Feral Jundi

Friday, March 23, 2012

Publications: Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime, By Lieutenant Todd Hutchins

Filed under: Industry Talk,Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:07 PM

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper and writing an excellent article about it. Also bravo to the California Law Review for publishing this paper and hopefully between this site and David’s, we can really promote this thing. I am always on the lookout for modern legal interpretations of, and the possible uses for the LoM.

It is also cool that the author of this paper is an officer in the US Navy and a current JAG student. Maybe he can come up and talk a little about any feedback he has received for this paper, and the reason why he chose this particular topic.

Now for a couple of points of interest. Lt. Hutchins is more focused on an international LoM system, as opposed to countries issuing LoM’s. You know, I don’t think this approach would work, just because personally speaking, I would rather answer to the laws and customs of my own country versus answering to an international court. What is to prohibit any biases towards me and my nationality in such a international court?  So personally, I would much rather have a LoM issued by a country whose legal system I trust and would give me the best odds in a trial of my peers–from my country.

I still think companies would seek an internationally issued LoM. Especially if the profit margin was there. If it is not, then the risk will definitely not equal the reward and this industry will not thrive. You really need to make the enemy into the ‘Blufin Tuna’ or ‘Buffalo’ of prizes.

Which brings me to my next point. Offense Industry requires a strong profit motive for the destruction or capture of a declared enemy. The reward must equal or be greater than the risk in this case. I tend to lean towards greater than the risk, just because we want extreme competition for this highly valuable enemy.

So the question with this is if the enemy has enough assets that can be seized and decided upon in a prize court. The guys with the money are on land or hiding out in Dubai or wherever. How will a company be able to seize their assets on the international stage?

Now privateers like Captain Morgan did do land raids to capture enemies and their assets. He was quite successful at it, and if we were to target Somali pirates, then allowing companies to raid wealthy Somali investors in Somalia or elsewhere would be key. But then that would require special agreements with those countries that these investors are hiding in. The LoM would have to be very specific and comprehensive in this regard.

Or, the issuing party could throw in bounties and create a false market out of the whole thing. To artificially attach value to these targets, as well as allow companies to seize assets. That to me would be optimum, just because you really have to sweeten the pot for companies to get involved with this thing. Perhaps the 10 percent that governments would receive via prize courts, would go back into the pot for bounties and costs of running prize courts?  Raising money for bounties is a factor when creating artificial values of targets.

I also applaud the author for identifying how expensive the current Defense Industry is for maritime security. I have mentioned in the past that DI’s are costly, and they do nothing to eliminate the problem. If anything, DI’s profit from the continuation of war or piracy, and it is against the best interest of these participants to remove the very thing that gives them their reason for existence. But DI’s have their place, and I believe that in order to reduce the costs of DI, you need to also implement an offensive capability. You will always need guards to protect that in which you love, but you must also have a force tasked with hunting the bad guys–to keep them off balance and put them on the defense. And ultimately, you would like to make piracy into a very unprofitable game for all parties thinking about getting into that business.

Finally, I would like to add one more deal to this review, just to emphasize the significance of profit and reward in warfare. This quote comes from Sun Tzu.

Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards…Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept….This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one’s own strength.- Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, Chapter 2, ‘Waging War’.

Even Sun Tzu understood the value of reward in war.  Might I add that the interpretation of ‘rewards’ refers to spoils, and not some ideological reward of just ‘winning’. Although that has it’s place for incentive, but feeling good about a win does not pay the bills as they say. lol

I should also note that Sun Tzu also delved into the concept of the cost of protracted war. It is expensive, and if there is no element of a strategy focused on eliminating an enemy, and industry is only used for defense, then the costs will continue to drain the treasures of those nations and companies with interest in the matter.

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare…It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. –Paragraphs 6,7, Chapter 2, ‘Waging War’.

That pretty much sums up why wars should be fought as quickly as possible, and why there should be thought about creating an industry that profits from ending it, and not ‘carrying it on’. Something to give balance or even counter strong DI’s that come about from prolonged warfare. –Matt

 

 

Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime: How Commissioning Privateers Can Defeat the Somali Pira…

Friday, September 9, 2011

Leadership: A Command Culture And Philosophy Called ‘Auftragstaktik’

Filed under: Germany,Industry Talk,Leadership,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:24 AM

A command and control procedure within which the subordinate is given extensive latitude, within the framework of the intention of the individual giving the order, in carrying out his mission. The missions are to include only those restraints which are indispensable for being able to interact with others, and it must be possible to accomplish them by making use of the subordinate’s forces, resources, and the authority delegated to him. Mission-oriented command and control requires uniformity in the way of thinking, sound judgment and initiative, as well as responsible actions at all levels.- German army regulations describe Auftragstaktik, from Parameters.

Part of what makes this blog so fun and interesting is the hunt for the great idea. I don’t care where it comes from, or who came up with it–to me, it is all about logic and reason. Either the idea is sound, or it is not. It should also be able to withstand the furnace of debate and scrutiny. Hence why I post such things.

But this is a simple concept to wrap your brain around, and yet so difficult to implement in institutions like the US military or various companies. To put this much freedom of operations into the hands of a leader is pretty tough for some CEO’s or Generals to handle. And as the author presented below, the German Army during WW 2 was the victim of a officer corps that was poorly constructed. But at the tactical level, the German Army was amazing, and this concept of Auftragstaktik is a big part of that.

Anyways, I will let the reader make their own determinations based on the articles below. The first is the most modern article on the concept and a big hat tip to Jorg Muth and Thomas Ricks for getting it out there. The second article is an old one, written by a German soldier and veteran of WW 2 named Gerhard Muhm. He went into detail on how Auftragstaktik was used in the German Army at the time. The final article is a snippet from Wikipedia, which will help to simplify and focus the reader on the core concepts.

It is also important to note that Intent is a very important theme in today’s military’s. It is the idea that everyone in the unit knows the intent or the mission and what must be accomplished. Commander’s intent is another way of putting that. There is a whole study on intent at wikipedia, and it is definitely worth your while to go through it to get a feel on how important it is to the various military units of the world.

Intent is a key capability in 21st century military operations and is a vital element to facilitate subordinates initiative (U.S Army 2003, para.1-69), self-synchronisation (Alberts et al. 1999, pp.175-180) and collaboration and cooperation (Alberts and Hayes 2007,pp.109-114) amongst team members in joint operations.

Now how does this apply to private industry or even offense industry?  Well interestingly enough, there is a a lot of auftragstaktik going on already with private industry. No one tells companies how they are supposed to perform static security, convoy operations, or PSD. Even within companies, you see differences in mission accomplishment between the various contracts. So that is a very positive aspect of today’s PMC’s and PSC’s. Personally, I have seen the same missions accomplished differently in a multitude of companies that I have worked for. It is what makes the industry interesting to observe and be a part of. But as a result of these variations, private industry is able to evolve and develop SOP’s that are unique and effective. We also have some cross breeding going on with SOP’s/ideas, just because contractors are taking what they learned from prior contracts and bringing that with them to the next job for mission accomplishment.

On the flip side, our Defense Industry is purely focused on the ‘defense’. Which is fine, but it does not eliminate the enemy or reduce their numbers. For that, you need to create a Offense Industry, and concepts like Auftragstaktik or company intent will be very important to the accomplishment of a contract in this type of industry. It is also important to set up an offense industry that supports the intent of the principal or the country firing up such a machine. In other words, a country that constructs a offense industry should not be involved in telling companies ‘how’ they are to accomplish the task.

A great example is Executive Outcome’s contract in Sierra Leone. Would they have been successful if SL told the company how they were to accomplish the task?  I don’t think so, and that would defeat the reason for hiring such a company in the first place. You give them the intent, and let them figure out the ‘how’.

Now of course this concept is not a strategic concept as the articles have mentioned below. Which is very important to remember if a offense industry is to be created. Countries must first have a sound strategy in place, and the offense industry must be assembled in such a way to support that strategy.  That is a whole different post, but I guess where I am going with this is that what makes offense industry such a powerful concept is the idea of allowing companies the freedom to innovate and figure out how to accomplish the task.

Not only that, but they also have ‘incentive’ to do well. The goal should be to give them the intent, establish rules and boundaries that insure they do not hinder the overall strategy or harm other friendly units, provide adequate incentive, and set the industry free to accomplish the task. Then adjust and modify as necessary–all based on Kaizen and having a sound learning organization. –Matt

 

 

 

Jörg Muth on Command Culture and Auftragstaktik In The German Military
(posted at Best Defense)
Friday, September 9, 2011
By Jörg Muth
Auftragstaktik. The word sounds cool even when mangled by an American tongue. What it means, however, has always been elusive to Americans. The problematic translation of that core German military word into “mission type orders” completely distorts its meaning. Auftragstaktik does not denote a certain style of giving orders or a certain way of phrasing them; it is a whole command philosophy.
The idea originates with Frederick the Great, who complained after more than one battle that his highly experienced regimental commanders would not dare take action on their own but too often ask back for orders and thus waste precious time.
Nearly one hundred years later the military genius Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke was the first to formulate the concept of Auftragstaktik. Moltke was a diligent student of Frederick’s campaigns, of military history in general and philosophy. At a time when he was not yet famous and, not yet the victor of three wars, he observed the annual General Staff war games in 1858. The paperwork and the detailed orders appalled him because he knew that in war there was no time for such nonsense. During the war game critique he decreed that “as a rule an order should contain only what the subordinate for the achievement of his goals cannot determine on his own.” Everything else was to be left to the commander on the spot.

(more…)

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Building Snowmobiles: For Total War And Netwar, You Need Both A ‘Defense Industry’ And An ‘Offense Industry’

Filed under: Building Snowmobiles,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:13 PM

Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of all their available resources and population.
In the mid-19th Century, “total war” was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort. -General Ludendorff, Clausewitz, General Lemay

Netwar is a term developed by RAND researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt to describe an emergent form of low intensity conflict, crime, and activism waged by social networked actors. Typical netwar actors might include transnational terrorists, criminal organizations, activist groups, and social movements that employ decentralized, flexible network structures.-wikipedia

Very cool and this was by far the most interesting article I have read about netwar or networks in this current war.  Bravo to General McChrystal for writing this and sharing. It is food for thought, and I highly recommend reading this thing.

Probably what really jumped out at me after reading this, is that mimicry strategy is what McChrystal is talking about here.  Funny how this pattern continues to repeat itself in war fighting.  It also really complements what John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt talked about with Netwar. But most importantly, McChrystal and the authors of this concept both agreed that the best way to defeat a network, is with a network.

Now this is where I want to add my little angle to the whole concept.  I personally think that the US military is not nimble enough or organized properly to act like a network. Even these leaders and strategists mentioned have agreed on that point. Sure, maybe some of the special forces units within the military might be able to accomplish this, but will there be enough SF teams to keep up with all the cartels, pirates, terrorists, and cyber-hackers?

What about the police, both federal and state?  With transnational terrorists, criminal organizations etc., are there enough law enforcement to keep up with the deluge? In both the military and police examples, I do not think that they can match the size, spread and scope of today’s miscreants.  An example is the drug war against the cartels. It is overwhelming the Mexican government, and the US is not doing that great of a job either, despite all the efforts of law enforcement.

In the war against these folks like Al Qaeda, pirates or the cartels, I have doubts that there are enough military, police or intelligence assets to keep up with the formation of all of these networks. And the simple fact that Osama Bin Laden is still free to move around in this big world of ours, indicates to me a problem. When trying to locate a needle in the haystack, the more folks you have participating in that process, the higher the chance of finding the thing or person you are looking for. Many hands make light work, so to speak.

So what is missing is scalability of the current netwar that governments are waging against these viruses of society. What I propose is that what is missing is an equally decentralized and flexible network that can compete with the growth of these non-state actors and their enterprises.  What I think is missing in this war, is a licensed and regulated market that profits from our enemy’s destruction. One created to promote netwar (or whatever works). That last part is crucial.

I have talked about the concept of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal in the past, and of how important privateers were to early America.  I have also highlighted what makes the drug cartels or modern day pirate industries so strong–and that is the drive of monetary gain or profit.  With terrorists, their profit is a different currency that is spiritually based. A suicide bomber profits from their act, because they are told and belive that they have secured a better life in heaven (or whatever place they go). Everyone does what they do, because of personal gain.  It could be monetary gain, spiritual gain, political gain, etc.  The point being is that this gain or profit, is what fuels their enterprise.  In order to defeat that enterprise, you need an enterprise that is equal in size and scope and vitality.

I believe that a purely government venture is a half measure. The full measure of war against these non-state actors, is to include private industry in the process of destroying these folks. Today’s private industry is not used in this way, and the resistance against such a thing indicates the ego and naivety of today’s war planners and law enforcement leaders. No one likes to admit that they are overwhelmed and they certainly do not want to compete with private industry.

It’s kind of like how the Postal Service viewed companies like Fedex or UPS in the beginning. But of course the government postal system and private industry are still in existence today, and they co-exist just fine. If anything, they learn from each other and the competition drives innovation in each group. If you go into a Post Office today, they look and feel like a Fedex or UPS store, and their prices and even customer service are comparable.

Now to apply this example to the war effort, imagine a company like Dyncorp capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden? I mean after Gary Faulkner did his thing in Pakistan, all types of feathers were ruffled, and everyone in government, military and the media were all balking at the idea of an individual without any government guidance going after OBL? Talk about ego…. I think most Americans, and most of the world wouldn’t care who nabbed this guy or how it was done–just that he was captured or killed–end of story.

And this is the point I am trying to convey.  I think a private company or individual could be quite effective in this war, if given the license and legal authority to do so by their government. But what is most important to this relationship between private industry and government, is that once given the approval, a company can organize, hire the talented people, find the most suitable ideas for the task, purchase the best equipment and weapons, and create a winning strategy to gain profit.  That is a very powerful concept.  Those companies that are not innovative or are hard working, will not succeed.  But those companies that get it, and have the flexibility needed to do what they got to do, will be rewarded by profit, and that profit will drive that engine of innovation for the fight.

Not only that, but once successful companies come onto the scene–whether small or large, then others will copy what they are doing.  Pure mimicry strategy, but at the business/war fighting level.  You see the same pattern with today’s pirates, cartels, and terrorists. They too use mimicry strategy, and copy the models of operation that give them the most profit and reward.  Money or spiritual reward is what fuels the engines of these industries, and as a result, they are unstoppable. Piracy and the drug trade are prime examples, and following the rules of mimicry strategy, it would take an industry to stop these industries. Or at least keep up, because in the end, not only do you want to copy what they are doing, but add one or two things to the model of operation that gives you the edge.

Now for those that are reading this and saying, ‘what happens if these privateer companies, turn into pirates’? Funny, that is exactly the argument that the US government used after they wanted to get rid of the privateer concept and develop a fully functional navy.  The war planners used all sorts of excuses to get rid of the competition of private industry.

Of course there were privateers back then that went on to be pirates, but to me, this very small percentage of possible outcomes of this industry, are far outweighed by the positives of using private industry in this way.  I would also suggest that out of the thousands of security contractors that have cycled in and out of today’s security contracting industry, that a few might have gone on to commit crimes back home and abroad–but that is the 1 percent of 1 percent. To me, I have yet to see this ‘privateer to pirate’ phenomenon that folks continue to use as an argument against private security.

Most have served honorably, and most do not sell their services to criminal organizations. Of course there are few, and of course there are also corrupt cops or unethical and immoral military folks that do crimes as well.  Criminal acts and bad behavior are things that happen in all organizations.  And even during the Revolutionary War, most privateers went back home to be fishermen or work in shipping. Piracy was a crime that attracted criminals, pure and simple, and to classify all privateers as criminal because of the acts of a few, is dumb.

So going back to the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, which happens to be a law that the US congress has the right to use, would be just one way of licensing and regulating this private industry designed to destroy our enemies. If that is too unsettling to the powers that be, then modify the ITAR and issue license that way. I would also require companies to be bonded, and I would reopen Prize Courts so that asset seizures could be another way that companies could profit from the destruction of our enemies.

Another argument that I continue to hear against the concept, is that the Hague forbids privateering and the issuing of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  In my view, it is not the Hague that stops us from doing this–it is a lack of political will and courage to toss out old and outdated treaties and do what is most important.  That is to win the war that is of national interest, and of the interest of the people. If winning wars is the priority, and the current war has a virus in the form of networks, then in order to compete with such networks will require an equal amount of networks–plus whatever innovation/edge.

Finally, there is another point I wanted to make, and that is today’s ‘Defense Industry’ profits off of creating weapons and equipment for the war effort, or providing defensive or logistics services in the war zones. In terms of war fighting, all companies benefit from the war continuing, and there is not a market mechanism in place to put a stop to that process. Winning a war stops that process though.

To me, what makes better sense is to create an ‘Offense Industry’, which is purely focused on destroying the enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and essentially working itself out of a job. I compare it to the commercial hunting of the Buffalo in the wild west–when there was no more buffalo left (or enemy), the hunters worked themselves out of a job.  What fuels a ‘Defense Industry’ is war, and what fuels an ‘Offense Industry’ is the destruction of an enemy.  Or at least that is the goal when you create, regulate and license an ‘Offense Industry’.

Also, it should be the goal of politicians and war planners to win the war as quickly as possible, once a war has been deemed necessary to fight.  As time drags on, the enemy will learn how to compete against you, because they too have learning organizations and continuous improvement as part of their plan.  To me, if winning a war is a priority, then it should also be a priority to send everything you got at the problem to finish it as soon as possible.

The current war is coming up on the ten year point, and I have yet to see Osama Bin Laden’s head on a pike. Nor have I seen any ‘Closing Business’ signs in front of cartel businesses in Latin America. Nor have I seen today’s pirates whimpering back to their countries because piracy sucks. And we are definitely not seeing today’s lone wolf hackers or state sponsored cyber criminals receiving any threats that would give them pause. Total war (and netwar) require the strategic use of all available manpower of a nation, and/or world effort, and that requires both a vibrant Defense Industry and a well regulated and licensed Offense Industry among the fielded armies in this endeavor. Or we can continue to depend upon the few and the overwhelmed to win these wars. –Matt


It Takes a Network
The new frontline of modern warfare.
March/April 2011
BY STANLEY A. MCCHRYSTAL
From the outset of my command in Afghanistan, two or three times each week, accompanied by a few aides and often my Afghan counterparts, I would leave the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul and travel across Afghanistan — from critical cities like Kandahar to the most remote outposts in violent border regions. Ideally, we left early, traveling light and small, normally using a combination of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, to meet with Afghans and their leaders and to connect with our troops on the ground: Brits and Marines rolling back the enemy in Helmand, Afghan National Army troops training in Mazar-e-Sharif, French Foreign Legionnaires patrolling in Kapisa. (more…)

Monday, September 6, 2010

Music: JFCOM Contractor Sings The ‘Jiffy Com Blues’ Over Closure

Filed under: Industry Talk,Music — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:33 AM

     Boy, it sucks to hear about other contractors losing their jobs. Hopefully these folks will be able to get work elsewhere in the defense industry. Maybe Bobby will have his music as a possible back up plan? –Matt

—————————————————————–

JFCOM contractor sings the blues over closure

By Bill Sizemore

09/06/2010

Went to work, got a bit of bad news

Went to work, got a bit of bad news

Ol’ Bobby G said here’s your fate, gonna shut you down, gonna lock the gate

Now we all have the Jiffy Com Blues.

– “Jiffy Com Blues,” by Bobby “BlackHat” Walters

It’s not even a done deal, but the impending closure of the Joint Forces Command already has made its way into Hampton Roads’ pop culture.

Bobby “BlackHat” Walters, a civilian contractor at JFCOM who moonlights as a blues musician, has channeled his angst into a song.

Less than three weeks after the planned closure was announced by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “Jiffy Com Blues” has been written and recorded and is getting local radio airplay.

“It was a song that needed to be written. It wrote itself,” Walters, a Coast Guard retiree, said Friday. “Sometimes the blues can help you through a bad situation.”

“Jiffy Com” is a longstanding nickname for the command among workers – one that is frowned upon by the brass, Walters acknowledged. But he said he didn’t use it with mean-spirited intent.

“I thought that if I could write the song in such a way that it would bring a smile to people’s faces, it could put a lighter edge on a very sensitive subject,” he said.

Story here.

Powered by WordPress