Feral Jundi

Monday, August 2, 2010

Industry Talk: Use Of Force And Riot Control For Contractors

     What I wanted to do here is go over a very tough problem for contractors, that really has not been addressed by the industry or today’s war planners. The latest incident in Kabul serves as an example of a real problem out there, and that is what happens when contractors are the victims of riots? Worse yet, what happens when they are the targets of ‘agents provocateurs’ in war zones, who are trying to create riots as a way to attack contractors or the military? Because these guys in Kabul could have ended up like the Blackwater contractors who were burned and hanged on a bridge in Fallujah Iraq.

     So with this post, I wanted to find out what contractors could do in these kinds of situations. I decided to put up a section of a FM manual on how the military deals with riots, but as you can see, there is nothing in these FM manuals on what contractors can or should do in such situations. I don’t even know of any civilian schools that train contractors to deal with such a threat, and especially for small teams in one or two vehicle motorcades.

     With a quick search, I did come across an article about Xe having CS gas in Iraq, and the outrage and shock that caused. But of course, the only reason why they would have such a thing is so that they could have something other than bullets to disperse a crowd with. As it stands now, if contractors are not allowed to use non-lethal munitions like CS gas or whatever, then of course contractors will be put in a position of either A. standing there and die by the hands of a violent crowd or C. shoot their weapons in self defense. A stone can kill a man, and especially when a hundred stones are thrown at that man. Shooting your weapon to defend self or others, is a main theme of the Rules for the Use of Force, but of course it would be far better if there was a way to not use that weapon. If using CS gas to disperse that violent crowd could be the non-lethal ‘B.” solution in this incident, then to me that is logical. And yet contractors are not allowed to have this stuff, or it is ‘shocking’ if they have it?

     The other question this brings up is what are the appropriate riot control or just riot survival tactics for a small team that is entrapped or involved in a similar situation as the guys in Kabul were? For that, I urge contractors and companies alike to war game the appropriate response to such a thing, and figure out what works for you in your neighborhood. Talk it up with the local military forces and get some suggestions from them if you are stumped. Find those in your team who have law enforcement or military police backgrounds who might have experience in riot control and figure out the best SOP’s. Because no one has yet to write a chapter in the FM manuals or give out any kind of guidance to this massive contractor force operating outside the wire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     I also think this is of strategic importance, because it would be far better if contractors were implementing SOPs for dealing with crowds that did not endanger the various regional strategies, or overall COIN strategy in the war. Something to think about, and I would like to hear what you guys think. –Matt

——————————————————————

FM 3-19.40 Appendix B

Use of Force and Riot Control Measures

The I/R facility commander provides guidance to all MP guard forces in the appropriate use of force to protect internees and internment facilities and to control unruly and rebellious internee populations. This includes establishing uniform procedures that govern the use of force, weapons, and restraining devices. He ensures that a QRF is organized and trained to respond to disturbances inside and outside the facility—whether prisoners are creating a disturbance or there is a Level I threat against the facility. Supporting MP units train squad- to platoon-sized QRFs and squad-sized elements for extraction and apprehension teams. (See FM 19-15 for more information on civil disturbances.)

USE OF FORCE

B-1. When force is necessary, use it according to the priorities of force and limit it to the minimum degree necessary. (See AR 190-14 for the use of deadly force.) The application of any or all of the priorities of force, or the application of a higher numbered priority without first employing a lower numbered one, depends on and will be consistent with the situation encountered. Per AR 190-47, the priorities of force are—

First: Verbal persuasion.

Second: Show of force.

Third: Chemical aerosol irritant projectors (subject to local and HN restrictions).

Fourth: Use of physical force (other than weapons fire).

Fifth: Presentation of deadly force.

Sixth: Deadly force.

B-2. The I/R commander coordinates with the higher echelon commander and the SJA. He designates representatives who are authorized to direct the use of firearms and riot control agents during riots or disturbances. He includes the rules for using these means in appropriate plans, orders, SOPs, and instructions. He specifies the types of weapons to be used, which are not limited to shotguns and pistols for guarding prisoners.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Industry Talk: FBO Solicitations– PSC Services For COB Blackhawk, FOB Tarin Kowt, FOB Hadrian, And ANCOP HQ, Afghanistan

     All of these just popped up the last couple of days and I wanted to get this out there.  Just reading through all of them, they all repeat the same things.  The contracting mechanism will be that concept I loathe called LPTA or Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable. Or what I call the ‘lowest bidder’.  So lowest bidder security is what is acceptable for the protection of our most cherished assets in this war–our soldiers and civilians serving there?

     What really kills me though is that the only ones that can bid are those companies who are registered with the Afghanistan Minister of Interior.  So anyone not on the list is out.

     I certainly hope for the sake of those who will be living at these COBs and FOBs, that when your lowest bidder PSC’s show up to provide protection, that you are able to sleep comfortably at nights. I have no idea if they will be putting these folks up on the walls, or just posting them at interior facilities. Nor do I have an idea of who they will use as security contractors, but you can guess that they will be ‘bottom of the barrel’ forces. And of course it will be pissed off expats running the whole thing and having to manage that mess.

     Either way, the US military has no one else to blame but themselves for using such a god awful contracting tool.  LPTA might be good for trash disposal or pest control, but it is a terrible idea when it comes to protecting peoples lives in war zones. You get what you pay for.

     To put it another way, I would not use LPTA for picking a doctor to save my mother’s life, nor would I advocate using LPTA for protection services in a war zone.  Pfffft. –Matt

———————————————————————

PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR (PSC) SERVICES @ COB BLACKHAWK, AFGHANISTAN

W91B4L-10-R-0230

COB BLACKHAWK, AFGHANISTAN KANDAHAR PROVINCE,

09355 AF

Department of the Army

Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afgahnistan

KANDAHAR RCC

COMBINE

07/25/10

*****

PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR (PSC) SERVICES AT FOB TARIN KOWT, AFGHANISTAN

W91B4L-10-T-0058

FOB TARIN KOWT AFGHANISTAN FOB TARIN KOWT, 1

09355 AF

Department of the Army

Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afgahnistan

KANDAHAR RCC

COMBINE

07/26/10

*****

PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR (PSC) SERVICES AT FOB HADRIAN, AFGHANISTAN

W91B4L-10-T-0059

FOB Hadrian, Afghanistan FOB Hadrian, 1

09355 AF

Department of the Army

Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afgahnistan

KANDAHAR RCC

COMBINE

07/27/10

*****

PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTOR (PSC) SERVICES AT ANCOP HQ, AFGHANISTAN

W91B4L-10-T-0077

ANCOC HQ Kandahar Kandahar, 1

09355 AF

Department of the Army

Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afgahnistan

KANDAHAR RCC

COMBINE

07/27/10

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Industry Talk: BLISS Could Be State’s New LOGCAP, And More Clarification About WPPS

     Thanks to David Isenberg for posting this on his blog and bringing it to everyone’s attention.  I think this is some interesting information that came out of this letter between Richard Verma and Sen. Claire McCaskill. If in fact BLISS becomes the new LOGCAP for DoS, this could be a pretty sizable contract.  That’s ‘if’ they cannot bring State under the current LOGCAP.  We will see how it goes.

     But what I thought was most interesting in this letter was the clarification as to the fact that contractors will be operating this war equipment that DoD will be loaning to State. That is great, and it will be cool to see Blackhawks and MRAPs rolling out into the skies and roads of Iraq under the control of contractors.  I wonder if they will paint this equipment a different color? Like DoS blue/white/yellow? lol

    Also, will these MRAPS or Blackhawks be stripped of all the life saving electronics and communications stuff that our troops were able to use for the survival of their units?  Probably not, but who knows.  Today’s military hardware has a lot of useful stuff in it that could really come in handy for the contractors that have to operate it.

     One thing that is missing in this letter, is a question and response about the 14 security related functions that State identified, that might have to be done by contractors.  Stuff like EOD or counter mortar/rocket team operations. Or QRF/rescue stuff or other military type activities.  I say this because I have yet to see any answers as to how the DoS will treat contractors if they actually had to fire their weapons and kill enemy combatants while doing any of these 14 security related functions.  Or worse yet, what about firefights that unintentionally ended up in the deaths of civilians? Because the enemy loves to attack from population centers with the hopes of creating such an incident.

     Like I have said before, we might want the war to be over in Iraq, but the enemy could care less about our wishes. If anything, with a limited military presence and an Iraqi government and security forces still trying to establish itself, a lot can happen during the transition and drawdown. DoS must understand that the enemy has learned much from the propaganda value of such incidents like the Nisour Square incident. If they can recreate such an incident again they will gain much, and DoS and the US mission in Iraq will suffer yet again from the consequences.

     There are still many questions that come to mind, and that is will DoS support their contractors if involved in a firefight that accidently resulted in civilian deaths, or will they treat the contractor as if they were criminals?  Worse yet, will they hand these individuals over to the Iraqis, or will they insure these men are afforded the same protections and rights that the military or even diplomats would have received in similar situations? Will DoS implement rules for the use of force that are realistic and give contractors the best chance of success for the defense of personnel and property? Or will DoS even allow the proper weapons and tactics required for an effective defense (that could include borderline offensive operations), or even rescues? Stuff to think about and it will be interesting to see how this turns out. –Matt

Edit: 08/02/2011- Hat tip to Ms. Sparky on this news. Supposedly KBR was chosen for this. Check the comment below for the entire post.

——————————————————————

On July 9, 2010 this letter was sent to Sen. Claire McCaskill, from Richard D. Verma, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at DoS. (I posed the first question and answer, and the 5th question and answer. Follow the link to read the rest)

*****

1. Will private security contractors, including contractors under the State Department’s Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract, be operating the requested equipment, vehicles, and aircraft?

     The Department of State (DOS) does not presently maintain a cadre of qualified drivers/operators for some requested equipment, such as MRAPS, and, as such, would need to supplement current skill sets within its WPPS contract to ensure operational capability. If/when DoD provides the requested equipment, the Department will modify the relevant contracts to require that the equipment be operated and maintained by contractor personnel in accordance with manufacturer, DoD, or other applicable standards. Contract modifications will also require that contractor personnel possess the necessary qualifications and complete the requisite training to properly operate and maintain the equipment. An aircraft provided to the Department will be incorporated into an existing Department aviation support contract.

5. If the State Department’s request to use LOGCAP is denied, how does the Department plan to ensure that the next contract for life support services is as transparent, competitive, and accountable as possible?

     Should the LOGCAP [Logistics Civil Augmentation Program] be unavailable, the Department will follow Federal Acquisition Regulation competitive procedures in any separate procurement action. Due to long-acquisition lead-time involved, the Department has already initiated action to develop a competitive solicitation for the base life support requirements should it be unable to remain under the LOGCAP program. This solicitation is referred to as the Baghdad Life Support Services acquisition, or BLISS contract. If necessary, the Department could issue a Request for Proposals for the BLISS contract in a very short time.

—————————————————————–

Baghdad Life Support Services

Solicitation Number: SAQMMA10I0009

Agency: U.S. Department of State

Office: Office of Logistics Management

Location: Acquisition Management

(more…)

Monday, July 26, 2010

Iraq: U.S. Orders Pullout Of All Pinoy Workers In Iraq

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:07 PM

    Boy, this is a surprise.  My thoughts with this is that if Nepalese workers have to leave, that would include security contractors.  That is too bad because these are some excellent guys to have for security work.  I certainly hope these countries can work on lifting their bans, because all of these workers are bringing back money earned in war zones and spending it in their local economies back home. They are also providing a much needed service in Iraq.

     But yeah, if these countries do not want them in Iraq, then we should honor that.  But we should also try to be working the diplomatic angle with these countries. All of these folks want an opportunity to work in Iraq, and if Iraq is alright with that and things are safer than several years back, then I do not see the what the issue is. –Matt

Edit: 08/05/2010- It looks like Nepal has lifted the ban for their citizens.  It sounds like the Philippines is getting close to lifting their ban.  In the comments, I posted two stories that talked about both.

——————————————————————

US orders pullout of all Pinoy workers in Iraq

By Dindo Amparo

07/26/2010

Thousands of Filipino workers in Iraq are on the brink of losing their jobs after the US government ordered all its military contractors to send home expatriate workers whose country imposes a travel ban in Iraq.

The deadline for expatriation is August 9.

In a memorandum issued by the United States Central Command last July 20, Colonel Richard Nolan, senior contracting officer of the Iraw CentCom Contracting Command said: “All contractors in Iraq have 20 days from the date of this letter to ensure their employees comply with US and international law and understood their redeployment responsibilities under the term of their contract.”

The memo added: “It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that it is not employing people from countries prohibited from entry to Iraq.”

The decision of the US Central Command was also triggered by reports that some expatriate workers including Filipinos were abandoned by their contractors in various camps throughout Iraq, raising concerns about violations committed by various contractors including hiring workers from countries that have imposed travel and work restrictions.

The Philippines and Nepal are among those mentioned among countries whose nationals were able to enter and work in Iraq despite the travel ban imposed by their host governments.

(more…)

Industry Talk: U.S. Pledges More Support To Battle Somali Rebels

“We have reviewed since Sunday the support that we’re providing to Amisom. We are going to beef that up,” Mr. Crowley said. “We’ve been the major contributor to the Amisom mission. That won’t change.”

The U.S. State Department, under a program known as Africap, provides funding for private contractors to train, outfit, transport and supply African troops in various peacekeeping missions. The State Department’s latest contract, which began in September 2009, provides $1.5 billion to private contractors to outfit Amisom and other troops. 

*****

     This is the part of the article I clued in on.  I imagine ‘beef that up’ equates to more money for the AFRICAP program, and similar programs.  So it will be interesting to see if any new changes come down the pipe.

     If you follow what is going on with Somalia right now, things are happening quickly, that will lead to the reality of more troops from throughout the region joining the AMISOM mission.  My question though is that will these troops be professional enough to do the job, or will they do more harm than good and bring more support to Al Shabab?

     Hopefully with this beefing up process, we also send some folks in there that can assist in organizing and helping along these new troops.  Unfortunately, if what happened to Ethiopia is any clue as to how all this will go down, then these new armies have a lot of work cut out for them. I wish them well though, and I certainly hope they can stick it to the Al Shaboob. –Matt

——————————————————————

U.S. Pledges More Support to Battle Somali Rebels

July 16, 2010

By WILL CONNORS in Kampala, Uganda, and KEITH JOHNSON in Washington

The Obama administration on Thursday said it would bolster its support to the African Union troops providing much of the firepower in Somalia’s battle against al Shabaab, the Somali militant group that has claimed responsibility for Sunday’s deadly blasts in Uganda.

The triple bombing in Kampala, Uganda’s capital, killed 76 people, including one American, gathered in a restaurant and a bar during Sunday’s World Cup soccer final.

Ugandan officials say they believe more than 20 members of Somalia’s al Shabaab militant group entered Uganda several months before the blasts. Ugandan authorities have arrested nine people, all Somalis, in connection with the attack since Monday, according to a Ugandan military official close to the investigation.

Uganda is part of an African Union force that launched an offensive early this month, alongside Somalia’s government, against al Shabaab militants who control large swaths of largely lawless Somalia.

An Al Shabaab leader on Thursday thanked its militants who carried out the weekend attacks and said more such attacks would be carried out in Uganda. “I say to the Ugandan president what has happened in Kampala was only the beginning. We will keep revenging what your soldiers remorselessly did to our people,” Sheik Muktar Abu Zubayr said in an audio message played on Mogadishu radio stations, according to the Associated Press.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress