Today, though, “Falcon flew perfectly!!,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wrote on Twitter moments after the launch. “Feels like a giant weight just came off my back :).” At a press conference held after the launch, Musk said that “every bit of adrenalin in my body released at that point,” and that the elation he felt was like “winning the Super Bowl.” “I would really count today as a success no matter what happens for the rest of the mission.”-National Geographic
This is awesome news and congrats to Elon Musk and the team at SpaceX. The company had to delay the launch by a couple of days due to some issues, but the second time was a charm. Now it will link up with the International Space Station and hopefully that will go without a hitch.
My latest thoughts on the private space industry and security, is that government is now relinquishing it’s monopoly on space. And space, strategically, is the ultimate high ground. My concerns in this case, would be the protection of space property like satellites from those wishing to destroy or hack that stuff. Or state and non-state actors exploiting cyber weaknesses of these systems that control this space hardware. Or worse yet, actually causing crashes or glitches in space launches, as a way to take out the competition in the space market.
Can you imagine a terrorist group, taking control of a rocket like Falcon 9 and crashing that into the ISS? Or plowing it into some key satellite that is vital to national security? Or causing a rocket to fail on launch, and crashing that thing purposely into a population center?
Also, if you look at how much money each launch costs, then you can see how this industry might fire up some serious corporate competition/sabotage. Especially between private companies and countries. If one country is dependent on a private company, and then another country with a state sponsored commercial space program attacks the systems of that private company, all so folks have no where else to go for space launches but that state sponsored commercial program, then you can see how this can play out. This is not to say we will see Russia or China attack SpaceX, but it is definitely something to keep in mind. Especially with cyber attacks.
With that said, I certainly hope SpaceX and others are serious about security, both physical and cyber, because it doesn’t take much to ruin a business plan and mission.-Matt
Comments Off on Cool Stuff: The Historic Launch Of Falcon 9–Private Industry Enters The Space Race!
In his recent coauthored book, Two Lucky People, Mr. Friedman writes that 5 of the 15 commissioners — including himself, Mr. Greenspan, and Mr. Wallis — were against the draft to begin with. Five members were undecided, and 5 were prodraft. Yet when the commission’s report came out less than a year later and became a paperback book, all 15 members favored ending the draft. What happened in between? That’s where Bill Meckling comes in.
This is cool because thanks to the work and ideas of these men, they were able to radically change the way the US was doing business. They ended the idea of a ‘slave army’ or compulsory draft.
Of course there were a lot of things in alignment in order to make that happen back then, namely the Vietnam war, but as you can see with the interview and the story below, it still took some convincing to get folks to change their mind.
I also think it is interesting that the generals of the day, tried to use the ‘mercenary’ concept in the derogatory. That General Westmoreland did not want to command an ‘army of mercenaries’. lol Wow, he went there.
But what is equally interesting is how Milton Friedman shut down and tore apart the General’s argument in a rather Boydian kind of way. (it would have been cool to see Boyd and Friedman debate?)
In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, “General, would you rather command an army of slaves?” Mr. Westmoreland replied, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.” Mr. Friedman then retorted, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.“
The other reason why I bring this up, is because I believe this is a crucial part of US warfighting history as to why this industry is so strong and relevant in today’s wars. The ending of the draft, along with a society demanding a peace dividend at the end of wars, are two factors which really drive the necessity of contingency contracting. Meaning, a society that does not have the draft, must have a means of raising an army quickly by other means in order to meet the demands of a war or wars.
At the end of the Cold War and the First Gulf War, we saw large cut backs in the US military. This was the peace dividend that society demanded, and politicians gave them. But what happens when that peace is shattered and a reduced military must be activated? Well everyone knows the story of 9/11 and the last ten years of war that has been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. The requirement for manpower, and the ability to sustain sufficient levels of manpower under an All Volunteer Military regime has been tested. And in my view, the AVM was a success, but with a caveat.
The AVM did have problems raising sufficient manpower during the tough periods of this war. The peek of the Iraq war comes to mind. I mean the military was using stop loss and recalling soldiers in order to get enough bodies out in the field. The news and political debates really showed the violence of that war, and it was a hard sell to a young person to want to be a part of that. In that kind of environment, along with having a ‘military we went to war with, and not the one we wished we had’, we had problems. So how did we make up the difference for manpower? Enter contractors….
You see, contractors are a necessary industry to have, if a Democracy like ours wants to wage war using the AVM concept. And the numbers speak for themselves (please see all of the prior publications on the blog that listed those numbers). What is more important is that private industry did answer the call, and did it ‘willingly’. Contingency contractors did everything from cooking to cleaning, to building and fixing, to training and mentoring, to PSD/Convoy/Static security. And this industry that answered the call, had ‘legions’ of willing participants from all over the world lining up to join the effort. Especially during the peek of the Iraq war. They did it for pay, much like a soldier in the All Volunteer Military gets paid, and they did it for patriotic or idealistic reasons, much like a soldier in an AVM.
I only see this industry becoming more relevant and legitimate as time goes by. I think Milton Friedman would be pretty impressed by how private industry reacted to this need for contingency contracting/manpower in today’s wars. Private industry also reacted in the same way to the equipping and arming of war machines of wars past. What private industry did during WW 2 was beyond belief, and all of those companies that re-tooled and focused for that effort helped the allies win. Private industry is quite the thing when it has direction and incentive.
I also think that the concept called the All Volunteer Military is a misnomer. There is nothing volunteer about it. lol I mean when I hear the term volunteer, I think of it’s definition–‘a person who performs a service willingly and without pay’. Today’s military service requires a contract, and the soldier get’s paid and they receive benefits. So I just have a problem when people say that the military is a ‘volunteer’ force. It may not be a ‘slave army’, but it certainly is not an army of volunteers.
I guess under that logic, I am a volunteer as well? Matter of fact, contractors should be tied in directly within the concept of an All Volunteer Military. It’s just we volunteer for a privately run service, and not a publicly run service. But both groups of force, do so out of free will and because of the pay and benefits. So what differentiates both of us?
Well, one way to look at this is to apply my Offense and Defense Industry models to what is going on right now. The military has the monopoly on all Offense Industry. Meaning they are the ones that profit from killing or capturing the enemy. By profit, meaning if they are successful in winning wars and destroying the enemy, then congress blesses the military with more funding. They also get the glory and praise for victory. Those leaders responsible for doing well, also profit by getting promotions and taking those successes with them further on in their careers or life. Winning wars, certainly ups the value of the victors responsible for that.
For Defense Industry, the military does not hold a monopoly. And that is significant. It is private industry that competes with the military when it comes to the defense, in war zones. Everything from cyber security, to standing posts, to training, to PSD, to static security, to convoy operations. Private industry is certainly competing with the military, and they have market share. And like I mentioned up top, the numbers speak for themselves. This blog also lists numerous examples of how private industry operates and flourishes in today’s Defense Industry realm.
I also think the example of Fedex/UPS versus the Postal Service, is a good one to look at when looking at today’s Defense Industry. Both the public and private organizations share the same space, much like how military and contingency contractors share the same space called Defense Industry. But it is in that space, where folks on both sides will fight it out as to how much market share they will get.
It is also funny that there are literally no ‘contractor think tanks’ to promote private industry in war. Nothing. There are blogs like mine, and a few trade associations that promote private industry, but that is it. Not to mention lobbyists, but that goes without saying. Now compare that to what the military has in order to promote what they do? From think tanks to academies to war colleges to numerous military leaders working side by side with politicians–the military is in a far better position to exert influence. Hell, congress gives them money to promote what they do. lol
And yet, with all of that in place….contractors still exist on the battlefield after ten plus years of war. I mean when was the last time you saw a Dyncorp recruitment commercial during the Super Bowl? How about a college or university paid for by private military companies, all with the idea of producing tommorrow’s private military leaders? How about a Letter of Marque Institute, purely dedicated to the promotion of that legal instrument of war?
Yet our industry flourishes, self organizes, learns, continuously improves and competes with others to make a better product or service. It’s either that, or we fail and get left in the dust by our competitors. I am also thankful that this country does not have the draft, and that only in extreme situations would they ever fire up the selective service or draft–to probably save the country. But for today’s wars, an All Volunteer Military (and Contractor Force) works for me. –Matt
Thank You, William H. Meckling
We owe a debt of gratitude to the man who killed the draft.
January 1999
By David Henderson
If you are an American male under age 44, take a moment of silence to thank William H. Meckling, who died last year at age 76. Even though you probably haven’t heard of him, he has had a profound effect on your life. What he did was help to end military conscription in the United States.
