Thursday, August 4, 2011
Medical: True Bionics, And Getting Back Into The Fight
Friday, July 29, 2011
Military News: Military Retirement Is More Generous And Expensive Compared To Private Sector
Hat tip to Thomas Ricks over at Foreign Policy for pointing this one out. Data like this seems to be missed when we discuss the costs of a standing government army, versus the private industry. So stuff like this really points out the differences between public and private.
I have yet to work in a company that had any security contractor retirees. Hell, I would be lucky to have a retirement package offered, and most gigs these days seem to be all independent contractor stuff. That is the reality of today’s ‘disposable workforce’. So for me, I just assemble my own retirement plan and continue put into it from the various contracts I work. Sometimes I was lucky enough to work a contract with a 401K plan, but those were few and far between.
The government seems to be the only industry left that actually has folks that work 20 years or 30 years, and has retirees under that system. It is actually a pretty good deal and many retirees collect pensions and go on to work other jobs.
In the security contracting industry, you see a lot of retired military folks who do exactly that. They collect a nice pension after working 20 years in the military, and then go on to be a private contractor and make even more money. So I could understand why the Pentagon and today’s cash strapped US government is taking a second look at this system. You could also guess the reaction of guys in the military that would construe this study as a threat to their good deal. The question to ask is will the government modify the current military retirement system to match that of the federal government, and get a few more years of service out of their soldiers? Or will they succumb to the politics of the matter, and realize that a ton of military retirees and current soldiers vote.
Who knows, but I do know that the US government is in the process of making some adjustments to the budget and spending. So they are looking at all and any options of cutting costs, and the military is no exception.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that I certainly hope these statistics are factored into future cost benefit analysis between government military forces and private military forces. There are so many costs to consider when maintaining a standing army during times of peace and war. Not to mention that all of these retirees in the military are also drawing healthcare benefits, and the legacy costs of that must be equally as high. I mean if a guy retires at age 40 give or take, and the average life expectancy of a human these days is around 75, then that can add up to a lot of money that tax payers will be paying over the course of that individual’s life.
Here is the report that goes into more detail about military retirement and it’s costs. –Matt
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Military News: Medal Of Honor For Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Military News: Cyber Combat–Act Of War
To supplement my cyber lance post, this news, along with the attacks on L3 and Lockheed Martin or the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, all point to how important and dangerous this stuff really is. I will let the article speak for itself.
Also check out the Morgan Doctrine’s opinion about this story. The MD is a blog that promotes the concept of cyber privateers and tracks the world of cyber warfare and crime. –Matt
Cyber Combat: Act of War
MAY 31, 2011
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES
WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.
WSJ’s Siobhan Gorman has the exclusive story of the Pentagon classifying cyber attacks by foreign nations acts of war. – News Hub
The Pentagon’s first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country’s military.
In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” said a military official.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Industry Talk: Saudi Arabia To Raise A Multi-Billion Dollar, 35,000 Member ‘Facilities Security Force’ With US Help
In October 2008, Ford Fraker, then the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, called the facilities security force program “probably the single biggest initiative for the U.S.-Saudi relationship” and said the value of contracts associated with the program could reach tens of billions of dollars…..
The special security force is expected to grow to at least 35,000 members, trained and equipped by U.S. personnel as part of a multiagency effort that includes staff from the Justice Department, Energy Department and Pentagon. It is overseen by the U.S. Central Command.
The force’s main mission is to protect vital oil infrastructure, but its scope is wider. A formerly secret State Department cable released by the WikiLeaks website described the mission as protecting “Saudi energy production facilities, desalination plants and future civil nuclear reactors.”
Oh boy. Now everyone was freaking out about the whole R2 contract in the UAE for an 800 man battalion, but a 35,000 man ‘facilities security force’ is way bigger and more valuable. I will say that the Vinnell Arabia contract is a sizable and long term contract and has been a source of employment for the industry for awhile, but this new force could take contracts there to a whole new level.
And that quote up top by U.S. ambassador Ford Fraker is quite significant. He said ‘tens of billions of dollars’ folks! Now you can see exactly what Erik Prince was thinking about when he wanted to create a mega training facility in the desert of the UAE. A 35,000 man force requires a ton of training to start up and maintain over the years, and training providers will be a premium in that part of the world.
It also makes sense why the US is not freaking out about Prince and his plans in the UAE. For a force this large in Saudi Arabia, and with all the competition for trainers and manpower throughout the world in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you can see that every competent and capable training facility out there will be very popular. Especially facilities that are close, cost effective, and deliver a quality service. Of course the Saudis will also build local facilities for training and housing these forces. But for the really specialized stuff that I am sure R2 will offer, they could easily cater to forces like this.
Let’s not forget about what the national interest is for the US and it’s allies–keep the oil flowing. Saudi Arabia is a key part of our energy policy, and their oil and refinery capability is vital to the US economy. Any threat to that oil, be it from terrorists, internal uprising or Iran, is a threat to US national security. That is the relationship we have right now, and we will continue to have for awhile.
I also think that we cannot afford to see Saudi Arabia collapse via uprisings. Libya or Egypt collapsing was one thing, but losing Saudi Arabia to political collapse would be unacceptable. And in the case of this massive facilities security force, we either train their forces to stand the line, or it could potentially be US troops standing that line if Saudi Arabia were to explode. Contracts like Vinnell Arabia or the future contracts for this current force, are insurance for the west pure and simple. –Matt
……The forging of closer U.S.-Saudi military ties is so sensitive, particularly in Saudi Arabia, that the Pentagon and the State Department declined requests for on-the-record comment and U.S. officials rejected a request for an interview with the two-star Army general, Robert G. Catalanotti, who manages the project to build a “facilities security force” to protect the Saudis’ network of oil installations and other critical infrastructure. The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not respond to two written requests for comment. –Understanding Saudi Stability and Instability: A Very Different Nation, By Anthony H. Cordesman, Feb 26, 2011
—————————————————————
U.S. quietly expanding defense ties with Saudis
By Robert Burns
Thursday May 19, 2011
WASHINGTON — Despite their deepening political divide, the United States and Saudi Arabia are quietly expanding defense ties on a vast scale, led by a little-known project to develop an elite force to protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites.
The U.S. also is in discussions with Saudi Arabia to create an air and missile defense system with far greater capability against the regional rival the Saudis fear most, Iran. And it is with Iran mainly in mind that the Saudis are pressing ahead with a historic $60 billion arms deal that will provide dozens of new U.S.-built F-15 combat aircraft likely to ensure Saudi air superiority over Iran for years.
Together these moves amount to a historic expansion of a 66-year-old relationship that is built on America’s oil appetite, sustained by Saudi reliance on U.S. military reach and deepened by a shared worry about the threat of al-Qaida and the ambitions of Iran.