Feral Jundi

Friday, June 4, 2010

Maritime Security: Crew Reclaim Ship From Somali Pirates

     Thanks to Gary for sending me this.  The thing that really got me with this, and with Gary, is that this crew was put in this position of fighting for their lives and having to kill these pirates.  We are talking about seaman from all around the world, who are not trained, who are unarmed, and all they wanted to do was work on a boat and feed their families.

     It disgusts me that companies continue this practice of sending their folks into harms way, and not providing adequate protections for them.  They spend thousands of dollars on safety training for their employees, or on life saving gear like rescue boats or dry suits for cold water.  But when it comes to giving their folks the means to protect themselves from piracy attacks, or to contract with a professional security force to protect them, they fall short.  And because there is no protections provided, you have crews like this that had to live with such a horrific experience. (surviving captivity, killing pirates, etc.)  I guarantee that the shipping company CEO’s would be singing a different tune if they had to go through the same experience as this crew.

     Contracting armed security should be required, just like it is required to have safety equipment on these ships.  It is the cost of doing business in today’s violent seas and anything less is unacceptable. –Matt

——————————————————————

Crew reclaim ship from Somali pirates

Jun 3, 2010

The crew of a Libyan-owned cargo ship pounced on their sleeping Somali captors, disarmed the pirates and killed five of them, regaining control of their vessel that had been hijacked almost three months earlier, officials said.

A sixth pirate who survived the attack by the MV Rim crew managed to lock himself in a room and call other pirates to say they had been overpowered before the crew took him hostage, said Abdiaziz Aw Yusuf, the Garacad district commissioner. Garacad is the coastal town near which the MV Rim has been anchored.

A crew member was seriously injured during the struggle, the European Union’s anti-piracy naval force said in a statement. The crew had reported to the force that they had retaken control of the ship on Wednesday morning. The EU said it is believed some of the pirates were killed during the incident.

(more…)

Call To Action: Give Your Input On What Is ‘Inherently Governmental’

     This is a simple one.  If you think your work as a security contractor overseas is not an ‘inherently governmental’ job, then let these folks know what you think.  There is little consensus going on with this debate, and I think the one voice that is missing in this discussion are the guys out in the field who are doing the job. I think security contractors and private industry are capable of doing this work, and have been doing so for awhile.  Government should focus on regulation and law making, and enforce those regulations and laws so private industry can be put in check.-Matt

——————————————————————

Go here in order to submit a comment about what you think is inherently governmental.

*****

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Regulations.gov is your online source for U.S. government regulations from nearly

300 federal agencies.

We are committed to improving your access to and participation in the federal regulatory process. On this site you can:

-Search for a regulation such as a proposed rule, final rule or Federal Register (FR) notice

-Submit a comment on a regulation or on another comment

-Submit an application, petition or adjudication document

-Sign up for e-mail alerts about a specific regulation

-Quickly access regulations that are popular, newly posted or closing soon-directly from the homepage

-Subscribe to RSS feeds by agency of newly posted FR notices

——————————————————————

Inherently governmental rule sparks little consensus

By Robert Brodsky

June 3, 2010

More than 100 individuals and organizations have offered public comments on a proposed rule change that would help clarify the types of government functions that are suitable for outsourcing.

On Tuesday, June 1, the comment period ended for a proposed policy memo by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy that would establish a single definition of inherently governmental functions, or those duties forbidden from outsourcing.

The notice, which was posted in the Federal Register in late March, also instructs agencies to avoid an overreliance on contractors for functions that are “closely associated with inherently governmental” or are “critical” for their missions. Contractors can perform work that fits into these two categories if agencies are capable of providing increased oversight and management, the rule said.

In the past three months, trade groups, labor unions, contracting attorneys and citizens with an interest in government contracting have offered 118 suggestions and comments on the proposal.

(more…)

Friday, May 14, 2010

Iraq: Private Security To Be Used At Australian Embassy

   I am pretty sure that the only groups allowed to bid on this, will be Australian companies.  I could be wrong, but that is usually the case for stuff like this.  So this will be interesting to see who gets the contract and hopefully I will be able to get the job ad up for my Australian readership.

   By the way, it is always funny to see reporters attempt to inject their personal bias into the body of their work.  Calling private security guards at this embassy a bunch of mercenaries, is like calling a hair stylist a prostitute. lol (No offense to hair stylists, and no offense to private security officers….) –Matt

——————————————————————

Mercenaries to guard embassy

BY PHILIP DORLING

13 May, 2010

International mercenaries will take over security of Australia’s embassy in Baghdad as Australia’s residual military commitment in Iraq is wound down over the next two to three years.

Tuesday’s federal budget included the provision of $61.6 million over three years to continue security measures for the Australian embassy and staff in Baghdad $33 million is allocated to be spent in 2010-11 and $26.8 million in the following year.

According to budget papers the funding ”will enable the transition of responsibility for key elements of security from the Australian Defence Force to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade” which will contract a private military company to provide security for the Australian embassy in Baghdad.

Working under Operation Kruger, about 65 defence force personnel provide security and support for the Australian embassy and its staff in Iraq.

(more…)

Friday, April 30, 2010

Afghanistan: Taliban Shadow Government Benefits From Reckless Afghan Private Security

     Local power brokers in Kandahar have worked to maintain this revenue stream by keeping the police force weak, forcing coalition forces to rely on private security companies for protection, the Institute of the Study of War report said.

     That is precisely the type of behavior by local officials that has alienated residents and provided an opening for the Taliban to establish effective control over much of the province.

     Abrahams said he has tried to tell locals that he understands their plight, but he is consistently undermined by the wild shooting.

     “Actions speak louder than words, and the locals see these drugged-out thugs with guns and trucks with ‘The United States’ painted on the side,” said Abrahams. 

*****

   That is how I would have wrote this title for the story below.  It’s kind of funny how the Afghan government was soooo adamant about pulling all the security companies under their control, complete with only issuing licenses to Afghan companies, yet at the same time, these private security companies they control are doing a lot of harm to their government and to the war effort.

   It is also doing a lot of harm to the US and Coalition strategy for the war, all because the Afghans don’t have control over something they said they wanted to control. I guess making money off of the licenses and taxes is all they really cared about?  Meanwhile, we have Afghan companies running through communities and using poor fire discipline, thus causing civilian casualties.

   The final point I want to make, is the ‘shadow government’ that the Taliban are running in places like Kandahar, are totally benefiting from reckless Afghan security companies.  If the government pays the cops crap wages, they moonlight as security contractors. Then they go out with the companies, and when their convoys receive a little fire from a Taliban shooter, and the convoys fire up entire communities with everything they got, that cop is now attached to that incident. Or that convoy forces people off of roads or robs other people or contractors on the roads, and now the Shadow Government has succeeded in making the police and government look weak because they can’t control the companies.   And because the goods on the trucks of the convoys all say ‘Made In The USA’, well then that ties in the actions of these companies to the coalition.

   My advice to General McChrystal and company is to get a handle on this quick. Because the enemy will only continue to exploit this angle.(they have actually been doing this for awhile)  They will also conduct pseudo operations, and pretend to be Afghan police or army, and further attack the people, all with the idea of pinning it on the real government.  This tactic is nothing new, but now that there is such a huge demand for logistics in country to support the surge of troops and contractors, it would be kind of important to take care of this now.

   One solution is to make it mandatory that Afghan companies are bonded.  Hell, nothing motivates a boss more to do things right, than the possibility of losing a lot of money because of poor performance or because of breaking the law/contract. And to ensure they are doing things right, I think there should be a  monitor attached to these convoys.  Be it expats or soldiers, it doesn’t matter.  Just some kind of adult supervision to say ‘yes, these guys are doing it right’ or ‘no, they violated the contract/law and they lose the bond’. That would be a quick down and dirty way of making sure these guys are not negatively impacting the war strategy, and ensuring they are doing a good job. –Matt

————————————————————

Reckless private security companies anger Afghans

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT

April 30, 2010

HUTAL, Afghanistan — Private Afghan security guards protecting NATO supply convoys in southern Kandahar province regularly fire wildly into villages they pass, hindering coalition efforts to build local support ahead of this summer’s planned offensive in the area, U.S. and Afghan officials say.

The guards shoot into the villages to intimidate any potential militants, the officials say, but also cause the kind of civilian casualties that the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has tried repeatedly to stop.

“Especially as they go through the populated areas, they tend to squeeze the trigger first and ask questions later,” said Capt. Matt Quiggle, a member of the U.S. Army’s 5th Stryker brigade tasked with patrolling Highway One, which connects Afghanistan’s major cities.

The troops say they have complained to senior coalition officials and have even detained some guards to lecture them about their conduct, but the problem has continued.

(more…)

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Maritime Security: Obama’s Piracy Executive Order Prohibits ‘Donations’ And Maybe Ransoms?

   Wow, if this is interpreted this way, this would be very significant.  If in fact ransoms were considered ‘donations’, well then private security is now the only option that shipping companies would have.  Stand by for more on this one, and already the companies are jumping on this.  Check out the Marque Star’s press release in support of this new order. –Matt

——————————————————————

Obama’s Pirate Executive Order Sparks Concerns With Shipping Lines

15 April 2010

USA / SOMALIA – Late last night President Barak Obama signed an executive order that forbids American corporations and their overseas subsidiaries from having financial dealings with groups that “…directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Somalia.”

President Obama’s order specifically highlights the problems of piracy in the Indian Ocean, stating that: “I hereby determine…acts of piracy or armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia threaten the peace, security, or stability of Somalia. I…determine that…the making of donations…would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations…”

Though specifically aimed at certain individuals and groups, principally the Islamists and warlords fighting against the Somali government and African Union peacekeeping forces, the order has sparked concern amongst shipping lines that it could be construed as applicable to companies that pay ransoms’ to pirates who hijack their vessels, making them culpable.

Though there is some confusion, companies with US interests who are the victims of Somali piracy are now advised to consult with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Treasury Department before making any payments to hijackers.

You can see the full Presidential Order here.

Link to story here.

 

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress