Feral Jundi

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Letter Of Marque: Call For Private Forces To Fight Pirates

   I found this article over at UPI and I thought it was pretty cool.  One of my goals here at FJ is to explore unique ideas and concepts, such as the Letter of Marque , and see where it ends up.

   This article below highlights several places out there where the idea is popping up, and I am hoping that some more critical thought will be put into this unique way of fighting wars.  You will also recognize many of the references in this article, because I have posted them here under the Letter of Marque category (feel free to use the search on the right, or click on the category on the right). I have no clue who wrote this article, and you can follow the link below and make any comments there. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Call for private forces to fight pirates

May 10, 2010

MOGADISHU, Somalia, May 10 (UPI) — As Somali pirates extend their operation deeper into the Indian Ocean, Western private security firms are seeking to re-establish the centuries-old system of “letters of marque and reprisal” that allows privateers to pursue maritime marauders.

The system was introduced by King Edward III of England in the Middle Ages but it is also on U.S. statute books as Article One, paragraph 8, clauses 10 and 11, of the U.S. Constitution, and in Title 33 of the U.S. Code, paragraphs 385 and 386.

Maj. Theodore Richard, a lawyer in the Commercial Litigation Division of the U.S. Air Force, published a lengthy article in favor of reviving letters of marque in the Public Contract Law Journal in April.

On April 15, 2009, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, advocated the use of letters of marque and reprisal against the Somali pirates. The bills he introduced weren’t passed.

Paul was instrumental in introducing the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 in Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He maintained the hijacking of U.S. airliners constituted air piracy and he wanted to grant the president the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal against specific terrorists.

He raised the issue again on July 21, 2007, but Congress has made no move toward invoking the constitution to combat piracy.

Still, Intelligence Online, a Paris Web site that covers global security issues, reports that “several private security firms” are pressing for the U.S. government and other Western authorities to re-establish letters of marque.

These would sanction private companies to actively hunt down pirates rather than just provide security teams aboard commercial vessels. That would be in line with the wide-scale outsourcing of security missions to private security companies who are active in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in support of U.S. and allied forces.

Allowing armed privateers to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden would supplement U.S. and European naval task forces off Somalia.

(more…)

Friday, April 10, 2009

Industry Talk: David Isenberg’s Final Dogs of War Column

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 5:12 PM

    This sucks, and I really enjoyed reading David’s stuff.  He has done so much for furthering the discussion about our industry, and there will certainly be a void.  I hope he continues to throw out a Dogs of War style story every once in awhile.  So here is the last story. –Matt 

—————————————————————– 

Dogs of War: Lions and contractors and robots. Oh my!

Published: April 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM

By DAVID ISENBERG

WASHINGTON, April 10 (UPI) — This is my final Dogs of War column. Since starting in January 2008, I have covered many different aspects of private military and security contracting, but they have been only a small portion of the total number of issues worth examining.

Like any other issue, there is good and bad news when it comes to contractors doing work that once upon a time people could only conceive of the government doing.

The good news is that despite the often-superficial coverage of the issue, people recognize that the use of contractors is not going away. So rather than wasting time complaining about it, people are dealing with it.

For example, the Obama administration has launched a campaign to change government contracting. In February it introduced a set of “reforms” designed to reduce state spending on private-sector providers of military security, intelligence and other critical services and return certain outsourced work back to government.

Note I wrote “return certain outsourced work back to government.” That is not mere semantics. The Obama administration seems to recognize that contractors are now the American Express card; one does not go to war or do “contingency operations,” to use the favored government euphemism, without them. And if it doesn’t, it will certainly realize it as it conducts its own surge of U.S. military forces to Afghanistan.

(more…)

Friday, February 6, 2009

Industry Talk: PMC 2.0, by David Isenberg

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 7:08 PM

   Great little article by David about the evolution of the industry, with a mention of Combat Operator and Eeben’s blog.  I like the PMC 2.0 phrase, and that would be cool to see that as the new buzzword ‘du jour’.  –Matt

——————————————————————- 

Dogs of War: Private military contractors — mysterious? No.

Published: Feb. 6, 2009 at 3:09 PM

By DAVID ISENBERG

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 (UPI) — A common refrain from many who observe the private military contracting industry is that it is opaque, shadowy, veiled, secretive, hidden, non-transparent, etc. Is this true? Yes and no, but mostly no.

When I first started following this industry in the early 1990s, it really was difficult to get information on it. Partly that was because there were relatively few companies to follow. Three companies garnered most of what little coverage existed: Executive Outcomes of South Africa, Sandline of Great Britain and U.S.-based MPRI. And the first two were not particularly eager to answer press inquiries.

MPRI, whose not-so-modest motto back then was “the greatest corporate assemblage of military expertise in the world” because it was founded and run by relatively high-ranking retired U.S. military officers, escaped that pigeonhole thanks to the efforts of one of its vice presidents, whose openness and charm enabled MPRI to gain enormous publicity for its training efforts in the Balkan wars. But it was an anomaly back then.

(more…)

Friday, November 7, 2008

News: Contractors and Obama, By David Isenberg

Filed under: News — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 10:07 PM

   Well here is that analysis I was talking about.  Check out what David had to say about Obama and contractors.  And as a disclaimer, I did not coordinate this with the guy, so I think it is pretty funny that he came out with this after I mentioned it a couple posts back. I am glad though that someone else besides me, is looking into the industry’s future under Obama. 

   So what is new?  Well, it sounds like Obama doesn’t have an issue with us.  He just wants more accountability, and I actually like that.  I think our industry does need more oversight. And I am not saying that we should be micromanaged to death by the government.  I am just saying give us some direction and some guidance is all.  Spell out exactly the terms, and get some of the ‘gray areas’ out of the industry that tend to give pause to those that have been critical.  The more the government can legitimize and give guidance to our industry, the happier the client(which is the government) will be.  

    I also like the fact that Obama wants to increase funding to DoS.  Today’s wars are not just a military battle.  It also requires a massive diplomatic effort.  And if the military is busy with other stuff, then security for DoS will have to come from contractors. I am sure the WPPS companies out there are pleased with that.

   On the down side, I was not aware of the provisions in the 2009 Defense Authorization Act.  The one I clued in on, was section 832.  It is a call for the military to do the security jobs that contractors have been fulfilling. Or if contractors are needed, that the decision to use us will be based on the discretion of the ‘relevant combatant command’. 

(more…)

Friday, October 31, 2008

Industry Talk: More SOFA Stuff–David Isenberg Reports

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 5:57 PM

     Ok, this is cool.  I am glad that David Isenberg is trying to add some clarity to this thing.  He kind of echoes a few of the points that have been covered here on FJ.  I am just glad that this story is getting the attention it needs, so that guys know what to expect and how to deal with it.  –Head Jundi 

—————————————————————–

Dogs of War: Losing sleep over SOFA

Private military contractors fret over Iraqi-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement

By DAVID ISENBERG

Published: Oct. 31, 2008 at 7:43 PM

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) — If, as now seems possible, Iraq and the United States cannot finalize a Status of Forces Agreement governing U.S. troops there, private military contractors will be sighing in relief.

The agreement, known as SOFA, is basically a document signed by a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces there. The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military issues such as the locations of bases and access

to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. 

At the end of the Cold War, the United States had permanent status of forces agreements with approximately 40 countries. Today the number has grown to more than 90, meaning the United States has agreements with 46 percent of the more than 190 nation-states comprising the world community. 

The Iraq SOFA covers everything from prosecuting violations of law to establishing operational command and a deadline for withdrawal. The United States wanted it to be completed before Dec. 31, when the United Nations mandate, Security Council Resolution 1790, covering the presence of foreign troops in Iraq expires.

Without a signed SOFA, U.S. troops will lack legal authority to remain in Iraq. U.S. officials say they would have to cease operations and confine troops to bases unless some other arrangement, such as an extension of the U.N. mandate, could be worked out.

(more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress