PDA

View Full Version : PMC / Mercenaries in Iraq (catch all)



SWJED
12-04-2005, 10:05 AM
... is a consideraton in all future Small Wars. For good or bad, this is an issue we must address in planning for and executing operations. I'll start this discussion by linking to a 4 Dec. Los Angeles Times article - Private Security Guards in Iraq Operate With Little Supervision (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-guards4dec04,0,6399889.story?coll=la-home-headlines).


Private security contractors have been involved in scores of shootings in Iraq, but none have been prosecuted despite findings in at least one fatal case that the men had not followed proper procedures, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Times.

Instead, security contractors suspected of reckless behavior are sent home, sometimes with the knowledge of U.S. officials, raising questions about accountability and stirring fierce resentment among Iraqis.

Thousands of the heavily armed private guards are in Iraq, under contract with the U.S. government and private companies. The conduct of such security personnel has been one of the most controversial issues in the reconstruction of Iraq...

Jedburgh
12-04-2005, 03:21 PM
... is a consideraton in all future Small Wars. For good or bad, this is an issue we must address in planning for and executing operations.
The Army did publish a Field Manual, FM 3-100.21 Contractors on the Battlefield (http://www.afsc.army.mil/gc/files/fm3_100x21.pdf), back in Jan 03 that gives a bit of guidance. However, the use of contractors in a wide variety of critical roles has expanded so much since that time that it really does need a serious re-look.

Edit to add: This RAND study, published earlier this year, also takes a pretty good look at the issue:

How Should the Army Use Contractors on the Battlefield? Assessing Comparative Risk in Sourcing Decisions (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG296.pdf)

SWJED
01-25-2007, 09:08 AM
25 January LA Times commentary - Our Mercenaries in Iraq (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scahill25jan25,0,7395303.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail) by Jeremy Scahill.


... Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll...

From Iraq and Afghanistan to the hurricane-ravaged streets of New Orleans to meetings with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger about responding to disasters in California, Blackwater now envisions itself as the FedEx of defense and homeland security operations. Such power in the hands of one company, run by a neo-crusader bankroller of the president, embodies the "military-industrial complex" President Eisenhower warned against in 1961.

Further privatizing the country's war machine — or inventing new back doors for military expansion with fancy names like the Civilian Reserve Corps — will represent a devastating blow to the future of American democracy.

Rob Thornton
01-25-2007, 01:39 PM
"Such a corps would function much like our military Reserve. It would ease the burden on the armed forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them," Bush declared. This is precisely what the administration has already done, largely behind the backs of the American people and with little congressional input, with its revolution in military affairs. Bush and his political allies are using taxpayer dollars to run an outsourcing laboratory. Iraq is its Frankenstein monster.

I think the President had a very different idea from the one Scahill puts forward. A couple of places on this site we've discussed the need for OGA and other types of capabilities that were needed here (and in other GWOT scenarios) as well as non-OGA specialties (like some of the members of the SWC have.) With less then 1% wearing the uniform, a civilian corps like the one the President described could bring additional options and functions. One thing is for sure, anyone on Uncle Sam's payroll will not make the kind of money many of the war contractors do. However if we don't do it, then somebody like Blackwater will offer to do it for us, and of course it will cost us.

What I think the President was prevailing upon the American people for was to volunteer their services (out of a military uniform) and sacrifice some of their time for modest compensation. I've heard others express sentiment for Heinlen - I agree with in-alienable rights to a degree, but the vast majority of Americans have no understanding the gifts that have been secured them through the sacrifices of others. There is some attraction to this in that a parent who serves a significant portion of their life might feel as though they've earned it for their children, so that they in turn might not have to sacrifice. That may be a good thing, but it may not if conditions have changed to a point that in order to secure our freedoms we must have a greater degree of generational sacrifice.

Heinlen explored the question of sacrifice and rewards in a republic. I think we need to consider the same question as it applies to our own future. I've seen many here who would be willing to sacrifice a great deal to enjoy the fruits of U.S. citizenship. Many would make exceptional Americans, that is they would understand the full value of being an American and enjoying its freedoms.

As for MR. Scahill's comments - its supply and demand. If more were willing to sacrifice, then its unlikely Balckwater would enjoy the success that it does and thus be able to charge the prices that allow it to expand it capabilities and enter other markets. I'd recommend that if MR Scahill is concerned he pick up a rucksack, if we could fill out the Army and Marines, and perhaps create a volunteer Corps with unique capabilities that was willing to do it for reasonable money, then he would not have needed to write his OP/ED.

Uboat509
01-25-2007, 01:52 PM
I am not necessarily the biggest fan of PMCs for reasons that have been been laid out by several members of this board, though I am not against them either, per se. But this kind of alarmist crap serves no purpose other than creating paranoia. Reading this article you would think that Blackwater is only a phone call away from overthrowing the government. Scahill obviously knows that most Americans have no idea what contractors are doing in Iraq and he uses that to build the picture of tens of thousands of "mercenaries" running loose in Iraq doing whatever they want while Blackwater builds its huge "secret" army in order to further the evil goals of the neo-cons. Scary stuff if you don't know any better.

SFC W

SWJED
02-04-2007, 05:50 AM
4 February Washington Post - Security Contracts to Continue in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301372.html) by Walter Pincus.


The Defense Department plans to continue hiring private contractors to provide security at reconstruction projects in Iraq and to train U.S. and Iraqi military officers in counterinsurgency, despite problems with past contracts for such jobs that traditionally have been done by military personnel.

The contracting out of these wartime activities comes at a time when the United States is stretching its resources to provide the additional 21,500 troops in Iraq that are needed under President Bush's new strategy, which involves stepped-up counterinsurgency operations in Baghdad and the expansion of economic reconstruction activities

During an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new top commander in Iraq, said he counts the "thousands of contract security forces" among the assets available to him to supplement the limited number of U.S. and Iraqi troops to be used for dealing with the insurgency.

A former senior Defense Intelligence Agency expert on the Middle East, retired Army Col. W. Patrick Lang, said last week that contracting out intelligence collection and security for Army units and their contractors "results from actual military forces being too small." He added: "I can't remember a subordinate commander considering mercenaries as part of his forces."

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who once headed the U.S. Central Command and today serves on an advisory board of a defense contractor, said there is a role for private firms taking on security missions. But he warned that problems can arise "when they take on quasi-military roles."...

Rob Thornton
02-04-2007, 07:10 AM
Check out Falcon, they seem to be looking to expand their services to fill a niche. I concur with the statement about our underfunded and under-resourced organic capabilities. PMCs seem to be poised to take advantage of a "need". I would call this in large part a self inflicted gunshot wound on our part. We may never be able to rectify this.

zdfg
02-04-2007, 05:05 PM
I'm curious about your comment. Falcon is a Kurdish owned outfit which supports both coalition and Kurdish specific interests.

Rob Thornton
02-04-2007, 08:11 PM
Falcon is a Kurdish owned outfit which supports both coalition and Kurdish specific interests

I'd say that pretty much covers it.

PMCs are expanding to fill other roles - its getting more grey not less. Where there is a need and some initiative, there is a way to make some money. However as far as any PMCs go, I'm not sure I agree with the word "support" in the way I would normally apply it to military relationships.

There are some good people working for Falcon and the other PMCs - but I think the word "contract" is a better description. It provides a pretty set left and right limit for a "service" vs. a supporting relationship such as say a support BN to a line unit. The motivation is different (even if the individual working that PMC would like to do more) as well.

They are useful, but that doesn't mean there are not disadvantages to using them, even if you don't see them up front.

bismark17
03-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Interesting article on Tim Spicer in Vanity Fair written by Robert Baer. I couldn't find it on this site. If its already posted, please delete.


As a former C.I.A. agent, the author knows how mercenaries work: in the shadows. But how did a notorious former British officer, Tim Spicer, come to coordinate the second-largest army in Iraq—the tens of thousands of private security contractors?
by Robert Baer April 2007



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/spicer200704?printable=true&currentPage=all

SoiCowboy
04-26-2007, 11:59 AM
But how did a notorious former British officer, Tim Spicer, come to coordinate the second-largest army in Iraq—the tens of thousands of private security contractors?

Not what you know, but who you know?

goesh
04-26-2007, 02:08 PM
In the footsteps of Rolf Steiner?

SWJED
09-21-2007, 08:57 PM
All Hands On Deck – Radically Reorienting Private Security in Iraq (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/09/all-hands-on-deck-radically-re/) by Malcolm Nance at Small Wars Journal Blog.


Authors Note: This article was written in late August 2007, well before the present controversy over the Mansour neighborhood shootings by Blackwater Security. It is not a response or intended to address that incident.

The role of Private Security Companies (PSCs) operating in Iraq has always been controversial. It is said Iraq is a ‘different kind of war’. That is true in the sense that all Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, no matter what their regular duties, suddenly became light infantry in a vicious counterinsurgency. It is a battle without a rear area and an extremely small military presence in proportion to the local population.

Rear area security, perimeter security and highway escort of supplies were once the domain of the Military Police and light infantry units. They virtually belong to PSCs now. Originally, a temporary measure for reconstruction, PSCs are deeply enmeshed in the fabric of Iraqi security.

It is far too late to argue whether more combat forces should have been brought to Iraq in the first place. Reconstruction priorities proved to be a significant drain on the U.S.'s already-overstretched force. The massive plan to completely redevelop Iraq’s war damaged infrastructure and get oil and energy back on line became a high priority for the Bush administration. Other projects included refurbishing the national electrical grid, rebuilding destroyed bridges, revitalizing the southern Iraq marshes, demining the battlefields, investigating Saddam’s crimes against humanity and a wide-spread democracy building program. For a society of 25 million people, this effort was massive. These projects employ tens of thousands of American, British and Iraqi partners who had one thing in common at the start. They had no security. The US Army could not provide it and the need for follow on security forces was clear. There was a pressing need for PSCs in Iraq and with it came unforeseeable troubles such a group could bring...
Much more at the link...

Granite_State
09-24-2007, 03:58 AM
Just saw this on John Robb's blog:


There are currently 20,000 PMC trigger pullers in Iraq. These men are guarding facilities and key people across the country. This is likely more trigger pullers (as opposed to support personnel) than the entire US military currently has in the country.

This isn't actually true is it?

Abu Buckwheat
09-24-2007, 04:46 AM
No, he's wrong ... there are over 130,000 CONTRACTORS of all types in Iraq including 75,000 Iraqis. US combat forces stands at 160,000, unless I am mistaken.

Ken White
09-24-2007, 02:29 PM
I have no clue if he's correct on the number of shooter PMC bods -- nor do I care. However, with 160K total troops plus or minus in country, nominal shooters or 'combat troops' will run about 33% -- or about 52K. Done another way there are about 30 Bn Cbt Tms plus other elements including some CS units serving as Inf so that puts the trigger pullers over 40K in all probability -- thus if Robb is right, he's wrong. Again.

MountainRunner
09-24-2007, 03:40 PM
there are closer to 180,000 contractors there and upwards of 50k are security contractors. When Gen Shinseki suggested a few hundred thousand troops, we was surely assuming the force would be somewhat unified. He surely didn't imagine that over half of the force would be outside the command structure, virtual black boxes to ground commanders, and operating tactically willfully in many cases ignoring strategic consequences of their actions.

Granite_State
09-24-2007, 07:20 PM
I have no clue if he's correct on the number of shooter PMC bods -- nor do I care. However, with 160K total troops plus or minus in country, nominal shooters or 'combat troops' will run about 33% -- or about 52K. Done another way there are about 30 Bn Cbt Tms plus other elements including some CS units serving as Inf so that puts the trigger pullers over 40K in all probability -- thus if Robb is right, he's wrong. Again.

Thanks, I figured the number (total military combat troops) couldn't be as low as 20,000.

tequila
10-17-2007, 05:45 PM
Looks like SecDef Gates has been reading Abu Buckwheat ...

Pentagon sees one authority over contractors (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17blackwater.html?pagewanted=print)- NYTIMES - 16 Oct.


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is pressing for the nearly 10,000 armed security contractors now working for the United States government in Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) to fall under a single authority, most likely the American military, in an effort to bring Blackwater USA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/blackwater_usa/index.html?inline=nyt-org) under tighter control, senior administration officials and Pentagon advisers say.

That idea is facing resistance from the State Department, which relies heavily for protection in Iraq on some 2,500 private guards, including more than 800 Blackwater contractors, to provide security for American diplomats in Baghdad. The State Department has said it should retain control over those guards, despite Blackwater’s role in a September shooting in Baghdad that exposed problems in the current oversight arrangements.

In practical terms, placing the private security guards who now work for the military, the State Department and other government agencies under a single authority would mean that those armed civilians would no longer have different bosses and different rules. Pentagon advisers say it would also allow better coordination between the security contractors and American military commanders, who have long complained that the contractors often operate independently ...

John T. Fishel
10-18-2007, 12:35 AM
in terms of resoving the immediate and near term problem. His proposal also goes a long way toward defining what should be the proper command relationship between PSCs and the USG in future operations. What he doesn't address - and this is not a criticism - is the proper role of PSCs (and other contractors.

The expanded role of contractors including PSCs was a long time in the making. I watched contracting expand during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations long before the current war. I have seen contractors, including PSCs, performing appropriate roles extremely well. But I have also seen abuse and, more importantly, role expansion into areas that I believe properly belong to the government and the government alone.

One issue in contracting - especially for PSCs - is the terms of the contract. I am quite sure that the terms of Blackwater's contract with DOS are reasonably interpreted to protect their FSO charges against any and all threats by whatever means are necessary. Such a contract - one that is open to this type of interpretation - is certainly a part of the problem. The culprit here is not the PSC but its client (in this case DOS which seems to have forgotten that its FSOs are commissioned officers of the USG and, therefore, can be required to take risks that other civilian employees do not have to take). At the same time, the PSC should not be off the hook for overzealous (at best) behavior in what appears at first glance to be a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to personnel security. Mr, Nance's proposal would go a long way toward resolving this problem as well as providing time to develop appropriate policies and roles for government contractors and, especially, PSCs.

SteveMetz
10-18-2007, 01:45 AM
in terms of resoving the immediate and near term problem. His proposal also goes a long way toward defining what should be the proper command relationship between PSCs and the USG in future operations. What he doesn't address - and this is not a criticism - is the proper role of PSCs (and other contractors.

The expanded role of contractors including PSCs was a long time in the making. I watched contracting expand during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations long before the current war. I have seen contractors, including PSCs, performing appropriate roles extremely well. But I have also seen abuse and, more importantly, role expansion into areas that I believe properly belong to the government and the government alone.

One issue in contracting - especially for PSCs - is the terms of the contract. I am quite sure that the terms of Blackwater's contract with DOS are reasonably interpreted to protect their FSO charges against any and all threats by whatever means are necessary. Such a contract - one that is open to this type of interpretation - is certainly a part of the problem. The culprit here is not the PSC but its client (in this case DOS which seems to have forgotten that its FSOs are commissioned officers of the USG and, therefore, can be required to take risks that other civilian employees do not have to take). At the same time, the PSC should not be off the hook for overzealous (at best) behavior in what appears at first glance to be a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach to personnel security. Mr, Nance's proposal would go a long way toward resolving this problem as well as providing time to develop appropriate policies and roles for government contractors and, especially, PSCs.

It's amazing that attention is just now falling on this. T.X. Hammes made the same point about security details several years ago. Ricks quoted him in Fiasco (which, incidentally, I'm currently re-reading as research for my book. )

John T. Fishel
10-18-2007, 11:30 AM
And I thought that my comments were 'original" since they were based on experiences and observations as a soldier, a contractor, and a DOD civilian.:D
It is interesting that others made similar observations earlier. Since my education is sorely lacking in that I have never read Hammes and haven't gotten around to Rick's yet, would you be good enough to provide the full Hammes citation and the Ricks page citation?

Thanks

JohnT

Tom Odom
10-18-2007, 01:15 PM
I almost find it amusing in that I worked the same issue in Goma in 94 with Stan and we were trying to improve security in the camps for international organizations and NGO workers, The solution was to get a Zairian-Israeli security firm to take on the job and that happened over time and some metamorphisis.

State was against given anyone the authority to shoot as needed because they were not in the camps. My DCM declared the folks I was recruiting to be "thugs."

Now it seems it is shoot anyone who even seems a threat to an FSO.

Tom

John T. Fishel
10-18-2007, 01:25 PM
the times they are a'changin'. Although, it was clear in the 80s in Panama that State was more concerned about threats to the precious bodies of their FSOs (and their comforts) than running any personal risk. (Perhaps, I am being too harsh:wry:.)

SteveMetz
10-18-2007, 02:26 PM
And I thought that my comments were 'original" since they were based on experiences and observations as a soldier, a contractor, and a DOD civilian.:D
It is interesting that others made similar observations earlier. Since my education is sorely lacking in that I have never read Hammes and haven't gotten around to Rick's yet, would you be good enough to provide the full Hammes citation and the Ricks page citation?

Thanks

JohnT

I also quote T.X. on that point in my Rethinking Insurgency monograph. Guess you haven't gotten around to THAT either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:


The passage is on pages 370-371 of Fiasco.

I have to pass on an anecdote about Fiasco though. On pp. 323-324 Ricks wrote, "'Rotating nearly the entire force at once degraded capability, [and that] may have contributed to loss of control over several cities in the Sunni Triangle,' wrote the Iraq Stabilization Study Team, a group at the [Army War] college's Strategic Studies Institute that has produced some of the military establishment's most insightful work on the Iraq war."

Let me tell you who was on said "team": me. We did a two part study in 2003. The main part dealt with the conventional ops. When the professor who prepared it briefed our Commandant, he was berated for putting the names of the analytical team on the first slide. He was told that you don't put individual names on tasked studies. Lesson learned. I ran up to the office and took my name off of the first slide of my briefing (which dealt with the "postconflict" period). I had to put something there, so I made up the name "Iraq Stabilization Study Team."

Actually, my briefing was never official released, so someone leaked it to Tom. But I need to fill him in on this next time I see him.

Tom Odom
10-18-2007, 03:05 PM
Actually, my briefing was never official released, so someone leaked it to Tom. But I need to fill him in on this next time I see him.

Be sure and get the team's approval before you do....:wry:

goesh
10-19-2007, 12:18 PM
This whole business is about like throwing rocks at cats - you scare 'em a bit and in a flash they are in the weeds laying low or they are sprinting off out of range. Public perception is about like the thrown rock, it seldom does any damage and the thrown rock is what the cat responds to - it doesn't need to make the connection between thrower and rock. State projects its own image of being distinct and separate from the military by not being surrounded with uniforms. The Public hears of these murdering mercenaries then sees them surrounding Condi and others, protecting them from murdering jihadis. They hear Generals and other wagging heads tell them that there should have been more troops in Iraq to begin with, they hear constantly that the Military's mission is not succeeding, that all is chaos doom and gloom but the military can rein in the mercenaries and everything is going to be fine once this happens. The Public should be told too how many more billion it is going to cost to manage mercenaries, since the latter can get mini-Ops up and running with but a few words or some texting or one call or one email. What's the cost comparative/efficiency ratio here anyway? 50-1? That may be conservative. It reminds me of the hearing some Congressman had when Halliburton was gouging plywood prices during the Kosovo dust-up. Halliburton Reps entered the meeting, sat down and told them if they didn't like the prices being charged, they were free to hire someone else then walked out. The cost of any reconstruction projects would horrifically increase if a military security bill were attached to the total overhead. Throw another rock at that cat, he is only 35 meters away in heavy cover, he should be easy to kill.

Mark O'Neill
10-19-2007, 12:28 PM
This whole business is about like throwing rocks at cats - you scare 'em a bit and in a flash they are in the weeds laying low or they are sprinting off out of range. Public perception is about like the thrown rock, it seldom does any damage and the thrown rock is what the cat responds to - it doesn't need to make the connection between thrower and rock. State projects its own image of being distinct and separate from the military by not being surrounded with uniforms. The Public hears of these murdering mercenaries then sees them surrounding Condi and others, protecting them from murdering jihadis. They hear Generals and other wagging heads tell them that there should have been more troops in Iraq to begin with, they hear constantly that the Military's mission is not succeeding, that all is chaos doom and gloom but the military can rein in the mercenaries and everything is going to be fine once this happens. The Public should be told too how many more billion it is going to cost to manage mercenaries, since the latter can get mini-Ops up and running with but a few words or some texting or one call or one email. What's the cost comparative/efficiency ratio here anyway? 50-1? That may be conservative. It reminds me of the hearing some Congressman had when Halliburton was gouging plywood prices during the Kosovo dust-up. Halliburton Reps entered the meeting, sat down and told them if they didn't like the prices being charged, they were free to hire someone else then walked out. The cost of any reconstruction projects would horrifically increase if a military security bill were attached to the total overhead. Throw another rock at that cat, he is only 35 meters away in heavy cover, he should be easy to kill.


True perhaps, but that does not make it right or desirable.

Stan
10-19-2007, 12:58 PM
I almost find it amusing in that I worked the same issue in Goma in 94 with Stan and we were trying to improve security in the camps for international organizations and NGO workers, The solution was to get a Zairian-Israeli security firm to take on the job and that happened over time and some metamorphisis.

State was against given anyone the authority to shoot as needed because they were not in the camps. My DCM declared the folks I was recruiting to be "thugs."

Now it seems it is shoot anyone who even seems a threat to an FSO.

Tom

Hey Tom,
Indeed, they were our thugs and considering the local situation, mst likely the best to handle said.

Distasteful I recall from the embassy right about the point John JA JA directed us into a war zone with an Izuzu Trooper, so he and his better half (the blonde bomb shell from K-town) could report first hand...the war was over :mad: What a Delta Hotel he was.

I'd bet your retirement (no, not mine just yet), that John would fully employ BW or even our Israeli/Civil Guard if we had to do it all over again.

They had already paid a family off with $20K to preclude embarrassment when a drunk officer ran a push cart flat. There are no limits

Tom Odom
10-19-2007, 06:21 PM
They had already paid a family off with $20K to preclude embarrassment when a drunk officer ran a push cart flat. There are no limits

That must have been before I arrived. Certainly sounds correct though...


Indeed, they were our thugs and considering the local situation, mst likely the best to handle said.

That was what Gerald said, "Tom, they are thugs,' in that fake Brit accent of disdain. To which I replied, "Of course they are and that is why I want to hire them."

But always remember, John and his mate wanted us -- you and me --as their escorts when they braved crossing the border into Rwanda for 300 yards...:eek:

That must mean they thought of us --you and me --as thugs...

So true :cool:

Best

Tom

Stan
10-19-2007, 09:57 PM
That must have been before I arrived. Certainly sounds correct though...

That was what Gerald said, "Tom, they are thugs,' in that fake Brit accent of disdain. To which I replied, "Of course they are and that is why I want to hire them."

But always remember, John and his mate wanted us -- you and me --as their escorts when they braved crossing the border into Rwanda for 300 yards...:eek:

That must mean they thought of us --you and me --as thugs...

So true :cool:

Best

Tom

From by-God oʊkləˈhoʊmə together with his nanny (err wife) from the UK, I could barely take the 15 minute rides in the bubble :D

Yep, J...JJ approved the 20K and swiftly sent the (ahem) Communications assistant on R&R just 5 weeks prior to your arrival :mad:

JeffWolf
10-24-2007, 10:54 PM
Hello all,

This is directed primarily at the request for a Hammes citation. (I intended to post this last week, but have been having connectivity issues.)

This has, I think, relevant Hammes thoughts (and it's online, so no need to acquire hard copies or find page numbers):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/interviews/hammes.html

I also might look at Deborah Avant, "The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security,"

http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-Cornell-Studies-Security/dp/0801489156/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-5671791-6252660?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192720986&sr=1-2

or Peter Singer, "Corporate Warriors,"

http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-Cornell-Studies-Security/dp/0801489156/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-5671791-6252660?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192720986&sr=1-2

Regards
Jeff

PS - Tom, I got your book from the library, and for what it's worth, am enjoying it quite a bit.

Gnaeus
12-26-2007, 08:17 PM
Just wanted to see what anyone else thought about SOC-SMG, a company contracted to provide facility security at US posts in Iraq. The security guards are all African, and the actual contractors are American. Just for fun some of us would test their "defense" by using each others ID cards to gain access to facilities (they usually guard the chow hall, MWR, or gym). It worked everytime. Sometimes we would even use the same card for two people at the same time, one guy behind the other. They never caught us.

This may seem childish, but it served a useful purpose for me...what if I really was a individual who meant to do real harm and was able to get in there. These guys don't only guard the chow hall, but also the inner security perimiter of the base.

If the government is going to lay down millions of taxpayer dollars to a company to protect support facilities and free up more troop manpower from guard duty, at least they could use a better quality security company. Better yet, lets not waste anymore unnecessary taxpayer dollars and get rid of the contract.

Stan
12-26-2007, 08:39 PM
Welcome to the SWC !
All things said and done, I recall that Namibian company shutting down in October this year. Seems they were just as displeased with their contract as you folks were with their performance.

Having lived and worked many years in Sub-Sahara and concluded countless contracts for the USG, your real gripe is with the USG (more than likely the State department).

Let’s face facts, people with a 6th grade education from Texas or Congo still have a sixth grade education and still work for far less than say you or I would be willing.

Contractual obligations however do not take this into account. You as the recipient needs to step up and indicate that services are not up to snuff.

Please take a moment and introduce yourself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441&page=21).

To You and Yours a Safe and Happy Holiday Season !



Just wanted to see what anyone else thought about SOC-SMG, a company contracted to provide facility security at US posts in Iraq. The security guards are all African, and the actual contractors are American...

Gnaeus
12-30-2007, 07:56 AM
I agree, although one may think SOC-SMG is at fault (and to an extent they are in my opinion), the reality is that the government is ultimately the one responsible for awarding the contract to the comapny.

CT Medic
01-02-2008, 04:57 PM
I disagree...I would not fault SOC-SMG. In essense they are doing the best job they can with the money they are given. They are a private for profit company and as such need to show a profit. However, they are the lowest bidder, and therefore the government gives them the contract. They government cannot afford to pay expats 15,000/month to man internal security, so they have forced companies like SOC-SMG (EODT, Sabre and a couple other companies also do this work on other bases) to find ways of cutting their overhead...paying a TCN 1000/month is a way of doing that.

So the question is...who is at fault...the Private COmpany that was awarded the contract, or the governemnet for chosing the lowest bidder?

Old Eagle
01-02-2008, 06:37 PM
Respectfully disagree.

Companies are in business to make a profit. Check
Companies do as much as possible to maximize that profit/pad the pockets of the executives.
Companies do as little as possible at the pointy end in order to accomplish the above.
Companies will perform to the standards which the gov't enforces.

Therefore -- gotta set the bar high and keep them honest. Means reporting discrepancies, etc.

Penta
01-02-2008, 08:03 PM
Therefore -- gotta set the bar high and keep them honest. Means reporting discrepancies, etc.

Agree to an extent. However, define what the bar should be?

Not sure there should be a ban on hiring TCNs - but you need to make sure:

A. Training is up to snuff;
B. Proper screening is performed on potential hires;
C. Everybody on the job can speak at least passable English.

They don't need to all be former first world military at all, IMHO - if a bright kid from a goatherding village in Africa can do the job just as well at a lower cost, okay then! Let him!

In any case, it's probably going to be the case in a lot of these companies that the line folks come from wherever and the "officer" types are from the first world - not the best thing in the world, but that's life.

I begin to wonder at some point if there shouldn't just be a sort of "licensing board" for PMCs - to establish basic standards, like bar associations do for lawyers. A mercenaries' guild of sorts.

Stan
01-02-2008, 08:37 PM
Agree to an extent. However, define what the bar should be?


...keep them honest. Means reporting discrepancies, etc.

Penta, Look at it this way for just a second: Piedmont Van Lines (most military remember them) picks up your HHG and delivers same to destination. You take receipt and discover something is now damaged (in transit). So, do you just blow it off, or do you file a claim and bitch like no tomorrow ?

Seems the majority of folks are OK with bitchin, but reporting contractors and Sierra service isn't worth the trouble. Too bad most don't consider that like they would as if it were their (own) stuff.


Not sure there should be a ban on hiring TCNs - but you need to make sure:

A. Training is up to snuff;
B. Proper screening is performed on potential hires;
C. Everybody on the job can speak at least passable English.

They don't need to all be former first world military at all, IMHO - if a bright kid from a goatherding village in Africa can do the job just as well at a lower cost, okay then! Let him!


There are many of us that have been around TCNs for more than a decade. Some fare well, but the majority of 'lowest bidder' contracts often have abysmal standards to keep things cheap. DoD may dictate standards, and the contractor may indicate concurrence, but ultimately you and I have to keep things in balance by reporting shoddy service.

ancien
01-02-2008, 09:22 PM
I find this a litle bit shocking. If I read this correct then it is a policy that some military bases are getting there own security done by a private company in a conflictzone.
I'am maybe a traditionel soldier but this is below military disipline, its like letting somebody els clean your boots and gear.

Old Eagle
01-03-2008, 01:49 PM
I'm all about having somebody else clean my boots and gear -- just haven't figured out how to accomplish it. Note to Stan -- asking the wife to do it doesn't work.:D

I am not against hiring qualified personnel to perform noncombat functions. My point is that when you do, you hold their feet to the fire over standards.

As I mentioned earlier, the companies they work for are getting rich, even with "low bid" contracts. So scream, bitch, file reports until those guys get the message and tighten up their operations. The companies' going in position is that they will do the minimum to get by. To them, no news (no complaint) is good news. Forced into compliance, they will have to hire more first line supervisors, provide better training, etc. All that cuts into the bottom line, and they absolutely won't do it out of some goodness of their hearts syndrome.

Penta
01-03-2008, 05:11 PM
I take Stan's point.

Old Eagle: It's a -shame- all of the PMCs are privately-held. It'd be...interesting to see just what the net margin is on these contracts.

Stan
01-03-2008, 09:48 PM
I'm all about having somebody else clean my boots and gear -- just haven't figured out how to accomplish it. Note to Stan -- asking the wife to do it doesn't work.:D

OMG, is that why I went through three (wives) so quickly ? Hey, it's in the contract, man :D

LawVol
01-04-2008, 05:27 PM
I disagree...I would not fault SOC-SMG. In essense they are doing the best job they can with the money they are given. They are a private for profit company and as such need to show a profit. However, they are the lowest bidder, and therefore the government gives them the contract. They government cannot afford to pay expats 15,000/month to man internal security, so they have forced companies like SOC-SMG (EODT, Sabre and a couple other companies also do this work on other bases) to find ways of cutting their overhead...paying a TCN 1000/month is a way of doing that.

So the question is...who is at fault...the Private COmpany that was awarded the contract, or the governemnet for chosing the lowest bidder?

This really isn't a proper view of the contracting process. The government isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything. The government identifies a need and puts out an invitation for bids (IFB) or request for proposals (RFP), depending on the need. Companies that can meet that need then review the requirements as set forth in the IFB or RFP and, if they can meet them, submit a bid or proposal. If they determine that they cannot make a profit, then they shouldn't bid. Indeed, I know of no companies that would bid if they didn;t see a profit. They may cut overhead by hiring TCNs or something like that, but they must still meet the requirements.

Now the rub is whether the government is properly overseeing the contract. This falls into the hands of the contracting officer or his representative. He is responsible for ensuring that the terms of the contract are satisfied. Hopefully, Gnaeus reported his findings up the chain.

Just because the government selects the lowest bidder does not mean it is at fault. Sure, the lowest bidder is usually selected for contract award, but price is never the only consideration. The bidder must be responsive and responsible. This basically means that the bidder must demonstrate an ability to perform the contract and to meet the terms of the contract. A term in use for some contracts is "lowest price technically acceptable." If you look at it in these terms then you see that the government is using the ocntracting process to ensure that any awardee is capable of meeting the contract requirements. Of course, capable and actually doing it are two different things and this is where the contracting officer comes in. As Stan and Old Eagle indicate, oversight is key.

Gnaeus
01-05-2008, 05:10 AM
Hopefully, Gnaeus reported his findings up the chain.


Although I never did anything official, I did speak to a few of my senior officers about it. Partly, I was too busy to really focus my energy on griping about substandard security guards and partly becuase...I'm not sure who I would address this to. My command had no direct influence over these individuals or this organization. We were a unit that worked out of that FOB, but by no means "owned" it. I don't even know what government agency awarded the contract. I suspect it was either the DoD or DoS. Anyone have any advice to offer to help get this ball rolling? Now that I have some more free time (if you can call it that), I am interested in pursing this further.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with their presence or the job they are doing. The guards were a little more than an annoyance and I fear that in a real attack they would do little good.

LawVol
01-05-2008, 03:10 PM
Although I never did anything official, I did speak to a few of my senior officers about it. Partly, I was too busy to really focus my energy on griping about substandard security guards and partly becuase...I'm not sure who I would address this to. My command had no direct influence over these individuals or this organization. We were a unit that worked out of that FOB, but by no means "owned" it. I don't even know what government agency awarded the contract. I suspect it was either the DoD or DoS. Anyone have any advice to offer to help get this ball rolling? Now that I have some more free time (if you can call it that), I am interested in pursing this further.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with their presence or the job they are doing. The guards were a little more than an annoyance and I fear that in a real attack they would do little good.

Everything runs through the contract, so the remedy is through that mechanism. There is likely a contracting office (or at least a contracting officer) at your FOB. That would be the first place I'd go. Even if they don't directly manage the contract, they can get in touch with the folks that do. If there isn't a contracting rep there, go talk to the JAG. They are likely involved in the contracting process (it's big business for us over there) and can get the ball rolling. If you run into a roadblock, PM me and I can might be able to inquire about other potential avenues. Stay safe.

Okay, I just noticed that you are now back at the Stumps. You can make your inquiries through the contracting office there. They should be able to track down who manages the contract. -john

Cannoneer No. 4
01-09-2008, 01:38 PM
This may seem childish, but it served a useful purpose for me...what if I really was a individual who meant to do real harm and was able to get in there.

Yeah, it does.

Other than amusing yourself, what useful purpose did you serve?

If you have legitimate concerns you could have addressed them to the NCOIC of the facility, or to PMO, or to the Force Protection Officer. Or you could be real grown up and express your issues to the SOC-SMG Site Manager. Be sure to have your plausible explanation for how screwing with the Ugandans is within your lane.

LawVol
01-10-2008, 04:13 AM
Yeah, it does.

Other than amusing yourself, what useful purpose did you serve?

If you have legitimate concerns you could have addressed them to the NCOIC of the facility, or to PMO, or to the Force Protection Officer. Or you could be real grown up and express your issues to the SOC-SMG Site Manager. Be sure to have your plausible explanation for how screwing with the Ugandans is within your lane.

Force protection is in everyone's lane. Whether he should have done what he did or not is now irrelevant. He identified a potential security breach and now it needs to be addressed; although it should have been done then.

Speaking as one who has performed security guard duties, using another's ID to gain access isn't screwing with someone if they're doing their job. If it had been me, rest assured he wouldn't have gotten in with another's ID. I would have turned him away and would have made him use another entrance just to show him that I'm master of my domain (General Order #12 is always in effect).

Ken White
01-10-2008, 05:01 AM
...
Speaking as one who has performed security guard duties, using another's ID to gain access isn't screwing with someone if they're doing their job. If it had been me, rest assured he wouldn't have gotten in with another's ID. I would have turned him away and would have made him use another entrance just to show him that I'm master of my domain (General Order #12 is always in effect).

in that scenario 'cause I'd have had strip of hide. What if he went to another entrance and someone not as alert as you let him in? Depending on the local rules, he shoulda been detained -- at a minimum you should've confiscated the improper ID to turn in. Attempts and tricks like that just for fun may be tolerated nowadays but let me tell you, Mac, back in the Old Corps, we usedta ... :D

All hypotheticals (and in fun) of course but even as long as it's been I still remember both the 12th and the 11th GOs... ;)

Cannoneer No. 4
01-10-2008, 07:16 AM
Force protection is in everyone's lane.

Complying with FP regulations, cooperating with FP personnel, and reporting FP threats is in everybody's lane. Instigating controversy for ####s and grins just gets the Ugandan sent home and ends up making it a helluva lot harder to get everybody fed at lunch.

People want to play games, each and every uniformed service member can have their CAC card run through a Hand Held Terminal and recite their PIN every time they want to eat.

LawVol
01-10-2008, 04:43 PM
People want to play games, each and every uniformed service member can have their CAC card run through a Hand Held Terminal and recite their PIN every time they want to eat.

If it can prevent this (Carnage in Mosul (http://news.mainetoday.com/war/insideiraq/041222iraq.shtml)), I'm all for it.

Luckily for me, my chow hall was guarded by some fine soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division ("Balls of the Eagle," "No Slack;" see I speak Army :D).

Gnaeus
01-12-2008, 09:05 AM
Other than amusing yourself, what useful purpose did you serve?


Did you mean what useful purpose did it serve or what useful purpose did I serve? I will assume you mean the former.

I will try to address your concerns the best I can. First, maybe childish and just for fun were bad choice phrases to use. There was necessity in doing this. First of all, we had a job to do and tasks to accomplish. Has one of my fellow Marines forgotten thier ID card and then when they returned to the FOB, only then did they realize that they did not have it. Sure...that thing could have possibly happened over the course of a deployment. So, now, we are posed with a delima. Do I try to explain for 15 minutes to a security guard that this Marine left his ID on the FOB, but verify to him...who has no authority over me or is not in my chain of command...that this is individual is in fact a United States Marine, even though this security guard can barely understand English. Or, do I make another choice. We're tired, hungry, and the sun is down. We may have returned to our FOB, but it will still be another serveral hours before we finally rack out. Do I really have time for this? By the mere fact that I could have pulled this off, shows the whole internal security situation to be a farce.

Second. There was no PMO. The first, MP unit to roll into our FOB arrived as we were preparing to leave. But, as you probably know, just being an MP unit doesn't make you PMO.

Third. I literally had about a hundred tasks to accomplish in a single day. What number do you think talking to the site manager was on my list?

After we were able to get through the first time this peaked my interest. So, we "tested" it a few more times. This was by no means a normal or everyday occurance. 99% of the time we went through the regular routine, all presenting our own valid cards, and proceeded about normally.

Maybe it would have been better to say it was an experiment born out of a situation that arose during a specific time period. I recall something similar to this happening in the news when agents smuggled bomb making materials through TSA checkpoints. Fortunately we had only ourselves and our equipment to bring through the gate.

Now that I'm back in the States I can address this issue. I assumed that taking it to a fourm for discussion would be a good starting point. Criticize the issue, but do not go into a personal attack.

Cannoneer No. 4
01-12-2008, 04:49 PM
Did you mean what useful purpose did it serve or what useful purpose did I serve?

What useful purpose did your little Red Team exercise serve? What deficiency did you identify to anyone who could correct the deficiency?


I will assume you mean the former.

Ass U Me. Not out of me, Devil Dog.


First, maybe childish and just for fun were bad choice phrases to use.

Particularly bad if you consider any agreement with your own characterization a personal attack.


There was necessity in doing this. First of all, we had a job to do and tasks to accomplish. Has one of my fellow Marines forgotten thier ID card and then when they returned to the FOB, only then did they realize that they did not have it.

Your fellow Marine was in the wrong.


Sure...that thing could have possibly happened over the course of a deployment. So, now, we are posed with a delima. Do I try to explain for 15 minutes to a security guard that this Marine left his ID on the FOB, but verify to him...who has no authority over me

Does a security contractor manning an entry control point not have the same authority to challenge you or your CAC cardless buddy when you try to get into his DFAC as you have over him when he tries to get into your ASP?


even though this security guard can barely understand English.

Is this another assumption on your part, or did you attempt to explain? Most of the Ugandans speak some English. He wasn't in radio contact with his Supervisor?


Or, do I make another choice. We're tired, hungry, and the sun is down. We may have returned to our FOB, but it will still be another serveral hours before we finally rack out. Do I really have time for this? By the mere fact that I could have pulled this off, shows the whole internal security situation to be a farce.

Your buddy is running around without his CAC card, you are aiding and abetting unauthorized entry into the facility, and the whole internal security situation is a farce because both of you aren't face down in the gravel?



Second. There was no PMO. The first, MP unit to roll into our FOB arrived as we were preparing to leave. But, as you probably know, just being an MP unit doesn't make you PMO.[/UNQUOTE]

No Facility NCOIC? No Force Protection Officer? No Guard Force Supervisor?

[QUOTE]Third. I literally had about a hundred tasks to accomplish in a single day. What number do you think talking to the site manager was on my list?

Quite low, obviously. What has caused this incident to rise to the top of your priority list so many months later?


After we were able to get through the first time this peaked my interest. So, we "tested" it a few more times. This was by no means a normal or everyday occurance. 99% of the time we went through the regular routine, all presenting our own valid cards, and proceeded about normally.

Who did you report the results of your "test" to? What use was made of the information you obtained? What deficiencies were corrected through your diligence as a self-appointed Assistant Contracting Officer's Representative?


Maybe it would have been better to say it was an experiment born out of a situation that arose during a specific time period. I recall something similar to this happening in the news when agents smuggled bomb making materials through TSA checkpoints. Fortunately we had only ourselves and our equipment to bring through the gate.

What gate would this be?


Now that I'm back in the States I can address this issue.

Negative. The time to address the issue in a positive manner was when you discovered the deficiency. The people who should have been made aware of it at the time have been deprived of your input from then until now. And many of those people may well be gone by now.


I assumed that taking it to a fourm for discussion would be a good starting point.

See paragraph 4 above.


Criticize the issue, but do not go into a personal attack.

If you consider criticism a personal attack, perhaps you can understand how people who work for SOC-SMG or who have worked with them could consider your statements slanderous.

1-866-369-9100 (http://soc-smg.com/page/contact) is the toll free number to SOC-SMG.

ce_pao_watch_officer@mnf-wiraq.usmc.mil <ce_pao_watch_officer@mnf-wiraq.usmc.mil> can probably hook you up with AT/FP at the FOB in question.

Steve Blair
01-12-2008, 05:06 PM
Complying with FP regulations, cooperating with FP personnel, and reporting FP threats is in everybody's lane. Instigating controversy for ####s and grins just gets the Ugandan sent home and ends up making it a helluva lot harder to get everybody fed at lunch.

People want to play games, each and every uniformed service member can have their CAC card run through a Hand Held Terminal and recite their PIN every time they want to eat.

Well maybe they should. They do that at the residence hall dining facilities on my university. Any student who wants to eat has to have his or her ID with them and have it swiped before they can enter. No card, no food. And the gate folks are supposed to compare the picture with the bearer (and most do...not worth your job just to let some idiot eat on someone else's meal plan). They're even going over to a palmprint system within the next year or so. And that's just for dorm food.

And on a side note, I'd appreciate it if folks could keep this discussion civil. That includes basic things like refraining from posting responses in either ALL CAPS or all bold. Thanks.

SteveO
01-21-2008, 02:51 AM
All PMCs are not privately held. DynCorp, which is fighting a private war for the USG/State Dept in Colombia, is traded on the NYSE. Stock has done well, even with the current downturn.

http://www.dyn-intl.com/

2183
01-29-2008, 04:43 PM
The LA Times did an interesting story yesterday (28 Jan) on TCNs from Latin America who are making good money as security contractors in Iraq. http://http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080128576144.html[/URL]

--Bill Latham

CT Medic
03-12-2008, 04:21 PM
DISCLAIMER - I AM NOT DEFENDING SOC NOR THE USE OF TCNS

I have been following this thread as I have first hand experience working with the TCNs in question as well as the PMC in question. I can say that they are doing what they can. Several years ago, money was of no real object to the government. Now however, there has been a dramatic decrease across the board in money that is available. Anyone that has been to Iraq can testify to this...wages for expats are significantly less than they were 3 years ago.

We can comment and critique on the TCNs ability to accomplish the mission, but at the end of the day I have to look at the USG for allowing it to happen...not the PMC. In the following example, please realize I m breaking it down into very simplistic terms for brevities sake. The USG looks at the proposals frm the various PMCs to provide internal security for say Camp Victory. PMC A bids 3million for a one year base period, PMC B 2.5 Million, and PMC 3 2 million. Who gets the contract...C. Why, because they bid the least...now C has to figure out how to man, equip and provide for that contract for less than 2million...the cheaper they do it, the greater the profit. We can say that profit should not be their concern, but at the end of the day, they are a company based on capitalism and need to make money to work. So where do they make money...well instead of hiring Westerner's at 500/day...let's hire TCNs at 800/month....instead of M4s lets use a cheap knockoff... you see the point...who is at fault? The PMC that is out to make money...or the Government to allow them get away with those standards.

My specialty is medicine...so let me give a real world example. Under the current TWISS contracts, the government is asking the PMCs to provide a medical officer to handle the primary healthcare needs for the guard force. The USG will only provide support in cases of life, limb or eyesight. The USG defined a medical officer as a PA, RN or an EMT with 2 years of experience, and that is THE ONLY MENTION OF MEDICAL CARE IN THE RFPs. I can say that on the vast majority of sites that SOC is manning there is a former Special Forces Medic or PA. They are trying to maintain the intent...PMC taking care of itself...however, their competition is bidding contracts using EMT-B's with 2 years of experience. There is a significant difference. An EMT-B is designed to provide a level of care above that of a first responder, but are very limited in their scope of practice. In addition, the USG makes no mention of Medical Oversight (everyone works for a medical director, unless you are a MD or DO) and no mention of medical supplies or medical liability insurance. So in the case of SOC, they attempt to do the right thing in this case, but are underbid by one of their competitors, say Sabre. Sabre, bids the contract based off of the minimums that are put out in RFP...SOC bids on a little more than minimum. Sabre wins...so what does SOC do next time....they bid the minimum, which in this case means a greater drain on the military healthcare system for having to treat patients for coughs and colds.. Again...who is at fault...the PMC or the USG? If the problem is to be resolved...the USG needs to clearly define what the standard is. Not in vague terms.

Just my opinion...now back to my hole.

SWJED
05-12-2008, 10:47 PM
Lessons Not Learned: Contracting Out Iraqi Army Advising (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0512_iraq_singer.aspx) by Peter W. Singer (http://www.brookings.edu/experts/singerp.aspx) at The Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/), 12 May 2008.

Singer is with Brooking's 21st Century Defense Initiative (http://www.brookings.edu/projects/21defense.aspx) which is charterd to produce cutting-edge research, analysis, and outreach that address some of the most critical issues facing leaders shaping defense policy in the coming century. The initiative focuses on the following three core issues: The Future of War, The Future of U.S. Defense Needs and Priorities, and The Implications for the U.S. Defense System.

From Contracting Out Iraqi Army Advising:


One of the key questions surrounding the government’s escalating uses of military contractors is actually not whether they save the government client money or not (this, however, is getting harder to argue with the more than $10 billion that the Defense Contract Audit Agency believes was either wasted or misspent on contracting in Iraq. Rather the crucial question that should asked at the onset of any potential outsourcing is simple: Should the task be done by a private company in the first place?

...the Pentagon is seeking to hire private contractors to help fill out the teams that will train and advise Iraq army units, including in their operations in the field. In more blunt terms, arguably the most important aspect of the operation in Iraq, the crux to defeating the insurgency/getting our troops out of there (whichever you care more about), is starting to be outsourced.
This one is a doozy of lessons not learned. First off, outsourcing training of the Iraqi military has been tried before and is actually one of the many, many factors into why we have had such a hard time...

Second, to turn over the task of advising the Iraqis now, at such a critical stage in the war effort as we try to translate the limited tactical success of the surge into something more permanent, is not just horrible timing. In the words of one U.S. Army officer, it is “definitely not a job that rational USG policy-makers should want in the hands of U.S./western contractors anytime soon.”...

Thirdly, the resultant messaging and long-term effects have to be a cause for concern. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified a few weeks to Congress that building up Iraqi capabilities was the priority in the year ahead. Contrast this with the message that this contract sends to Congress, the American public, and most importantly, our Iraqi counterparts...

But, fourth, advising a partner military is not just about building up their military skillset. It is also about passing on values and building long-term relationships. When you contract out military advisors, the values of civil-military relations and professionalism are supplanted by the evident commoditization of military skills, not always the best message in a developing democracy. In turn, the relations are not built between officers advancing up the ranks between the two forces, but with a company and its ever-changing staff of employees...

Much more (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0512_iraq_singer.aspx) at Brookings. Hat tip to Phil Carter at Intel Dump (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/) for the e-mail pointer to this piece.

jcustis
05-12-2008, 11:09 PM
In turn, the relations are not built between officers advancing up the ranks between the two forces, but with a company and its ever-changing staff of employees...

Plain and simple right there. It would be dumb. Might as well place a few phone calls to the Comoro Islands while theire at it, to see if they can dig up any consultants lingering around.

Rob Thornton
05-12-2008, 11:58 PM
1) Hard to blame CENTCOM/MNF-I for what is essentially their approach to filling a capacity gap. The number of units and individual augmentees going into theater to do advisory work has not fallen off; it is actually on the increase as more and more units going into theater are finding some aspect of SFA and advising in their mission set. We can continue along with lots of identified but unfilled holes, or we can do what I believe is trying to be done, contracting out those gaps. Its my understanding that these are primarily meant to be support teams, which will play a key role as LOG architecture in Iraq is modified over the coming years - this may prove to be the more sustainable option. It may also allow more uniform types to go where they are critically needed vs. in the supporting structure. I'd also mention that at least one segment - those of senior level/ministerial advisor teams may actually be better filled from the pool of retirees who have worked at those levels vs. plugging a NBQ O5 into that position who has not developed the specific skill sets required for that job - he might be a hell of an Infantryman, but might not know anything about FMS or developing bureaucracy.

2) Even if we said we were going to reorganize and create something new for Iraq, it would take some real time to get there. We can outline new stuff on paper, but until we actually recruit, train, equip and grow our own force structure - the holes would continue to go unfilled - a concern for MNF-I/CENTCOM who must contend with current and future conditions which not only reflect those in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also those here on the domestic political front. In my opinion, they are taking action as opposed to leaving it up to hope.

3) We have not determined if Iraq and Afghanistan are representative of the real demand signal for SFA in a given state. While we know the requirements in both of those places, and we know that we are not meeting them like we'd like to (e.g. development across their security services has been uneven not because we like it that way, but because we've had to make choices due to our own resource constraints). It may be that Iraq and Afghanistan are not representative of future SFA requirements with regard to any one state. Regime change, and the complete dismantlement or destruction of a security sector have created requirements that may not reflect the typical future requirement for SFA - its hard to say for sure, but I think unless we have a situation where regime change is a requirement and the complete destruction or dismantlement of that regime's security sector is a requirement, we'd be well advised to consider alternative ways of generating, organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising FSFs - its just that big of an investment, and the political objective needs to be of commensurate importance - as I contend they are in Iraq. Future SFA may look different in its scope.

4) You could make the issue that all ground forces should be converted to TTs to meet the CENTCOM demand signal, however - as I mentioned in points one and two - most units going over now already are touching SFA in some way - and there is still some requirements there to do the things that BCTs do best as well. If you converted them all to work as advisors exclusively you'd create risk in other areas - some of it would be of the unacceptable type. There is also the issue of our global commitments - as important as Iraq and Afghanistan are - we still have other GCCs to support - the number of violent places seems to be on the uptick.

Singer had some decent points, and in a perfect world where we had the luxury to concentrate on 1 or even 2 things for awhile, where we had all the resources we could ask for, where we wrote something on paper and received authorization and funding for it, and it was filled the same day - we might come up with more palletable, please everyone solutions. These are not the times we live in. - the low hanging fruit disappeared from the tree some time ago. Can we do better - probably some - particularly in the individual leadership piece - but that is almost always the case. Hopefully they have done the legwork to determine what advisory efforts within the broader whole require a set of ACUs/Cammies over a pair of slacks and knit polo. It may be the best we can do based on the rules of supply and demand.

Anyway, just a few thoughts, things never seem to be quite as easy or straight forward as think tanks paint them.


Best, Rob

sandbag
05-26-2008, 12:37 PM
On the uniform side, is it possible we just aren't matching skill sets properly? My view on MITT assignments is that they're filled by the "shotgun blast" method of old-fashioned quotas per branch/OCF. Perhaps we (Army) might want to look at who is needed as opposed to the what (re: OH SH*T FILL THOSE SLOTS, ASSIGNMENTS GUY) as a method. The unit-driven MITT concept, while an improvement in C4I and internal log, is still flawed so long as we're driven to frothy-mouthed desperation in staffing those units.

John T. Fishel
05-26-2008, 01:12 PM
to contracting for things that should be inherently governmental!:eek:

In general, contracting training of other people's militaries (and police) is something that should be done by the USG (and its allied governments). That said, if Rob is correct, then some of the current contracting is, indeed, legitimate. On one issue, however, I would argue that there is little reason to use contractors and that is in the Ministry Support Teams. Here, the expertise lies in the USAR Civil Affairs Commands and is an outgrowth of their function beginning in WWII. The MSTs were pioneered in Panama, Kuwait, and Haiti and draw on the functional teams inherent in a CA Command and the civilian expertise that members bring.

Is there a place for contractor's in the MSTs? Some of us older guys who have retired could be brought in under contract to fill holes in the MSTs but, I think it would be better, cheaper, and easier to simply recall some of us to active duty out of the retired reserve.

Cheers

JohnT

Old Eagle
05-26-2008, 03:49 PM
Edison once said that he never failed in his experiments, but in the process of developing something like the incandescent light bulb, he discovered 10,000 ways that didn't work.

Well, we have discovered a host of ways that don't work in the security force assistance business.

The is documented evidence from multiple previous advisory efforts demonstrates that advisors need certain psychological skills and that they need to be developed in order to be successful. Yet, as sandbag points out, HRC uses the shotgun method of assigning advisors. There are combat advisors in Iraq or on their way who have NO combat experience and stale tactical experience. Luckily, they had a wealth of "dwell time", so they would obviously make great advisors.

You can also look at the experience HRC (I love Sean Byrne like a brother) sent to John Nagl to train advisors out at Riley -- Very few former advisors. Even now that the assignment process has improved, the ratio of advisors to the rest of the faculty ain't great.

Ministry-level advisors. Gotta disagree w/John T. At the ministry level, contractors (the right ones, guys like John T. and others who have served on national-level staffs) make great advisors, as long as they have other skills. Or maybe the Service chiefs just need greater recall authority. MRD moves a lot of talent out of the Army (and other Services). Haul these guys back in and put them in uniform. I'd take the tax breaks, awards, financial accouterments and add'l 2-1/2 percent retirement increase any day of the week.

Essentially government services. Although this belongs on the contractor thread, let me just say that the definition of what government essential services subsume has been debated long and hard, and to date no one has come up with a meaningful solution. The sound bites offered by talking heads conveniently dodge major war-stopping issues, but sound good. I can tell you that the mindset of government employee good, contractor bad is not useful.

Have a great Memorial Day!

John T. Fishel
05-26-2008, 04:15 PM
took me a while to figure out what we disagree about.;) I think I've got it though. I would not reject pulling in as contractors for MSTs old geezers like us although, as we both said, recall from the Retired Reserve would be a better option.

I do think that in the 350th, 351st, and 352nd CA Commands there are probably enough relatively senior folk - with the needed civilain skills (unless we've lost those guys in the last decade) - to man the required MSTs (perhaps with some augmentation by contractors or recalled retirees as above). Or, do we disagree on this? :D

Have a super Memorial Day, all.

Cheers

JohnT

Old Eagle
05-26-2008, 07:03 PM
Well, they certainly have a lot of sr folk. Don't think I've ever seen so many COLs in an MTOE.

I think that we actually agree that contractors can have a place in MSTs. They should not be the sole source of personnel, and arguably not even the major one.

I think that one of the challenges in the current contingencies is the fact that CA have been over-subscribed in the plans. It's not a question of capability, but rather one of capacity. Even when I was "over there" years ago, the CA guys we worked with had endured multiple deployments -- and that was in the early days of the wars. Can't imagine what it's like now. During the small wars of the 90s, many of the same folk were being sent off on all expense paid forays to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, then Afghanistan and Iraq.

In looking at the solution to overuse of contractors, whatever it is has to be very broad. Maybe now is time to fix the military force structure and the civilian one. Maybe every employment contract above GS-10 ought to have a deployment clause. There is also a need to grow overstructure in the O-3 to O-5 and E-6 and above paygrades. Maybe "dwell time" for non-TPU reservists needs to be cut, also. Or maybe we just need to continue to rely on exceptionally talented and good-looking contractors, but possibly with better management.

In short, before fixating on the bitch about contractors, let's examine some of the easy solutions to replace them. Not willing to do that? Then there's no bitch!

Ken White
05-26-2008, 09:07 PM
...Maybe now is time to fix the military force structure and the civilian one. Maybe every employment contract above GS-10 ought to have a deployment clause.Agree!!!
There is also a need to grow overstructure in the O-3 to O-5 and E-6 and above paygrades.I submit we already have overstructure -- too many CPT to LTC folks are just not in the right places and in my observation most staffs are too large. I also suspect that in about four years we're gonna have a glut of Majors. Company Commanders, perhaps???

Also need to figure out what we're going to do with the overstrength in SSGs that's looming.

For Officer and enlisted ranks, is up or out really that good an idea...
...Maybe "dwell time" for non-TPU reservists needs to be cut, also...A lot of those folks used to get a lot of AD time built up working for the CA Brigades and Commands overseas back in the days of peace. While the war may make some less anxious for AD, I suspect there's still a pretty good flow. Might be worth looking at...

In any event, HRC needs to get rid of their 'fill the hole' mentality and the force structure guys need to undo some of the 'balance' they've applied to the force to facilitate said hole filling. Whatever is done, you're totally correct in saying that:
In short, before fixating on the bitch about contractors, let's examine some of the easy solutions to replace them. Not willing to do that? Then there's no bitch!Totally true and it seems to me the onus is on the pachyderms and HRC...

Jedburgh
01-22-2009, 03:41 PM
U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of Inspector General, Dec 08:

Status of the Secretary of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq Report Recommendations (http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/113469.pdf)

In October 2007, the Secretary of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq (The Panel), composed of outside experts, was assembled to review the Department’s security practices in Iraq following the Nisoor Square incident and to provide recommendations to strengthen the coordination, oversight, and accountability of Embassy Baghdad’s security practices. This report examines the status of The Panel’s recommendations and whether changes in operations enhanced the protection of U.S. mission personnel and furthered U.S. foreign policy objectives.

In making this assessment, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) visited Embassy Baghdad and sites throughout Iraq where private security contractors provide movement and personal protection for U.S. mission personnel, including Erbil, Kirkuk, Hillah, Tallil, and Basra. In addition, OIG examined Department reporting on the status of the recommendations and consulted with senior and operational-level officials in Management and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Embassy Baghdad, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), and the three security companies under contract with the Department to provide protective services in Iraq—Blackwater USA, DynCorp International, and Triple Canopy. The evaluation was conducted according to Quality Standards for Inspections (http://www.ignet.gov/pande/standards/oeistds.pdf) issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

reed11b
01-22-2009, 07:16 PM
I guess the one thing that I do not understand is how it is cheaper to contract to companies then to contract individuals.
Reed

Ken White
01-22-2009, 07:32 PM
individuals, you have to cover the Admin costs of payroll, insurance, etc. etc. -- plus, if equipment is involved, you have to provide it or specify with some precision what the individual is to provide. Cheaper to just get a Company to do all that minutia.

Plus, Congress like it that way because the contracting companies can contribute to Congressional campaigns whereas the Armed Forces or OGA cannot... :D

reed11b
01-22-2009, 07:57 PM
individuals, you have to cover the Admin costs of payroll, insurance, etc. etc. -- plus, if equipment is involved, you have to provide it or specify with some precision what the individual is to provide. Cheaper to just get a Company to do all that minutia.

Plus, Congress like it that way because the contracting companies can contribute to Congressional campaigns whereas the Armed Forces or OGA cannot... :D

Your still paying for all that "minutia" with companies too. It's not like they don't add those charges , along with the need for hefty profit into the contract proposals. Besides support positions already exist w/i the DOS and trainers can be dual purpose (train FT and "Contract" agents along w/ other nation security teams if need arises). Sorry, but I have heard that line a lot, I have never seen it pan out in practice. What I have seen is the disparity in income increase as we pay the "doers" less and shift the money to some CEO type. I'm sure that's not 100% the case, but it is in my limited experiance (private corrections, and State level service contracting).
Reed

Ken White
01-22-2009, 08:15 PM
Your still paying for all that "minutia" with companies too. It's not like they don't add those charges , along with the need for hefty profit into the contract proposals. Besides support positions already exist w/i the DOS and trainers can be dual purpose (train FT and "Contract" agents along w/ other nation security teams if need arises).to do it so your number of spaces can be decreased even as your overall costs increase. That lets you do other things with people and still stay within your Congressionally imposed personnel ceiling.
Sorry, but I have heard that line a lot, I have never seen it pan out in practice. What I have seen is the disparity in income increase as we pay the "doers" less and shift the money to some CEO type. I'm sure that's not 100% the case, but it is in my limited experiance (private corrections, and State level service contracting).Why be sorry? Yeah, me too, you're right on that.

Did you know the Army and the USAF, USN, USMC, NG and Reserves used to provide free Helicopter Ambulance service nation wide? Did you know that USN and US Army Stevedore companies cannot unload ships in the US? Did you know that military postal units cannot peform most postal services (for training) in the US?

Know why?

Might I suggest you go back and read the second paragraph of my response above; that really is the answer to everyones complaints of all types about government's contracting out, mismanagement and such as well as all the dumb things I asked about above. Oh, and add the civilian operators of Air Ambulance Services and Unions to those who can contribute to Congressional campaigns...

reed11b
01-22-2009, 08:59 PM
Thanks. I guess I just get touchy on the topic becouse so many who should know better have swallowed the "privitization" kool aid. Now go a write a book.
Reed

Uboat509
01-22-2009, 11:07 PM
There is also the issue of pure numbers. As of a couple of years ago the total number of contractors employed for PSD just in the Baghdad area was around 4,000. That's just Baghdad. Now, is it better to pay a few organizations to recruit, train and equip all of those contractors or is it better to have 4,000 individual contracts and then create or contract a whole other organization to do all of that? You are going to have to pay someone to do it. The existing systems would be overwhelmed with those types of numbers. Why not just pay one organization to take care of its own?

SFC W

120mm
01-26-2009, 06:47 PM
The biggest issue, though, is the "government service as a great big welfare program" mentality that pervades full time gov't employees.

The Contractors, you can fire. Unfortunately the great majority of gov't employees are there because you are overpaid, underworked and cannot be fired for incompetence.

The real problem isn't contractors or contract companies, it is that the supervision of contracts is accomplished by the same lazy, incompetent gov't full-time employees you are trying to avoid in the first place.

Until gov't service becomes "at will" and performance based, you will see more of the same. Except you can fire a contractor.

Ken White
01-26-2009, 07:57 PM
well, a former, now retired one but I agree with you.

I would suggest one consider the WG employees of DoD working in Afghanistan and Iraq on tech support and equipment rebuild...

As for most other Government employees, I don't take umbrage at your remarks because because there's a lot of truth in them. After 18 years as a DAC, the first seven as a TRADOC School Instructional Branch Chief, the last 11 at increasingly senior levels, I agree that ""government service as a great big welfare program" mentality that pervades full time gov't employees."exists. In my observation, it affects about one third or slightly less of the employees nationwide with pools of large percentages here and smaller ones there. The cities generally have larger pools, the boonies have smaller ones. In any event, that 30% in my observation is, thanks to Congress, only slightly above the 20% or so level that I have noticed for incompetents and drones in every single category of human endeavor to which I've been exposed -- and that includes soldiers of all ranks, academic, doctors and hamburger flippers.

Another 50% of Guvmint employees are not really that way but can give that impression to the really unobservant because they are severely constrained by an overwhelming bureaucracy and an environment that literally punishes those who take ANY risks. That is more true in DoD than in most of government due to the DoD 'zero defects' and dress right and cover down mentality.

Most of those employees in all Federal agencies really want to do a good job but they are in a system that precludes them from doing so in far too many cases. Fortunately, most of them most of the time can do at least a fair and sometimes even a really good job. Incompetent Supervisors and over nervous, untrusting bosses, officers and commanders contribute to all that but thank your Congress for most of that problem.

The remaining 20% or so of government employees do most of the work that gets done, routinely circumvent their bosses (and Commanders...), make hard decisions, try to eliminate the unproductive and do things that are literally illegal to get things done. It's amazing the system works as well as it does. That 20% again tracks with my observation over many years of all fields of human effort; 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people regardless of rank, status and work type. I think that old Commie, Bertrand Russell also noted that... :wry:

Your comment about firing incompetents is correct. We had one employee that required over 18 months of effort and several hearings to fire after said employee had accrued a record of about 30% of work time as unexcused absences in the course of a year. There were others almost as bad, it generally takes three letters, at least one hearing and about a year to fire someone -- thus, the marginal employee gets to slide. If the employee is a female or a minority group member, that process is more difficult. Again, thank your Congress for, among other things, their respect for the AFGE and allied unions for that problem.

I will take issue with these two statements:
"The real problem isn't contractors or contract companies, it is that the supervision of contracts is accomplished by the same lazy, incompetent gov't full-time employees you are trying to avoid in the first place."Mixed bag -- there are some sorry companies out there and a fair number of the contract supervisors you disparage are Commissioned officers of the US armed services and their reserve components. The Companies are provided with possibly too many protective clause and safeguards...

The fact that sorry companies are allowed to bid and are not required to adequately police their employees is due to -- guess who -- your Congress who insists that anyone be allowed to bid, the lowest bid be taken and who also ties the hands of contract supervisors because those companies can --and DO -- contribute to Congressional campaigns.
Until gov't service becomes "at will" and performance based, you will see more of the same. Except you can fire a contractor.I agree on the government service being at will and performance based. Strongly. I will point out that the NSPS in 2005 was an attempt to get just that and it was gutted by Congress 'to protect the employees' (voters plus unions...).

I disagree on the firing of a contractor -- it is not at all easy to fire a contractor (the Contractor can fire his employees; some are better than others but most don't want the hassle and are reluctant to fire -- overseas employment is different), there are a lot of steps required to do that; all favor the contractor -- and all are at the behest of Congress.

Surferbeetle
01-26-2009, 08:30 PM
The biggest issue, though, is the "government service as a great big welfare program" mentality that pervades full time gov't employees.

Wouldn't it be great if the margins on both sides (contractor & govt) decided to work together for the win instead of just the majorities. :rolleyes:

From wikipedia Stuart Bowen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Bowen)


Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., is an American lawyer who serves as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), a position he has held since October 2004. He previously served as the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA-IG), a position to which he was appointed in January 2004. Bowen's mission includes ensuring effective oversight of the $50 billion appropriated for Iraq's relief and reconstruction.[1]

And from Merriam-Webster (http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/diplomacy):

Diplomacy: 2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

A useful skill for when one works with others on a team (such as a mixed govt'/contractor situation)...

SWJ Blog
04-12-2012, 02:06 AM
Our Silent Partners: Private Security Contractors in Iraq (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/our-silent-partners-private-security-contractors-in-iraq)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/our-silent-partners-private-security-contractors-in-iraq) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog
05-17-2012, 07:50 PM
Our Silent Partners: Private Security Contractors in Iraq (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/our-silent-partners-private-security-contractors-in-iraq)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/our-silent-partners-private-security-contractors-in-iraq) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.