Feral Jundi

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Publications: UN Use Of Private Military And Security Companies– Practices And Policies, By Åse Gilje Østensen

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:58 PM

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this one. Great little paper and the real value here is all the history between the UN and private military and security companies listed in this thing. Here is a snippet about PAE in Africa which I thought was interesting.

PMSCs in UN humanitarian operations 
…..The role played by PAE in MONUC serves as a more recent illustration of  how  a  PMSC  has  been  deployed  in  a  UN  peace  operation.  In  June  2004  Congolese students released a wave of violence in central and eastern parts of the DRC in protest at the UN mission’s failure to prevent atrocities in Ituri  province.  The  frustration  of  the  Congolese  civil  war  was  directed  towards  UN associated  personnel  and  facilities.  PAE  was  an  integral  part  of  the  UN  operation.  It  ran  six  airfields  for  the  mission  and  its  employees  drove  UN  vehicles  and  were  considered  UN  workers  by  locals  –  and  hence  were  also  subject  to  attacks.  The  violence  in  Kisangani  included  burning  the  UN  headquarters  in  the  city  to  the  ground,  UN  staff  housing  was  attacked  and  burned,  and  over  70  UN  vehicles  were  stoned  and  set  ablaze.  As  the  UN  military  contingent  withdrew,  300  UN  staff  fled  to  the  local  airport  where  they  demanded  emergency  evacuation  from  the  city,  fearing  they  would  be  killed  by  the  rioting  mobs.  PAE  workers  prepared  for  and  carried  out  the  evacuation  of  the  UN  staff,  while  the  PAE  teams  stayed  behind  to complete their  contract.  This  example  in  particular illustrates a fundamental  dependency  on  commercial  companies  for  essential  tasks  in  certain  peacekeeping  operations, and  suggests  that  at  times private contractors may face more risks than UN personnel. 

The other thing that I liked about the paper is that it showed the hypocrisy of the UN and their view of this industry. Here they have the UN Working Group on Mercenaries which criticizes everyone for using PMSC’s, and yet in the same breath, the UN had companies like Executive Outcomes on their vender list. Or they use PMSC’s all over the world to help secure operations and protect personnel.

Anyway, here is the paper and definitely check it out. Let me know what you think in the comments section. –Matt

 

UN Use of Private Military and Security Companies: Practices and Policies, By Åse Gilje Østensen

Friday, November 11, 2011

Maritime Security: US Government Goes Public With Support For Armed Guards On Boats

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:34 PM

Wow, big news here. Thanks to Somalia Report for breaking this story first, and a hat tip to David Isenberg for finding and posting DoS’s new official position on armed guards on boats.

The thing here is that Secretary of State Clinton has had to make a pretty significant public reversal on her ‘views’ on PSC’s. As a Senator and presidential candidate, she was pretty much opposed to PSC’s and even introduced legislation against the usage of them in the war. Of course that all happened during the aftermath of the Nisour Square deal, and we have come along way since then…. Here is a quote from Somalia Report:

It is a stunning reversal of opinion for Clinton, a well known opponent of the use of private security companies and a political appointee who has openly discussed taking steps to eliminate them. As a presidential candidate running against President Obama she sponsored legislation entitled H.R.4102 “Stop Outsourcing Security Act”. The suggested legislation was created in November of 2007 proposed banning the use of security contractors.

Although it should be noted that the DoS has been steadily using WPS contractors during her entire time as Secretary of State, and I am sure she has experienced the security services of quite a few WPS folks in places like Afghanistan. Security contractors really shined during the attack on the embassy in Kabul, and I am sure that has only enforced how important their contracted guard force really is. Not to mention that their security contractors will be incredibly important to the mission in Iraq as troops leave in mid-December.

So I want to applaud her and the DoS for promoting armed guards on boats. It makes sense, it works, and it is the right thing to do. I also hope that this will open the market a little for US security companies.  If anything, we should see more American guards protecting US flagged vessels. Plus, that would also help chip away at veteran unemployment to some degree. Every little bit helps.

But there is another issue though that the US government needs to address, and that is the cost that US flagged vessels must contend with.  The other day I came across a very interesting document at Marsec4 that talked about how much US flagged vessels pay to operate, versus the global market.

Operating a deep draft ocean going vessel under a US flag costs on average $20,000 per day, a much higher amount than the $7,000 daily average for vessels flying foreign flags.

With that said, if the DoS really wants to help, then reduce or eliminate the frivolous or costly rules and regulations that make it so expensive for US flagged vessels to operate. Get our fleet economically competitive, so at least American shipping can afford armed security and capture some of that global market share out there. –Matt

 

Remarks to the Defense Trade Advisory Group
Andrew J. Shapiro
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Washington, DC
November 9, 2011
……Finally, I want to provide a brief update on our efforts to counter piracy off the Horn of Africa. This is another area where we are working very closely with industry. Commercial shipping vessels transiting off the coast of Somalia are frequent targets for pirates. The lives of innocent seafarers have been lost and crews are often held hostage for many months in appalling conditions. The monetary total of ransoms demanded runs into hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with the total cost of piracy to the global economy estimated to be in the billions.
With so much water to patrol it is difficult for international naval forces in the region to protect every commercial vessel. Working with industry, we recently established a national policy encouraging countries to allow commercial ships transiting high-risk waters to have armed security teams on board. The reason for this is simple: to date no ship with an armed security team aboard has been successfully pirated. We believe that the expanded use of armed security teams by commercial vessels is a major reason why we have seen a decline in the number of successful pirate attacks this year. Therefore, we have recently demarched countries to permit the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on commercial vessels. And we are also working with industry and transit countries to make it less onerous for privately contracted security personnel to transit foreign ports with weapons intended for the self-defense of ships.

(more…)

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Cool Stuff: The PMSC Observer, By David Isenberg

Filed under: Cool Stuff,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 9:43 AM

     This is great.  I am glad to see that David created a blog purely dedicated to everything PMSC, and it is really cool to see him have his own site to play around with.  This blog is on my RSS reader and it will be fun to see what he digs up in the future for everyone’s reading pleasure.

     His archives will be a great resources as well because of all the industry related work he has done over the years. Check it out and feel free to drop him a comment, or do a search to get any questions answered. –Matt

The PMSC Observer

David Isenberg has over 20 years experience analyzing U.S. defense, foreign policy, national and international security issues. He has written for print (both for general public and specialist readers), television and radio, and run Internet websites and mailing lists. He has testified before Congress and lectured to the military. Areas of expertise include U.S. military force structure, defense budgeting, WMD proliferation, terrorism, homeland security, counterdrug, peace operations, intelligence policy, international arms trade, small arms proliferation, operations other than war, information warfare, private military companies, biological weapons, and general arms control issues.

Link to website here.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Publications: Contracting In Conflicts–The Path To Reform, By John Nagl And Richard Fontaine

Filed under: Afghanistan,Iraq,Letter Of Marque,Publications,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:12 PM

     Now this is a better product and I can tell they actually listened to their contributors.  So bravo to CNAS for putting together a great report.  If you look at the cast of contributors, you will also see that they took advice from guys like Doug Brooks, David Isenberg and a whole bunch of private military companies and military professionals. For the record, I was not a direct contributor, but I know some of the ideas of FJ made it out there in one way or another.

     For one, they actually brought in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a counter to Max Weber’s definition of the state. (the Second Amendment could also be looked at as a counter as well) I was beside myself when I read this in their ‘inherently governmental’ section, and I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they actually went there.  They did and bravo to them for having the courage to challenge this sacred cow of thought.

     This kind of sets the pace for the entire publication, because CNAS and all of it’s contributors were actually making the argument for the use of contractors in war time.  It is an acknowledgement of that ‘elephant in the room’ called contractors, and it is an excellent first step towards combining private industry and government for the good of the nation and the wars it fights. To me, it has always been about unity of effort and command, and ensure private industry only helps government, not hurt it.  If we can figure out how to achieve that unity of effort and command, I think the next step is what will really be radical.

     I have argued on this blog that today’s war planners, leaders and strategists should make an effort to at least acknowledge that elephant in the room called contractors or private industry.  We are getting there and I am enthused about the process.  But to me, the next level of discourse about private industry is how do you turn that animal into a war elephant?

     To me, it is not enough to just acknowledge our existence and say ‘oh well, private industry is that big dumb animal that we all have to get used to’. That is like using a pistol to hammer nails.  I would make the argument that instead, private industry should be looked at from a strategic point of view and the question should be asked is ‘how do we use private industry to help win our wars and maintain a position of strength in the world today’?  That is the next level of discourse about this subject, and that is the kind of thinking that could possibly lead to victory in our current wars. I say this, because there is a tremendous effort taking place to actually figure out how to regulate and utilize private industry during times of war, and this paper and current legislative action is proof of that process. So once we figure out how to shoot the pistol, as opposed to using it to hammer nails, we can then start discussing how to use that pistol in warfare.

     Now on to the paper.  Below I have listed some of the issues that popped up as I was reading it. Just little things that came to mind, that could help refine the product.  Ideas are cheap, and I throw them around freely here. I have also listed some interesting portions of the paper to give the reader a taste. Be sure to check out all of the contributors, to include Allison Stanger (she provided the forward). Enjoy and let me know what you think.-Matt

——————————————————————

Contracting In Conflicts: The Path To Reform

By John Nagl and Richard Fontaine

06/07/2010

CNAS

In both Iraq and Afghanistan today there are more private contractors than U.S. troops on the ground. This exploding reliance on contractors costs U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and has grown with inadequate government oversight.   This report – authored by Richard Fontaine and John Nagl – details the urgent need for comprehensive reform. The United States must embark on a path of ambitious reform that will require: new laws and regulations; an expansion of the government’s contracting workforce; a coordination mechanism within the executive branch; greater scrutiny, more transparency and clearer standards for private contractors; a strategic view of the roles contractors play in American operations; and a change in culture within the government.

Download the paper here.

Link to website here.

(more…)

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Industry Talk: Two Perspectives On Wartime Contractor Cost Effectiveness

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 9:13 AM

   What I did was put up two perspectives on contractor cost effectiveness with one article written by Doug Brooks and the other one by David Isenberg. Check it out and tell me what you guys think. Both Doug and David have a lot to say about the subject.

    My take away on all of it, is that the true cost effectiveness should be determined by the ones that are actually paying for the product or service. Until then, folks on both sides of the debate of contractor cost effectiveness will continue to argue and debate over who is right or wrong. My take away on all of it, is that governments will do whatever serves them best both politically and militarily, and not necessarily what is most cost effective. –Matt

——————————————————————

Think Globally. Hire Locally

Journal of International Peace Operations

Nov/Dec 2009

by Doug Brooks

The Benefits of Employing Local Nationals in Conflict And Post-Conflict Operations

LOCAL nationals make up the majority of the personnel on the ground in the stability operations industry, a fact too often overlooked by media and pundits. Not only do these locals offer enormous advantages to our industry in terms of costs, language capabilities, local knowledge and skills, but at the policy level they contribute to rebuilding the economy and vastly benefit larger stability policies. Nevertheless, some important concerns and caveats remain when hiring locals; and thus certain essential policies should be adopted by all companies setting up business in conflict and post-conflict operations.

Personnel working for the stability operations industry are generally divided into three categories:

* Local Nationals (LNs, also known as Host Country Nationals, or HCNs) who originate from the country of the operation.

* Third Country Nationals (TCNs) who come from a country not involved in the intervention or peace operation. Most TCNs are from developing countries, attracted by salaries far above what they could earn at home. Some, however, are drawn from developed countries as well.

* Finally, Western expatriates, who are usually hired for management, contractual compliance or oversight tasks; although for some contracts they may be engaged in work from security to truck driving.

LNs represent the bulk of this industry’s personnel. For example, as of June 30, 2009, LNs made up 69 percent of U.S. Department of Defense contractor personnel operating in Afghanistan – and 95 percent of security contractors in the operation. TCNs account for most of the remainder, with citizens of Western nations making up a relatively small minority. The LN proportion can be even higher for contractors supporting UN operations, and that number only increases with the duration of the operation as local hires learn new skills, gain the trust of companies and clients and earn management positions.

(more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress