Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Publications: Journal Of International Peace Operations, March-April 2011
Comments Off on Publications: Journal Of International Peace Operations, March-April 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Maritime Security: UAE Shipping Association Has Reversed Position– Backs The Use Of PSC’s On Vessels
“We don’t feel protected by the international navies, so we need to take matters into our own hands,” said Scott Jones, first vice president of the UAESA, the leading industry body in the nation. “There is still no vessel that has armed guards on board that has been taken. It seems to be the only way we can feel relatively certain,” he said.
Boy, chalk up another association that has come to grips with reality. Might I also add that these last couple of months, according to some of my readers that are in the know, has been nuts for maritime security companies. Business is picking up to say the least. Although I cannot say for sure how much of an increase there has been because no one is tracking it. All I can go by is what I am hearing out there.
With that said, it makes total sense that this market could be seeing a surge. And with more boats having armed security giving problems to the pirates, there will be those boats without security that will soon become the targets of greedy and dangerous pirates. It is the law of the jungle, and predators will always seek the weakest and easiest prey. Who knows, and this is all just speculation on this particular niche of private security. (we are seeing pirates attack smaller yachts, and violently, which could be considered ‘weaker prey’)
Also, as a cautionary tale, I think it is important to note the similar evolution of the PSC industry in today’s current war zones. In the beginning stages, there are always problems. I suspect as this thing grows bigger, the problems will show their ugly head and will be dealt with accordingly. Although we can be proactive out there and try to apply Jundism and the lessons learned from war zone contracting to this quickly growing maritime security market. All the skeptical eyes of the world will be on the man or woman on the boats with the guns–do well….
Pirates will also be studying the armed security of boats out there, and planning ways of defeating it. Because as the ‘unarmed’ prey diminishes, the hungry predators will start targeting weaker ‘armed’ prey. So if you are a shipping company that has deemed arming your boat with one Glock pistol, and think that is sufficient for ‘arming’ the vessel, you are severely wrong.
‘Know yourself, know your enemy’ as Sun Tzu says. Shipping companies must strive to put in place teams on their vessels that are competent, credible and well armed, that can defeat whatever the latest evolution of pirate weaponry, tactics, and strategies are. –Matt
Pirates could face armed seafarers
By Carol Huang
February 28, 2011
The UAE Shipping Association (UAESA) has reversed course to back the use of private security guards aboard commercial vessels as the best way to combat increasingly aggressive Somali pirates.
The U-turn comes as the shipping industry worldwide reconsiders its longtime opposition to carrying weapons at sea. Over the past year, pirate presence has spread across the Indian Ocean. Ransom demands are rising, and hostages are being held captive longer.
Last week, pirates killed four American yachtsmen whom they had taken hostage.
“We don’t feel protected by the international navies, so we need to take matters into our own hands,” said Scott Jones, first vice president of the UAESA, the leading industry body in the nation. “There is still no vessel that has armed guards on board that has been taken. It seems to be the only way we can feel relatively certain,” he said.
That stance would hold for as long as the problem persisted, the organisation said in an announcement earlier this month.
“Until an international solution resolving the governance of Somalia is accomplished, the UAESA will support the stationing of trained professional armed security aboard vessels.”
Dubai port authorities have implemented “clearance procedures” to allow armed guards, it said.
Since many ports around the world ban weapons, many authorities have had to amend or clarify their policies to allow private security escorts to enter.
Comments Off on Maritime Security: UAE Shipping Association Has Reversed Position– Backs The Use Of PSC’s On Vessels
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Books: The War That Never Was, By Duff Hart Davis
By 1967, there were still a dozen British mercenaries in the Yemen, training the royalists, laying mines and setting up ambushes. More than 20,000 of Nasser’s troops had been killed, while the Yemeni royalists had lost 5,000.
In June that year, as Nasser and his allies prepared to go to war with Israel, the Israelis launched pre-emptive air strikes, destroying the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian air forces.
With their total air superiority, they were able to decimate Nasser’s army as it advanced, wrecking its tanks and killing more than 15,000 men. Thousands more surrendered.
The Six Day War was a resounding victory for Israel — and spelt the end of Nasser’s dreams of dominating the Arabian peninsular. He withdrew from Yemen and after four years the Egyptian occupation was over.
I have not been able to get my hands on this book and read it, but it definitely caught my eye after reading this review below. These guys remind me of such famous and highly effective private fighting forces like the Flying Tigers or Executive Outcomes. This private army had a huge impact on events in the region as you can see from the quote up top, and this book supposedly lays it all out.
Probably the one story in this article that caught my eye was the event where they cut out the lungs of a poison gas victim, to send it back to Britain and prove that Egypt was using poison gas in Yemen. That is news to me and I did not know that Egypt was using WMD’s during that war.
I also thought it was funny that Saudi Arabia Royalty funded the operation, which also included an Israeli air supply contingent. Like the article mentioned, Saudi Arabia did not know this little fact and I am sure they would have cut off funding if they had found out. lol Cool book and if any of the readership has anything to add, please feel free to comment. –Matt
Buy the book here.
Jim Johnson, the leader of this private army.(he passed away in 2008)
How a rag-tag team of SAS veterans changed history in a secret war Britain STILL won’t admit
By Annabel Venning17th February 2011
Crouching behind rocks in the rugged mountains that rose abruptly out of the Yemen desert, were three British soldiers, former members of the SAS, together with their commander, Lieutenant Colonel Johnny Cooper.
They had lain in wait, machine guns at the ready, all through the cold desert night. At 9am the first Egyptian soldiers advanced into the wadi (gully), their infantry packed shoulder to shoulder, followed by tanks and artillery.
Behind the rocks, nobody moved. The success of the ambush depended on surprise. Then, as the enemy reached a small plain that Cooper had designated as the ‘killing ground,’ he gave the signal.
A rattle of machine gun fire cut through the wadi, bullets sending geysers of sand into the air, amid screams of pain and terror.
The Egyptians’ front ranks tumbled, Cooper remembered: ‘Like ninepins. Panic broke out in the ranks behind and then their tanks opened fire. Their shells were exploding?.?.?.?among their own men.’
In the ten-minute firefight that ensued, many of the Egyptian casualties were from their own guns. All day they fired on Cooper’s positions. But he and his men, with their Yemeni comrades, were dug well into their ‘funk holes’. As night fell the Egyptian force withdrew back to their base in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, leaving 85 bodies behind.
It was a rout, the first of many successful engagements that over the next four years would see a small force of British soldiers fight fiercely in a desert war of which most of their countrymen were unaware.
Wearing Arab dress, like latter-day Lawrences of Arabia, the men, mostly ex-SAS, fought in a savage, dirty war of poison bombs, secret airdrops and desert shoot-outs.
It was an operation that began with a deal made over gin and tonics in a Mayfair gentlemen’s club and progressed into arms smuggling, ambushes and the existence of a private army, directed from a one-room basement headquarters in Chelsea by a debonair former Army officer and his sidekick, a beautiful former debutante.
Comments Off on Books: The War That Never Was, By Duff Hart Davis
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Industry Talk: FBO–USACE Looking For Interested Companies For Possible Security Support Contract, Afghanistan
Not that companies who are in the mix don’t already know about this FBO posting, but still I figured I would put it out there for the rest of the industry to check out. From the sounds of it, this contract would be similar to the remote bases that USACE used to run in Iraq for the CMC projects. Those were cool contracts because contractors did it all at those camps. From PSD missions to convoy security, and of course static security–security contractors were vital assets.
What would be different here is the increased use of aviation transport. In Iraq you could convoy everywhere and aviation was not used as much for these CMC camps. But in Afghanistan, air transport and the security that goes with it would be a big part of this contract.
The other difference is that USACE is probably doing a different mission with this contract than clearing munitions. Reconstruction could mean all sorts of things and who knows what they will be building? We will see if they fly this one or not, because this is still in the beginning research phase. –Matt
R–Afghanistan Reconstruction Security Support Services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Solicitation Number: W912ER11R0050
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Location: USACE Middle East District
Synopsis:
Added: Feb 02, 2011 11:04 pm
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Middle East District, is publishing this sources sought notice to solicit responses from firms interested in and capable of providing the following services throughout Afghanistan: comprehensive security, operations, transportation, aircraft, and intelligence services to secure and account for Afghanistan Engineering District-North (AEN) and Afghanistan Engineering District-South (AES) personnel, provide all forms of transportation services, provide quality assurance activities to include construction, nationwide operational oversight, intelligence analysis, production of intelligence products, convoy transportation and security, fixed/rotary wing air-transportation services, personal protective services, static site security, community liaison activities, local atmospherics, supply and maintenance of armored vehicles, establishment, maintenance and management of a nationwide, visual map-based satellite tracking product, establishment, maintenance and management of a nationwide voice and text communication network, and vetting of third-party employees. The contemplated contract awarded from a solicitation for this work will constitute an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) type contract as defined in FAR 16.504. Task orders will be Firm-Fixed Price (FFP).
Comments Off on Industry Talk: FBO–USACE Looking For Interested Companies For Possible Security Support Contract, Afghanistan
Monday, February 21, 2011
Medical: ‘Experts’…. Look At Civilians Hurt Supporting War
The most prevalent diagnoses for civilians were musculoskeletal/spine injuries (19 percent), combat-related injuries (14 percent) and circulatory disorders (13 percent). Among members of the military, the most common diagnoses were musculoskeletal (31 percent, 6.4 percent of them considered war-related), combat (14 percent) and psychiatric (9 percent).
Cohen noted that civilians with psychiatric diagnoses were significantly more likely to return to duty (16 percent, versus 9 percent for soldiers). “Despite the military’s emphasis on screening and early treatment for psychiatric disorders, they still take a much greater toll on military personnel than nonmilitary personnel,” said Cohen, who is also director of Chronic Pain Research at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
After looking through this, I had some objections with the study. It is lumping in civil servants or federal employees with non-federal employees or civilian contractors. The reason why I disagree with this combination is that federal employees would have different motivations and different compensations than civilian contractors. It would have been better to completely separate the two.
Dr. Cohen said this as well–‘Civilians, who often work in security and transportation jobs, are less likely to be in the line of fire and don’t expect to be injured in combat‘. I absolutely disagree with this statement and I am not sure how he came to this conclusion? Even the KBR truck drivers that were hired to work in Iraq at this specific time line of the study (2004 to 2007) would have had to have known through the news and through word of mouth, that they were signing up for a very dangerous contract in an active war zone.
The security contractors that worked at that time, and especially in Iraq, all considered the idea of being ‘injured’ or killed in combat every day they worked there. How could a person in this position not consider this?
This study also highlights some strengths and weaknesses of the contracting model in war zones, as it pertains to the medical side of things. It shows how contractors view their job as a profession that will help to feed their family and pay the bills. The study makes no mention of that contractor’s patriotism or their desire to be with the team. The various motivations for them to continue going back to that war zone is varied, and this study does not differentiate. This study also represents a very dangerous time period to be a contractor, and a key time period of the development of the industry.
On the other hand, the study pointed out that after civilians were wounded from ‘combat related’ injuries, they were more likely not to return. Is that because they lost heart for the work or is that because the injury was debilitating enough to where they could not go back? Does the study make any mention of how many incidents that an individual had been through, both in their military history and contractor history? Or how many of these folks have returned back to work after such incidents, but years later. This is happening in this industry, and the contracting model allows individuals to do this, dependent upon their resume and vetting.
The other interesting statistic was this one. ‘Cohen noted that civilians with psychiatric diagnoses were significantly more likely to return to duty (16 percent, versus 9 percent for soldiers).’ This statistic needs to be clarified. How many of these folks that were questioned, were military veterans or police veterans that had carried their mental issues with them into their contract? Or what kind of diagnosis is given for each individual questioned, and was it related to combat and the war, or were these psychiatric issues a carry over from something else going on in their lives?
With that said, the drive for a contractor with mental problems to continue working to feed their family and pay the bills, might be stronger than seeking help and not working. At this time period of the study, a secret clearance was not mandatory. But there was the infamous CRC that many contractors had to cycle through at that time, and the military was tasked with medically screening folks. At the bases that conducted this screening, contractor’s medical backgrounds were reviewed.
Even with these screening processes, contractors still slip through. Danny Fitzsimons is just one case of a contractor with mental issues making it through the system. There is also the peer review or on the ground management of teams that helps to screen folks as well. If there is an individual that is mentally unstable, they will be identified and removed from contract due to their liability. Everyone has to be a little crazy to do this work, but no one wants to depend their survival on some dude that is mentally gone.
The high musculoskeletal/spine injuries statistic is the one statistic that was intriguing to me. With the use of body armor and how heavy it is, as well as the hours of standing around or driving around wearing it, this can have adverse effects on the body. Even though the armor can save a life, it still can injury a person just because of it’s weight. This is a problem for the military, and for contractors, and back injuries and the pain medications required to deal with those injuries will become very common place as contractors and military continuously work in war zones and wear this stuff. Armor is a paradox of sorts, and not to mention it’s limitations on the mobility of a war fighter. It may save your life, but it will also allow enemy combatants to out run you and give them a chance to fight again.
Now what would be an interesting study is to pick up where they left off and see how things look now(2007 to 2011)? A lot has happened since then. If the study was better targeted and consultants outside of the medical group were asked to help guide the process, then that would be a more thorough and respected study. People will support what they help to create…. –Matt
Experts look at civilians hurt supporting war
February 21, 2011By Stephanie DesmonAfter analyzing data on 2,155 private contractors, diplomats and other civilians supporting war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan who were medically evacuated from combat zones, researchers have found that such civilians are more likely to be evacuated for noncombat-related injuries but more likely to return to work in-country after treatment for these conditions.
Still, the findings of the Johns Hopkins–led research team, published online in CMAJ, the journal of the Canadian Medical Association, note that 75 percent of the nonmilitary group medically evacuated from the war zones to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany between 2004 and 2007 did not return to the field.