The business of war and profit: Aren’t we proud?

The American Conservative’s Kelley Vlahos had what I thought was some excellent perspective on contracting in her article titled The business of war and profit: Aren’t we proud?

Pretty poignant considering that The American Conservative is not exactly the place you normally find gratuitous contractor bashing.  It’s one thing to take a beating from The  Nation on this subject but when TAC Magazine is on your case maybe it’s finally time to take an honest critical look at ourselves.

Kudos to Vlahos for saying what needs to be said.   Most PSCs put too much emphasis on profit and not enough on staff selection, development, training, management and oversight.  But the U.S. taxpayer is really to blame for not holding their government accountable.

By Kelley Vlahos

You know what prostitutes and pimps and drugs and rape and electrocuted soldiers all have in common? You’re paying for it.

There is such a lack of outrage for the way that private military contractors have pillaged and profiteered from our nearly-decade occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that it leaves one speechless. Almost. Thanks to whistle-blowers — at the threat of their own security, professionally or otherwise — we have been informed  of some of the basest, grossest behavior coming out of the contracting world on the taxpayers’ dime today. Whether it be soldiers electrocuted by cheap, poorly installed showers by KBR and Triple Canopy, the vodka-drug- fueled pimping frat boys from the Armor Group or the gang rape of a female American contractor by her fellow KBR employees, there is seemingly no end to evidence that the proliferation of privatization has created a runaway Frankenstein of venality, arrogance, avarice and corruption and downright evil, with no restraint that I can see, whatsoever.

Take this latest bit about the Armor Group. Thanks to the Project on Government Oversight, which had the wherewithal to FOIA the goods on this group, we now know that there has been unfettered depravity — including, we heard last week, the procurement of imported, unwitting Chinese girls for sex — at our U.S Embassy. Not surprisingly, there has been a ton of finger-pointing about who knew what and when, but the fact remains that the company got its $187 million contract renewed even after allegations began to surface. Not much different than (Blackwater) Xe, which got its contract renewed in Iraq last week even as their former guards stand trial for murder and the company has banned by the Maliki government for ever working there again.

Allegations of misconduct and corruption on this level go way back — Dyncorp was accused of pimping out skinny, war ravaged girls back in Bosnia. No one seems to care. They just got another contract worth up to $7.5 billion in Afghanistan. They have contracts elsewhere in the expanding U.S footprint, including Africa.

Meanwhile, there are earnest, but ineffective attempts by members of congress to put the brakes on Frank. The Democratic Policy Committee held numerous hearings over the Bush years on these and other subjects of contractor malfeasance, to no real avail. The Commission on Wartime Contracting was created last year and has held some truly eyeopening hearings, even published a nifty report on the 240,000 private contractors now overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and the companies they work for  — but to what end? As for President Obama, who pledged during his campaign to review the troubling inflation of private contracting and to hold contractors accountable — crickets.

Read the entire article here.

Boys Gone Wild!!! The Kabul Edition

Recent allegations of misconduct, failing to meet contractual obligations, (to say nothing of just general stupidity and juvenile antics) by Armor Group staff at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul raises serious questions about leadership both at Armor Group and at the U.S. State Department.

We’ve yet to hear anyone from Armor Group comment in detail on this case but I can just imagine the way it will sound when it comes out.

We take this very seriously…

we are investigating…

it’s an isolated incident…

we are getting it fixed…

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, when pressed on questions of contractor behavior of his Blackwater staff likes to say, “Listen, these guys are all patriots, military veterans and professionals.”  As if being a patriot and a veteran meant no oversight is necessary?  It’s another way of saying, “You’re an idiot for questioning us.  We could not possibly do anything wrong.”

History contains any number of idiots who were military veterans and who viewed themselves as patriots yet clearly took actions which were against the interests of the U.S.  One prime example is Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and later executed for bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.   The point is that being a veteran does not mean you are faultless or that you don’t need oversight.

Listen, I served as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and I consider that organization to hold the highest standard in military professionalism.  They are the consummate ‘professional’ but at no time are they ever devoid of oversight or the possibility of prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The command structure, the rules, regulations, policies, guidelines and standing operating procedures which are normal in any military organization do not exist to any meaningful degree within the private security/military industry.  At best you have a few companies who, relatively speaking, do better than most but even that’s a pretty low standard to meet.

