Feral Jundi

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Industry Talk: DoS Doubling Their Security Contractor Force In Iraq?

     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.”

(more…)

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Industry Talk: A Critique Of Professor Allison Stanger’s CWC Testimony On What Is ‘Inherently Governmental’

     Interesting testimony from Professor Stanger.  Finally we are starting to see some movement towards acknowledging the existence of the LoM in DC, and it is fun to see where it goes. Although in the case with this testimony, Stanger forgot some key historical points to add to the inherently governmental debate.  She sure did use the privateer analogy, but made no mention of their contribution or size of industry during the Revolutionary War or War of 1812.

    Matter of fact, her entire testimony and point of view is lacking historical reference–as if contractors have no place in the history of this country.  Of course that is totally wrong, and I think I have made a good case on this blog about that history.  It is just troubling to me that a person of her stature and intellect would choose to ignore that stuff in such a key intellectual debate. I thought she was under oath? lol

    I also wanted to post this, because much of her testimony is being quoted and used by the various critics and reporters out there covering this industry.  So if everyone is rallying around her testimony, it is kind of important to read what she has to say, and give an alternative point of view to provide some balance.

   What I will do is go through some of the key points and give the Feral Jundi point of view or POV.  Maybe the professor can come up in the comments section and care to provide further input or explanation? Anyhoo, lets get started shall we?

Stanger Testimony: Contracting for moving security is largely a post-Cold War development, and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan today are wholly dependent on it.

Feral Jundi POV: Actually, the history of privateers hauling colonists to the new world was the first use of armed contractors for a ‘moving security’ example.  We also depended on contractors moving supplies during all of our early wars in the form of camp followers. The Pinkertons were used to protect Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. During the Indian Wars and expansion into the West, armed security contractors were vital to the security of wagon trains, stage coaches, ranch/cattle protection, law enforcement, and scouts.  “Eight civilians have received Medals of Honor including Dr. Mary Edwards Walker (the only woman to ever receive the award), one civilian scout and two civilian Naval pilots during the Civil War, and 4 civilian scouts during the Indian Campaigns (including William Cody…”Buffalo Bill”).” America has a rich history of contracting with armed security for protection or combat operations that certainly required ‘moving security’.

Stanger Testimony: Using Friedman’s minimalist definition, the use of contractors in the realms of security and justice demand the strictest scrutiny.  Even under this leanest of definitions, moving security contractors are performing inherently governmental functions, since they are actively involved in defending the nation against foreign enemies. 

Feral Jundi POV: Allison forgets that defending a nation against foreign enemies is the first point mentioned by Friedman, in his minimalist list, and the most important.  To me, a nation’s first goal above all else is survival.  To use all and any means necessary and available to defend a nation.  That means using a standing army and private industry if necessary.  Yet again, the historical context for this argument is the existence of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11.  It’s existence symbolizes our nation’s desire to uphold the right to use private industry during times of war, and the clause for granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal is right there next to the authority to Declare War.  That is significant.

     And from a strategist’s point of view, I want every available tool in my hands to conduct war and defeat an enemy.  It is why George Washington relied upon his standing  armies, his volunteer militias, as well as his privateers, and it is why we are using private industry in such a way now. It answers a need for manpower.

   You could also make an argument that the Second Amendment is an essential tool for the defense of a nation. ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’  So would Milton Friedman or Allison Stanger argue that the Second Amendment conflicts with what their definition of inherently governmental is or what the state should allow for the defense of a country?

Stanger Testimony: There are additional grounds for concern about the use of armed security contractors that have yet to receive appropriate attention.  From a constitutional perspective, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, yet armed privateers have been deployed in both Iraq and 

Afghanistan without such explicit authorization. 

Feral Jundi POV: This is the key point of this whole testimony that I wanted the reader to focus in on.  Allison brought it up, but it is interesting to me that she would make no recommendations for congress to actually use it? Nor did she care to elaborate on the significance of this law. That it does symbolize America’s relationship with armed security and private industry during times of war.  By not bringing that history into the discussion, the commission has nothing to really build off of for an opinion on the law itself.  If I were to advise congress, I would just tell them that they have had the power and right to do anything they want (and for a long time) in regards to controlling and licensing private industry during times of war.  They are law makers, they have the law to do such a thing in their war fighting tool kit, and they could have actually set up the kind of legal conditions and checks and balances with private industry that this whole commission is concerned with trying to understand.

(more…)

Powered by WordPress