Between 1948 and 1973, here’s what you knew if you were a healthy male born in the U.S.A.: the government could pluck you out of almost any activity you were pursuing, cut your hair, and send you anywhere in the world. If the United States was at war, you might have to kill people, and you might return home in a body bag.
COLD DRAFT
Bill Meckling didn’t think that was right, and not just because the Vietnam War was so reckless. He had been drafted into the army in World War II and witnessed the government’s incredibly wasteful use of manpower when it could pay below-market wages. He tucked that lesson away and would use it 25 years later. ?Meckling went on to become an economist. In 1962 he was named the first dean of the University of Rochester’s new business school, where he continued until 1983. ?Meanwhile, a 31-year-old economist named Martin Anderson joined Richard Nixon’s campaign for president in 1967. One of Mr. Anderson’s main goals was to persuade Nixon to end the draft, and he wrote the antidraft campaign speech that Nixon gave in 1968. Mr. Anderson then worked, as one of the new president’s advisers, to end the draft.
Check it out. Contractor use has only increased in Afghanistan, and in Iraq we have seen a draw down from the last report. I thought what was equally interesting was the increase of contractor use in ‘other’ locations. 14,618 ‘other location’ contractors last quarter versus 24,765 for this quarter. It would be cool if they actually broke down these other locations? All said, the total amount of contractors are just a little more than last quarter, but not by much.(151,995 last quarter versus 152,959 this quarter)
What is also curious is the decrease in the use of local nationals from the last report, and the increase in the use of American and partner contractors in Afghanistan. I am wondering if that is a direct result of all of these incidents of green on blue attacks, or because of poor quality services performed by local Afghans? Who knows, and it is hard to say what is happening with the numbers there.
As to security contractors, we have seen a huge increase in use for Afghanistan. Last quarter we were at 20,375 folks, and now we are at 26,612. So we must be doing something right.
Although Iraq has seen a pretty sharp decline in security contractor use. Last quarter we were at 8,995 and this quarter we are at 3,577. But that is still a significant security contractor presence presence in post war Iraq. This might stabilize as well, after all of the ‘right size’ initiatives that DoS was working towards. But who knows and it might go lower.
The other cool deal in this publication was the mention of the new ANSI standard for security companies. Under Sec 833 of the FY2011 NDAA, the US government will use third party accreditation services to see what companies meet the ANSI standard. So it will help the government in picking companies for contracts that at least meet ANSI. And if companies want to play, they will have to live up the ANSI standard. Or that is the theory, and we will see how all of this translates out in the field.
This is still a great deal, and in this report they mentioned the concept of ‘best value’ and how this ANSI standard can help them find the best value companies out there. But hopefully this will not be the only metric. Reputation, and how they treat their contractors should be other areas of concern, as examples of how they should pick.
It was funny though that they threw in that other term ‘technically acceptable’. It sounds like some in government are still hanging on to LPTA as the way to go for contracts, and that is just dumb. Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable contracting is how you get these ‘race to the bottom’ gigs like TWISS, and it is just a dumb tool for security contracts. LPTA might work for finding a contractor to mow your lawn and no one really cares if they screw up. No lives will be lost and the lawn will be cut regardless.
But for security, you want the best value for the dollar–just like you would choose a doctor or a lawyer. Because with these types of contracts, lives ‘are’ on the line…-Matt
Man, they should have done this awhile back. But this is cool none the less. Libya has the money and has plenty of reconstruction projects that companies can assist in. So this is great that the USTDA is making this happen.
Now of course the NTC is still trying to get everyone under the same tent and they will be dealing with internal issues for awhile. But as life normalizes throughout the country and services/jobs are brought back into the fold, then perhaps people will have better things to do than fight amongst each other.
On another note is the strategic use of contractors or private industry. The solicitation even mentions this. Check it out.
The Libyan sectors targeted for review under the new USTDA initiatives are: (1) Oil and Gas; (2) Power Generation; (3) Transportation, and: (4) Information and Communications Technology. USTDA’s stated purpose behind the sector evaluations is to increase “strategic opportunities for the utilization of U.S. goods, services, and technologies as the country rebuilds its economy…”
‘Oil and gas’ is of utmost strategic importance to the west, and especially Europe. So hemming up those other sectors are key to supporting this oil and gas sector. It’s a little hard for engineers to drive out to the plant, if the roads suck or they can’t make a phone call to arrange a meeting as an example. All of these sectors help support one another, and together they help in stabilizing the country and getting that oil and gas production humming along. Or at least that is the idea behind this stuff, and private industry is key to make that happen.
Not only that, but a country like Libya is perfect for today’s contingency operations companies. Especially as Iraq or Afghanistan continues to wind down. It is also great for US companies who are wanting to expand their opportunities into other markets, and Libya is prime for that. Below this first article, I also posted a quick snippet of all four USTDA solicitations on FBO with links. Check it out. –Matt
Obama eyes rebuilding business – in AFRICA!
Sending contractors to evaluate plans by National Transitional Council
By Steve Peacock
April 2012
The Obama administration is considering future funding of industry modernization ventures in Libya, and has proposed sending contractors to assess U.S. investment prospects.
Four separate “definitional missions,” or DMs, soon will be carried out by private vendors on behalf of the U.S. Trade & Development Agency, an independent White House entity.
According to planning documents that WND located via routine database research, USTDA has issued Requests for Proposals from contractors capable of identifying and evaluating industry projects that Libya’s National Transitional Council is proposing.
The USTDA-funded missions come at a time when the council is struggling to contain divisive conflicts between tribal and regional militias.
As WND reported last month, the NTC is threatening to use force to keep those opposing forces in check, a move seen by some as necessary to avoid fracturing the nation.
This perked me up, just because Syria is the new ‘Libya’ when it comes to any kind of western involvement. But involvement is a lot more precarious in this case, and the folks we would be supporting are questionable. And like the piece below mentioned, we tend to arm and train folks that end up turning against us down the line. So the author below presents the alternative, or using mercenaries, as opposed to arming rebels and forever losing control of the weapons we throw at the problem.
What makes this article so interesting to me, is the author. This guy is not some yahoo. He is the CEO of Diligent Innovations and a former ‘Director of Strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council(Feb.-Oct., 2007) , Intelligence Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Senior Analyst for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff‘ . You might also recognize him from all of the interviews he has done on the various cable news shows.
So back to this deal in Syria. I would be curious if this concept of using mercenaries instead of arming folks has been mulled around at Wikistrat? Or if Michael has actually given this some serious thought on how this would work?
Or it could be just a piece that raises an idea for those to either support or strike down based on it’s merits. From a technical point of view, I guess a company could be called upon to perform offensive operations. MPRI definitely helped in the planning and strategy for Croatia during the Balkans crisis. Executive Outcomes was contracted to fight and win wars both in Sierra Leone and Angola. So technically, a company or companies could provide this service. (the author mentioned The Flying Tigers, and he gets kudos for that!)
In Libya, contractors and mercenaries were used on both sides of the conflict, and they are still there. Hell, contractors were calling in targets for the air campaign and individuals were joining the rebel army. Here is a quote from Simon Mann about Libya.
In the Libyan revolution further lines of demarcation – between government forces and PMC forces – became more blurred. From Tripoli it has been reported that UK ex-Special Forces were used, in some places, instead of regular troops. This came about because of the uncontrolled and the ‘everywhere’ presence of war correspondents, accredited and otherwise. Their prying eyes made the covert deployment of SAS and SBS troops difficult.
Even so, the need for trained laser designator operators to bring in air dropped laser bombs, with as much precision as possible, had to be met. Therefore designator kits were supplied to ex- UK SF contractors. These were men whose salaries were being paid for by the oil companies, for oil field site security. They were already in country, already on contract.
So I guess my point is that the waters are being tested for how best to approach Syria. Do we do nothing and allow a brutal regime to murder their own people? Do we arm and train the opposition, with the possibility that some day those weapons and training might be used against the west? Or do we send in mercenaries because sending troops is something a war weary west is not that interested in or willing to pay for? Or maybe we do nothing at all, and watch a massacre take place. Not a lot of easy answers.
One thing is for sure. If Syria falls, then jihadists would be able to capitalize on the situation. If weapons and munitions are captured or liberated during the course of the revolution (much like what happened in Libya), they will find their way into other wars and terrorist operations.
Jihadists will also find their way into the politics of Syria, much like how the Muslim Brotherhood gained political market share in Egypt. So basically we would see extremists replace a dictator. The question here is can the west win over a rebel group and gain influence by assisting them, or will we be demonized despite our actions and contributions, just because of the islamic extremist influence within that revolution? Can we compete in that kind of environment and should we be involved?
