America's New Mercenaries

[[R_H]]

As American commanders meet this week for the Afghanistan review, Obama is hiring military contractors at a rate that would make Bush blush. Tim Shorrock on the Blackwater heirs.

Top U.S. commanders are meeting this week to plan for the next phase of the Afghanistan war. In Iraq, meanwhile, gains are tentative and in danger of unraveling.
Both wars have been fought with the help of private military and intelligence contractors. But despite the troubles of Blackwater in particular – charges of corruption and killing of civilians—and continuing controversy over military outsourcing in general, private sector armies are as involved as ever.

Without much notice or debate, the Obama administration has greatly expanded the outsourcing of key parts of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East and Africa, and as a result, for its secretive air war and special operations missions around the world, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on a new breed of specialized companies that are virtually unknown to the American public, yet carry out vital U.S. missions abroad.

Companies such as Blackbird Technologies, Glevum Associates, K2 Solutions, and others have won hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military and intelligence contracts in recent years to provide technology, information on insurgents, Special Forces training, and personnel rescue. They win their work through the large, established prime contractors, but are tasked with missions only companies with specific skills and background in covert and counterinsurgency can accomplish.

Some observers fear that the widespread use of contractors for U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa could deepen the secrecy surrounding the American presence in those regions, making it harder for Congress to provide proper oversight.

Even in Iraq, where the U.S. has ended combat operations, the government is "greatly expanding" its use of private security companies, creating "an entirely new role for contractors on the battlefield," Michael Thibault, the co-chairman of the federal Commission on Wartime Contracting, recently warned Congress.

Blackbird, which is staffed by former CIA operatives, is a key contractor in a highly classified program that sends secret teams into enemy territory to rescue downed or captured U.S. soldiers.

Among the companies getting contracts is Blackbird, which is staffed by former CIA operatives, and is a key contractor in a highly classified program that sends secret teams into enemy territory to rescue downed or captured U.S. soldiers.

Glevum, meanwhile, fields a small army of analysts in Iraq and Afghanistan who provide the U.S. military with what the company opaquely describes as "information operations and influence activities."

And K2 is a highly sought-after subcontractor and trainer for the most secretive units of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, including the SEAL team that rescued the crew of the Maersk Alabama from a gang of pirates last year. It is based near the Army's Special Forces headquarters in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and was founded by Lane Kjellsen, a former Special Forces soldier.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander of conventional and special forces in the war zones, is using contractors because "he wants an organization that reports directly to him," said a former top aide to the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, the umbrella organization for all Special Forces. "Everyone knows Petraeus can't execute his strategy without the private sector." The former aide spoke on the condition that he not be identified, saying his career could be jeopardized if he went public. The International Security Assistance Force, the general's home command, did not respond to a request for comment.
The use of contractors could become a serious problem if controversies about them are not addressed, a senior British official warned during a recent visit to Washington. Pauline Neville-Jones, the U.K.'s minister of state for security and counterterrorism (and a former executive with QinetiQ PLC, a major intelligence contractor), told an audience at the Brookings Institution that "we have something of a crisis in Afghanistan" partly because of the "largely unregulated private sector security companies performing important roles" there.
The Pentagon's Central Command had nearly 225,000 contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas at last count, doing tasks ranging from providing security to base support. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency field thousands more under classified contracts that are not publicly disclosed, but extend into every U.S. military command around the world. (According to reports in The Nation and elsewhere, Blackwater, which is now known as Xe, has contracted to send personnel into Pakistan to fight with the Joint Special Operations Command, although a command spokesman said the reports were "totally wrong.")

In response to a question from The Daily Beast, Neville-Jones said that American and British forces must work out "the operational rules and roles that they have when they are in the frontline." Unless that happens, "We are in danger of getting up against Geneva Convention problems and failure to observe fundamental rules of war."

A spokesman for SOCOM would not say exactly how many people work on its contracts, but did say that between 2001 and 2009, SOCOM's budget has grown from about $3 billion to about $10 billion. Neither SOCOM nor Special Operations forces outsource combat operations, the spokesman said. "About the only contractors Special Operations forces might have with them on operations are interpreters," he said.

However, private contractors are now fulfilling vital functions previously done by the military itself. Blackbird is a case in point. Based in Herndon, Virginia, a stone's throw from the CIA, Blackbird deploys dozens of former CIA operatives and provides "technology solutions" to military and intelligence agencies. Much of the company's revenue—including a $450 million contract awarded last year by the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command—comes from the deployment of special teams and equipment into enemy territory to rescue American soldiers who have been captured by Taliban or al Qaeda units or have stranded after losing their helicopters in battle.

Until recently, the task of rescuing American soldiers was largely carried out by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recommended that the agency's parent command in Virginia be closed. If the recovery agency is shut down, Blackbird would likely pick up the rescue business as it is outsourced. In that case, recovery of captured or stranded American soldiers "won't be a military command anymore; it will be a business," said the former Special Operations command aide (an agency spokesman said, "It's too early to say what will happen.")

Blackbird is run by CEO Peggy Styer, an investor once labeled a "serial defense entrepreneur" by CNN. Last year, she hired Cofer Black, the former head of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, to a senior position. (Black hired and managed some of the first private operatives to enter Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and later joined Blackwater.) Perhaps anticipating a pickup in future business, a venture-capital fund launched by Styer and two other Blackbird founders recently raised $21 million on Wall Street. Blackbird did not return phone calls or emails.

Glevum Associates, for its part, has won contracts for controversial intelligence-gathering work. The Boston-based company was founded in 2006 by Andrew Garfield, a former British intelligence officer with counterinsurgency experience in Northern Ireland. Garfield first gained public notice in 2004, when he was a key player in the Lincoln Group, a defense contractor that became notorious for engaging in a covert psychological operation to plant stories in the Iraqi press that put a positive spin on America and the U.S. war effort in Iraq. (Covert psychological operations are known in the trade as psy-ops.) Garfield won his first contracts for Glevum as an adviser to the U.S. military in Iraq. Drawing on his experience in Northern Ireland, his company began researching the views of Iraqi citizens toward the U.S. military. At the time, "no one was doing systematic target audience research," he told me in an interview.
Glevum's contribution to counterinsurgency efforts is a trademarked program called "Face-to-face Research Analysis" that combines intelligence collection with polls and interviews, primarily for the Army's Human Terrain System—a system that some American social scientists have described as unethical because information gleaned from anthropological researchers ultimately can be used to kill people.nGarfield denies the charge. The U.S. military, he told me, can't "connect opinions to location." Rather, the military uses his information "to focus their operations the right way and to provide solutions that Afghans would choose." Several experts on the program said it's impossible to divorce it from other—bloodier—counterinsurgency efforts. "HTS has been an intelligence-funded program from the beginning," said John Stanton, a Virginia military analyst who has written extensively about the system.

(Glevum's corporate partners include primary contractors BAE Systems and ManTech International. K2, which declined to comment, also wins much of its classified work as a subcontractor for larger companies such as Boeing and CACI.)

Garfield pushes back against the notion that Glevum Associates bears any resemblance to Blackwater, which became synonymous with corruption and incompetence for a series of incidents that included shooting innocent civilians and smuggling illegal weapons. "Whenever people think of contractors now, they think of Blackwater," said Garfield. "Well, if you hire a cheap plumber, don't be surprised when the plumbing breaks."


Tim Shorrock is a Washington-based investigative journalist and the author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing, published in 2008 by Simon & Schuster. His articles have appeared in The Atlantic, Salon, Mother Jones, The Nation and many other publications at home and abroad. He can be reached through his website at timshorrock.com.

Very interesting. I'm honestly not surprised that Obama hasn't done anything to stop the continued privatisation.

[Bernkastel]

Ah, what a surprise.

Seriously though, this just what we can expect from Obama. I can agree with you on that. At least there appears to be some voicing concerns about this practise. Hopefully that will translate into someone actually taking real action.

[someone_else]

So, after guantanamo, the next frontier of violating human rights.

Governments hiring companies that do innominable evils and keep it secret (better than government at least). Really cyberpunk.

[Thanas]

To be honest, there really is no other way for Obama to minimize casualties and still be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. His whole war strategy is "turn it over to mercenaries, get the real troops out".

