Wanted for Hire: 1 carcass to roast on a spit and hang from a bridge
Gurkas and Seals and SWATS, oh, my!
New York Times on private security firms - "Shadow Soldiers" - in Iraq
The private side of war
Rough estimates put the private security forces assisting the Coalition occupation and reconstruction at 20,000; neither the Pentagon nor Coalition Authority can give a precise number. Security firms have hired and brought to Iraq an assortment of the world's professional fighters, including confessors to apartheid-era crimes:
They have come from all corners of the world. Former Navy Seal commandos from North Carolina. Gurkas from Nepal. Soldiers from South Africa's old apartheid government. They have come by the thousands, drawn to the dozens of private security companies that have set up shop in Baghdad. The most prized were plucked from the world's elite special forces units. Others may have been recruited from the local SWAT team. (Barstow, Times)
The security teams are impressive; some firms have formed Quick Reaction Forces and run their own intelligence units as well as fend for themselves diplomatically - several firms have struck alliances with local clans.
Rising costs and visibility
Senator John Warner (R-VA), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, refers to these security forces as the Coalition's "silent partner." Recent forecasts predict private security costs could gobble up to a quarter of the $18b set aside for reconstruction. The
Times notes this is an "unanticipated expense."
Some Democrats are unhappy, namely Senator Reed (RI), who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee. Reed stated, "Security in a hostile fire area is a classic military mission . . . Delegating this mission to contractors raises serious questions."
The Bush administration's growing dependence on private security companies is partly by design. Determined to transform the military into a leaner but more lethal fighting force, Mr. Rumsfeld has pushed aggressively to outsource tasks not deemed essential to war-making. But many Pentagon and authority officials now concede that the companies' expanding role is also a result of the administration's misplaced optimism about how Iraqis would greet American reconstruction efforts . . . .
. . . . "I believe that it was expected that coalition forces would provide adequate internal security and thus obviate the need for contractors to hire their own security," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the new inspector general of the authority. "But the current threat situation now requires that an unexpected, substantial percentage of contractor dollars be allocated to private security." (Barstow, Times)
It's a dangerous mission: "commandos" from private firms defended Coalition Authority employees and buildings at Kut and Najaf in the recent violence, and a firm operating at Mosul held off a direct assault against its headquarters.
As the private security operations continue to grow more visible and dangerous, there are some concerns:
There is no central oversight of the companies, no uniform rules of engagement, no consistent standards for vetting or training new hires . . . .
. . . . Only now are authority officials working to draft rules for private security companies. The rules would require all the companies to register and be vetted by Iraq's Ministry of Interior. They would also give them the right to detain civilians and to use deadly force in defense of themselves or their clients. "Fire only aimed shots," reads one proposed rule, according to a draft obtained by The New York Times.
Several security companies have themselves been pressing for the rules . . . .
. . . . "What you don't need is Dodge City out there any more than you've already got it," said Jerry Hoffman, chief executive of Armor Group, a large security company working in Iraq. "You ought to have policies that are fair and equal and enforceable." (Barstow, Times)
Some growth numbers:
• Global Risk Strategies - currently about 1,500 guards in Iraq, up from 90 at start of war
• Steele Foundation - 500, up from 50
• Erinys - unknown prior to war; employs 14,000 Iraqis.
"You're kidding me"
"We're really in an unprecedented situation here," said Michael Battles, co-founder of the security company Custer Battles. "Civilian contractors are working in and amongst the most hostile parts of a conflict or postconflict scenario." (Barstow, Times)
I just included this quote because:
• Seriously? Your name is Michael Battles?
• You're kidding me. Your company is called
Custer Battles?!
At any rate . . . .
The dangerous mission
In 2001-2002, private security contractors working with the US government filed claims for 10 deaths and 843 injuries. Since the start of 2003, there have been 94 claims for deaths and 1,164 for injuries. The Labor Department notes that an overwhelming majority of claims come from Iraq.
The Rules of Engagement
For private security contractors, the rules of engagement are seemingly simple. They can play defense, but not offense. In fact, military legal experts say, they risk being treated as illegal combatants if they support military units in hostile engagements.
"We have issued no contracts for any contractor to engage in combat," Mr. Lumer, the Army procurement official. (Barstow, Times)
It seems simple enough to explain; but among the many worries associated with the rising presence of these private contractors is that their necessity is increasing at such a rate that positions are hard to fill. "At what point do we start scraping the barrel?" asked a British security firm COO. Erinrys, which employs 14,000 Iraqis, discovered after-the-fact that among their international hires was an apartheid-era confessor to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Steele Foundation's CEO, Kenn Kurtz, turned down an $18m contract because the company could not assemble and deploy qualified guards quickly enough; another company took the contract. "They just throw bodies at it," said Kurtz.
Mark Lumer, a Pentagon officer overseeing Army procurement contracts in Iraq describes the degree of reliance on private security contracts as "unprecedented." Mr. Lumer said of regular troops: "You don't want them catching jaywalkers or handing out speeding tickets."
Nonetheless, the difference between private and regular means little, if anything to the enemy.
Irregular: Private security forces following an attack in Baghdad.
(Reuters)
Thus while the private contractors may become illegal combatants if they give direct support to the military, Blackwater contractors fired thousands of rounds protecting a coalition authority building in Najaf. It creates a sticky situation:
In an interview, Patrick Toohey, vice president for government relations at Blackwater, grappled for the right words to describe his men's actions. At one moment he spoke proudly of how the Blackwater men "fought and engaged every combatant with precise fire." At another he insisted that his men had not been engaged in combat at all. "We were conducting a security operation," he said.
"The line," he finally said, "is getting blurred." (Barstow, Times)
And add to all that communication problems with the very military forces these contractors support; on some occasions, nervous Coalition troops have actually fired on contractors. At Kut, four contractors from Hart survived a fourteen-hour siege that saw a comrade killed and dismembered; they complained that the Ukranian troops deployed in the area gave no assistance.
And, just for kicks, how about some bureaucratic problems?
Many security guards are hired as "independent contractors" by companies that, in turn, are sub-contractors of larger security companies, which are themselves subcontractors of a prime contractor, which may have been hired by a United States agency.
In practical terms, these convoluted relationships often mean that the governmental authorities have no real oversight of security companies on the public payroll. (Barstow, Times)
In the end, the private contractors do have one up on Coalition troops: they
can abandon their posts in times of grave danger, and they get to come home if they make it out alive. Scott Earhart, a former sheriff's deputy, left Iraq after working as a dog-handler for bomb searches for Custer Battles. He explained that training, body armor, and weapons were inadequate: "If you didn't get to the supply room in time you wouldn't have a gun."
Earhart quit when asked to drive from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan -
unarmed.
The quote of the day comes from Michael Battles, whose company has hired former West Point military philosopher Paul Christopher to help Custer Battles figure out its policies in the face of the Iraqi escalation:
• "It's an industry that if it's not careful could easily blend into what is usually referred to as war profiteers or soldiers of fortune or mercenaries."
I wouldn't know where to begin with the commentary. There's too much for this time of morning.
____________________
• Barstow, David. "Security Companies: Shadow Soldiers in Iraq." New York Times, April 19, 2004. See http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4236
