Feral Jundi

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Publications: UN Use Of Private Military And Security Companies– Practices And Policies, By Åse Gilje Østensen

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this one. Great little paper and the real value here is all the history between the UN and private military and security companies listed in this thing. Here is a snippet about PAE in Africa which I thought was interesting.

PMSCs in UN humanitarian operations 
…..The role played by PAE in MONUC serves as a more recent illustration of  how  a  PMSC  has  been  deployed  in  a  UN  peace  operation.  In  June  2004  Congolese students released a wave of violence in central and eastern parts of the DRC in protest at the UN mission’s failure to prevent atrocities in Ituri  province.  The  frustration  of  the  Congolese  civil  war  was  directed  towards  UN associated  personnel  and  facilities.  PAE  was  an  integral  part  of  the  UN  operation.  It  ran  six  airfields  for  the  mission  and  its  employees  drove  UN  vehicles  and  were  considered  UN  workers  by  locals  –  and  hence  were  also  subject  to  attacks.  The  violence  in  Kisangani  included  burning  the  UN  headquarters  in  the  city  to  the  ground,  UN  staff  housing  was  attacked  and  burned,  and  over  70  UN  vehicles  were  stoned  and  set  ablaze.  As  the  UN  military  contingent  withdrew,  300  UN  staff  fled  to  the  local  airport  where  they  demanded  emergency  evacuation  from  the  city,  fearing  they  would  be  killed  by  the  rioting  mobs.  PAE  workers  prepared  for  and  carried  out  the  evacuation  of  the  UN  staff,  while  the  PAE  teams  stayed  behind  to complete their  contract.  This  example  in  particular illustrates a fundamental  dependency  on  commercial  companies  for  essential  tasks  in  certain  peacekeeping  operations, and  suggests  that  at  times private contractors may face more risks than UN personnel. 

The other thing that I liked about the paper is that it showed the hypocrisy of the UN and their view of this industry. Here they have the UN Working Group on Mercenaries which criticizes everyone for using PMSC’s, and yet in the same breath, the UN had companies like Executive Outcomes on their vender list. Or they use PMSC’s all over the world to help secure operations and protect personnel.

Anyway, here is the paper and definitely check it out. Let me know what you think in the comments section. –Matt

 

UN Use of Private Military and Security Companies: Practices and Policies, By Åse Gilje Østensen

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Publications: Journal Of International Peace Operations, November-December 2011

Filed under: Maritime Security,Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 8:34 PM

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Publications: From Dogs Of War To Soldiers Of Peace, By Stephen Wittels

Filed under: Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 3:17 PM

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper. He does a fantastic job of finding the really interesting publications out there that need to be read and discussed. It should also be noted that this particular piece won the 1st Prize in the Awards For Excellence contest at the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies back in 2010. Pretty cool.

As to the paper itself, the point of it is to address the problem that the UN has in getting member states to contribute quality forces. Or the problem the UN has in getting enough troops that are capable enough to do the job. So a quantity and quality problem, and a possible solution to address that. The paper argues that PMC’s could be the solution to the quantity and quality problem that the UN is up against.

Contractors are also politically acceptable, just because no one cries when we are killed. With member states, when they send their military units to the UN for peacekeeping duties, and that mission goes horribly wrong and many troops are killed, then that becomes politically sticky for those leaders of those states to deal with. Tragedies in peacekeeping could actually force states to pull out troops, or a mission might be too dangerous, and no states want to contribute forces–all because those missions are threats to the careers of politicians in those contributing nations. That is reality, and PMC’s are one way to mitigate that reality.

Or worse, you get states that have poor and corrupt leaders who view their military as a way to make money by pimping them out to the UN. They could care less about taking care of their military, or accomplishing the mission/providing a good service. What matters to them is getting paid by the UN, and then letting the UN and the other member states figure out how to take care of their prostituted military. Meanwhile, those poor leaders also rip off their soldiers and siphon off their pay.  Pfffft.

Now of course I have cursed the UN in the past, just because they seem to cause more problems than fix problems in these countries. But it is also important to note that a properly equipped and armed professional force with a well defined mission can make all the difference in the world.  So if the UN wants to go down this path and have it succeed, then it will first have to square away the way it does business. It will have to first accept that PMC’s can do this kind of work, and then they will have focus on lessons learned within their organization and within the current wartime contracting lessons learned by the west. (or at least trying to learn…lol)

In other words, they can build a model contracting system, but it will take reaching out to other country’s experiences, other industries and companies, and ‘building a snowmobile’ out of all of these lessons and ideas. Because the really hard and costly lessons that the US has experienced, could totally help the UN form a sound contracting system that delivers the services they want and need.

Another point I wanted to bring up is that in my opinion, the optimum contracting mechanism that best mitigates the principal agent problem is the ‘best value’ contracting method. The lowest priced, technically acceptable contracting mechanism is a horrible way to do business, and it is a ‘race to the bottom’.  So instead of getting poor troops from member states, you will replace them with poor PMC’s if you go this route.

Furthermore, you must have a professional contractor management force that actually produces the correct ratio of management per contract. Please do not assign one guy to manage billions of dollars and thousands of people and multiple contracts. A division of labor is vital to this effort, and those people tasked with watching these contracts need to know what they are doing and what they are looking for. Like I said, the lessons are there if anyone is willing to study this stuff.

Oh, and why was there no mention of the excellent work that Executive Outcomes did in Sierra Leone, or the cost effectiveness of that PMC, versus the total waste of UN manpower and money to do the same job there? (see the graphic above) Or where was there any mention of the UN calling Executive Outcomes and asking for help and a quote on services for dealing with the Rwanda Genocide crisis back in the nineties? My point here is that the UN should be talking with men like Eeben Barlow, and asking exactly the best way to partner and work with such companies like EO. Who knows, the UN could have actually stopped the Rwandan Genocide if they would have hired a company like EO?

I guess the final deal I want to talk about is the global economy. Right now, there are austerity measures being implemented throughout the world, and the availability of force for the UN and it’s member states is decreasing because of it. The UN will have less money and less force to work with under the current constraints of that economy, and missions will suffer because of it. That’s unless they get creative and actually look to private industry as a way to save money and provide a force with capability. I believe private industry can be a great service to the UN, but that all goes out the window if the UN does not set this up correctly or fails to manage these contracts properly. –Matt

 

From Dogs of War to Soldiers of Peace: Evaluating Private Military and Security Companies as a Civilian Pro…

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Publications: State Department’s QDDR And Private Security Contractors

The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) is a sweeping assessment of how the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) can become more efficient, accountable, and effective in a world in which rising powers, growing instability, and technological transformation create new threats, but also new opportunities. At its core the QDDR provides a blueprint for elevating American “civilian power” to better advance our national interests and to be a better partner to the U.S. military. Leading through civilian power means directing and coordinating the resources of all America’s civilian agencies to prevent and resolve conflicts; help countries lift themselves out of poverty into prosperous, stable, and democratic states; and build global coalitions to address global problems.

I just went through the QDDR and tried to find all the parts that talked about security contractors. They talk about contractors in general, and from what I gather there really isn’t anything new or radical about DoS’s position. They still want to use more federal civilians to do this work or to supervise contractors, and they want to increase and improve upon contractor oversight. And I think they are doing that. Hell, they have plenty of reports and lessons learned to go off of.

What is important to point out though is that State is wanting to do more forward looking and strategic planning, just so budgeting could reflect that. That is good, because companies can then plan accordingly for that kind of strategic planning. It adds more stability to the process, and it allows companies to better prepare for what State or USAID really need.

Along those lines, I posted a brief introduction to State’s new bureau below. It is called the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations or CSO. This is the group that will:

-Get ahead of change. While the scale and types of future crises cannot be predicted, the complex nature and cascading effects of 21st century challenges require a more forward-looking State Department. CSO will support the State Department’s ability to anticipate major security challenges by providing timely, operational solutions.

-Drive an integrated response. CSO will build integrated approaches to conflict prevention and stabilization by linking analysis, planning, resources, operational solutions, and active learning and training. The bureau will call on its civilian responders to deploy in a timely manner to areas of instability in order to bring the right mix of expertise to each unique situation.

-Leverage partnerships. CSO will work with a range of non-governmental and international partners to prevent conflict, address sources of violence, build on existing resiliencies, and promote burden-sharing. In particular, CSO will encourage greater involvement of local civil society – including women, youth, and the media – to prevent and respond to conflict.

State has also recognized that we are experiencing a very fast moving and complex world environment right now. The Arab Spring, the global economy, wars, and revolutions in the various countries of the middle east and world are opening new opportunities for the US government. It takes a flexible ‘smart power’ approach to take advantage of that. Contractors are a big part of that flexible smart power approach.

We are also crucial to filling vacuums of capability and security. Iraq is a prime example. Because of politics in Iraq and in the US, US troops are no longer welcome. But in order to insure our investment of blood and treasure in Iraq doesn’t go to waste, and for our strategic interest in the region to continue to be met, it is vital to maintain a presence and apply that smart power there. DoS used to rely on a combination of the military and their security contractors to provide the security necessary to perform their diplomatic missions outpost security. Now security contractors, with Diplomatic Security personnel managing that effort, will have to accomplish the task. And the insurgency in Iraq is still active, and Iran is still supplying weapons to opposition groups. In other words, the troops might be gone, but the danger of attacks are still there.

As to interesting points about private security contractors, I thought this one was interesting:

-Video recording systems and tracking systems installed in vehicles.

I just think it is very interesting that Erik Prince was pushing for video cameras in the vehicles, way before the Nisour Square incident, and State fought that. Now of course, video cameras in vehicles is policy. Which is great, because now there will be an official video record that can be presented in regards to the performance, good or bad, of a security contractor and their team. The video does not lie, and it will eliminate the ‘he said, she said’ game. Plus it will help in a court of law, much like how they are used in law enforcement.

And in a world where security contractors can easily be thrown under the bus based on politics or whatever, a tape of an incident could make all the difference in proving a security contractors actions were sound and based on a solid threat. Or to prove that ‘yes, the motorcade was fired upon first, and here is the video to prove it’. A tape can also help to get rid of poor contractors, or can add a better picture of the incident for an after action review. Although we will see how it is used, good or bad, and only time will tell.

Which brings me to my next point. I know how important these guys are, everyone in this industry knows how important security contractors are, and State/USAID knows just how important we are. Too bad the public doesn’t know this, because no one in State or USAID promotes how important we are to the press or public? A great example was the silence from DoS about the whole Kabul Embassy attack?  Contractors definitely saved the day there, but the public hasn’t a clue about that performance or effort.

I guess Secretary Clinton’s new policy on armed guards on boats is a start, but I definitely would like to see these agencies give more of an effort to recognize the good efforts and sacrifice of the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend them? Or at least acknowledge just how important we really are to their mission and strategic goals? – Matt

 

From the QDDR on Private Security Contractors
Enhance and improve private security contractor oversight and accountability.
State uses private security contractors to help meet the extraordinary security requirements in critical threat and non-permissive environments.  Through operational changes already implemented and an examination conducted as part of the QDDR, State is ensuring proper management, oversight, and operational control of the private security contractors we deploy overseas.  We institutionalized many of these changes through the new Worldwide Protective Services contract awarded in September 2010, which incorporates lessons learned to ensure that private security contractors perform their requirements in a professional, responsible, culturally sensitive, and cost effective manner.  Specific steps we have taken include:
Ensuring professionalism and responsibility through improved direct oversight of security contractor personnel:
-Direct hire Diplomatic Security personnel directly supervise protective motorcades;
-Diplomatic Security personnel reside at off-site residential camps in Afghanistan;
-Revised mission firearms policies strengthen rules on the use of force and new less-than-lethal equipment fielded to minimize the need for deadly force; and
-Video recording systems and tracking systems installed in vehicles.
Improving the image of the security footprint through enhanced cultural sensitivity:
-Mandatory cultural awareness training for all security contractors prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan;
-Revised standards of conduct, including a ban on alcohol; and
-Interpreters included in protective security details.
Achieving greater efficiencies through new contract terms:
-One set of terms and conditions, enhancing the ability to provide appropriate and consistent oversight;
-Reduced acquisition timelines;
-Larger number of qualified base contract holders, thereby increasing competition and controlling costs;
-Timely options in the event a company fails to perform;
-More efficient program management compared to multiple, stand-alone contracts; and
-Computerized tracking of contractor personnel to aid in reviewing personnel rosters used to support labor invoices.
Page 183 and 184
—————————————————————-
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) advances U.S. national security by driving integrated, civilian-led efforts to prevent, respond to, and stabilize crises in priority states, setting conditions for long-term peace.

(more…)

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Publications: Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 4th Quarter FY 2011

The big news here is that there are 52,700 DoD contractors in Iraq, which represents a 19% decrease from the 3rd quarter of this year. They predict that there will be around 14,000 to 15,000 DoD and DoS contractors through FY 2012.

For Afghanistan, there are currently 101,800 DoD contractors and this represents a 9.3% increase from the 3rd quarter of this year. Local nationals make up 49.8% of the DoD contractor workforce. –Matt

 

Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 4th Quarter FY 2011

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress