Feral Jundi

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Quotes: Putin Backs ‘Private’ Defense Company Idea

Filed under: Quotes,Russia — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:14 AM

This just popped up on the radar and I thought I would share. Russia already has a defense industry that provides all sorts of equipment and weapons world wide. But you don’t hear too much about Russian PSC’s or PMC’s aside from body guard work in Moscow. But that could change according to this quote below.

With that said, could we see a day where a Russian PMC (with the blessing and quite wink of the state) is contracted to fight and win a war in some region of the world? A victory that would be mutually beneficial for both Russia, and that client?  And like Putin said, it would be  “an instrument in the pursuit of national interests without the direct participation of the state.

Even for this Syria deal, Russia sent military advisers and they are getting some heat for that on the world stage.  Perhaps they are thinking now that maybe a private force would have been a better choice politically?  Or for legal reasons, they can wash their hands of any involvement, just because the state does not have any ‘direct participation’. I also imagine that Russia has been watching how the west uses private industry in it’s current wars, and taking notes.  Interesting…. –Matt

Edit: 04/18/2012- David Isenberg posted an excellent article about this deal. Especially the legal mechanisms that would support or hinder Russia’s move towards more foreign usage of PMSC’s. Check it out here.

 

Putin Backs Private Defense Company Idea
11/04/2012
Russian Prime Minister and president-elect Vladimir Putin on Wednesday supported the idea of private defense companies that would provide protection services and military training programs abroad without the participation of the Russian state.
The idea was proposed by A Just Russia deputy Alexei Mitrofanov during Putin’s report to the lower house of parliament, the State Duma.
Putin said that was “an instrument in the pursuit of national interests without the direct participation of the state.”
“I believe that it should be considered, thought over,” he said.
Story here.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Syria: In Syria, Send In The Mercenaries, By J. Michael Barrett

This perked me up, just because Syria is the new ‘Libya’ when it comes to any kind of western involvement. But involvement is a lot more precarious in this case, and the folks we would be supporting are questionable. And like the piece below mentioned, we tend to arm and train folks that end up turning against us down the line. So the author below presents the alternative, or using mercenaries, as opposed to arming rebels and forever losing control of the weapons we throw at the problem.

What makes this article so interesting to me, is the author. This guy is not some yahoo. He is the CEO of Diligent Innovations and a former ‘Director of Strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council(Feb.-Oct., 2007) , Intelligence Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Senior Analyst for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff‘ . You might also recognize him from all of the interviews he has done on the various cable news shows.

Not only that, but he is a Wikistrat expert. Wikistrat has quite the pool of experts and to be one of them, you have to have some game in the beltway. Some of his fellow Wikistrat experts include such names as John Robb of Global Guerrillas, Dr. Ann Marie-Slaughter (R2P), Dr. Thomas PM Barnett (Sys Admin), Professor Allison Stanger, and the list goes on….

So back to this deal in Syria. I would be curious if this concept of using mercenaries instead of arming folks has been mulled around at Wikistrat?  Or if Michael has actually given this some serious thought on how this would work?

Or it could be just a piece that raises an idea for those to either support or strike down based on it’s merits. From a technical point of view, I guess a company could be called upon to perform offensive operations.  MPRI definitely helped in the planning and strategy for Croatia during the Balkans crisis. Executive Outcomes was contracted to fight and win wars both in Sierra Leone and Angola. So technically, a company or companies could provide this service. (the author mentioned The Flying Tigers, and he gets kudos for that!)

In Libya, contractors and mercenaries were used on both sides of the conflict, and they are still there. Hell, contractors were calling in targets for the air campaign and individuals were joining the rebel army. Here is a quote from Simon Mann about Libya.

In the Libyan revolution further lines of demarcation – between government forces and PMC forces – became more blurred. From Tripoli it has been reported that UK ex-Special Forces were used, in some places, instead of regular troops. This came about because of the uncontrolled and the ‘everywhere’ presence of war correspondents, accredited and otherwise. Their prying eyes made the covert deployment of SAS and SBS troops difficult.

Even so, the need for trained laser designator operators to bring in air dropped laser bombs, with as much precision as possible, had to be met. Therefore designator kits were supplied to ex- UK SF contractors. These were men whose salaries were being paid for by the oil companies, for oil field site security. They were already in country, already on contract.

Even for Syria, there have been reports of contractor involvement. During the whole STRATFOR data breach deal, emails detailed that SCG International has been involved with helping the opposition in Syria.

So I guess my point is that the waters are being tested for how best to approach Syria. Do we do nothing and allow a brutal regime to murder their own people? Do we arm and train the opposition, with the possibility that some day those weapons and training might be used against the west?  Or do we send in mercenaries because sending troops is something a war weary west is not that interested in or willing to pay for?  Or maybe we do nothing at all, and watch a massacre take place. Not a lot of easy answers.

One thing is for sure. If Syria falls, then jihadists would be able to capitalize on the situation.  If weapons and munitions are captured or liberated during the course of the revolution (much like what happened in Libya), they will find their way into other wars and terrorist operations.

Jihadists will also find their way into the politics of Syria, much like how the Muslim Brotherhood gained political market share in Egypt. So basically we would see extremists replace a dictator. The question here is can the west win over a rebel group and gain influence by assisting them, or will we be demonized despite our actions and contributions, just because of the islamic extremist influence within that revolution?  Can we compete in that kind of environment and should we be involved?

Might I also add that Saudi Arabia and GCC nations are getting involved and adding money to the pot. Upper level leadership in the US are getting involved and pushing to do something in Syria. Of course Russia is sending folks to support Assad, and China is showing their support for Assad as well. So things are happening and who knows how this will turn out.

It is also important to bring up this responsibility to protect deal as well. If the west feels it has an obligation to intervene–to stop a massacre, then something more than talk needs to happen. It takes action and the will to make it happen, and it also requires a realistic look at what we want to accomplish strategically in the region. Sending troops is a bridge too far for a war weary, cash strapped, and politically paranoid/sensitive west, and maybe contractors paid by GCC donors is the ticket? I will keep a look out for further industry involvement in Syria and this one will be interesting to follow. –Matt

 

 

In Syria, send in the mercenaries
J. Michael Barrett
April 10, 2012
The world community, including the United States, is at a crossroads about the right steps to forcefully prevent the further slaughter of civilians in Syria. There are many good reasons to intervene — to stop the death, detention and probable torture of any number of innocents; to support the democratic right of people to consent to rule by a freely elected government; and to avoid a repeat of the U.S. inaction that allowed Iran’s dictatorship to prevail in 2009.
There are just as many reasons not to intervene — the sovereignty of nations; the moral hazard of providing U.S. troops where our national interest does not dictate; and the uncertainty about those we would be helping take power. All the while, do-nothing diplomatic talks and easily ignored cease-fires continue to fail because the talking doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
But is there another way — something more effective than merely clamoring for calm, but less direct than intervening militarily or arming and training the rebels?
In fact, there is. Throughout the ages, the answer to such situations has been to raise an army for hire and send in the mercenaries. This was done throughout the great power struggles of the first and second millennia across the globe, and in more recent decades across Africa. Libya’s Gadhafi tried to use mercenaries to defend his regime just last year. We also placed many guns-for-hire in Iraq and Afghanistan, provided by the likes of Triple Canopy and the company formerly known as Blackwater.
Perhaps the most relevant example here is the World War II American Volunteers Group, better known as the “Flying Tigers.” Prior to Pearl Harbor, when America was not yet party to World War II, these combat pilots’ actions were known but not officially endorsed by the White House under President Franklin Roosevelt. They were pure mercenaries, pilots who resigned their U.S. military commissions to serve in a foreign air force for high pay — some received $600 a month in 1941 dollars and with the promise of $500 more for every Japanese plane they shot down.
The pay-for-service model suited the needs of the day. It allowed skilled fighters to side-step the moral and legal hazard of sending uniformed U.S. troops, whose duty is to uphold the Constitution by fighting our enemies, not to intervene in missions that lack a direct national security rationale.
One potential roadblock of note is the Neutrality Act of 1794, a centuries-old congressional effort to ensure the then-fledgling U.S. was not dragged into wars by citizens acting as mercenaries in conflicts where the United States was not engaged. However, this law, rarely enforced, reflects outdated thinking about the modality and nature of declarations of war. It also treats violations as a misdemeanor. If the imperative to save lives is so strong, Congress or President Obama could surely find a path around it, including a waiver or other injunction. Beyond that, the government’s only role would be to work behind the scenes to have Saudi Arabia and other interested nations pick up the tab, much as they did during the process of countering the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Given the perceived imperative to intervene in Syria, but the countervailing duty to respect state sovereignty and the lack of United Nations sanction (due to perpetual vetoes by China and Russia), mercenaries might well be the best prescription, Neutrality Act or no. They would allow the U.S. to avoid arming the locals directly, about whose character and intent we know little.
This would not resolve the underlying question of who comes to power after the regime falls, but it would allow for a humane defense of the Syrian population without committing America officially or putting American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at risk.
J. Michael Barrett, the CEO of Diligent Innovations, is a former Director of Strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council and a former Naval Intelligence Officer.
Link to post here.
—————————————————————-
J.Michael Barrett
Mike is a national security expert and noted author with an extensive background in defense policy, military intelligence, and support to US counter-terrorism operations. His extensive national security credentials include serving as the Director of Strategy for the White House Homeland Security Council, Intelligence Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Senior Analyst for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Feb.-Oct., 2007).
Mike has been interviewed on television and radio by ABC, The Canadian Broadcast Company, Fox News, FRONTLINE, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, The New York Metro News, New York Sun, and The Washington Post. He also is the co-author of two books on security and counter-terrorism (including a New York Times Best Seller) and has authored more than a dozen journal and opinion-editorial articles.

(more…)

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Industry Talk: DOE Security Contractors List, FY 2011

It is very interesting to me that some of the most sensitive stuff and strategically important assets of the US, are guarded by security contractors. From Nuclear Sites, to Laboratories, to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve–private security contractors are who stand guard over this stuff.

The report below is the only report I could find that actually discussed the performance of security contractors. All of the other ones are not available to the public. And most of this stuff is about safety issues.

What I was mostly drawn too is who are the players?  Well for one, Wackenhut, which is owned by G4S, has quite a few contracts with DOE. Did you know about this contract?

The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the selection of Wackenhut Services Inc., Palm Beach, Florida, to provide security services at the Savannah River Site (SRS) here.
The Cost-Plus-Award-Fee type contract has a value of $989 million over ten years, which includes a five-year base period and two option periods of three and two years.

It is also odd to me that this nation’s strategic resources are being guarded by an American company that is owned by a larger foreign company. The largest in the world. So thank you G4S….Wow.

As to jobs, I only found one that was flying and that was for a training position at Bryan Mound.

Now of course you will have to interpret the security contractors listed below. The names presented are what is listed under their organizational codes, but you get the idea. A list like this will help you to hunt down a contractor that you might want to work for, or target a region of interest. The 2005 report has a list of contractors as well, but that is not current. Check it out and if there are any security companies missing, let me know so we can make this list more accurate. –Matt

 

Private security contractors patrol the U.S. Department of Energy's Stategic Petroleum Reserve in Bryan Mound, Texas May 20, 2008.

A 2005 report on security contractors done by DOE.

————————————————–

DOE Security Contractors Fiscal Year 2011

(from injuries and illness table)

Albuquerque–Secure Transportation Div.
ABQ Sec. WSI – OST – Protective Force Tr
ABQ Sec. Innovative Tech. Partnerships
Albuquerque Security Epsilon-OST
DOE National Training Center
BWXT Sec. (Pantex) – Sec. Police Off. I
Wackenhut Services, Inc. – NV
Honeywell FM&T (Kansas) Security
LANL Security – (SOC-LA)
Wackenhut Services – Y-12 Security
Wackenhut – Y-12 Security Subs
BMPC Security Forces
NRF Security Forces–Admin
BMPC-KAPL – Kesselring Security Forces
LM-KAPL – Knolls Security Forces – Secur
Sandia Security Forces – Administration
Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab – Security
Santa Fe Protective Services (WIPP)
Argonne-East Security Force – Security P
BNL Security Forces – Security Police Of
Trinity Protection Services (Fermilab)
Paragon Tech. Serv. (HQ) – Security Offi
Jefferson Lab. Security
Ameritex (NETL) – Security Police Office
INL – BEA, LLC – Security – Security Po
Wackenhut Services – OR Security
West Valley Nuclear Services – Security
Hanford Security
Wackenhut Services, Inc. – SR
Security Subcontractor – SPR

Link to summary here.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

China: Enter The ‘Private Security’ Dragon

During the recent Sudan hostage crisis, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Sudanese troops who engaged in the rescue effort were joined by a dozen armed Chinese private security contractors. While that article and coverage of the issue in the Chinese media didn’t identify where the contractors came from, there’s a strong likelihood they were drawn from the same pool of former security forces personnel that Shandong Huawei recruits from and perhaps even came from the company. Chinese sources say it was the Sudanese military that told news outlets armed Chinese contractors were participating, so it appears that Beijing wants to keep its use of private security contractors out of the public eye.

Lately I have noticed an upward trend in reporting about China and it’s private security. These three articles below help to paint that picture of what I am talking about. We have a situation where China has interests all over the world, their people are getting killed and kidnapped all over the world in higher numbers, and security situations are changing for the worse in some of these places they have set up shop in.

Not only that, but now Chinese businesses are demanding more protection and they have the money to buy it. Especially if Chinese PSC’s charge less than western companies.

This first article below talks about the company Shandong Huawei Security Group. I have never heard of them before, and I could not find a link to their website. Although I doubt I would put a link up to their site for fear of getting some virus or whatever. lol Either way, Shandong Huawei is supposed to be one of their top PSC’s.

The article also described an interesting situation going on in Iraq. As the security situation degrades and there is now a lack of western forces to keep things in check, companies like Shandong Huawei are stepping in to fill that security vacuum in order to protect companies like the China National Petroleum Corporation. Oil is of national interest to China, as it is to many countries, and PSC’s are a part of their strategy to protect those national interests.

In the quote up top it mentioned Sudan and the involvement of security contractors in the rescue of kidnapped Chinese workers. There is oil in the Sudan and China definitely has interest there. And if PSC’s are actively involved in rescue operations like this, then it is not far fetched to imagine PSC’s entering other areas of security which would border more military-like operations. Will we see a company like Shandong Huawei evolve into more of a private military company?

The other thing mentioned in this article is the strategic implications of Chinese PSC’s. Here is the quote:

There are a number of strategic implications of this rise of armed private security providers by Chinese firms. For a start, if a project is in an area unstable enough to require armed private guards, there’s a significant probability of armed encounters between security providers and potentially hostile locals. Coupled with this is the fact that given their police and military backgrounds, the contractors are likely to look and comport themselves like soldiers, and would probably be armed with similar types of weapons. There’s real potential, then, for confusion on the ground in a place like Sudan when a private contractor who looks like a soldier engages rebels or others who then mistake him for an actual member of Chinese government forces. A local whose relative was shot near a Chinese drilling site by a security guard who looks like a soldier is likely to blame Beijing, which could spark additional violence against Chinese interests in the area.

Yep. And if the local insurgency/gang/criminal elements are not getting their cut, then expect these groups to attack these Chinese ventures.

The second article below is very interesting to me because it is written by Chinese journalists and actually discusses the lack of experience that Chinese PSC’s have compared to American PSC’s. That they should ‘study’ American PSC’s….or steal trade secrets about such things. lol Either way, I thought this was cool that the Chinese have recognized the west’s expertise in this area. Check it out.

Calls for security guards from China to accompany workers posted in dangerous areas overseas have increased since kidnappings in Sudan and Egypt underscored the danger workers face as Chinese companies expand globally.
The abductions highlight the urgency to ensure the security of Chinese workers overseas, said Han Fangming, deputy director of the foreign affairs committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference National Committee, on his micro blog.
Han said that there is a need to study how private security contractors in the United States, such as Academi, work and “when the time is right, the government might allow qualified companies” to establish such services…. Another factor to consider is how prepared the security services are to handle dangerous situations.
“I think security guards in China are far from the level of private security contractors like Academi in the US,” Fu said.

Yep. Private security contractors in the US, and our western partners, have all learned many hard lessons over ten years of warfare. If China plans on allowing PSC’s to do this kind of thing in war zones, then yes, they will be looking to all and any lessons learned in order to make that work. It is also a matter of Mimicry Strategy, and whatever works best, will be copied.

The final article discusses the enormity of the Chinese presence throughout the world. It also emphasizes the threat to these citizens and the upward trend of kidnappings. More kidnappings equals more ransoms. More ransoms paid equates to a creation of a kidnapping industry where individuals purposely target Chinese. That is the price China will pay if they plan on setting up shop in these dangerous parts of the world.

The dramatic rise in overseas travel and expatriate work by Chinese was punctuated by the recent kidnappings of Chinese workers in Sudan and Egypt. “Overseas Chinese protection” (haiwai gongmin baohu) has been a critical priority since deadly attacks killed 14 Chinese workers in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2004. Between 2006 and 2010, 6,000 Chinese citizens were evacuated to China from upheavals in the Solomon Islands, East Timor, Lebanon, Tonga, Chad, Thailand, Haiti and Kyrgyzstan.
But a new urgency has arisen in the past year: in 2011, China evacuated 48,000 citizens from Egypt, Libya, and Japan; 13 Chinese merchant sailors were murdered on the Mekong River in northern Thailand in October 2011; and in late January 2012, some 50 Chinese workers were kidnapped in two incidents by Sudanese rebels in South Kordofan province and by Bedouin tribesmen in the north of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
The worldwide presence of Chinese citizens – and the dependencies that generates – will only continue to grow: in 2012, more than 60 million Chinese people will travel abroad, a figure up sixfold from 2000, and likely to reach 100 million in 2020. More than five million Chinese nationals work abroad, a figure sure to increase significantly in the years ahead.

That is a lot of Chinese traveling and working throughout the world! As the word gets out amongst the thugs/terrorists/rebels of the world, we will continue to see this Chinese kidnap and ransom trend increase. That means more protection work, and more hostage rescue or negotiation work for this young Chinese PSC market. So yes, I would speculate that we are witnessing the rise of the Private Security Dragon and who knows where this will lead. –Matt

Enter China’s Security Firms
February 21, 2012
By Andrew Erickson & Gabe Collins
Chinese private security companies are seeing an opportunity as the U.S. withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. But plenty of complications await them.
A security vacuum is developing around Chinese workers overseas. The recent kidnapping of 29 Chinese workers in Sudan (where another worker was shot dead during the abduction) and 25 workers in Egypt has sparked a strong reaction in China. As a result, Beijing is looking to bolster consular services and protection for Chinese citizens working and travelling overseas. On the corporate side, private analysts are urging companies to do a better job of training employees before they are sent abroad. Yet with at least 847,000 Chinese citizen workers and 16,000 companies scattered around the globe, some of them in active conflict zones such as Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, key projects and their workers are likely to require more than just an expanded consular staff to keep them safe.
It’s with an eye on this growing danger that new Chinese private security providers see a business opportunity. Shandong Huawei Security Group appears to be a leader among Chinese security providers, which thus far have predominantly focused on the country’s robust internal market for bodyguard and protective services. Huawei provides internal services, but in October 2010, opened an “Overseas Service Center” in Beijing. The company’s statement on the center’s opening explicitly cites the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and the potential for a security vacuum to result, as key drivers of its decision to target the Iraq market.

(more…)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Media News: As The World Becomes More Dangerous For Reporters, Security Contractors Offer Many Solutions

I am always interested in the various security contracting markets out there, and the media security market is one that has grabbed my interest lately. From providing training to media folks for war zone survival, to actually protecting journalists and reporters in war zones, this industry has potential.

The reason I feel it has potential is that all of these revolutions popping up as a result of the Arab Spring, along with the current wars, are areas that matter to all of the major media players and their viewers. Especially as the cost of fuel rises as a direct result of actions in the middle east. But these areas are extremely dangerous to cover for journalists and reporters.

So basically you have a situation where the networks want the story on the ground, but it is extremely dangerous to send folks in there. But they do send them in there, and sometimes they send their folks in with competent security specialists that can watch their back. But what about the freelance journalists who do not have the money for such protection?

Well for them, the solution is to get trained up and become a one man or woman freelance journalist/security specialist. The problem there is that a freelancer is put into a position where they are more concerned with security of self and their team, as opposed to getting the story.

Some of today’s freelance journalists are actually prior-service. Guys like Michael Yon, who is former SF, are able to navigate the complexities and dangers of a war zone pretty well. They know how military forces work in these conflict zones, and they know what is feasible and what is not in these places.

On the other hand, most freelancers are not prior military. They do not make a lot of money and they expose themselves to a lot of risk in these conflicts. They do not have the backing of a major network and they make their money off of the shot or story or video footage they were able to capture. So cost is a big factor to these guys, and hiring security is expensive.

Which brings me to my next point. Perhaps if freelancers are not able to invest in training or contract the services of a security specialist, then maybe another means of financing could work?  I am talking about profit sharing. To combine freelance journalists with security specialists, and then both can split the profits from whatever material is obtained?

Another idea is to crowd fund trips, much like how Michael Yon operates, and include the security costs in the project. If you have a website and proclaim that you want to report on the situation in Syria, then present the costs of the trip on your website and start working the phone lines as they say? Especially if you are able to tap into some Syrian diaspora that wants the world to see what is happening to their country.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that media become easy targets in these countries. A government that is quelling a rebellion using heavy handed methods, are not keen on the media reporting on those actions. So for a government to target that media and either make their lives difficult or even kill them, is very easy. Especially if that reporter does not have a security specialist watching their back and planning accordingly. The statistics show just how dangerous it has been for journalists, and especially since 2004. Imprisonments have shot up as well this last year and life has become very dangerous for journalists in conflict zones.

So the question I have is if there ‘is’ an increase in the use of security specialists?  I would speculate that yes, there has been an increase in our use. I would also speculate that war zone training has increased over the last couple years. Especially medical training. Perhaps the Committee to Protect Journalists could do a story on that and if anyone has anything else to add about this industry niche, I am all ears. –Matt

 

As Security Field Matures, the Risks Multiply
By Frank Smyth
Less than 20 years ago, the field of journalist security did not exist. “There was no security, no body armor, no training,” said Heather Allan, head of news-gathering for Al-Jazeera English and a former NBC News bureau chief.
In the 1990s, journalists’ deaths in the Balkans and Africa underscored “the need for a systematic approach to journalists’ physical security,” said Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Columbia University-based Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma. The shock of the September 11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made the journalist security field, at least for a time, a growth industry.
Today, the need for safety preparation has never seemed greater. Traditional threats to journalists persist at the same time that new dangers are either emerging or becoming apparent. Sexual assault, civil unrest, organized crime, digital security, and trauma are all recognized challenges to press freedom and safety, and leading news organizations are either modifying the military-oriented training courses, or developing their own security practices and curriculum. Still, money for security training is limited, and employers struggle to adapt their preparation to the myriad dangers. “We’ve quickly had to change our view of security,” said David Verdi, vice president of worldwide news-gathering for NBC News.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress