Feral Jundi

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

China: Enter The ‘Private Security’ Dragon

During the recent Sudan hostage crisis, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Sudanese troops who engaged in the rescue effort were joined by a dozen armed Chinese private security contractors. While that article and coverage of the issue in the Chinese media didn’t identify where the contractors came from, there’s a strong likelihood they were drawn from the same pool of former security forces personnel that Shandong Huawei recruits from and perhaps even came from the company. Chinese sources say it was the Sudanese military that told news outlets armed Chinese contractors were participating, so it appears that Beijing wants to keep its use of private security contractors out of the public eye.

Lately I have noticed an upward trend in reporting about China and it’s private security. These three articles below help to paint that picture of what I am talking about. We have a situation where China has interests all over the world, their people are getting killed and kidnapped all over the world in higher numbers, and security situations are changing for the worse in some of these places they have set up shop in.

Not only that, but now Chinese businesses are demanding more protection and they have the money to buy it. Especially if Chinese PSC’s charge less than western companies.

This first article below talks about the company Shandong Huawei Security Group. I have never heard of them before, and I could not find a link to their website. Although I doubt I would put a link up to their site for fear of getting some virus or whatever. lol Either way, Shandong Huawei is supposed to be one of their top PSC’s.

The article also described an interesting situation going on in Iraq. As the security situation degrades and there is now a lack of western forces to keep things in check, companies like Shandong Huawei are stepping in to fill that security vacuum in order to protect companies like the China National Petroleum Corporation. Oil is of national interest to China, as it is to many countries, and PSC’s are a part of their strategy to protect those national interests.

In the quote up top it mentioned Sudan and the involvement of security contractors in the rescue of kidnapped Chinese workers. There is oil in the Sudan and China definitely has interest there. And if PSC’s are actively involved in rescue operations like this, then it is not far fetched to imagine PSC’s entering other areas of security which would border more military-like operations. Will we see a company like Shandong Huawei evolve into more of a private military company?

The other thing mentioned in this article is the strategic implications of Chinese PSC’s. Here is the quote:

There are a number of strategic implications of this rise of armed private security providers by Chinese firms. For a start, if a project is in an area unstable enough to require armed private guards, there’s a significant probability of armed encounters between security providers and potentially hostile locals. Coupled with this is the fact that given their police and military backgrounds, the contractors are likely to look and comport themselves like soldiers, and would probably be armed with similar types of weapons. There’s real potential, then, for confusion on the ground in a place like Sudan when a private contractor who looks like a soldier engages rebels or others who then mistake him for an actual member of Chinese government forces. A local whose relative was shot near a Chinese drilling site by a security guard who looks like a soldier is likely to blame Beijing, which could spark additional violence against Chinese interests in the area.

Yep. And if the local insurgency/gang/criminal elements are not getting their cut, then expect these groups to attack these Chinese ventures.

The second article below is very interesting to me because it is written by Chinese journalists and actually discusses the lack of experience that Chinese PSC’s have compared to American PSC’s. That they should ‘study’ American PSC’s….or steal trade secrets about such things. lol Either way, I thought this was cool that the Chinese have recognized the west’s expertise in this area. Check it out.

Calls for security guards from China to accompany workers posted in dangerous areas overseas have increased since kidnappings in Sudan and Egypt underscored the danger workers face as Chinese companies expand globally.
The abductions highlight the urgency to ensure the security of Chinese workers overseas, said Han Fangming, deputy director of the foreign affairs committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference National Committee, on his micro blog.
Han said that there is a need to study how private security contractors in the United States, such as Academi, work and “when the time is right, the government might allow qualified companies” to establish such services…. Another factor to consider is how prepared the security services are to handle dangerous situations.
“I think security guards in China are far from the level of private security contractors like Academi in the US,” Fu said.

Yep. Private security contractors in the US, and our western partners, have all learned many hard lessons over ten years of warfare. If China plans on allowing PSC’s to do this kind of thing in war zones, then yes, they will be looking to all and any lessons learned in order to make that work. It is also a matter of Mimicry Strategy, and whatever works best, will be copied.

The final article discusses the enormity of the Chinese presence throughout the world. It also emphasizes the threat to these citizens and the upward trend of kidnappings. More kidnappings equals more ransoms. More ransoms paid equates to a creation of a kidnapping industry where individuals purposely target Chinese. That is the price China will pay if they plan on setting up shop in these dangerous parts of the world.

The dramatic rise in overseas travel and expatriate work by Chinese was punctuated by the recent kidnappings of Chinese workers in Sudan and Egypt. “Overseas Chinese protection” (haiwai gongmin baohu) has been a critical priority since deadly attacks killed 14 Chinese workers in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2004. Between 2006 and 2010, 6,000 Chinese citizens were evacuated to China from upheavals in the Solomon Islands, East Timor, Lebanon, Tonga, Chad, Thailand, Haiti and Kyrgyzstan.
But a new urgency has arisen in the past year: in 2011, China evacuated 48,000 citizens from Egypt, Libya, and Japan; 13 Chinese merchant sailors were murdered on the Mekong River in northern Thailand in October 2011; and in late January 2012, some 50 Chinese workers were kidnapped in two incidents by Sudanese rebels in South Kordofan province and by Bedouin tribesmen in the north of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
The worldwide presence of Chinese citizens – and the dependencies that generates – will only continue to grow: in 2012, more than 60 million Chinese people will travel abroad, a figure up sixfold from 2000, and likely to reach 100 million in 2020. More than five million Chinese nationals work abroad, a figure sure to increase significantly in the years ahead.

That is a lot of Chinese traveling and working throughout the world! As the word gets out amongst the thugs/terrorists/rebels of the world, we will continue to see this Chinese kidnap and ransom trend increase. That means more protection work, and more hostage rescue or negotiation work for this young Chinese PSC market. So yes, I would speculate that we are witnessing the rise of the Private Security Dragon and who knows where this will lead. –Matt

Enter China’s Security Firms
February 21, 2012
By Andrew Erickson & Gabe Collins
Chinese private security companies are seeing an opportunity as the U.S. withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. But plenty of complications await them.
A security vacuum is developing around Chinese workers overseas. The recent kidnapping of 29 Chinese workers in Sudan (where another worker was shot dead during the abduction) and 25 workers in Egypt has sparked a strong reaction in China. As a result, Beijing is looking to bolster consular services and protection for Chinese citizens working and travelling overseas. On the corporate side, private analysts are urging companies to do a better job of training employees before they are sent abroad. Yet with at least 847,000 Chinese citizen workers and 16,000 companies scattered around the globe, some of them in active conflict zones such as Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, key projects and their workers are likely to require more than just an expanded consular staff to keep them safe.
It’s with an eye on this growing danger that new Chinese private security providers see a business opportunity. Shandong Huawei Security Group appears to be a leader among Chinese security providers, which thus far have predominantly focused on the country’s robust internal market for bodyguard and protective services. Huawei provides internal services, but in October 2010, opened an “Overseas Service Center” in Beijing. The company’s statement on the center’s opening explicitly cites the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the potential for a security vacuum to result, as key drivers of its decision to target the Iraq market.

(more…)

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Cool Stuff: Matthew VanDyke, An American Freedom Fighter

Filed under: Afghanistan,Blogs,Cool Stuff,Libya — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 4:39 PM

Now this guy is interesting. He is famous for going to Libya and fighting for the rebels there. He was also captured, then released after 5 1/2 months as a POW, and then went back to the front lines to fight again.

He also enlisted in the National Liberation Army and was assigned the position of being the the DShK gunner. Although he claims to have not accepted any payment for his service, his experiences will definitely have value when he writes a book and does a documentary about it all. Hell, even a movie would not be out of the question. Call it the Hemingway method of war volunteerism–which turned out to be quite profitable for ‘papa’ in later years.

Which brings up the next deal about Matt. He has a website complete with Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube accounts. So he is going full bore on promotions of his work and future work. Not only that, but he has started a blog complete with free email subscription.

Now the question you are probably wondering is if he plans on going to Syria to fight?  I know he follows the situation there and has hinted about going back to the middle east, but I have not heard anything about him going there specifically. But you never know?

The other cool little tidbit is that he stopped in at Tim’s guest house in Afghanistan during his motorcycle trip. I wish him well and he definitely gets the Feral Jundi award for best pro-bono security contractor last year. lol –Matt

Website for Matthew VanDyke here.

 

The DShK Gunner!!

 

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Industry Talk: Triple Canopy Awarded $159.9 Million For Afghanistan Security Services

Congrats to TC, but I have to say that I am not too interested in promoting their job for this. For the simple reason that the pay is too low and the leave schedule sucks. As it stands now, you have to work 344 days in order to get the bonus. That’s if the contract is still in place after a year. Who knows what will happen in Afghanistan a year out?

The other thing is burn out. Work is nice, but if you are working 12 hour days for 344 days out of the year, then that is a horrible schedule. For that reason, I think TC is going to have a tough time keeping this thing staffed. What I could see happening with this  is that guys use this contract as a ‘stepping stone’ contract in order to get into a better paying/better leave schedule job. Especially for those guys that have families.

In my opinion, I think this is a poorly constructed contract if these are the terms. The industry standard (in my opinion) for pay in a war zone like Afghanistan or Iraq should be more in the neighborhood $400 to $600 a day for static, to reflect the various management positions and seniority of contractors within the company. I should also note that such contracts like WPS is an excellent model for an ‘industry standard’ for pay. That is what this contract should have been modeled after, and DoS’s WPS program get’s it right in that department.

The industry standard for leave should be more around 2 to 3 months on, and about 1 month off. That is a great leave schedule, and the contract should allow some flexibility within that leave schedule to allow for emergencies and contractor personal choice. Requiring a contractor to work 344 days in a war zone is a recipe for disaster. Guys will burn out and their families will hate them for being away that long. I doubt that you will even see guys complete the contract to get the bonus, just because they will jump on the first gig that comes up with better pay and a better leave schedule. I know that is what I would do.

Even the hours worked is dumb. In my personal opinion, an 8 hour shift, working 6 days a week with one day ‘off’, is far better than a 12 hour shift 6 days a week. (especially if you are wearing kit all day long and working 344 days a year) I will also say that if this contract does lose guys because they burn out, that those left on the contract will be working a lot of hours without any days off. Just ask the AGNA guys what that is like when contractors bail ship because the company sucks or there are better gigs elsewhere. The guys that are left are the ones having to make up for a lack of manpower.

It is also a threat to the security readiness of a base, and could lead to a default on contract if there is a high attrition rate. Staffing a contract is serious business, and if folks are jumping ship because it sucks, then that has all sorts of consequence. Now imagine low staffing and low morale throughout a guard force because of being over worked, mixed with a high enemy threat or even enemy attacks?  We are not talking about security at some mall in Sandusky Ohio, we are talking about the protection of FOB’s filled with military and civilians in an active war zone, all depending upon that contracted guard force and it’s abilities.

In other words, this contract will have issues. That’s too bad, because I thought the Marines would have been smarter about this, and especially when they had more choice in the formation of this ‘best value’ contract. They should have asked this community what an appropriate contract would look like, and it just seems to me like they created another TWISS-like contract. Too bad…

The other thing I was curious about is if Triple Canopy gets paid for every guy they train?  Meaning when they train a contractor for this gig, they bill the government all the relevant costs. Why this matters is if the contract sucks and is set up to be a revolving door contract for guys, then TC will have to train up more contractors to keep it staffed. So what is TC’s incentive for training these guys and keeping them on the contract in Afghanistan? If anything, they benefit from a contract where contractors ‘don’t’ stick around so they can keep charging the government for training.

Which brings up another crucial point. When you set up a revolving door contract like this, then you lose something that is absolutely vital to organizations and security in war zones. Unit cohesion. Imagine being on a contract where no one sticks around? Where a new contractor shows up every week, or the management jumps ship every other week? Talk about instability. lol So basically you will have a contract where folks are constantly adjusting to new people, and all along you will have the security of a FOB to focus on. How can you trust the guy to the left and right of you, if A. you don’t know who they are and B.you don’t know if they will be there from week to week.

Unit cohesion is so hard to create in a company anyways, but if the contract itself does not lend itself towards making contractors happy and keeping them on the gig, then you can kiss any kind of unit cohesion good bye. And actually, that will be a cause of internal problems. I dare any military unit to try the same thing in a war zone, and see what the end result becomes. And this is what you want protecting these bases?

I sometimes wonder if the military should be setting up these contracts in the first place. How is it that the federal government understands how to set up these things (like WPS), but the military does not?  Could it be that the military purposely constructs poor contracts because contractors are the competition? What incentive do the Marines have in constructing a contract where a company that comes in to replace their Marine force, does a better job than that Marine force– because the contract lends itself to success?  Why would they want that company to be successful, and ‘show them up’?  Food for thought when it comes to the public versus private discussion about this industry, and when it comes to the principal-agent problem.

Finally, it is very simple to understand the game here. You find the industry standard within that war zone, and you stick to that standard. If you want to lose people and could care less about the quality of the contract/services, then by all means set up your contract below that industry standard. Go cheap, pay peanuts, and get your monkey’s.

On the other hand, if you want to attract the best of the best within an industry, then you need to offer incentives that are ‘better’ than the industry standard. And if you want a best value contract that has some degree of stability, then match what the industry standard is, choose a good reputable company, and manage it well. That is my thoughts on the matter. –Matt

 

Triple Canopy Awarded $159.9m for Afghanistan Security Services
By DOD
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Triple Canopy, Reston, Va., was awarded a $159,972,048 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the security services in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 26, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with eight bids received.  The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W560MY-12-C-0002).
Link to news here.
—————————————————————
From thread at SOCNET Forum
@camp leatherneck
$200 daily
6-12 hr days a week with the possibility for more hours
(1) 21 day leave period
12k bonus for contract completion
2 week train up on TC site followed by deployment @camp lejune
—————————————————————
From Triple Canopy’s Career section–Afghan Guard, Afghanistan
Position Responsibilities
-Act as armed security officer
-Responsible for internal security shift
-Perform unarmed screener duties by searching visitors, their vehicles and their belongings. Screeners will be proficient utilizing hand-held metal detectors, walk-through metal detectors and High throughput personnel inspection systems.
-Possess the capacity to acquire a good working knowledge of all aspects of contract security
-Must satisfactorily complete all Government required (and supplied) training and certifications prior to employment
Essential Skills and Experience
-US Citizen
-Must have a valid US Driver’s License and US Tourist Passport
-Honorable discharge from the military (if applicable)
-Able and willing to DEPLOY for one (1) year with one (1) 21-day R&R rotation
-Posses or be able to obtain a DOD Secret Level Clearance.
-Be at least 25 years of age
-Posses one (1) year of Military/ Police experience to include the use of personnel and vehicle security screening devices.
-Preferred security experience in the Middle East region.
-Possess a certificate of successful completion of a basic or advanced security guard training and certification program administered or recognized by the Government or professional organizations
-Must have no felony or domestic violence conviction. Record of recent recurring misdemeanors may adversely impact candidate’s suitability rating
-Employment with Triple Canopy is contingent upon a favorable background check to Include no serious financial problems in the past seven (7) years
Physical Demands and Work Environment
Able to perform internal security guard services, at any potential internal security posting, for 12 hours, while donning all required personal protective gear.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Quotes: More Civilian Contractors Working For American Companies Than American Soldiers Died In Afghanistan, 2011

Last year, at least 430 employees of American contractors were reported killed in Afghanistan: 386 working for the Defense Department, 43 for the United States Agency for International Development and one for the State Department, according to data provided by the American Embassy in Kabul and publicly available in part from the United States Department of Labor.
By comparison, 418 American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year, according to Defense Department statistics compiled by icasualties.org, an independent organization that monitors war deaths.

Notice where the reporter collected this information? DoL for contractor deaths and icasualties.org for soldier deaths. Which is exactly why I put the DoL statistics at the top of the list on my page.  I also agree with the article that there are probably more deaths that have not been reported. Especially the local national companies that are working in the war zones either directly or indirectly for DoD. For American contractor deaths, I think the DoL stats are the best, even though there are Americans that have worked for companies that did not register through DBA. Especially in the early days of the war.

The other thing mentioned in this article that is significant is that there are more contractors in Afghanistan than soldiers. I posted the latest CENTCOM AOR numbers and the reporter referenced the same report.

There were 113,491 employees of defense contractors in Afghanistan as of January 2012, compared with about 90,000 American soldiers, according to Defense Department statistics. Of those, 25,287, or about 22 percent of the employees, were American citizens, with 47 percent Afghans and 31 percent from other countries.

Finally, they discussed the companies and contractor types that have seen the most losses. L 3 Communications has seen an amazing amount of losses. Most of those deaths were interpreters that worked in Iraq or Afghanistan. But 370 killed and 1,789 wounded is an immense sacrifice for a company and it’s subsidiaries.

The biggest contractor in terms of war zone deaths is apparently the defense giant L-3 Communications. If L-3 were a country, it would have the third highest loss of life in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq; only the United States and Britain would exceed it in fatalities.
Over the past 10 years, L-3 and its subsidiaries, including Titan Corporation and MPRI Inc., had at least 370 workers killed and 1,789 seriously wounded or injured through the end of 2011 in Iraq and Afghanistan, records show. In a statement, a spokeswoman for L-3, Jennifer Barton, said: “L-3 is proud to have the opportunity to support the U.S. and coalition efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We mourn the loss of life of these dedicated men and women.”

So I guess my final commentary is that contractors deserve more respect and recognition for their contribution and sacrifice in this war than we have been given–which is none. And yet the media and public largely ignored this contribution and sacrifice? Will there be monuments or holidays to remember this sacrifice one day, or do we only give such honors for soldiers?

Either way, we will remember them here and their sacrifice will never be forgotten….. –Matt

Risks of Afghan War Shift From Soldiers to Contractors
By ROD NORDLAND
February 11, 2012
Even dying is being outsourced here.
This is a war where traditional military jobs, from mess hall cooks to base guards and convoy drivers, have increasingly been shifted to the private sector. Many American generals and diplomats have private contractors for their personal bodyguards. And along with the risks have come the consequences: More civilian contractors working for American companies than American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year for the first time during the war.

(more…)

Aviation: AAR And Supreme Group Crashes In Afghanistan, Seven Contractors Killed

Filed under: Afghanistan,Aviation — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 9:20 AM

There have been two crashes within the last month or so that have resulted in seven contractors killed. My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen, and thanks to Ms Sparky for getting the word out about these deaths and horrible accidents. It is another reminder of contractor sacrifice in this war, and our guys in the sky are definitely paying a price.

One thing I wanted to mention in regards to these accidents is that the Taliban are very quick to claim responsibility for these crashes, as if they shot them down. That might be possible, but it behooves the companies and NATO/ISAF to quickly dispel this propaganda if this is not true. I know there must be an investigation to get the facts correct, but that has to be weighed against any benefit that the Taliban might get out of such a thing.

It also shows how important it is that air crews and pilots of these contractor aircraft have some means of protection if they go down in enemy territory. These individuals were killed in both of these incidents, but for those crashes where there are survivors, then contractors must have the means to hold off any enemy attempts at taking them until a rescue comes. I do not know if AAR or Supreme Group have policies that allow their air crews and pilots to be armed, but I highly suggest they do if that is not the case.

The reason why a company should care about such things is that the Taliban will certainly juice every bit of propaganda value out of detained contractor pilots and air crews. Especially if they are Americans. Hell, I could see them taking those captives all the way to Pakistan. So a company should ask themselves if they want that kind of attention, and especially if you did not have policies that allowed your guys to be armed. Or at least ensure an armed security specialist is on your aircraft.

Not only that, but a company should be fully interested in the safety and security of their crews and pilots. You invest millions into the maintenance of your aircraft so it does not crash, and you should also ask how much is invested in your other highly prized assets– your pilots and air crews. From medical training and survival training, to giving them weapons/radios/survival kits, there should be some investment in the safety and security of your people. –Matt

 

Four Tajiks killed in helicopter crash in Afghanistan
Feb 12, 2012
A helicopter used by a civilian company contracted to NATO crashed in southern Afghanistan, killing all four Tajik crew members, officials said Sunday.
The crash was due to a technical malfunction, said Mohammad Jan Rasolyar, the deputy governor of Zabul province, where the crash took place.
But the Taliban in an online statement claimed its fighters had shot down the helicopter.
The Russian-made EY-106 helicopter belonged to the global logistic company Supreme Group, which provides services for the international troops stationed in the war torn country.
The company in a statement said that four crew members of the helicopter who were killed in the Saturday crash were Tajik nationals.
The helicopter was transporting food and water, it said.
‘Investigations as to the cause of the crash are ongoing but no other parties appear to have been involved in the incident,’ the company said.
Last month, a NATO helicopter crashed in the southern province of Helmand, killing six foreign soldiers.
Story here.
—————————————————————-

AAR Airlift Reports Helicopter Accident in Afghanistan
January 16, 2012
AAR Airlift, an operating unit of Chicago based AAR CORP. reports that a helicopter carrying a crew of three employees was involved in an accident in Helmand Province, Afghanistan at approximately 10:45 a.m., local time, January 16, while conducting operations for the U.S. Department of Defense.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress