up troop strength, it will take a serious effort to do so and within the time frame of four years to make a difference.(or eight if does well)

    So here are some stories I found, to show some of the realities.  I have yet to find any real analysis of Obama’s true intent with the security contracting industry.  But we can find little hints here and there, and I will continue to keep my eyes open. I do know that reality will dictate what Obama can or can’t do.  After he gets his dozens of briefings in the coming months, he just might find that security contractors do play a vital role in supporting the war effort. –Head Jundi  

——————————————————————-

Obama’s record shows effort to rein in private contractors

October 31, 2008 

By Bill Sizemore

The Virginian-Pilot

Sen. Barack Obama is among a small group of lawmakers who have been trying to get a handle on a controversial new feature of warfare: private security contractors.

For Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain, these private warriors have not been a legislative priority.

Obama was the chief Senate sponsor of legislation to clarify the language of a 2000 law, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, to ensure that it applies to all contractors on the battlefield. The bill, which has passed the House but not the Senate, also would establish FBI units in war zones to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by contract personnel.

The Iraq war is the most heavily outsourced military conflict in American history. There are now as many private contract personnel on the ground in Iraq as there are uniformed military forces.

A significant number of them are armed security contractors working for companies such as Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater Worldwide. Their presence on the battlefield has spawned a variety of thorny issues – many still unresolved – of transparency, accountability, coordination and control, pay disparities, and legal status.

Blackwater alone has won more than $1 billion in federal contracts, most of it to protect American diplomatic personnel in Iraq.

Concern about security contractors reached a crescendo in September 2007 when a Blackwater convoy was involved in a shooting incident in a Baghdad intersection in which 17 Iraqi civilians died.

More than a year later, none of the Blackwater contractors has faced criminal prosecution, at least in part because they operate in a kind of legal limbo. They are exempt from Iraqi law, and it is unclear whether they are covered by U.S. law.

Bill Sizemore, (757) 446-2276, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com

Story Here  

——————————————————————-

$6 Billion on Iraq Mercs is Just the Start

By Nathan Hodge EmailOctober 30, 2008 

800pxcontract_security_baghdad An interesting tidbit is buried in the latest report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, released today: Since 2003, the U.S. has spent at least $6 billion for the services of over 300 private security firms.

The audit, performed at the behest of Congress, identified 77 companies that had secured a total of $5.3 billion in direct contracts and subcontracts to provide security for the Iraq reconstruction effort. The government doled out an additional $662 million in miscellaneous security services. What’s more, those numbers are probably understated. “There was no financial information on obligations for 191 companies identified in various databases as having contracts for security services,” the report says.

That’s a lot of guards and guns. But here’s the kicker: Demand for private security will go up, not down, as U.S. forces draw down in Iraq. Notes the SIGIR:

[T]o the extent U.S. forces are withdrawn, and assuming that significant civilian technical assistance missions remain, requirements for private security services for DoS [Department of State] and USAID would likely increase to compensate for support previously provided by the military. PSC [private security contractor] requirements could also increase because the recent reduction in violence enables more frequent personnel movements within Iraq but with private security contractor support still being needed for all trips outside of U.S.-secured areas.

From Wired’s Danger Room Blog

——————————————————————-

Obama May Continue Defense Growth, Lifting Lockheed, Northrop

By Gopal Ratnam

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) — U.S. defense companies, helped by a 70 percent increase in military spending since 2000, may see the trend continue under President-Elect Barack Obama even as the financial crisis squeezes the federal budget.

“He does understand the criticality of an adequate defense budget and importance of strong defense,” said Marion Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group in Arlington, Virginia, that represents companies including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

“There is the acute need to modernize our defense forces, both worn-out equipment that needs to be replaced and ongoing development of technologies,” Blakey said.

U.S. defense spending rose 72 percent to $671.7 billion for fiscal 2008 from $381.3 billion in 2000, after adjusting for inflation and including spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Spending on new weapons during that time increased to 37 percent of the total from 30 percent.

The new Democratic administration faces decisions on $125 billion in major weapons programs, John Young, the Pentagon’s chief of acquisitions, told reporters on Oct. 30. They include the purchase of additional Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets and Boeing Co.’s C-17 transports; the replacement of Air Force refueling tankers and combat search and rescue helicopters; the acquisition of a new satellite communication system; and a decision on whether to curtail buying the Navy’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer, jointly built by Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp., and buy more older DDG-51 type destroyers. Raytheon makes the radar for the DDG-1000.

Security Concerns

In September, President George W. Bush approved a $579 billion defense budget for 2009 that doesn’t include the full cost of continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense company executives including Lockheed Chief Executive Officer Robert Stevens say Obama’s national security challenges will be the same as those faced by President Bush but will be complicated by financial pressures that may require closer scrutiny of Pentagon spending.

“When a new president is inaugurated, these circumstances that we are talking about now are not likely to change all that much,” Stevens said at an investor conference in New York in September. While “some priorities may change,” he said, “we think we can be sufficiently adaptive to meet those priorities.”

Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed is the world’s largest defense contractor.

`Perform, Perform, Perform’

As candidates, both Obama and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona talked about the need to control the cost of defense programs, which could lead to greater use of contracts that set fixed prices for weapons, Northrop CEO Ronald Sugar said on an Oct. 22 conference call. Many development contracts now allow contractors to bill the government for cost increases.

“We do believe that there might be some initial pressure toward changing contracting types,” Sugar said. “If there’s more pressure on fixed-price contracting, I think, speaking for Northrop, we’re going to be much more careful in terms of how we would approach that from a risk-management standpoint.”

Obama’s campaign Web site said he intends to reduce cost overruns, end no-bid contracting and increase oversight of defense company acquisitions.

Cost increases on five major weapons programs accounted for $206 billion, or 22 percent, of the total $919 billion jump in spending for new arms so far this decade, according to a Pentagon-commissioned report issued last month.

“What we tell our people internally is perform, perform, perform,” Nicholas Chabraja, chief executive of Falls Church, Virginia-based General Dynamics, said on an Oct. 22 conference call. “Every administration likes programs that are on cost and on schedule.”

Spending Floor

The defense industry wants the next president to set a minimum defense budget pegged to the U.S. economy. Only if the total defense budget grows with the economy can spending on new weapons be assured, said Blakey of the aerospace trade group. It’s seeking about $120 billion to $150 billion a year for new weapons in the base defense budget, excluding additional war supplements.

“We advocate 4 percent of the GDP as a floor for defense spending,” said Blakey, who led the Federal Aviation Administration for President Bush before joining the trade group. “No question that has to be front and center for any new president’s agenda.”

The Pentagon also plans to increase the Army’s troop strength by 65,000 and the Marine Corps’ by 27,000 by 2013, adding to the military budget. Obama supports the troop-strength increase.

Financial Rescue

Defense-budget growth may be further constrained by the $700 billion financial rescue program and the possibility Congress may approve a second stimulus package in addition to the $168 billion plan approved in February.

“The long-term fiscal challenges confronting the United States, linked to rising health-care costs and the aging of the U.S. population, all seem to support the conclusion that the base defense budget is likely to stay relatively flat in real terms,” not counting war costs, Steve Kosiak, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington policy group, wrote in a report last month.

Military spending can act as an economic stimulant during the financial crisis, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an Oct. 21 interview.

“We are trying to persuade people it would be a good thing” to increase the projected 2010 defense budget of $526.7 billion by $57 billion, Gates said. “If you want to talk about a stimulus package, the defense budget’s not bad and obviously a lot of jobs around the country depend” on military spending.

To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: November 4, 2008 23:06 EST

Story Here

——————————————————————-

 

Big foreign policy challenges await Obama

Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:39pm EST

By Caren Bohan

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Newly-elected U.S. president Barack Obama will face a daunting array of foreign policy challenges, from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the global financial crisis to the need to shore up the country’s frayed international image.

While taxes, health care and the economy all played a role in the campaign before Tuesday’s vote, national security issues such as the Iranian nuclear standoff and Middle East peace are likely to remain near the top of the agenda when Obama takes office from President George W. Bush on Jan 20.

“The mantra for the next administration has to be, ‘Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it,'” said James Lindsay, who was a foreign policy aide to President Bill Clinton and is now with the University of Texas, Austin.

“The new president-elect is going to have a full foreign policy inbox and decisions to make with enormous consequences for American security,” added Lindsay.

Foreign policy advisers say Obama, a Democrat who will become the first black U.S. president, has an understanding of world affairs rooted in a childhood spent partly in Indonesia and a quest to learn about his father’s Kenyan heritage.

The Illinois senator, 47, will face pressing concerns even before he takes over from Bush, a Republican.

On November 15, Bush will convene a summit in Washington to look at the global economic crisis. While Obama is unlikely to attend the meeting himself, it could give his economic team the chance to meet some of the visiting foreign officials on the sidelines of the conference.

The Obama administration will also inherit the Iraq and Afghan wars and an intensifying effort to pursue al Qaeda militants on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon — Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes — and holding North Korea to its promise to dismantle its nuclear weapons program are also pressing issues.

FAMILIAR NAMES, NEW APPROACHES

Obama has a number of foreign policy advisers with roots in the Clinton administration, although he has also said he could work with Republicans. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and Democratic Senator John Kerry are two names frequently mentioned as candidates for secretary of state.

Obama, like his defeated Republican rival John McCain, has vowed a reinvigorated effort toward Middle East peace and promised staunch support for Israel.

Obama foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert said fighting terrorism, dealing with militants along the Afghan-Pakistan border and killing or capturing Osama bin Laden are top national security priorities.

Obama has pledged to end the Iraq war and bolster the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan.

The ability to tackle deteriorating security in Afghanistan and pursue militants is “linked to the ability to make progress on political reconciliation in Iraq and the ability to draw down there,” Lippert said.

McCain agreed on the need for more forces in Afghanistan, but opposed a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, saying U.S. troops should remain there as long as they are needed.

Obama’s willingness to talk directly to U.S. adversaries such as Iran and Syria was another major point of disagreement during the campaign. Obama said the Bush administration’s resistance to engaging foes has limited its diplomatic options, a position which the McCain camp called naive.

Obama opposed calls to oust Russia from the elite Group of Eight club of rich nations in response to Moscow’s August war with Georgia, although he condemned the Russian invasion, triggered by Georgia’s bid to reimpose control over breakaway South Ossetia.

One foreign policy priority Obama is likely to concentrate on is repairing ties with traditional allies, including many European countries, that were strained under the Bush administration.

Some analysts believe Obama’s huge popularity abroad could give him an initial advantage, although it will not be a panacea for challenges such as persuading Europe to contribute more troops in Afghanistan.

(Editing by Andrew Quinn and Frances Kerry)

Story Here

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress