A perspective on Blackwater/security contractors

This is a discussion on A perspective on Blackwater/security contractors within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Since I said I'd stay out of the "BW raw deal" thread, I had to post this in a new one... Seriously, if you are ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: A perspective on Blackwater/security contractors

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709

    A perspective on Blackwater/security contractors

    Since I said I'd stay out of the "BW raw deal" thread, I had to post this in a new one...

    Seriously, if you are interested in the issue and want to learn how it came to be, what they are actually doing, and why some of the "solutions" offered are problematic (if not impossible), it's absolutely worth a read. When I read it, I thought someone at stratfor.com had read some of my posts in the other thread!


    Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations
    October 10, 2007 2000 GMT


    By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

    As Stratfor CEO George Friedman discussed Oct. 9, some specific geopolitical forces have prompted changes in the structure of the U.S. armed forces -- to the extent that private contractors have become essential to the execution of a sustained military campaign. Indeed, in addition to providing security for diplomats and other high-value personnel, civilian contractors conduct an array of support functions in Iraq, including vehicle maintenance, laundry services and supply and logistics operations.

    Beyond the military bureaucracy and the geopolitical processes acting upon it, another set of dynamics is behind the growing use of civilian contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. These factors include the type and scope of the U.S. diplomatic mission in the country; the nature of the insurgency and the specific targeting of diplomats; and the limited resources available to the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Because of these factors, unless the diplomatic mission to Iraq is dramatically changed or reduced, or the U.S. Congress takes action to radically enlarge the DSS, the services of civilian security contractors will be required in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Those contractors provide flexibility in tailoring the force that full-time security officers do not.

    Civilians in a War Zone

    Although it is not widely recognized, the protection of diplomats in dangerous places is a civilian function and has traditionally been carried out by civilian agents. With rare exceptions, military forces simply do not have the legal mandate or specialized training required to provide daily protection details for diplomats. It is not what soldiers do. A few in the U.S. military do possess that specialized training, and they could be assigned to the work under the DSS, but with wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they currently are needed for other duties.

    For the U.S. government, then, the civilian entity responsible for protecting diplomatic missions and personnel is the DSS. Although the agency's roots go back to 1916, Congress dramatically increased its size and responsibility, and renamed it the DSS, in 1985 in response to a string of security incidents, including the attacks against the U.S. embassies in Lebanon and Kuwait, and the security debacle over a new embassy building in Moscow. The DSS ranks swelled to more than 1,000 special agents by the late 1980s, though they were cut back to little more than 600 by the late 1990s as part of the State Department's historical cycle of security booms and busts. Following 9/11, DSS funding was again increased, and currently there are about 1,400 DSS agents assigned to 159 foreign countries and 25 domestic offices.

    The DSS protects more dignitaries than any other agency, including the U.S. Secret Service. Its list of protectees includes the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the approximately 150 foreign dignitaries who visit the United States each year for events such as the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) session. It also provides hundreds of protective details overseas, many of them operating day in and day out in dangerous locations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Colombia, the Gaza Strip, Pakistan and nearly every other global hot spot. The DSS also from time to time has been assigned by presidential directives to provide stopgap protection to vulnerable leaders of foreign countries who are in danger of assassination, such as the presidents of Haiti and Afghanistan.

    The DSS is charged by U.S. statute with providing this protection to diplomats and diplomatic facilities overseas, and international conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations permit civilian agents to provide this kind of security. Because of this, there has never been any question regarding the status or function of DSS special agents. They have never been considered "illegal combatants" because they do not wear military uniforms, even in the many instances when they have provided protection to diplomats traveling in war zones.

    Practically, the DSS lacks enough of its own agents to staff all these protective details. Although the highest-profile protective details, such as that on the secretary of state, are staffed exclusively by DSS agents, many details must be augmented by outside personnel. Domestically, some protective details at the UNGA are staffed by a core group of DSS agents that is augmented by deputy U.S. marshals and agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Overseas, local police officers who operate under the supervision of DSS agents often are used.

    It is not unusual to see a protective detail comprised of two Americans and eight or 10 Peruvian investigative police officers, or even a detail of 10 Guatemalan national police officers with no DSS agents except on moves to dangerous areas. In some places, including Beirut, the embassy contracts its own local security officers, who then work for the DSS agents. In other places, where it is difficult to find competent and trustworthy local hires, the DSS augments its agents with contractors brought in from the United States. Well before 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the DSS was using contractors in places such as Gaza to help fill the gaps between its personnel and its protective responsibilities.

    Additionally, for decades the DSS has used contract security officers to provide exterior guard services for U.S. diplomatic missions. In fact, contract guards are at nearly every U.S. diplomatic mission in the world. Marine Security Guards also are present at many missions, but they are used only to maintain the integrity of the sensitive portions of the buildings -- the exterior perimeter is protected by contract security guards. Of course, there are far more exterior contract guards (called the "local guard force") at critical threat posts such as Baghdad than there are at quiet posts such as Nassau, Bahamas.

    Over the many years that the DSS has used contract guards to help protect facilities and dignitaries, it has never received the level of negative feedback as it has during the current controversy over the Blackwater security firm. In fact, security contractors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting those placed in their charge, and many times have acted heroically. Much of the current controversy has to do with the size and scope of the contractor operations in Iraq, the situation on the ground and, not insignificantly, the political environment in Washington.

    The Iraq Situation

    With this operational history in mind, then, we turn to Iraq. Unlike Desert Storm in 1991, in which the U.S. military destroyed Iraq's military and command infrastructure and then left the country, the decision this time was to destroy the military infrastructure and effect regime change, but stay and rebuild the nation. Setting aside all the underlying geopolitical issues, the result of this decision was that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has become the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, with some 1,000 Americans working there.

    Within a few months of the invasion, however, the insurgents and militants in Iraq made it clear that they would specifically target diplomats serving in the country in order to thwart reconstruction efforts. In August 2003, militants attacked the Jordanian Embassy and the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad with large vehicle bombs. The attack against the U.N building killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights in Iraq. The U.N. headquarters was hit again in September 2003, and the Turkish Embassy was attacked the following month. The U.S. Embassy and diplomats also have been consistently targeted, including by an October 2004 mortar attack that killed DSS Special Agent Ed Seitz and a November 2004 attack that killed American diplomat James Mollen near Baghdad's Green Zone. DSS Agent Stephen Sullivan was killed, along with three security contractors, in a suicide car bombing against an embassy motorcade in Mosul in September 2005. The people being protected by Sullivan and the contractors survived the attack.

    And diplomatic targets continue to be attacked. The Polish ambassador's motorcade was recently attacked, as was the Polish Embassy. (The embassy was moved into the Green Zone this week because of the continuing threat against it.) The Polish ambassador, by the way, also was protected by a detail that included contract security officers, demonstrating that the U.S. government is not the only one using contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. There also are thousands of foreign nationals working on reconstruction projects in Iraq, and most are protected by private security contractors. The Iraqi government and U.S. military simply cannot keep them safe from the forces targeting them.

    In addition to the insurgents and militants who have set their sights on U.S. and foreign diplomats and businesspeople, there are a number of opportunistic criminal gangs that kidnap foreigners and either hold them for ransom or sell them to militants. If the U.S. government wants its policy of rebuilding Iraq to have any chance of success, it needs to keep diplomats -- who, as part of their mission, oversee the contractors working on reconstruction projects -- safe from the criminals and the forces that want to thwart the reconstruction.

    Practical motivations aside, keeping diplomats safe in Iraq also has political and public relations dimensions. The kidnappings and deaths of U.S. diplomats are hailed by militants as successes, and at this juncture also could serve to inflame sentiments among Americans opposed to the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Hence, efforts are being made to avoid such scenarios at all costs.

    Reality Check

    Due to enormity of the current threat and the sheer size and scope of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the DSS currently employs hundreds of contract security officers in the country. Although the recent controversy has sparked some calls for a withdrawal of all security contractors from Iraq, such drastic action is impossible in practical terms. Not only would it require many more DSS agents in Iraq than there are now, it would mean pulling agents from every other diplomatic post and domestic field office in the world. This would include all the agents assigned to critical and high-terrorism-threat posts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon; all agents assigned to critical crime-threat posts such as Guatemala and Mexico; and those assigned to critical counterintelligence-threat posts such as Beijing and Moscow. The DSS also would have to abandon its other responsibilities, such as programs that investigate passport and visa fraud, which are a critical part of the U.S government's counterterrorism efforts. The DSS' Anti-Terrorism Assistance and Rewards for Justice programs also are important tools in the war on terrorism that would have to be scrapped under such a scenario.

    Although the current controversy will not cause the State Department to stop using private contractors, the department has mandated that one DSS agent be included in every protective motorcade.

    Since 2003, contractors working for the DSS in Iraq have conducted many successful missions in a very dangerous environment. Motorcades in Iraq are frequently attacked, and the contractors regularly have to deal with an ambiguous opponent who hides in the midst of a population that is also typically heavily armed. At times, they also must confront those heavily armed citizens who are fed up with being inconvenienced by security motorcades. In an environment in which motorcades are attacked by suicide vehicle bombs, aggressive drivers also pose tactical problems because they clearly cannot be allowed to approach the motorcade out of fear that they could be suicide bombers. The nature of insurgent attacks necessitates aggressive rules of engagement.

    Contractors also do not have the same support structure as military convoys, so they cannot call for armor support when their convoys are attacked. Although some private outfits do have light aviation support, they do not have the resources of Army aviation or the U.S. Air Force. Given these factors, the contractors have suffered remarkably few losses in Iraq for the number of missions they have conducted.

    It is clear that unless the United States changes its policy in Iraq or Congress provides funding for thousands of new special agents, contract security officers will be required to fill the gap between the DSS' responsibilities and its available personnel for the foreseeable future. Even if thousands of agents were hired now to meet the current need in Iraq, the government could be left in a difficult position should the security situation improve or the United States dramatically reduced its presence in the country. Unlike permanent hires, the use of contractors provides the DSS with the flexibility to tailor its force to meet its needs at a specific point in time.

    The use of contractors clearly is not without problems, but it also is not without merits.
    Original article is here: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Cupcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,164
    Yeah, I think they deserve some slack. Make them record their missions or whatever, but cancelling contracts over an isolated incident or 2 out of thousands is silly. Find the irresponsible few and give them the boot. Kick blackwater out and the irresponsible few will be picked up by whoever gets the new contract.
    Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this mini documentary!
    Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com

    Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Stetson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Augusta,Maine
    Posts
    1,555
    They are in a war zone and there will be collateral losses.I put myself in their shoes and I would be firing until the vehicle stops I am going home at all costs to hell with the Monday night quarterbacking!
    It gets tiring to listening to people who were not under stress of
    life or death making all these suggestions of what could or should of
    been done.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Blackwater has never had a protectee seriously wounded or killed. Wonder how well the Secret Service or FBI would do under similar circumstances?

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Right, wrong or indifferent...I think BW's days in Iraq are numbered.

    Rick

  7. #6
    Member Array JohnnyRebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lee County, Florida
    Posts
    45

    raw dea

    I think they are being unfairly picked on in this case.
    Cheers,

    Johnny Rebel


    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    Since I watched, or listened to the hearings that they had earlier this month, with both Blackwater, and the State Department personnel, I have come to realize a few things.

    Currently, there is no clear cut answer to who the contractors answer to. They are not subject to the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, or for that matter any other laws that are on the books for the USA. After 4 years in theater the lawyers are still debating if anything can actually be to the person if they are doing things wrong. The current form of discipline is they forfeit the pay they have coming from their employer and are sent home. End of story. If a military person does something wrong they are subject to court marshall and all the things that come along with that.

    All of the personnel working for Blackwater are either prior military, or law enforcement. Either local agencies or the U.S. government has given the initial training to all its members and paid the expense for that training. Blackwater then picks up those personnel and gives them additional traing for the security mission.

    The military does not much appreciate the actions of some of the contractors. Many top military officers have said that they do make the job of the military more difficult because they don't abide by same rules, and the military is left to deal with the actions of the contractors.

    Based on the current actions in Washington, none of the politicians are willing to put the burden of this war on the American people other than repaying the massive debt that is being accumulated. There are more contractors in the Iraq and Afganistan theaters than there are military personnel. In order for the military to pick up the jobs of the contractors there would have to be a draft reinstated.

    My opinion is:

    If they have done something wrong they need to be punished just like the military or people on the government payroll.

    If the government of Iraq (limited as it is) wants this company out of its country they they should go. If we are trying to get them to a democratic state, then they need to start making some of their own decisions. How much of a democracy will there be if the Iraq government wants to do something and the US says, well thats not what we want.

    If the actions of the contractors interfere with the military actions, the military should come first. They are the ones that are doing our politicians bidding.

    Anyway it was interesting to watch the hearings. Lots of info in there, straight out of the horse's mouths. Lots of back peddling and people unable to answer straight forward questions.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array srfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,870
    DSS special agents are very hard core; I knew a few and went to FLETC SA training with a guy who became one....
    USAF: Loving Our Obscene Amenities Since 1947

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    Wow, srfl...we usually have a reputation for being more "laid back" than "hard core." I guess the times are a'changin' indeed.

    farron - more oversight and accountability are probably warranted, I'll agree. The issue I take umbrage with is the "we don't need the crazy, bloodthirsty, maniacal mercenaries in the first place" argument - usually spewed by people who have absolutely no idea what these guys do, or how or why they do it.

    I also would question your numbers - there are over 200,000 uniformed military in Iraq and Afghanistan; there are no where near that number of security contractors there. (If you mean contractors in general, then the numbers go way up, but I still wonder if it approaches 200k).

    ETA: A Wall Street Journal article today cites some of the problems in replacing BW with "something" else. The military doesn't want and can't handle the job (or else why would the DoD hire them to protect their own folks?), any other contractor would have to hire many of BWs contractors (there just aren't that many special operations qualified Little Bird pilots out there, you know?) and so on. On the other hand, SecDef has proposed putting ALL contractors under DoD authority - a move that SecState vehemently opposes when it comes to the contractors protecting DoS personnel. We'll see how it all shakes out, I guess...
    Last edited by OPFOR; October 17th, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    OPFOR

    Yes, I meant contractors in general, not just the security.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  12. #11
    Member Array Deacon51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238
    I have worked in the DoD long enough to know that company names may change often, but the guys doing the job are the same old guys. I have people to have been laid off three times in as many years and never even change desk...

    So Black Water becomes Blue Water, or what ever... so what?

    I also think a small part of the issue is that Black Water tactical gear is showing up on everyone and there mother. It could lead to a little confusion over who is really Black Water, and who is Al-Alphabet Security Contractor.
    Support Maryland Shall Issue
    http://www.marylandshallissue.org/

    Maryland Shooters,
    Visit http://www.mdshooters.com/

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Jury Deadlocked -- Blackwater contractors who killed two unarmed Afghan ...
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 1st, 2010, 08:00 PM
  2. Civilian Contractors?
    By BENZIN in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 09:22 AM
  3. Calling to all Military/Contractors -- what knife for world travel?
    By Risque007 in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 06:38 PM
  4. Crooked Contractors
    By ridurall in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 07:33 PM
  5. Any Private Security Contractors here?
    By TN_Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 30th, 2007, 01:30 AM

Search tags for this page

does blackwater accept civilians?

,

secret service or dss

Click on a term to search for related topics.