[Sea Skimmer]

Expanding the US war in Afghanistan pushes contractors forward on every front; this cannot be physically avoided. One could skip so much direct combat use of contractors, but even Obama would still needs hoards of them to sustain the vastly expanded logistical effort required to support so many more US soldiers in country. Long range truck convoys through hostile territory soak up manpower like crazy. Using more US troops would not even be an option given a draft in many of these locations because Central Asian states and Pakistan will not allow our ground forces to do it. The reality is contractors are simply more politically acceptable for everyone involved except the local townsfolk they are shooting at.

At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if it would have been cheaper by now to build brand new world class freight railroads into Afghanistan, and simply fight through a couple trains at a time hauling 10,000 tons apiece, but that would require people to stop thinking in terms of 'win in one year' strategies.

[Jeremy]

Wouldn't those rails be even easier targets for sabotage than convoys?

[Sea Skimmer]

Like I said, fight through a couple trains at a time and you’ve moved more supplies then thousands of trucks. If the track is damaged in the interim it doesn't matter; railroads are easy to repair as long as you can avoid major bridges, and because it is a railroad and not a road civilian traffic is a non issue. If anyone is on the tracks other then at a designating crossing, the tracks would be barbed wired off, they can be safely assumed to be insurgents and killed on sight. Railroads were kept operating in Vietnam, Korea and all over WW2 against way more intensive attacks. The fuel savings of moving well, bulk fuel, by rail instead of truck would be massive. Right now fuel is being trucked all the way from Karachi to Kabul.

A pipeline would be even better of course; but that would have way less chance of survival.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would it be wise to surround the tracks with landmines? And won't the process of making these tracks also be fuel intensive (since, before you build the train, construction supplies have to be ferried by truck also) and also be ripe for insurgent attack?

[Chaotic Neutral]

Aren't landmines banned by international law? Because I can think of a LOT of problems they could solve.

[Todeswind]

Aren't landmines banned by international law? Because I can think of a LOT of problems they could solve.

The United States hasn't signed that treaty and frankly isn't likely to sign it, so maybe. It's a PR nightmare to use them though.

[Coalition]

Would it be wise to surround the tracks with landmines? And won't the process of making these tracks also be fuel intensive (since, before you build the train, construction supplies have to be ferried by truck also) and also be ripe for insurgent attack?

You can start the train from one location, and have it carry supplies. A crane car can be used to move things as needed, while a diesel-electric will be used to provide power. Replacement equipment can be hauled up by additional trains.

Of course, this is limited to advancing at the sinlge construction train's rate from one location, so you will likely want additional trains building rails where possible.

[weemadando]

I remember reading somewhere that a well trained rail gang back in the day of the barons could lay about 8 or so miles of track a day. With modern tech you could probably match that without resorting to massed labour forces.

Having a panzerzug or three on the tracks probably wouldn't hurt your security either. Plus, as you are creating new infrastructure you could lay anti-tamper devices and sensors along the track as you go to increase your security. Complexity is a bitch. Honestly the best thing for it would just be to lay mines.

[Sea Skimmer]

Would it be wise to surround the tracks with landmines? And won't the process of making these tracks also be fuel intensive (since, before you build the train, construction supplies have to be ferried by truck also) and also be ripe for insurgent attack?

For security I’d just build armored railcars with a couple gun turrets on them and complete remote control (several guns per turret to defend against jams); since the thing is on rails movement control is a breeze. As a freight train convoys advances it would collect the security cars ahead of itself. Foreign mercenary type security would sweep the tracks, directly escort the trains, and maintain surveillance, while hoards of locally hired militia occupy high ground as needed and generally deter attacks by deploying many technicals. That’s how they do the truck convoys now. Keep in mind that only a couple worthwhile roads enter Afghanistan; so while a railroad is a predictable target so are the truck convoy routes. IIRC the route to Kabul takes about a month for a truck to complete a round trip.

Sure it’d be fuel intensive to build a railroad and generally cost tens of billions of dollars up front; but it’d nowhere near as fuel intensive as hauling everything by truck for nine years. The only reason logistics in Afghanistan work at all is the Pakistani railway system does move some cargo part of the way. For the stuff that goes by truck we are talking about a 800 mile trip one way to go from Karachi to Kabul. Some supplies come into the North of Afghanistan where the railroad hits the border but then still must go 350-400 miles. Converting everything to be railroad that moves at least fifty miles deep into the country would be a big savings. Right now its been claimed at least that the cost of delivering 1 gallon of fuel to US forces in Afghanistan is in the range of 400 dollars. The efficiency of the process is staggering.

And of course, if Afghanistan had real railroad access, all those strategic minerals that have been found in Afghanistan could be shipped out remotely economically. That would provide something resembling an economic basis for the government to exist on, since right now it’s as bad a dependence on foreign aid as South Vietnam (total).

I remember reading somewhere that a well trained rail gang back in the day of the barons could lay about 8 or so miles of track a day. With modern tech you could probably match that without resorting to massed labour forces.

You’ve got to fill a crater, lay ties, cut rail and then weld and spike rail. Not really very complicated. We actually vaguely kept the South Vietnamese railroad operating, and North Korea kept trains operating even when the UN command committed literally all of its air power into destroying the system.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Aren't landmines banned by international law? Because I can think of a LOT of problems they could solve.

The United States won't sign the international land mine ban, because we use them in the Korean DMZ.

[JME2]

To be honest, there really is no other way for Obama to minimize casualties and still be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. His whole war strategy is "turn it over to mercenaries, get the real troops out".

You know, he could also just hire a few regiments of Hessians; I hear they're offering Holiday discounts.

Seriously, I'm not happy about this.

[Thanas]

^You might be surprised, but there are actually a lot of German mercenaries operating there. One of the things of conscription is that you get a lot of people with a basic military training and these will offer a large recruiting pool.

[Ace Pace]

To be honest, there really is no other way for Obama to minimize casualties and still be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. His whole war strategy is "turn it over to mercenaries, get the real troops out".

You know, he could also just hire a few regiments of Hessians; I hear they're offering Holiday discounts.

Seriously, I'm not happy about this.

What options do you leave an overstretched U.S. military? The population wants the war there, it would rather keep on fighting, but does not want to risk manpower. So mercenaries are cheap (politically) and allow you to keep things going.

[Akkleptos]

Really, I know it looks nasty to the naked eye, but given the situation, I have to say it's probably the only solution available to Obama, since he promised to witdhraw troops from Afghanistan and he has this standing commitment (and responsibility) not to let the region fall into utter chaos. Lest it become a textbook case of "The US making someone else clean their mess".

Actually, I think it's the best available option... "No more Americans are sent to die in a war across the globe, whilst the US Government still retains a reasonable degree of control". I know, "mercenaries" sounds quite bad, but these are people who actually signed for the job, for the money; rather than your friends and neighbours' kids who got sent over there with no choice.

I can see the logic behind the decision.

EDIT: BTW, comparing this to Bush's approach to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq is just plain irresponsible, to say the least; considering that Bush just went ahead and sent the US plummeting into questionable wars (well, Afghanistan maybe not so much, as the Taliban were practically asking for it), using more than excessive resources and manpower for rather meager results, and not caring much how it would affect the US and Iraq and Afghanistan in the long term.

[JME2]

Yes I know it's the most politically viable option; I'm just still opposed to the Afghan War in any form.

[[R_H]]

I know, "mercenaries" sounds quite bad, but these are people who actually signed for the job, for the money; rather than your friends and neighbours' kids who got sent over there with no choice.

People who voluntarily join a military which often gets involved in armed conflicts shouldn't be surprised if they end up in combat, even if they're not combat troops.

[Thanas]

Especially as mercenaries are not controlled by any law, they can literally do anything they want (and often they do exactly that).

[Sarevok]

Well given the changing nature of modern war why has not the UN or some other international body created a framework regulating PMCs ? PMCs are not something we can wish away just because we disagree with the idea. It is better to instead make sure there are more rules and bodies governing use of private military forces in a 21st century context.

[Thanas]

How are you going to enforce it? The USA does not care, so who is going to enforce it?

[Sarevok]

How are you going to enforce it? The USA does not care, so who is going to enforce it?

Well that is a good question.

But I would argue that a regulatory body for mercenaries would benefit the US. Right now the idea of America using mercenaries carries a very negative stigma. Maybe if US recognized this they can take the first steps themselves.

[Thanas]

But they do not want to, because if they start to regulate them, they lose their main benefit - that nobody cares, that they are cheap, expendable and can be used in whatever way the USA wants to use them.