Feral Jundi

Monday, September 19, 2011

Maritime Security: GreySide Group Disputes Reports About Personnel Traveling Through Mozambique

Filed under: Maritime Security,Mozambique,United Kingdom — Tags: GreySide Group, Maritime Security, Mozambique — Matt @ 4:15 PM

This popped up on my radar and I wanted to get this out there. I hate it when companies get falsely accused or criticized about incidents. In this case, I don’t know if the media was the one that solely produced this dumb story or if the media was being fed information by a competitor of GreySide‘s?

Either way, here is GreySide’s response to this article. I think it is also interesting that this story came out right after it came out that GreySide had set up shop in the UK? Hmmmm…. –Matt

GreySide Group Disputes Information Surrounding Personnel Traveling Through Mozambique
Sep. 19, 2011
The GreySide Group refutes information contained in recent reports surrounding five of its personnel traveling through Mozambique. The GreySide Group employees were briefly questioned at the Nampula airport; however, there were no weapons present, and after the Mozambique authorities investigated and found no wrongdoing, the personnel were quickly released and granted visas.
“As a security firm operating globally we take every step to ensure all proper licenses are obtained prior to conducting international missions on behalf of our clients. Our highly trained team of professionals were in full compliance with our rigorous procedures, and with applicable international and domestic laws,” said Alex Popovic, CEO, GreySide Group.
The GreySide Group team was carrying ammunition legally and in accordance with Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
“We have conducted dozens of transits without a single incident, and currently have numerous teams in the Gulf of Aden protecting commercial ships transiting high risk waters,” said Popovic.
One of the first companies to provide armed guards for US flagged vessels starting in 2009, the GreySide Group is regularly contracted to train foreign allies of the United States throughout the Middle East to combat terrorism. The GreySide Group trained US Special Forces groups prior to deployment to SE Asia, and also trained US Coast Guard personnel for its Anti-Piracy task force deployed to the Gulf of Aden to specifically combat piracy within Task Force Atalanta.
About The GreySide Group
Founded in 2003, the GreySide Group is an international risk management firm specializing in training, maritime security, intelligence operations and information security. With a specialty in providing armed security in high-risk environments, GreySide Group is the exclusive provider of maritime security services for several of the largest, and most prominent shipping companies in Europe and is endorsed by select Lloyd’s underwriters. GreySide Group’s executive and management teams consist of experienced former US military special operations personnel, intelligence community personnel and experienced security professionals.
Press release here.

——————————————————-

GreySide Group Adds Anti-Piracy Expert & Opens UK Office to Support Growth
Sept. 13, 2011
UK Office and Anti-Piracy Expert Support GreySide’s Global Clients
GreySide Group, an industry leader in Maritime Security, Anti-Piracy, and International Risk Management & Security is proud to announce the opening of a European office in the United Kingdom, and the addition of Michael Ferguson to the executive team.

(more…)

Comments (2)

Friday, September 16, 2011

Mexico: Has Mérida Evolved? Part One: The Evolution Of Drug Cartels And The Threat to Mexico’s Governance

Filed under: Mexico,Strategy — Tags: cartels, Dr. Robert Bunker, drugs, merida, Mexico, narco insurgency — Matt @ 5:37 PM

“I never thought we would contemplate the day when ‘true believers’ from a Mexican cartel would start looking a lot like jihadists fighting for Al Qaeda—instead representing a perverted form of Christianity—but such a day appears very close at hand.” -Dr. Robert Bunker, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere

This is a fascinating testimony about the strategy, or lack there of, for the war in Mexico. That quote up top came from Dr. Bunker and his assessment of what is going on down there, and it does make you pause. The cartels are just as awful as jihadists, and sometimes worse. The violence going on down there is truly hellish and horrific. This is also on the US border and not in Iraq or Afghanistan! Dr. Bunker also mentioned that the drug war and cartels/gangs in the Western Hemisphere are a larger threat to the US than islamic extremists. (Very bold statement.)

I would also add one little thing to Dr. Bunker’s testimony, and that is he forgot to mention an area of study that will help to understand the cartels a little better. That would be the market of force or privatized force in war. Or to even delve into the new area of study that I have mentioned in the past called Offense Industry. States and non-state actors alike, all use Offense Industry to achieve their goals. The Sicarios and how they are bough/sold/used are a prime example. And especially the similarities between the early Condottieri /free companies in 14th Century Italy and these current cartels. Or the history of pirates and how their business and war fighting has evolved, or remained the same. Money and how it guides the actions of these combatants, must be understood so we can develop strategies for stopping them.

The other thing I would like to hear in these testimonies is the manpower issue. If this is viewed as a narco insurgency, then a realistic assessment must be made to find out how many and what type of forces would be needed to counter such a thing? The same type of deal was applied to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we need to know how short the Mexican’s really are with ‘trusted’ and capable security forces. We also must look at the utility of all and any available sources of manpower–to include private industry and/or the Mexican people. (like promoting and assisting a Mexican Spring?) Hat tip to Small Wars Journal for this one. –Matt

Comments Off

Maritime Security: The EUNAVFOR Says Armed Security Will Fail, Despite Successes

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: Armed Guards, Captain Keith Blount, EUNAVFOR, expulsis piratis restituta commercia, International Chamber of Shipping, Maritime Security, private industry — Matt @ 4:54 PM

You know, I agree that eventually a boat with an armed crew will get taken one of these days. But even if one or two are taken, how would that possibly indicate any kind of potential failure? I mean look at the statistics so far?

According to the figures from EUNAVFOR, 90% of ships surviving a pirate attack in the Gulf of Aden this year have credited a security team for aiding their escape.

I don’t know about you, but my math says that even if a couple of boats with armed security are taken, the overwhelming success of the boats that got away would still show the validity of the concept. That it works.

On the other hand, I do agree that eventually it will happen. That is just the odds of the whole thing, because eventually the worst and most minimally staffed and armed security detail will be overwhelmed by a well armed pirate crew(s) that know what they are doing. But so far, that has not happened ‘god forbid’. But I am not going to sit here and say that if does happen, that armed security on boats is a bad idea or that a few incidents will equal a failed concept. That is just ridiculous.

It kind of reminds me of how contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan are viewed by the public, based on a few very highly publicized events. That the thousands of missions of success, are wiped out by one or two events? Make no mention of the complexity of these conflicts, and just bash private industry as it tries to survive and win in such an environment. Pffft. It would be like bashing the concept of the Marines, because of Haditha? Or bashing the concept of the Army, because of their Kill Teams deal. Or bashing any of the branches for accidentally killing or harming civilians.

And here is where the public versus private debate really begins. Much like with the early privateers and their successes in US wars, Navy proponents will always become jealous and get competitive if private industry is looked upon as a good idea or had success. So likewise, at the end of those wars, there was always that element of anti-private industry in any of the scholarly treatments of the concept and that history, just because it helps knock down private industry a few notches. It is totally an ego/budget thing when it comes to matters of defense and the monopoly on the use of force. And guess who owns the military academies, or has massive budgets to promote how cool and effective they are? lol Exactly…..

So the only thing private industry can do, is to continue to prove it’s worth and improve upon the service it provides. To be the better idea, despite what anyone says. I thoroughly expect to see this ‘perfect record’ be broken, and I imagine that these particular cases will be used against private industry by all those who stand to benefit from that.

I would like to hope that we are all on the same side in this fight. Or ‘expulsis piratis, restituta commercia’? That ego could be put aside, and the public/private partnership could actually be a strategic edge in this fight.-Matt

Bound To Fail
September 16th, 2011
Why are armed guards currently so popular? Well the answer is simple, no ship has yet to be taken by pirates with an armed team onboard.
But for how long can this continue? Well according to EUNAVFOR, not much longer.
Captain Keith Blount, chief of staff at the counter-piracy task force, speaking at a conference organised by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), believes that this 100% record will inevitably fail. He stated that pirates will take a ship with armed guards on board, it is simply a matter of time.
With piracy season in the Indian Ocean soon about to ramp up again due to the end of the monsoon season, these words may come to haunt an industry which has seen armed guards as the only ray of hope in an otherwise forlorn situation.

(more…)

Comments (2)

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Afghanistan: The US Embassy Is Attacked, And Yet Nothing Said About Security Contractor Performance?

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: Afghanistan, AGNA, attack, Kabul, security contractors, US Embassy, WPS — Matt @ 4:42 PM

Boy, this latest attack in Kabul was an interesting incident. Purely because I have yet to hear anything at all about the security contractor performance during this whole deal.

Now I will tell you what I have heard that is not making the news, and that is at least one Afghan security guard was wounded on the compound itself. I have also heard that the tower that the Taliban were using in this attack was a major concern of security contractors that have been posted at that site over the years. It is the high ground, and positions like this are always a concern. But what was done about it? Because I am sure the RSO’s over the years had received an earful about it.

I have also heard that there weren’t any M-2’s or MK-19’s used to decimate those enemy positions in the tower. At those distances, something like a M-2 .50 cal. could reach the tower and pour some hate on it. It might have saved some lives, and yet I am hearing that the military component of the defense did not respond with such tools? I could be wrong here, and I would like to be corrected on this. Because I am sure the contractors didn’t have those tools or authority to use those kinds of weapons. (The video below shows the fight at ISAF, and I don’t see any heavy weapons being used?)

Either way, I would love to hear from any contractors or soldiers that were on scene on any of those compounds that were involved in this fight. Because it is just odd to me that we spend this much money on the WPS guys and the KESF guys, and everyone else in between, and there is nothing at all about their good work and sacrifice? It is actually in poor taste that the DoS, ISAF or NATO refuses to say anything at all about our industry’s contribution in incidents like this.

The other reason why I wanted to post this is to give any of the companies and DoS/ISAF/NATO a chance to communicate about the contractor performance during this deal. Because as we speak, the media and new media folks out there are filling in the vacuum of information with their narrative.

You have folks like POGO that have been excellent at pointing out the deficiencies of companies like AGNA, but currently is spinning this latest deal as if AGNA performed poorly in this incident? And yet POGO has not one shred of information to support anything of the sort. So instead, they go off on the past performance of AGNA to leave the reader with the idea that they ‘must have performed poorly during this incident’. That is what I mean by narrative, and DoS and company silence is doing more harm than good.

Hell, if you want, I could spin this as a deal where the contractors performed well? I could just assume that because not one diplomat or federal employee was killed or injured, that the defense was excellent. Or I could use quotes from guys like General Carsten Jacobsen:

He said the attack proved the security of the Nato and US embassy compounds, which were not breached, and said the Afghan forces responded “very well” and quickly.

But instead, I would like to draw some conclusions based on facts. So help me out folks, and don’t let others who could care less about the facts control the narrative.

Now of course the DoS/ISAF/NATO is probably instructing AGNA or other companies not to make any press releases, or there is some contract stipulation against such things, but still? It is just horribly odd to me that there is not a mention about the very people that put their lives on the line to defend the property and people of these compounds during such a publicized attack? –Matt

(definitely ‘like’ the US Embassy in Kabul, ISAF and NATO let them know on their wall what you think)

Edit: 9/15/2011- Supposedly there were two contractor injuries. Thanks to a reader for the information.

Edit: 9/16/2011- Ok, I have had several reports from readers that contractors were engaged in combat during this deal. Meaning, they were using their weapons to defend against attackers. Which I am glad they did, and I certainly hope they killed some of these Taliban attackers? Nothing confirmed as far as how many Taliban were killed by contractors. There were also multiple RPG hits within the compound.

Statement from Ambassador Crocker on Attacks of September 13, 2011
Yesterday was a long and difficult day for the U.S. Embassy, for ISAF and for the residents of Kabul. We witnessed both cowardly attacks by an increasingly desperate insurgency, as well as instances of enormous courage and dedication on the part of ISAF troops and especially the Afghan National Security Forces. It was Afghan police and soldiers who bravely ended the attack on the embassy and stopped further strikes on Kabul Airport, two police stations, and a local high school. We mourn the Afghan civilians and the brave troops and security forces killed in these actions, and wish a full recovery to the wounded, which include Afghan civilians and American and partner-nation troops. We offer condolences to the families of these innocent victims.??The attacks serve to highlight the weakness at the core of the insurgency. Unable to confront ISAF and newly-trained Afghan troops on the conventional battlefield, they have turned to launching attacks on high-profile facilities like the U.S. Embassy in an attempt to garner headlines. Yet their actions backfired. Afghan security forces showed they were up to the task of thwarting such operations and are willing to sacrifice their lives to reclaim their communities and country. Unlike the insurgents, the ANSF took great care to avoid civilian casualties. The transition to Afghan-led security is on track, as we turn our focus to long-term efforts for supporting a more secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan.??As Secretary of State Clinton said yesterday, “We will be vigilant, but we will be continuing with even greater commitment to doing all we can to give the Afghan people, who have suffered so much, a chance at a better future for themselves and their children.”
Press release here.
——————————————————–
UPDATED: U.S. Embassy Statement
September 13, 2011
The U.S. Embassy confirms an attack occurred today in the area of the U.S. Embassy, including RPG and small arms fire. Four Afghans were injured in the attack on the embassy compound, none with life threatening injuries. They included three Afghan visa applicants and one local contract guard.

(more…)

Comments (5)