Feral Jundi

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Industry Talk: Karzai’s Decree Regarding PSC’s And The Buzz On The Forums

     This is a translation that I wanted to put up just so folks have something to reference. But what is really cool is all the buzz on the forums about this one.  Lots of opinions all over the place.

     The photo below is a mystery.  I have no clue if these guys were PSC’s or not.  But what the photo symbolizes is all the years that good men like them spent putting their lives on the line for Karzai. Do you think he even thanked them for their protective services? –Matt

Edit: 08/23/2010 – Tim wrote up a great post on the subject, and has a better translation of the decree.  Check it out here.

—————————————————————–

Karzai

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, center, is surrounded by heavily armed bodyguards as he arrives for a groundbreaking ceremony in Parwan, some 34 miles, 55kms north of Kabul, Monday, March 14, 2005. Karzai was surrounded by dozens of US security personnel as he attended a ceremony of groundbreaking for a road linking the Panjshir Valley to Parwan in the district of Bayan. (AP Photo/Shah Marai, Pool)

—————————————————————–

President Karzai’s decree regarding PSCs in Afghanistan:

For tackling corruption and ensuring security of our citizens and prevention of security irregularities as well as exploitation of arms and military equipment and uniforms by the security companies which has caused some tragic incidents, after some thorough and legal review I am approving the annulment of foreign and national security companies within four months as per the following conditions.

The members of security companies who can meet the military recruitment conditions of provided that they meet the conditions they can join the police forces with or without their registered arms or weapons. And the Interior Ministry is obliged to annul it within four months from today.

For foreign companies who are registered with IM, if they agree, then the IM, Def Min and NDS will buy their weapons and the resident visas of the foreign members will be cancelled. If the companies do not agree to sell their arms their resident visas will be cancelled and they can leave the country with their arms.

Those companies who are not registered with IM their arms will be confiscated.

Embassies or diplomatic offices, NGOs who are operating in Kabul and provinces can still use their own security personnel within their premises. They should not be visible outside their premises. The number and conditions for this will be spelled out by the IM. The MOI’s must take charge of the external security of embassies,NGOs in Kabul and other provinces.

It is the MOI’s task to implement this decree.

——————————————————————

(You must sign up to read a few of these forum discussions)

SOCNET Forum discussion here.

Tactical Forum discussion here.

Lightfighter Forum discussion here.

Secure Aspects Forum discussion here.

Close Protection World Forum discussion here.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Maritime Security: Attack On Tanker In Strait Of Hormuz Shows Why Armed Security On Ships Is Essential

The lesson learned from the terrorist attack on the USS Cole – the bombing in Yemen’s Aden port in 2000 killed 17 sailors on the U.S. Navy destroyer – applied equally to supertankers, cargo vessels or cruise ships, he said: allowing small vessels alongside carries significant risks.

 Murray said companies were for various reasons reluctant to consider employing armed personnel, apparently believing security should be left to navies.

 “We believe that national navies should be reinforced by a protective presence on privately-owned ships for the same reason that banks and other firms that deal with money and money transfer use armed protective personnel who can react immediately during an event and before the local police can intervene,” he said.  

*****

     I don’t know how many other ways I can communicate the urgency here.  Today’s navies cannot be everywhere at once.  They were not able to stop this attack on a Japanese Tanker in the Strait of Hormuz (SoH), and it was pure luck that these booger eaters were not successful.  Look at the photo below?

     Let’s discuss what is at stake here. If 40 percent of the world’s oil transits through the SoH , then why are we not doing everything that is necessary to insure the SoH is not endangered by an attack on shipping like this again? If these guys destroy, or even capture a boat and purposely sink it in the SoH, that would have immense repercussions on the global economy.  A global economy already on edge and in trouble with recession. Because an attack in the SoH, would be an attack that would drive up oil prices and thus drive fuel prices through the roof.

     Now going back to the most effective strategy, and for that matter the most cost effective strategy to deal with this.  A real push by private and public leadership needs to be focused on getting the shipping industry up to speed on protecting itself.  Every boat going through the SoH should be required to have armed security that can adequately defend itself from not just one attack, but from a ‘swarming‘ attack.  Because knowing how Al Qaeda and company operate, they will more than likely attempt this type of attack again in the future and modify the attack for a better chance of success. They are learning and they will apply those lessons.

     As for the cost effectiveness? That comes from standing down Navies and limiting them to a quick reaction capacity for ships that are in trouble, as well as having them continue anti-piracy operations. Keep them on the offense. But in terms of trying to protect all ships everywhere via escort is an impossibility, and far too costly.(although I would still recommend escorting through choke points if possible, much like with the SoH)  Have the shipping industry protect it’s own assets, much like banks or jewelry stores hire security to protect their assets. A super tanker is a costly thing, with an equally valuable payload, yet companies try to go cheap when protecting these two things?  That dynamic needs to change, and having the Navies of the world allow that change to happen takes telling the shipping industry that they need to absorb this cost and take their fair share of the load in this endeavor. Besides, how does a destroyer or aircraft carrier meet the demands of the ‘many and small‘ with today’s enemies? We are talking about guys in small boats, armed with AK’s or explosive cargo?

     The other angle that I keep thinking about is the concept of Qursaans or Jihadist Privateers.  Al Shabab obviously has contacts with some of the best pirates in the world operating off the coast of Somalia.  To tap into this industry and use it for other means would not be a stretch.  A Somali pirate captain, who was the best in his industry, could take down one of these commercial ships in the SoH and then hand it, along with the hostages over to Al Qaeda.  That’s probably if Al Qaeda offered a significant bounty for such a thing. The point being is that Al Qaeda could potentially take control of a ship and either ram it into another ship, sink it in place by blowing it and it’s hostages up, or using it as a weapon against a port (one that deals in oil). The imagination is the only limit.

     Time is also not on our side.  Jihadists know that economic problems throughout the west makes this the most opportune time to attack.  That is why I declare that this is of utmost importance for armed security to be a top priority for today’s shipping, and especially those that are running through the SoH. There should be no more debate about it, no more conflicting expert analysis, no more talk about cost, or legal debates about the right of self defense on the high seas. Because at the end of the day, all of that will be shadowed by the massive economic destruction caused by such an attack or attacks.  How long will ‘wishing’ and ‘hoping’ away reality last?-Matt

Tanker Damage Caused by Attack, Inquiry Finds

Act Now on Terror Threat to Key Oil Routes, Say Experts

—————————————————————–

In this photo released by the Emirates News Agency (WAM), damage is seen on the side of the M. Star supertanker as it arrived at Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday, July 28, 2010. (AP Photo/Emirates News Agency)

*****

Tanker Damage Caused by Attack, Inquiry Finds

By ROBERT F. WORTH

August 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — Investigators in the United Arab Emirates said Friday that a terrorist attack caused the mysterious damage a Japanese oil tanker suffered last week as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, raising fears of future attacks in the narrow channel that serves as a passageway for shipping crude oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

The damage to the tanker — which an Emirati official said was caused by “homemade explosives” aboard a dinghy — was not considered serious, and there was little immediate impact on oil markets on Friday.

But the news instantly fanned worries about shipping security. If confirmed, the attack would be the first of its kind in the volatile strait, which has long been a focal point for tensions with Iran, just across the water from the Arabian Peninsula.

About 17 million barrels of oil a day pass through the strait, close to 40 percent of the oil shipped by tankers worldwide.

The account of the attack came in a report published Friday by the state-run Emirates news agency WAM, from an Emirati coast guard official.

Earlier this week, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a militant group with ties to Al Qaeda, claimed it had carried out a suicide attack against the tanker, the M. Star.

American officials on Friday would not confirm that the episode was a terror attack, but one intelligence official said that the damage to the tanker — a large square dent on the hull’s port side — was “from an external explosion.” The official said it remained unclear whether the group taking credit for bombing the tanker was indeed involved.

Lt. John Fage, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, said that a team of Navy divers had recently traveled to Fujairah to assess the ship’s damage.

The Japanese government was conducting its own investigation. Japan’s transportation minister, Seiji Maehara, said at a news conference in Tokyo that the government had obtained samples taken from the damaged portion of the tanker and would “conduct analyses for all possible causes, without prejudice.”

The ship, loaded with two million barrels of oil, was heading toward Japan on July 28 when a sudden force shattered windows, ripped off deck railings and blew off a lifeboat, in addition to punching the dent into its black-and-red hull. One crew member was slightly hurt.

(more…)

Friday, August 13, 2010

Industry Talk: NATO Slack Forces US To Send More Soldier And Contractor Trainers To Afghanistan

     This story is interesting for a couple of reasons.  Awhile back I wrote a post that dealt with this type of problem specifically, and how contractors are the ones who will be taking up the ‘slack’.  Matter of fact, that is part of the title of the post. Afghanistan: So As NATO Falters Or Members Leave, Will Contractors Pick Up The Slack?

     One thing that struck me was the numbers mentioned in this story about how many contractor trainers are over there now.  I think that number is much larger than the 2,000 that is mentioned.  I could be wrong, and I only say this because DoD really hasn’t been that accurate with their contractor accounting.  Still, 2,000 contractor trainers is pretty significant.

     The other part that I wanted to mention, was the idea that it takes NATO so long to spin up the required amount of manpower, and yet there was no mention on how fast it takes contractors to be spun up and sent over.  Of course NPR did not want to minimize the capability of the US military, but in all honesty, private industry is the winner for speed of deployment and quantity needed when it comes to training stuff.  Hell, the only thing that slows down contractor deployments, is the lack of government CORs needed to manage the whole contract to ensure it is properly carried out. lol But in this race, we excel.

     The three month training deployment that the 82nd Airborne finished was pretty cool too.  Three month deployments are nice, and private industry is the king of utilizing short deployment contracts like this.  Could we see the military do more of these types of deployments?  I know the troops would probably dig it.

     I also wanted to give a big thanks and pat on the back to all of those contractors out there who are a part of this massive training effort in the war.  You are an essential part of today’s strategy, and today’s war planners and strategists might not appreciate what you do, but I certainly appreciate the hard work you are doing.

     My guess is that there will be more work coming too, so definitely keep up an eye on all the forums and job boards if you are planning to get into the training side of the business. –Matt

——————————————————————

NATO Slack Forces U.S. To Send Afghanistan Trainers

by Tom Bowman

August 13, 2010

American soldiers — and even private contractors — are spearheading the effort to build an Afghan army and police force, so American and NATO troops can one day leave. But Pentagon officials and military officers say NATO nations still aren’t doing enough.

A few weeks ago, hundreds of artillery troops and air defense artillery soldiers from Fort Sill in Oklahoma and Fort Campbell in Kentucky started heading over to Afghanistan. They weren’t part of the so-called surge in combat troops. Instead, Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed orders for them to work as trainers because European nations were too slow in helping out.

“We’re still not getting NATO able to force-generate and deploy forces in the numbers that we need,” says Army Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, who leads the training effort in Afghanistan. “So Gates said, ‘OK then, I’m going to give you another unit.’ “

It was the second time this year Gates said OK to more American trainers because NATO wasn’t picking up the slack. An 800-soldier battalion from the 82nd Airborne Division just got back from Afghanistan on a three-month training mission, designed to serve as a “bridge” to more NATO troops.

But with the NATO troops still not arriving, the troops from Oklahoma and Kentucky were sent — for a year.

That’s annoying some members of Congress.

“NATO members who for whatever reason do not send additional combat troops or who intend to reduce their combat troop presence in the near future should at least be willing to provide trainers who operate away from the heavy fighting,” Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said at a recent hearing.

NATO is willing — to a point. It has sent about 900 trainers to work with Afghan soldiers and police. The U.S. has sent more than twice that number. American private contractors have sent 2,000.

(more…)

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Industry Talk: DoS Faces Skyrocketing Costs As It Prepares To Expand Role In Iraq

     Officials in Washington said that the Defense and State cuts were interconnected in several ways, including the expectation that the Iraqi military could assist in providing security for an increased American civilian presence as the U.S. military relinquishes that task.

     But while Iraqis are providing some help, officials said they were not yet comfortable depending on them. “We want to work with both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in bolstering our security,” a senior administration official said. “That has to be worked out in terms of the availability of trained personnel, and it will take time to achieve it.

“I’m not saying it’s never going to happen. I’m just saying it’s not going to happen tomorrow.” 

*****

     You guys think? lol What is interesting about what is going on now, is everyone on the hill is looking at things they can cut. And if defense is getting cut, all those congressmen who will lose jobs for constituents back in their districts because of these defense cuts, will certainly lash out to make sure others feel the pain. So of course they will attack budgeting for other programs that are not as protected as defense.

     But reality dictates.  The quote up top is the one thing that I keep thinking about. Can we depend upon the Iraqis to protect the DoS in Iraq?  Or better yet, why have the DoS in Iraq in the first place, if they will not have the funding to move off the bases (which would require ‘dependable’ security).  Obviously these requests for security related programs and equipment is necessary in DoS’s view, because they do not feel they could depend upon the Iraqis. The cheapest option would be to depend upon the Iraqis, but in this case, the Best Value option would be to take all things into consideration, and get their own capability.

     The question is, can they sell this to congress?  Because instead of going cheap on security, it sounds to me like they are cutting bases and programs.  The only place they are going cheap for security, is cutting the fortification process for some Iraqi police stations. So yeah, the smart thing to do is not even open up a base if you cannot afford proper security for it.  That also cuts into the overall mission in Iraq that DoS had in mind, which is essential to getting Iraq to a point of stability and good governance. Either way congress goes with this, State will always have to default to ensuring security is at it’s optimum.  Especially if congress will not assign more troops to Iraq for DoS protection duties. –Matt

——————————————————————-

State Dept. faces skyrocketing costs as it prepares to expand role in Iraq

By Karen DeYoung and Ernesto LondoñoAugust 11, 2010

As the last U.S. combat troops prepare to leave Iraq this month, the State Department is struggling to implement an expanded mission that it has belatedly realized it might not be able to afford.

Beginning in September, the State Department will take over all police training in Iraq from coalition military forces, and it has proposed replacing its current 16 provincial reconstruction teams spread across the country with five consular offices outside Baghdad.

But since planning for the transition began more than two years ago, costs have skyrocketed and the money to pay for them has become increasingly tight. Congress cut the State Department’s Iraq request in the 2010 supplemental appropriation that President Obama signed late last month; the Senate Appropriations Committee and a House subcommittee have already slashed the administration’s $1.8 billion request for fiscal 2011 operations in Iraq.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the outgoing commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and other U.S. officials are urging lawmakers to reconsider their plans, citing concerns that waning resources could jeopardize tenuous security gains.

“We can’t spread ourselves so thin that we don’t have the capacity to do the job in the places where we put people,” said Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew, who has told Congress that State will not deploy civilians where it cannot protect them. “If we don’t put people in a place where they have mobility, where they can go out and meet with the people and implement their programs,” he said, “there’s very little argument for being in the place we send them.”

The State Department has signaled in recent weeks that it will need up to $400 million more than initially requested to cover mushrooming security costs, but lawmakers seem in no mood to acquiesce.

(more…)

Monday, August 9, 2010

Iraq: Al Qaeda In Iraq Offers Cash To Lure Back Sahwa Fighters

    Nowadays, the government pays the salaries of its estimated 650,000-strong police and army on time, including the estimated 20,000 Sahwa fighters who have been assimilated into the security forces.

    But the remaining fighters on the government payroll go without their checks, in some cases for as long as three months. The government cites lack of funds or bureaucratic snags for the delays.

    Another Sahwa complaint is that the government detained scores of its leaders on terrorism charges last year. Although most detainees were released — often because of U.S. pressure — the arrests were seen as a humiliation. 

*****

     You know, I don’t blame these guys for being pissed off.  These were the saviors of the surge, the Sons of Iraq, the Anbar Awakening!  But then we go and allow Iraq to screw it all up and treat these guys like dirt.  Yet again, the market of force dictates.  If you don’t pay your people as much or more than your competitor in pay or benefits, or treat them poorly, then you will lose that contractor/soldier to your competitor who understands these very simple business principles.

     Now there is always the idea that Sahwa guys are using this as a means of leverage. Nothing like a so called ‘statement’ from AQ that they are trying to lure people away with better salary, to put a little fire under Iraq’s ass about paying these guys.  But I tend to go with the option that it is true, and that AQ is recognizing a deficiency within the Iraqi government and trying to exploit it. (go figure)

     There is another reason why we should pay attention to this.  I don’t care what anyone says. If AQ is even able to get a hundred guys back on their team, that is 100 booger eaters we will have to deal with as the war transitions into this new phase.  That means more mortar and rocket attacks, more IED’s, more assassinations, and everything else you can think of that AQ loves to do at their parties.

     The other thing to remember is all of these Sahwa fighters know exactly what the Iraqi military is capable of now. There has been plenty of time for them to observe and feel this stuff out as guards.  They also wouldn’t have the US to worry about because of this congressionally mandated troop presence in Iraq of 50,000 folks.  All AQ has to do is put the word out and pay the Sahwa tribes a decent wage, and tell them how cool they are with a couple of ‘hey buddy, we will be your friends.. wink, wink’.

     Not only that, but these Sahwa fighters are also dealing with the Plomo O Plata Effect as well.  AQ has certainly been assassinating these guys, and providing plenty of plomo or ‘lead’ for the tribes to think about. Pffft. –Matt

——————————————————————-

Al-Qaida in Iraq offers cash to lure former allies

By HAMZA HENDAWI

August 7th, 2010

BAGHDAD — Al-Qaida in Iraq has begun offering cash to lure back former Sunni allies angry over the government’s failure to give them jobs and pay their salaries on time, according to Sunni tribesmen and Iraqi officials.

The recruitment drive adds to worries that the terror network is attempting a comeback after the deaths of its two top leaders in April and is taking advantage of a summer of uncertainty. The political stalemate in Baghdad is entering its sixth month after inconclusive elections, just as the U.S. military is rapidly drawing down its forces.

Al-Qaida’s strategy is to provoke the Shiite majority into launching revenge attacks — a development that could re-ignite open warfare, split the Iraqi security forces along sectarian lines and cement al-Qaida’s leadership role among Sunnis.

But if the extremists are unable to win back their former Sunni allies, it would be difficult for them to rebound as a significant threat — though al-Qaida could continue to be a deadly nuisance for years to come.

Al-Qaida’s overtures in recent weeks are notable because its militants have killed hundreds of former allies over the past two years, setting off blood vendettas between the Sunni extremist group and others in the Iraqi Sunni community. Many former insurgents also disliked al-Qaida’s imposition of a strict interpretation of Islam in areas under its control.

But tribesmen said the need for cash to feed their families is pushing some lower-ranking former al-Qaida in Iraq members to rejoin the terror group — and that al-Qaida’s presence is growing in Anbar province west of the capital.

“The government must help us counter the resurrection of al-Qaida in Anbar,” warned Mahmoud Shaker, an influential tribesman from the province’s Habbaniyah district.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress