USIP has a recent publication examining why the US should carry through on plans to create a federal-level police reserve for international peace and stability operations.
Summary:
• The first obligation of an international intervention force in a peace or stability operation is to provide security for the civilian population. Inevitably the arrival of foreign military forces is followed by a breakdown of public order.
• Historically U.S. military forces have been unable or unwilling to perform police functions to control large-scale civil unrest. This was true in Iraq, where looters destroyed government buildings, cultural centers, and commercial areas.
• The United States lacks civilian constabulary (gendarmes) or other national police forces specially trained for crowd and riot control. Instead the U.S. relies on civil police provided by commercial contractors that do not perform this function.
• Fortunately the U.S. government is taking steps to address this deficiency. Current State Department plans call for creation of a Civilian Reserve Corps that would have a police component.
• There is no agreement on the ultimate size and character of this police capacity. However, the history of U.S. interventions from Panama to Iraq argues for a robust capability.
• A review of U.S. interventions in post-conflict environments demonstrates that the United States has repeatedly needed highly capable police forces but has lacked the capacity to respond effectively. The case studies in this report provide lessons applicable to future operations.
• The State Department’s current efforts are a useful first step that will give an opportunity to create the basic infrastructure for expansion of U.S. capabilities in peace and stability operations.
Showing posts with label PMC/PSC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PMC/PSC. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Doug Brooks' Ruthless Logic | Human Security Review
Human Security Review blogs an article by Doug Brooks that they describe as 'short and idiotic'- a perspective that we have to echo.
The idea of commercializing human security or military intervention is in itself not new- look at the grand successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, to take the most evident examples. That said, labelling humanitarian organizations and advocacy groups as ruthless is an odd comment, and one that is written from the uniquely integrationist approach to how the international community operates. This school of thought imagines that all actors, whatever their origin, raison d'etre, politics or principles, should join the 'one team, one mission' concept, and wear the same t-shirts. This school has some merits, while it is also terribly naive- the range of stakeholders, politics, means, resources, donors, politicians, regional groups, local dynamics, national politics, ethnic divisions, etc., etc. all overwhelm such simplistic concepts.
Perhaps Brooks' speculations would seem more credible if the private security sector had a real success story to trumpet their claims of being the 'all singing, all dancing' solution to the world's problems.
The idea of commercializing human security or military intervention is in itself not new- look at the grand successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, to take the most evident examples. That said, labelling humanitarian organizations and advocacy groups as ruthless is an odd comment, and one that is written from the uniquely integrationist approach to how the international community operates. This school of thought imagines that all actors, whatever their origin, raison d'etre, politics or principles, should join the 'one team, one mission' concept, and wear the same t-shirts. This school has some merits, while it is also terribly naive- the range of stakeholders, politics, means, resources, donors, politicians, regional groups, local dynamics, national politics, ethnic divisions, etc., etc. all overwhelm such simplistic concepts.
Perhaps Brooks' speculations would seem more credible if the private security sector had a real success story to trumpet their claims of being the 'all singing, all dancing' solution to the world's problems.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Public, Private, Non-Profit?- Clear Path International Contracted by DynCorp as part of a US Department of State Contract
The non-profit Clear Path International (CPI) has just received a multi-year contract from DynCorp International to start a landmine survivor assistance program in Afghanistan on behalf of the U.S. Department of State. This is an excellent illustration of how complex working relationships have become in Afghansitan. The press release makes great pains to delineated the particular identities and characters of each group:
- Since 2000, Clear Path International has assisted nearly 4,000 survivors of accidental landmine and explosive remnants of war incidents in Vietnam, Cambodia and along the Thai-Burma border. It has also sent 65 containers of medical equipment and supplies to 25 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
- The Department of State's Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement is one of the world's largest sponsors of mine clearance, risk reduction education and survivors assistance. It has directly funded Clear Path's programs in Vietnam and Cambodia and some of the organization's public awareness and fundraising efforts in the United States.
- DynCorp International is a U.S-based company that provides support services to military and civilian government institutions in such areas as aviation, infrastructure development, security and logistics.
Are there issues in such a blurred public-private-NGO relationship?
As we post on articles such as 'Under fire, aid workers face life as a soft target', and DynCorp staffers being similarly targeted, it does pose questions as to how some agencies are balancing risks and their presence in a context such as Afghanistan.
- Since 2000, Clear Path International has assisted nearly 4,000 survivors of accidental landmine and explosive remnants of war incidents in Vietnam, Cambodia and along the Thai-Burma border. It has also sent 65 containers of medical equipment and supplies to 25 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
- The Department of State's Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement is one of the world's largest sponsors of mine clearance, risk reduction education and survivors assistance. It has directly funded Clear Path's programs in Vietnam and Cambodia and some of the organization's public awareness and fundraising efforts in the United States.
- DynCorp International is a U.S-based company that provides support services to military and civilian government institutions in such areas as aviation, infrastructure development, security and logistics.
Are there issues in such a blurred public-private-NGO relationship?
As we post on articles such as 'Under fire, aid workers face life as a soft target', and DynCorp staffers being similarly targeted, it does pose questions as to how some agencies are balancing risks and their presence in a context such as Afghanistan.
Friday, March 09, 2007
US: DynCorp Hired for Somalia Peacekeeping
A number of sources reported on the hiring of US PSCs to provide the logistics support for AU peacekeepers destined for Somalia. This logistics support provided through private security contractors via the State Department support is not new; in 2004, the US also provided logistic support to the deployment of AU peacekeepers in Darfur. Some might ask why such outsourcing hasn't become even more important, given the continual rise of peacekeeping missions worldwide.
The Ugandan vanguard had been attempting to maintain a low profile on their deployment plans; the first officially arriving contingent was met with a mortar barrage at the airport. They also suffered their first casualties on 08 March, also reported by the BBC.
The Ugandan vanguard had been attempting to maintain a low profile on their deployment plans; the first officially arriving contingent was met with a mortar barrage at the airport. They also suffered their first casualties on 08 March, also reported by the BBC.
Monday, February 26, 2007
'Mercenaries' to fill Iraq troop gap
The New Scotsman reports that the UK government is negotiating contracts with private security providers to fill the gap that is being created by the reduction of British troops in southern Iraq.
The article does highlight an unforeseen trend- "But, despite expectations that the booming market for private security would go into decline following the bursting of the "Iraq bubble", firms have now been told to expect even more lucrative work during the "post-occupation phase". It is not entirely clear why they suggest that we are only now entering into the post-occupation phase.
Beyond some interesting statistics that give some dimensions to UK spending on PSCs, the article hits the same notes about outsourcing state/military tasks, the concerns of giving over such responsibility to private sector actors, etc.
The article does highlight an unforeseen trend- "But, despite expectations that the booming market for private security would go into decline following the bursting of the "Iraq bubble", firms have now been told to expect even more lucrative work during the "post-occupation phase". It is not entirely clear why they suggest that we are only now entering into the post-occupation phase.
Beyond some interesting statistics that give some dimensions to UK spending on PSCs, the article hits the same notes about outsourcing state/military tasks, the concerns of giving over such responsibility to private sector actors, etc.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Nearly 800 Iraq Contractors Killed
It might seem a bit tangential to the question of civil-military relations, but the issue of outsourcing military tasks to civilian organizations is one germane to the issue. Firstly, the scale of outsourcing is simply astounding:
"The U.S. has outsourced so many war and reconstruction duties that there are almost as many contractors (120,000) as U.S. troops (135,000) in the war zone."
In this description, we have a huge group of people, largely grouped as Private Security/Military Companies (PSC/PMC) undertaking both military and civilian tasks. Given that they are deployed with and without uniforms (often the same as their employer's national armed forces) and with and without guns, it becomes increasingly difficult for combatants to discern who is a legitimate military target, and who is 'just another armed civilian contractor'....
The article is quite clear of one key advantage of using such contractors- their deaths are not included in the official body counts. It should be underlined that this is the case not only for the military, but also for humanitarian organizations.
"The U.S. has outsourced so many war and reconstruction duties that there are almost as many contractors (120,000) as U.S. troops (135,000) in the war zone."
In this description, we have a huge group of people, largely grouped as Private Security/Military Companies (PSC/PMC) undertaking both military and civilian tasks. Given that they are deployed with and without uniforms (often the same as their employer's national armed forces) and with and without guns, it becomes increasingly difficult for combatants to discern who is a legitimate military target, and who is 'just another armed civilian contractor'....
The article is quite clear of one key advantage of using such contractors- their deaths are not included in the official body counts. It should be underlined that this is the case not only for the military, but also for humanitarian organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