Furthermore, the consequences for breaking rules (that is…the few rules that actually exist) is virtually non-existent.  In the U.S. military the UCMJ governs service personnel and all soldiers, airmen and Marines know that failure to comply with any lawful order, law or rule or even policy or guideline runs the risk of prosecution non-judicial punishment (NJP),  or court martial under the UCMJ.  Again, nothing even close to this exists within the world of private security.  There really is no accountability comparable to the UCMJ and NJP amounts only to dismissal from your current contract.  And we all know that this is, in reality, no punishment at all since the offender often simply pop-ups somewhere else for another firm in a matter of weeks or months.

So, in short…no rules to follow at the industry level and no consequences for failing to follow any rules which may or may not exist.  If these were the ingredients for today’s dinner I doubt if anyone would be eating it.

Now then.  That takes care of the industry side of the equation.   What about the client side?  Increasingly it is coming to light that government clients, in contrast with private clients, are systemically inept at managing the procurement, selection and oversight of security contracts.  I have personally worked on contracts which have both private clients and government clients and though neither do a very good job, the government side and in particular the U.S. State Department are painfully ill equipped to do this work.  The reasons for this are puzzling, especially as at this stage, after 8 years of war in Afghanistan and 6+ years in Iraq there are literally hundreds of senior contractors with multiple years of operational management experience who could be hired by State in to sit on the ‘client side’ of the table during contract negotiations as well as during the later phases of contract execution.

For decades the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Services (DSS) program was always a sleepy little backwater in the security world.  It was, and to some degree still is,  full of lifelong government civil servants who, despite their hard work and good intentions, have not been able to adapt to the pace and complexity that operating in a war-zone imposed on them.  They got pushed into a fast-paced and complex game that they were not prepared for.

But to date this has been like asking a local high school football coach, no matter good his record has been at that level,  to jump into the NFL.   Oh sure, on the surface there are many similarities,  the field is the same dimensions, it’s still 11 vs. 11 players  and the rules are mostly the same and certainly the concepts is the same in principle.  But the speed, level of complexity and knowledge and experience to say nothing of the media attention necessary to perform at the highest level make it impossible for him to take go from High School to the NFL without a natural maturation process which usually involves a stop for many years at the university level.

The DSS small staff of only a couple thousand agents oversees (and I am using that term lightly) over 30′000 contract personnel in the protection of over 200 Embassies and consulates around the world.  But, the problem is that your standard, run-of-the-mill, contract and mission to protect the Embassy in Berlin or even Kuala Lumpur or Mumbai  is still about three solar-systems away from what is required to protect the Kabul embassy.  Kabul and Baghdad are the big leagues and the DSS has not demonstrated anything near the capability of playing on that field.  They certainly do not have a commanding position of respect or authority over the security firms they are supposed to supervise.  At best they are perceived as an administrative nuisance which should be avoided at every opportunity.

To some degree the State Department knows they are are in over their head and they have relied, far too heavily, on the professionalism (I use that term lightly as well…) of the private security sector to pull their bacon out of the fire.  But, as I have alluded to before the professionalism they desire and frankly rely on generally just does not exist.

The State Department needs to ‘grow up’ and on-board  a wave of professional staff to oversee these programs.  Preferably former senior military officers with combat experience.  I can guarantee that if these programs were run by retired Colonels who had on their staff retired Majors and recently separated Captains and a cadre of former Senior Staff NCOs who know how to act professionally and provide security at the same time they will be able to hold accountable any private firm who wins the contract.  Having the, in-house know-how is the first step but State also needs to get a spine and have the guts to dismiss any firm who is not meeting their contractual obligations.  A PSC should be pissing in their boots when a DSS officer is in his AO.  But that only happens when the DSS officer knows what to look for and has the initiative and authority to do something when he sees something amiss.

What State seems to be missing is the fact that everyone in this industry wants the U.S. government as a client.  The State Department is in the drivers seat here.  They can have anything they want.  They can drive a hard bargain and they can run roughshod over any service provider because the line outside for the privilege of winning the contract is long.   You can’t perform?  Next…

State’s problem is they don’t know what to ask for, how to ask for it or know what it should look like when it gets delivered.

With piracy odds in their favor, ships shun armed guards

The small number of successful pirate attacks, an increase in military patrols, and legal concerns have kept many firms from hiring security.
| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

That statistic, reported during a Senate panel Tuesday in Washington, offers one reason why shipping firms have been unenthusiastic about using armed guards to thwart pirate attacks, leaving the problem to be solved by the US and other militaries.

“Many in the merchant shipping industry continue to assume, unrealistically, that military forces will always be present to intervene if pirates attack. As a result, many have so far been unwilling to invest adequately in basic security measures that would render their ships far less vulnerable,” said Michele Flournoy, the Pentagon’s chief of policy, at the hearing.

As with the “asymmetrical threat” posed by insurgents on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, experts have been taken aback by how quickly a small band of pirates can successfully attack large vessels with millions of dollars worth of cargo aboard. One answer is for shippers to provide for their own security, employing armed security crews to man each ship.

But those crews can be expensive and the shippers don’t necessarily want to spend the money to hire them. And despite the recent high-profile pirate attacks, shippers recognize the odds are in their own favor and essentially see any ransom they may have to pay as the cost of doing business.

About 33,000 ships sail through the Gulf of Aden each year, and there were just 122 attacks in 2008, according to Pentagon officials at Tuesday’s congressional hearing. Of those attacks, only 42 were successful.

Shipping officials also say that arming the ships could create an arms race. “Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win,” said John Clancey, chairman of Maersk, Inc., which owns the Alabama, during another recent Washington hearing.

Shipping firms are also constrained by legal rules pertaining to port entries for armed private security, as well as insurance issues. Using private security firms is “the most controversial issue that we have right now,” said James Caponiti, top official at the US Maritime Administration, at the hearing.

Still, some private security firms have offered their services. XE, the firm formerly known as Blackwater USA, is reportedly in negotiations to contract with shippers to provide a “security escort service” in the Gulf of Aden with their own 183-foot ship called the MacArthur.

In the meantime, Aegis, the British security firm, is offering a land-based sensor system that could help monitor pirate ship movements. Many experts believe the key lies in targeting the “mother ships” that are used as a base of operations, sometimes more than 400 miles out at sea.

The Pentagon is looking at what role the US should play. Last month, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged a group of officers to look at options for not only for the US military but also other government agencies, including the Departments of State and Transportation. On Monday, the group presented an initial set of findings that included offense- and defense-related solutions for ships at sea, says a military official, as well as solutions that could be effective on shore.

That includes the possibility of a combat action – one of the least desirable alternatives – as well as diplomatic and economic measures.

Military solutions have partly worked. The presence of some 28 nations patrolling the region has pushed some pirates out from the Gulf of Aden back to the Indian Ocean, says Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence for SRATFOR, an intelligence firm.

But most experts agree that military solutions alone won’t do it. The root causes of piracy stem from poverty, lack of opportunity and lawlessness, things the military simply can’t address on its own.

“Piracy, although generally considered a scourge of the world’s oceans, has its origins on land and has usually been defeated on land as a result of political and economic changes that have evolved over time,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, who chaired Tuesday’s Senate panel hearing on piracy in Washington. “Ultimately, the solution resides ashore, not just through action on the open seas.”

In the meantime, American officials are urging shippers to take their own precautions to keep the pirates at bay. They run the gamut from rolling up ship ladders, to keeping the perimeter of ships well-lit, to installing barbed wire fences around the sides of the deck.

Nearly 80 percent of thwarted attacks were the result of ships employing some kind of defensive measure, including armed guards, according to Pentagon officials.

“They need to do some things on their own,” says one military official. “Just like … when you drive through a bad neighborhood, you roll up the windows and lock the doors.”

Terrorists Finding Safe Havens in East Africa

My thanks to Jason at LES for bringing this story to my attention.  The piracy threat and with it the counter measures will change very quickly in HOA if/when Islamic terrorists exploit the relative easy access to commercial shipping.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if Islamic terrorists indirectly fixed the piracy problem.  A single suicide attack similar to the one launched against the USS Cole in back in 2000 would dramatically change the industries position on the use of armed guards.

Jake

________________________________________________________

By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press

WASHINGTON–There is growing evidence that battle-hardened extremists are filtering out of safe havens along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and into East Africa, bringing sophisticated terrorist tactics that include suicide attacks.

The alarming shift, according to U.S. military and counterterrorism officials, fuels concern that Somalia is increasingly on a path to become the next Afghanistan — a sanctuary where al-Qaida-linked groups could train and plan their threatened attacks against the western world.

So far, officials say the number of foreign fighters who have moved from southwest Asia and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region to the Horn of Africa is small, perhaps two to three dozen.

But a similarly small cell of militant plotters was responsible for the devastating 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And the cluster of militants now believed to be operating inside East Africa could pass on sophisticated training and attack techniques gleaned from seven years at war against the U.S. and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said.

“There is a level of activity that is troubling, disturbing,” Gen. William “Kip” Ward, head of U.S. Africa Command, told The Associated Press. “When you have these vast spaces that are just not governed it provides a haven for support activities, for training to occur.”

Ward added that American officials already are seeing extremist factions in East Africa sharing information and techniques.

Several military and counterterrorism officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters cautioned that the movements of the al-Qaida militants do not suggest an abandonment of the ungoverned Pakistan border region as a safe haven.

Instead, the shift is viewed by the officials more as an expansion of al-Qaida’s influence, and a campaign to gather and train more recruits in a region already rife with militants.

Last month, Osama bin Laden made it clear in a newly released audiotape that al-Qaida has set its sights on Somalia, an impoverished and largely lawless country in the Horn of Africa. In the 11-minute tape released to Internet sites, bin Laden is heard urging Somalis to overthrow their new moderate Islamist president and to support their jihadist “brothers” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and Iraq.

Officials said that in recent years they have seen occasional signs that sophisticated al-Qaida terror techniques are gaining ground in East Africa. Those harbingers include a coordinated series of suicide bombings in Somalia in October.

In the past, officials said, suicide attacks tended to be frowned on by African Muslims, creating something of an impediment to al-Qaida’s efforts to sell that aspect of its terrorism tactics.

But on Oct. 29, 2008, suicide bombers killed more than 20 people in five attacks targeting a U.N. compound, the Ethiopian consulate, the presidential palace in Somaliland’s capital and two intelligence facilities in Puntland.

The coordinated assaults, officials said, amounted to a watershed moment, suggesting a new level of sophistication and training. The incident also marked the first time that a U.S. citizen — a young Somali man from Minneapolis — carried out a suicide bombing.

The foreign fighters moving into East Africa complicate an already-rising crescendo of terror threats in the region. Those threats have come from the Somalia-based al-Shabab extremist Islamic faction and from al-Qaida in East Africa, a small, hard-core group also known by the acronym EEAQ.

While not yet considered an official al-Qaida franchise, EEAQ has connections to the top terror leaders and was implicated in the August 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya that killed 225 people. The bombings were al-Qaida’s precursors to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a plot spawned by a small cell of operatives as far back as 1992. Four men accused as al-Qaida plotters were later convicted in federal court in New York for those bombings.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and several other EEAQ members remain under indictment in the United States for their alleged participation in those bombings. Mohammed is on the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list with a reward of up to $5 million on his head.

Al-Qaida has the skills while al-Shabab has the manpower, said one senior military official familiar with the region. The official said EEAQ appears to be a small cell of a few dozen operatives who rarely sleep in the same place twice and are adept at setting up temporary training camps that vanish days later.

What worries U.S. military leaders, the official said, is the that EEAQ and al-Shabab may merge in training and operations, potentially spreading al-Qaida’s more extremist jihadist beliefs to thousands of clan-based Somali militants, who so far have been engaged in internal squabbling.

The scenario could become even more worrisome, the officials said, if the foreign fighters transplant their skills at bomb-making and insurgency tactics to the training camps in East Africa.

Africa experts, however, said it won’t be easy for Islamic extremists to win many converts in East Africa.

Francois Grignon, Africa program director for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based research organization, said in an interview that many clan members generally practice a more moderate Islam, and militants are not inclined to join a fight they do not see as their own.

The U.S., he said, needs to encourage the new government in Somalia to deal with the growing terror threats there and to marginalize the jihadists so they are not able to sustain their activities in Somalia.

Ward said U.S. Africa Command is working with a number of nations to build their ability to maintain security. But he said commanders are less able to do much in Somalia, where the new government is still fragile.

Meanwhile, he said, officials continue to watch as the ties between the terror groups grow.

“I think they’re all a threat,” said Ward. “Right now it’s clearly a threat that the Africans have, but in today’s global society that threat can be exported anywhere with relative ease.”

Official: U.S. will not renew Iraq contract with Blackwater

By Elise Labott–CNN State Department Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The State Department will not renew the contract of security contractor Blackwater Worldwide when it expires in May, a senior State Department official said Friday.

The decision was made after the Iraqi government refused last week to renew the firm’s operating license because of a 2007 incident in which the Iraqi government says security guards — then employed by Blackwater — fired on and killed 17 Iraqis.

Read the rest of this entry »

Report: Iraq security contractors poorly managed

By RICHARD LARDNER – Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department has poorly managed a nearly $2 billion deal with Blackwater Worldwide and other security contractors in Iraq, according to a report from the agency’s inspector general, which cites failures to station guards in the right places and weak oversight as key problems.

Read the rest of this entry »

Feds plan to charge Seattle man for Iraq death

Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2009

- Associated Press Writer

Federal prosecutors intend to charge a former security contractor for Blackwater USA in the killing of an Iraqi guard in 2006, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Stewart Riley said he received a letter from prosecutors outlining their intent to charge his client, Seattle resident Andrew Moonen. Riley declined to discuss the letter any further or say if it revealed what charge the U.S. attorney’s office is contemplating, but said he has neither received nor made any plea offer for Moonen.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Seattle, Emily Langlie, declined to comment Tuesday.

Riley said he does not expect any formal developments before March.

Moonen, a former Army Ranger, was wandering drunk around Baghdad’s Green Zone after a Christmas Eve party in 2006 when he encountered and fatally shot Raheem Khalif, a 32-year-old guard for Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, according to a congressional report.

Moonen, now 28, reported the shooting at a nearby post for another security contractor, Triple Canopy, saying he had been in a gunfight with Iraqis.

Blackwater arranged to have the State Department fly him back to the United States, fired him and fined him, and paid the slain guard’s family $15,000.

That outraged many Iraqis, who questioned how an American could kill someone in those circumstances and return to the U.S. a free man.

By U.S. order, the contractors at that time were immune from Iraqi law. But the U.S. Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 provides that any member of the military, Department of Defense worker or contractor, or anyone “supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas,” can be prosecuted in the U.S. for crimes committed abroad. Blackwater had a State Department contract to provide security.

Five other Blackwater contractors were indicted last month in Washington, D.C., on manslaughter and other charges stemming from the killing of at least 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007.

Iraq: Security Forces Ready To Defend Country

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 4 Jan 10:49 EST (15:49 GMT)

BAGHDAD - Iraqi officials insisted on Jan. 4 that the fledgling security forces are ready to defend the country even as a suicide bomber killed at least 35 people and injured dozens in northern Baghdad.

The blast at checkpoint near the entrance to a Shiite shrine in the Kadhimiyah district occurred as top government officials gathered in the Green Zone to mark Army Day.

Today we are more optimistic and hopeful because the new democratic Ira qwill be an example for the region, in building democracy and the state of law,” Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said at ceremony in the Green Zone.

“The army will defend the unity, people, soil and sky of Iraq.”

Iraqi Defense Minister Abdel Qader Jassem Mohammed said Iraq was ready for that task.

“This day shows that we are going in the right direction and we have the abilities to take care of our security issues,” he told AFP after the ceremony to commemorate the 88th anniversary of the Iraqi army.

“We are ready to take over security completely by the end of 2011.”

On January 1, the U.S. military turned over to Iraq security control of the Green Zone in central Baghdad - a heavily fortified government and diploma tic area that came to symbolize the American occupation.

In line with an agreement signed in November, the United States has hand ed over several security files to Iraq on January 1 and is due to withdraw entirely from the country by the end of 2011.

The Jan. 4 attack killed at least 35 people, including women and children, and wounded 65 others among them Iranian pilgrims who were taking part in a religious procession.

Security business scrutinises Iraq transition

By Sylvia Pfeifer, Defence Industries Correspondent for The Financial Times

 

When the clock strikes midnight in Iraq on Wednesday night, the country will enter a new era. At that moment a United Nations mandate expires, and Iraqi police and soldiers will take the lead in providing security for government and business.

The change is being watched closely by executives of the private security industry, not least those based in Britain. The sector has boomed in Iraq since the allied invasion in 2003, leading to Saddam Hussein’s downfall as president.

Contractors have played a substantial role in supporting the military, reconstruction and diplomatic operations of foreign forces in Iraq, as well as providing security for an increasing number of commercial enterprises.

Although most executives say the handover will have no material impact on their operations, some observers are warning that together with the allied troop withdrawal, it will create a sea-change for the industry.

“While the US and UK troops are there they’ve got top cover, but once they are gone, they will be on their own,” says Patrick Grayson, senior partner of GPW, a London-based corporate intelligence firm, and a veteran of the security sector.

“They will probably be the only foreign arms-carrying people in the country and be subject to Iraq law,” Mr Grayson says.

“Iraq was showtime for private military companies, like the Klondike gold rush. They played a pivotal role in filling a vacuum, helping to relieve the fighting forces [by providing security].”

Mr Grayson expects the market to become more competitive, putting private military companies under much greater commercial pressures to be more compliant and price-sensitive.

“The question is whether such strictures on them will diminish their ability to protect their clients,” he says. 

Industry executives, however, while conceding they are watching the legislative change closely, insist it will have little direct impact.

Aegis is one of the most prominent London-based private security companies in Iraq, with some 1,500 people in the country working primarily for the US defence department.

Tim Spicer, the company’s founder, compares speculation about what may or may not happen with concerns over the millennium bug, which proved misplaced. “Everyone is terribly worried about what might happen on January 1, but we have been operating in Iraqi-controlled territories for some time and it is not a great concern to me,” he insists.

Martin Rudd, senior vice- president at London-based Olive Group, which has some 600 personnel deployed in Iraq, says that if anything he expects the business environment to be more “buoyant” once allied troops have withdrawn.

The number employed in Iraq’s private security industry is close to 30,000, according to Lawrence Peter, director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq.

Of these, about 3,000-5,000 are expatriates, mainly from the US, the UK and Australia. Some 5,000-10,000 are third-country nationals while around 15,000 are  Iraqis.

Although roadside bombings and other incidents in Iraq still make headlines, Mr Peter says there has been a “significant reduction in the number of violent incidents and also in the violence with which these occur”.

There has also been a large drop in the number of attacks on convoys related to the reconstruction effort over the past 52 months, he says.

Of the 29,000 or so convoys since August 2004, the attack rate has fallen from about 1:5 in January 2007 to 1:500 in November 2008.

The improved security situation has led to growing interest from outside investors. General Electric, the US conglomerate, which has been active in the country for several years, won a $3bn (£2bn) power generation contract earlier this month.

The US has struck a separate security agreement to keep about 140,000 troops in the country to 2011 but combat forces will have to leave Iraqi cities and villages by the end of June 2009 and will not be able to conduct operations without Iraqi permission. Most British troops are due to withdraw next May, with the last set to leave in July.

Like Mr Spicer at Aegis, Mr Peter says private security contractors are adopting a wait-and-see approach to next year.

“They will want to see how the Iraqis manage the first incidents that may or may not occur. What concerns me is not the legislative system but what happens from the time of an incident to the first 24-48 hours. We need to have cool heads on both sides to build mutual trust and confidence,” he says.

Iraqis to take charge of Green Zone in 2009

 

BAGHDAD — When the calendar flips to 2009 on Thursday, Iraq’s government will gain control over the Green Zone and its own airspace and some jurisdiction over security contractors under the terms of a deal that will fundamentally change how the United States operates here.

The changes, outlined in a landmark security agreement the Bush administration signed in November, are part of the broadest transfer of responsibilities to Iraqi hands since 2004, when the government regained sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

The most visible changes will take place in the Green Zone, the fortified section of Baghdad that has been the U.S. headquarters since the invasion in 2003.

Last week, Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, called it the Iraqi Security Zone. U.S. forces will continue to issue ID cards and act as advisers for months to come, but except for the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex along the Tigris River, the Iraqis “will be in charge” Jan. 1, Odierno said.

The changes represent “a palpable shift in power,” said Daniel Serwer, former executive director of the Iraq Study Group, a panel appointed by Congress in 2006 to assess the situation here. “If the Americans had the bigger office on Dec. 31, they’ll have the smaller one on Jan. 1.”

 

The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, mandates the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2011 and establishes guidelines for their actions until then. It also sets terms for non-military personnel operating in Iraq, including private security contractors who guard diplomats and other civilians working here.

Until now, all American contractors have avoided Iraq’s jurisdiction under a rule issued by the CPA in 2004 that said contractors were “immune from Iraqi legal process.”

That arrangement has been deeply unpopular with the Iraqi public since September 2007, when guards from the Blackwater company opened fire and killed 14 Iraqis in Baghdad, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Five of the guards were indicted on manslaughter charges this month.

The SOFA explicitly ends that immunity for contractors working for the military or Defense Department. The agreement says nothing about contractors such as Blackwater that work for civilian agencies such as the State Department — and it is unclear how much their operations would be affected, if at all.

Police powers

Adnan al-Asadi, a senior deputy in Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, said Iraqi police will be able to search the offices and vehicles of private security contractors, confiscate illegal weapons and expel companies operating without a license.

“Now it is our turn to be responsible for the safety of our country,” said al-Asadi, whose huge ministry employs 650,000 police and other security personnel.

A State Department inspector general’s report released Dec. 18 said it was “still unresolved” what the SOFA will mean to Blackwater and two other private security companies that protect diplomats here.

The mere prospect of Americans in Iraqi jails could result in changes. A report this month by the U.S. Institute of Peace, a Washington think tank, urged the incoming Obama administration to develop contingency plans in case Iraq exercises its new powers to prosecute U.S. contractors or troops in Iraqi courts.

It said the Iraqi government “may quickly assert its authority” to prosecute U.S. citizens, “especially given the current high pitch of nationalist sentiment in Iraq.”

The State Department report said that if Blackwater and other contractors are no longer granted immunity, many “personal security specialists would leave, and those remaining would ask for and receive premium compensation” at much greater cost to taxpayers.

Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, a trade group in Washington, called the SOFA “terrible.” He said contractors will “have no protection” from arrest and detention.

The Blackwater issue

In April, the State Department renewed its contract with Blackwater, which is the largest security contractor in Iraq with 1,000 employees. The State Department said it would await the results of an ongoing FBI investigation into the shooting in 2007 before possibly reconsidering.

Iraq canceled Blackwater’s license after the shooting but had no legal authority to enforce a ban. Al-Asadi said the company may have to leave Iraq because the Ministry of Interior has denied its application for a new license.

Al-Asadi said Blackwater is among 70 private security companies that have been “working under the cover of the American forces” without a license.

“If they don’t have a license, they should leave,” he said. “Only those with licenses can work here.”

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrell declined to comment. In an e-mail, she wrote, “Blackwater works in Iraq at the behest and under the direction of the United States government.”

“We are not envisioning changing our contracting practice” with Blackwater, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Susan Ziadeh said Sunday. She refused to answer “hypothetical” questions about who would protect diplomats if Blackwater was expelled by the Iraqi government. “We’re not there yet,” she said.

Though it remains unsettled who will accompany diplomatic convoys, al-Asadi said he was confident about what kinds of weapons contractors will, and will not, tote in the new year.

As of Thursday, most foreign contractors will not be allowed to possess machine guns that fire .50-caliber bullets or larger. If they’re caught with such heavy weapons, Iraqi security forces will take them away.

“An AK-47 is enough to protect them,” al-Asadi said. “They don’t have the right to have more effective weapons than we have.”