It is also important to bring up this responsibility to protect deal as well. If the west feels it has an obligation to intervene–to stop a massacre, then something more than talk needs to happen. It takes action and the will to make it happen, and it also requires a realistic look at what we want to accomplish strategically in the region. Sending troops is a bridge too far for a war weary, cash strapped, and politically paranoid/sensitive west, and maybe contractors paid by GCC donors is the ticket? I will keep a look out for further industry involvement in Syria and this one will be interesting to follow. –Matt
In Syria, send in the mercenaries
J. Michael Barrett
April 10, 2012
The world community, including the United States, is at a crossroads about the right steps to forcefully prevent the further slaughter of civilians in Syria. There are many good reasons to intervene — to stop the death, detention and probable torture of any number of innocents; to support the democratic right of people to consent to rule by a freely elected government; and to avoid a repeat of the U.S. inaction that allowed Iran’s dictatorship to prevail in 2009.
There are just as many reasons not to intervene — the sovereignty of nations; the moral hazard of providing U.S. troops where our national interest does not dictate; and the uncertainty about those we would be helping take power. All the while, do-nothing diplomatic talks and easily ignored cease-fires continue to fail because the talking doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
But is there another way — something more effective than merely clamoring for calm, but less direct than intervening militarily or arming and training the rebels?
In fact, there is. Throughout the ages, the answer to such situations has been to raise an army for hire and send in the mercenaries. This was done throughout the great power struggles of the first and second millennia across the globe, and in more recent decades across Africa. Libya’s Gadhafi tried to use mercenaries to defend his regime just last year. We also placed many guns-for-hire in Iraq and Afghanistan, provided by the likes of Triple Canopy and the company formerly known as Blackwater.
Perhaps the most relevant example here is the World War II American Volunteers Group, better known as the “Flying Tigers.” Prior to Pearl Harbor, when America was not yet party to World War II, these combat pilots’ actions were known but not officially endorsed by the White House under President Franklin Roosevelt. They were pure mercenaries, pilots who resigned their U.S. military commissions to serve in a foreign air force for high pay — some received $600 a month in 1941 dollars and with the promise of $500 more for every Japanese plane they shot down.
The pay-for-service model suited the needs of the day. It allowed skilled fighters to side-step the moral and legal hazard of sending uniformed U.S. troops, whose duty is to uphold the Constitution by fighting our enemies, not to intervene in missions that lack a direct national security rationale.
One potential roadblock of note is the Neutrality Act of 1794, a centuries-old congressional effort to ensure the then-fledgling U.S. was not dragged into wars by citizens acting as mercenaries in conflicts where the United States was not engaged. However, this law, rarely enforced, reflects outdated thinking about the modality and nature of declarations of war. It also treats violations as a misdemeanor. If the imperative to save lives is so strong, Congress or President Obama could surely find a path around it, including a waiver or other injunction. Beyond that, the government’s only role would be to work behind the scenes to have Saudi Arabia and other interested nations pick up the tab, much as they did during the process of countering the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Given the perceived imperative to intervene in Syria, but the countervailing duty to respect state sovereignty and the lack of United Nations sanction (due to perpetual vetoes by China and Russia), mercenaries might well be the best prescription, Neutrality Act or no. They would allow the U.S. to avoid arming the locals directly, about whose character and intent we know little.
This would not resolve the underlying question of who comes to power after the regime falls, but it would allow for a humane defense of the Syrian population without committing America officially or putting American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at risk.
J. Michael Barrett, the CEO of Diligent Innovations, is a former Director of Strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council and a former Naval Intelligence Officer.
Link to post here.
—————————————————————-
J.Michael Barrett
Mike is a national security expert and noted author with an extensive background in defense policy, military intelligence, and support to US counter-terrorism operations. His extensive national security credentials include serving as the Director of Strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council, Intelligence Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Senior Analyst for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Feb.-Oct., 2007).
Mike has been interviewed on television and radio by ABC, The Canadian Broadcast Company, Fox News, FRONTLINE, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, The New York Metro News, New York Sun, and The Washington Post. He also is the co-author of two books on security and counter-terrorism (including a New York Times Best Seller) and has authored more than a dozen journal and opinion-editorial articles.