Feral Jundi

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Iraq: Command Post–What Will Iraq Be Like In 2012?

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:14 AM

This is a great discussion on what Iraq will be like in 2012. Of course this will be the ‘test year’ for the DoS and their massive contractor work force and security force in Iraq.

Also, this coincides with the Senate Armed Services committee about the exit from Iraq, and the security issues associated with that.  The exchange between Secretary Defense Panetta and Senator McCain was something else. But the big one with this hearing is that it helped to fill in some of the pieces about the contractor issue in Iraq, post US troops. It also brought up some of the same concerns issued in the past about this transition, and what the government’s official stance on it is. Here is a quote that I thought was interesting.

One consequence of the U.S. military withdrawal is that the U.S. State Department will require some 16,000 private contractors to provide security and other services, like transportation and medical evacuation, that had been provided by the Pentagon.
“No question there are risks involved here,” Panetta said about such a large, unprecedented reliance on contractors.
“Are there going to be risks associated with contractors? Yes,” Panetta said. “Do we have any other alternatives? No.”

If you would like to watch the entire hearing, here is a link for that. Check it out. –Matt

 

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Leadership: Harvard Business Review–Leadership Lessons From The Military

Filed under: Jundism,Leadership,Military News — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:58 PM

     Imagine a company with a new board of directors, charged with entering complex markets while managing rapid growth, both organic and through M&A. This company is struggling to hit its performance targets. It has been hemorrhaging money and hasn’t turned a profit in over eight years. Needless to say, shareholders are upset. How would most senior management teams handle these problems? In today’s competitive business space, chances are they would go outside the organization for highly skilled, industry knowledgeable, impartial consultants to work with them to solve strategic-level inefficiencies. 

     Now consider that this troubled company is actually NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). ISAF (the “Coalition”) faces real business problems in Afghanistan and are pressured by a global audience to make significant progress by the end of 2010. The Coalition is at a tipping point and should use every resource available to improve their bottom line — promote stability and support security sector reforms throughout Afghanistan. Who are they bringing in to help them expand, operate efficiently, measure success, and develop a unified strategy?- HBR Blog, Consultants: Help Wanted In Afghanistan

*****

    I have thoroughly enjoyed this series at Harvard Business Review. The military needs this kind of perspective, because just like business can learn from the military, the military can certainly learn from business. Especially in the realm of getting results. Because lets face it, a military can be highly advanced and well equipped all day long, but if it cannot produce the desired results or win, then what good is it?

    In the past I have touched on this idea that private industry has the power of failure that drives it. But when the US Army fails, who fires them?  What will replace the the Army if it fails? So in essence, today’s military branches must succeed and they must tap into any and all ways of getting the desired results they are seeking in a war.

    Back to this post though. This is about what private industry can learn from military leadership, and I always like reading about these lessons learned. It is always fun to see what professionals in other industries are surprised at or intrigued with in today’s military. They too are trying to get results and win their business wars, so this kind of article is an outcome of their learning organization. And Harvard Business Review is quite the learning organization.

     Below I posted all the executive summaries. But if you follow the blog link and website link, you will find other related materials. So definitely take your time and read through everything. I thought it was cool that Admiral Thad Allen was a big fan of Peter Senge and his books. Books like The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, which has themes that you see echoed in other military thinker’s and business folk’s publications. John Nagl mentions ‘learning organization’ in his books, and I have talked about that stuff here on the blog in the past. It is also a Jundism. Check it out and let me know what you think. –Matt

——————————————————————

Harvard Business Review

Leadership Lessons From The Military

November 2010

Executive Summaries

Extreme Negotiations

Jeff Weiss, Aram Donigian, and Jonathan Hughes

CEOs and other senior executives must make countless complex, high-stakes deals across functional areas and divisions, with alliance partners and critical suppliers, and with customers and regulators. The pressure of such negotiations may make them feel a lot like U.S. military officers in an Afghan village, fending off enemy fire while trying to win trust and get intelligence from the local populace.

(more…)

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…)

Friday, December 18, 2009

Publications: CNAS–Contractors in American Conflicts, by John Nagl and Richard Fontaine

Filed under: Publications,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 7:58 AM

   Ok folks, this is pretty important.  CNAS, like I have mentioned before, has the ears of the guys that advise the President on matters like this one.  As you can see, John Nagl is personally involved on this working paper, and you can read his stamp all over this thing. I have been waiting for this paper for awhile, and I am glad they are finally pulling the trigger.

   It is a quick read and the best I could come up with on this, is that CNAS is trying to make the administration feel better for using contractors in the war.  To say ‘it’s ok, we have been using them for awhile, and contractors are the way of the future’. Oh, and we are going to rebrand contractors by calling them ES&R contractors. (Blackwater, eat your heart out)

    You get the idea.  President Obama owns this ‘just war’ now and the increase in the use of contractors is under his watch.  Matter of fact, contractor use has gone up under his leadership, and in Afghanistan we outnumber the troops. Yee haw.  Finally there is a recognition of that fact over at CNAS, and this paper is proof of that.

   With that said, the administration needs ammo for the conversations they have with those who oppose the use of contractors within their party.  Especially with President Obama’s far left supporters and even his more moderate supporters. He needs us for this war, and his party needs some convincing as to the why.

   The reason why I mention the political aspects of this paper, is because the mention of Bosnia and the use of contractors there under the Clinton Administration was very much emphasized.  Nagl and company wanted the reader to know that contractors are not just a tool of the Bush administration and the Republicans.  That the Democrats have a pretty good history of using and enjoying the benefits of contractors during times of conflict as well. Or better yet, we are a tool of America and not some political party.

   So why do I like this paper?  Well it is finally a legitimization of this industry, and at the highest levels of defense think tankery.  CNAS has the ear of all the President’s men, and generals for that matter.  These guys are saying we are a necessity for the war and for future wars, and it is time to figure out how to properly use this tool of warfare called contracting.  It is about smart contracting and dealing with reality.

   Personally, I just think we need strong leadership to make the common sense/necessary decisions to square away contracting.  To demand quality service from contractors, trust but verify that service, and insure tax payer dollars are wisely spent. And then just apply Kaizen to the whole thing to make sure it remains kick ass. If you guys need more people in government to manage these contracts, then get off your ass and hire some folks to get the job done. We are in a recession right now, and I am sure you could get some more people to help out.

   Below I have also put up a few critiques of the paper. (bold is my statement, quoted chunks are CNAS)  One is about the new name CNAS came up for us–‘ES&R contractors’. It has a terrible ring to it. lol  The other is about a lack of proper historical reference–no mention of privateers or the Indian Wars. Buffalo Bill Cody was a contractor that received a Medal of Honor, and no mention of that? Wow, talk about selective history recollection? The final one is just a little bit of slam on ‘smart contracting’.  We need good leaders who know their stuff, have the courage to do what is right, and takes care of their people.  Once we have those, then we can implement smart contracting or whatever strategy you want to pursue. Overall, good stuff and I can’t wait for the final product.-Matt

—————————————————————-

Contractors in American Conflicts: Adapting to a New Reality

Publication Type: Working Papers

Publication Date: 12/16/2009

Author(s): Richard Fontaine , John Nagl

When our nation goes to war, contractors go with it. Contractors have become an enduring feature of modern American conflicts, and the United States cannot now engage in hostilities or in reconstruction and stabilization operations without them. At their peak, there were more contractors on the ground in Iraq than American troops in uniform and there are more contractors today in Afghanistan than there are U.S. troops on the ground.However, while private security contractors (PSC) like Blackwater (now knows as Xe Services) have gotten the bulk of public and congressional attention,  they only compromise about 5 percent of all contractors in hostile environments – this working paper, which is part of the CNAS project Contracting in Conflicts , addresses the other 95 percent. That 95 percent represents the vast majority of all the tasks carried out by U.S. contractors in theater, and it has been plagued by its own set of problems – including insufficient oversight, inadequate integration into operational planning, and ambiguous legal status. In order for the United States to adapt to the key role that contractors will play in future hostilities, it must establish new policies and rules of the road.

PDF for paper here.

Edit: 12/22/2009 – CBS posted a story about this as well.

(more…)

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Podcasts: John Nagl Interview, NPR, Troop Requirements for Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,Podcasts — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 11:39 AM

   Amazing that folks continue to scream about the civilian surge not having enough folks, or not having enough troops for commitments in the war, but you never hear too much about contractors filling that void (which we are, and will do, as per usual).  We are such a crucial element of this war, and have certainly sacrificed and contributed, and it always miffs me that none of the strategists or MSM observers acknowledge that fact.  We are the elephant in the room that no one wants to recognize, and when they do acknowledge us, it’s when a few bad apples screw things up. Thanks.

   Let’s get real on this.  Of course contractors will be the lubrication of any deployments or withdrawals in this war, and I fully expect to see us being used even more as the wars get more complex and taxing. And of course there will continue to be incidents here and there.  The military will continue to have incidents as well, and guess what, that is war and that is the way things are.  The best we can do is to continue to improve, and continue to minimize these incidents that hurt the war effort, and that is it.  It is absolutely unrealistic to say that we can have a ‘zero mistakes’ war, and that applies to the military and contractors.  Either way……

   The question I have is will contractors ever get that acknowledgement for contribution and sacrifice in this war?  Who knows, but you can guarantee I will definitely continue to bring it up and drive that point home to anyone that will listen. It is the least I could do for my fallen comrades, and for an industry that has certainly contributed. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Afghanistan Strains Already-Strapped Army

Date: 10/12/2009

Media: Audio

October 12, 2009 – CNAS President John Nagl spoke with Steve Inskeep of NPR’s Morning Edition about the strain on the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The requirement for increased troop strength is doable, but it is going to put additional strain on an army that is already feeling a lot of pain,” said Nagl. “Whatever troop level we increase to in Afghanistan in 2010 we need to be prepated to hold that level for 2-3 three years.”

Podcast here.

——————————————————————

Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan

Additional Deployments Not Announced and Rarely Noted

By Ann Scott TysonWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, October 13, 2009

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

(more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress