A Necessary Evil
Nov 27, 2008 Commentary
Written by Adam Ryan and published at his blog Politically Blue Collar
From the start of the war in Iraq there has been a detailed media coverage that is unparalleled compared to past conflicts. With this increased exposure many different aspects of war have been brought to the public’s ever judging eye that might not have ever existed before, mainly the use of contractors and most controversially armed contractors. You might ask, what is a contractor? Well in regards to the Iraq War it is any individual or company that is hired to do a specific job for the military. Many people question why we use these companies to fulfill jobs that some might consider a responsibility of the military. The reason is two fold, cost and man power.
The end of the Cold War brought about a dramatic downsize of America’s military. This reduction of both manpower and funds is not particularly hurtful especially during peace times, however it is very noticeable in the way the military operates during a conflict. Because of the scale of the Iraq War and the decrease in manpower the military has to rely more on the private sector more than ever before. The military has hired companies, most notable Halliburton and KBR, to fulfill roles for the troops that do not require a service member such as preparing meals, washing clothes, and other basic duties. With these types of roles taken care of the military can utilize its troops more productively.
The most controversial aspect of all this contract work is the armed contractors and Private Military Companies (PMC). Many people believe these contractors to be mercenaries doing America’s dirty work; this could not be further from the truth. In reality these individuals are just armed security guards. With the rebuilding of Iraq comes lots of things that need protection. Iraq is still an extremely dangerous place where anything can happen, everything from supplies to businessmen needs security. This is where the cost aspect comes in. It is very expensive for the U.S. military to send an armed convoy along with every truck full of gravel to rebuild something. With every soldier comes a whole network of logistics and support. The average cost of one soldier in Iraq for one year is $390,000. It is way cheaper to hire a company such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Aegis, or any of the other PMC’s to perform these security roles. Soldiers are trained to do many different things and it would be a waste of a precious resource to send them on security convoys everyday, especially while you have these PMC’s that specially trains their employees for convoy and VIP security.
I do realize that there is a lot of ongoing controversy as to whether these contract companies are making too much money off the Iraq War. I am not debating that, how ever I do believe that they serve a very necessary role and free up a lot of soldiers to do more important work.
Tags: contractors, mercenary
Contractors: The New Element of Military Force Structure
Nov 27, 2008 Industry News
Written by MARK CANCIAN and published in Parameters, Autumn 2008, pp. 61-77.
Mercenaries,” “merchants of death,” “coalition of the billing,” “a national disgrace” all have been used to describe the use of contractors in war. The extensive use of contractors on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan has engendered strong emotion and calls for change. An ever-expanding literature and much larger volume of opinion pieces have led the discussion, most expressing shock and disappointment that such a situation has occurred. Unfortunately, little of this literature is useful to planners trying to design future forces in a world characterized by extensive commitments and limited manpower. The purpose of this article is to examine what battlefield contractors actually do, consider how we got to the situation we are in today, and provide force planners with some useful insight regarding the future.
Some general conclusions related to this assessment:
• Most jobs performed by contractors on the battlefield are unobjectional and should not be done by military personnel.
• With regard to the provision for bodyguards, the function where the most problems have occurred, viable options for change do exist.
• Following the Cold War, the Services, especially the active Army, were structured with an emphasis on combat units at the expense of support units. As a result there is a large and enduring shortage of support units. The use of contractors on the battlefield is no longer an optional or marginal activity.
The bottom-line for planners is that contractors are an integral and permanent part of US force structure. As a permanent part of US military force structure, contractors should be treated as such. Just as there are plans, preparations, and procedures for using reserve forces, the same needs to be done in the case of contractors. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Cancian, contractors, mercenary, warfare
Merchant ships may arm against pirates
Nov 27, 2008 Africa, Industry News, World Events
By Tom Mooney
Staff Writer at The Providence Journal www.projo.com
They shoot pirates, don’t they?
Not yet, but merchant ships off the coast of Somalia may soon resort to hiring gunmen to stop the brazen seizure of vessels, predicts Nikola Gvosdev, who teachers national security studies at the Naval War College in Newport.
Gvosdev, who has made appearances recently on MSNBC and National Public Radio, says most shipping companies have avoided hiring armed security forces up until now “because of the expense, the hassle and the insurance liability of having armed guards aboard.”
But as piracy blossoms into an international crisis, expanding into the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, ship owners are considering the lethal option.
“The problem you still run into is security onboard. A lot of pirates are successful in stealth. You get a dozen pirates on board and then you have a fight. Until now, while you have had the attacks, you haven’t had much in the loss of life,” he says. “But then, if you get pirates on board and start a gun battle, you may now have additional dead sailors.”
“On the other hand, the evidence shows that if the pirates see a vessel that has armed security — if they fire warning shots or otherwise show they will use lethal measures — the pirates don’t board. They are opportunistic in their choice of targets.”
Somalia, an impoverished nation on the east coast of Africa, has not had a functioning government since 1991. There have been at least 96 pirate attacks so far this year in Somali waters, with 40 ships hijacked. Fifteen ships with nearly 300 crew are still in the hands of Somali pirates, who dock the hijacked vessels near the eastern and southern coast as they negotiate for ransom. In just the last two weeks pirates have seized eight vessels including a huge Saudi supertanker loaded with $100 million worth of crude oil.
Ten to 15 years ago, the pirates were simple Somali fishermen. After their government failed in 1991, Gvosdev says the fishermen were left to themselves to protect their fishing grounds from illegal fishing vessels from Japan, China, France and Spain.
The fishermen hired local armed militants to drive off the poachers and, eventually, “the situation spiraled up,” Gvosdev says. “They started thinking: ‘We can hold up one of these fishing vessels.’ The targets started getting bigger and more attractive and the ransoms started coming in. The fishermen said, ‘Hey this works.’ ”
The merchant companies’ acquiescence to pay ransoms to free their ships and crew has helped create a growing cyclical problem, he says.
“There’s a sense that it’s a business that works, so more people have been joining in.”
A British reporter who entered one of the Somali coastal villages, Gvosdev says, learned that the piracy trade is well organized among criminal leaders who divide up the ransom money and set a percentage aside for improved equipment, such as better radios, GPS systems, boats and guns.
“Therefore, by paying the ransom, you’re also enabling them to increase their capabilities to launch further attacks.”
Shipping officials from around the world have called for a military blockade along Somalia’s coast to intercept pirate vessels heading out to sea. The head of the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, representing most of the world fleet, said Monday that stronger naval action — including aerial support — is necessary to battle rampant piracy in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia.
But NATO, which has four warships off the coast of Somalia, has rejected a blockade.
U.S. Gen. John Craddock, NATO’s supreme allied commander, said the alliance’s mandate is solely to escort World Food Program ships to Somalia and to conduct anti-piracy patrols. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that a blockade of ports was “not contemplated by NATO.”
In neighboring Kenya, the head of U.S. military operations in Africa said he had no evidence that Somali pirates are connected to al-Qaida, but said the allegations are “a concern we all would have.”
Western governments have expressed concern that some pirate ransoms — some $30 million this year alone — could end up in the hands of extremists with links to terror groups in Somalia.
Gvosdev doesn’t believe a blockade or a “land invasion,” as suggested by some countries, has the wide support to be politically feasible.
In the end, Gvosdev says, employing the pirates the same way the U.S. government paid insurgents in Iraq to join their side may be the best option: “For a lot of these people, the bottom line is: ‘Will I get paid at the end of the day?’ ”
