LONG TAIL COUNTER-INSURGENCY

The complexity of the threat posed by open source warfare in Iraq has accelerated the US military's use of outsourcing. The growing trend towards outsourcing military operations has created a new variant on the term, "a long tail." Traditionally, this term has been used to describe the number of support personnel (the tail) required to support combat troops (the tooth). Tooth-to-tail ratios have grown over the years as the complexity and resource intensity of modern combat has increased. In essence, modern warfare requires a loooong tail of support troops. The US military's tooth-to-tail ratio is approximately 1 to 10 (or more).

The modern variant of the "long tail" can be seen in the force structure of the US counter-insurgency effort in Iraq. This new tail is composed of 120,000 personnel in hundreds of large and small companies that provide everything from traditional support functions to reconstruction to security in Iraq. To be even more accurate, you could also throw in the tens of thousands of Shiite, Kurdish, and tribal militias that US troops rely upon.

If we plot the number of personnel by the source, the resulting curve has the classic long tail distribution pattern. The curve starts with the US military and rapidly drops off as additional groups are added. At the far right hand side of the curve are a plethora of small private military companies, tribal groups, and engineering companies that provide security and reconstruction services.

The good thing about the long tail approach to warfare in Iraq is that it provides a demand driven mechanism for dealing with a rapidly evolving threat. For example, the US State Department can hire private bodyguards from Triple Canopy to defend themselves against assassination and kidnapping (this means that they are not reliant on a bureaucratic US military for protection services and can therefore tailor their purchases to their specific needs). The bad part is that the US military hasn't come to grips with this new way of conducting war. It doesn't provide the platform services necessary to make it work efficiently (exactly what those platform services are will be detailed in my upcoming book).

Unfortunately, the lack of a platform, particularly in the form of legal cover for deployed PMCs, is about to unravel this distribution. The Iraqi government has started to regulate private military companies working in the country. Since the rules governing these personnel are still largely undefined, this regulatory effort will likely result in a distortion of the US military's counter-insurgency market due to rampant corruption and mismanagement by Iraqi authorities.

Comments

[flying]

It is about time someone reel in or release those high flying kites.

[Adam]

And what timing. John's been proved 100% right already.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1772817,00.html

On the same day as this was written AP noted that the PMC that provides security for Bagdhad international airport has closed the place due to non-payment by the Iraqi government.

The Iraqi government have tried to send in their own men to reopen their airport...And US troops have sided with the PMC against their own "allies". The upshot is that this has effectively completely stopped:
a) the Iraqi military defending their own airports
b) the Iraqi military obeying their own governments orders
c) the Iraqi government from enforcing their rules in their nation
d) any hint that PMC's are obedient to their employers, the government of Iraq

And this definitely comes under the heading of "distortion of the US military's counter-insurgency market".

Timing.

[John Robb]

Thanks for the update Adam.

[inference]

Great info Adam... thanks.

[PMC_REGs]

What regulations are PMCs in the NOLA bound by? I had heard PMCs were there, but I just got confirmation today:

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>

SUBJECT: Blackwater needs contractors in NOLA

MESSAGE: So Blackwater needs 200 contractors for infrastructure security, convoy protection, etc. Pay is $200.00 a day, per diem, expenses, 14 day contract, probably extended. Equipment provided, must know what you are doing.

Call Gary at NXX-NXX-XXXX ext XXX

>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

.

Here is a sample document:
www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/pmcbeyanililly.pdf

.

[kevin]

"We are a turnkey solution provider for 4th generation warfare."

-Blackwater website

[kevin]

"What regulations are PMCs in the NOLA bound by?"

Some of them are being deputized.

[John Robb]

The Steele Foundation was in NOLA in the first couple of days. Of course, so was Walmart. Sounds like if the PMC world and Walmart got together and really focused on this, they could do a better job (at less cost) than FEMA and the entire USG.

[John Robb]

Kevin,

Thanks. The Blackwater site (in the about us section) continues:

...the most responsive, cost-effective means of affecting the strategic balance in support of freedom and democracy everywhere.

[soup]

Kevin - Thanks for the confirmation, I have heard the same.

[4.5_mil]

Baghdad International Airport - the country's only reliable and relatively safe link to the outside world - reopened a day after a British security company suspended operations there in a payment dispute with the government.

In Baghdad, acting Transportation Minister Esmat Amer told The Associated Press that the city's main airport - once known as Saddam International - had reopened after late-night negotiations between the government and London-based Global Strategies Group.

``We have reached agreement with the Global security firm, and the airport is open now for domestic and international flights,'' Amer said, refusing to elaborate. In a separate statement, Global said it had resumed normal operations.

The company has provided security at the airport 12 miles from central Baghdad since last year. On Friday, Global suspended operations, claiming the transportation ministry was six months behind in payments.

Under a deal negotiated with the defunct U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, Global was paid $4.5 million a month for airport security. The interim Iraqi government sought unsuccessfully to reduce that charge after it took over from the CPA last year.

The Interior Ministry sent troops Friday to reopen the dusty, stone-and-marble facility but called them back after U.S. forces met them at a checkpoint.

The closure of the French-built airport was believed to have been the first serious public conflict involving a Western contractor since the U.S.-led invasion more than two years ago.

The United States has managed to keep its forces in Iraq - now at about 140,000 - to a minimum by hiring contractors for vast amounts of work the military normally would do. Congress has complained that oversight is lax and the U.S. government is routinely overcharged.

SOURCE:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5268464,00.html

[Robert]

This passage might be instructive:

"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and a leader having his state built upon mercenary armies will never be secure. Troops of this sort are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined, and faithless, swaggering when among friends and cowardly in the face of the enemy; they have neither fear of God nor loyalty to men. Ruin is postponed only as long as the assault is postponed; in times of peace you are despoiled by them and in time of war by the enemy. The reason is that they have no other interest or incentive to hold the field, save their moderate pay, which is not enough to make them willing to die for you. They are pleased to be your soldiers so long as you have no war; when it comes they either run away or leave your employ. It should not be hard to persuade the reader of the truth of this, for the ruin of Italy springs from no other cause than this of having placed confidence over so many years in mercenary troops. Some individuals indeed profited by them, and they seemed bold enough when they had each other to fight, but when the foreigner came in they showed their true colors. Hence it came about that Charles of France was able to take Italy 'with chalk' and those who said it was because of our sins were speaking the truth, but it was the sins I have mentioned and not others that may have been meant. And since the sins were the sins of Princes they have paid the penalty too."

--Niccolo Machievelli, The Prince

[Re_Machievelli]

"The United States continues to pursue a national strategy of engagement and needs the ability to generate forces that can respond across the spectrum of conflict. Either a large force must be maintained or alternate solutions must be found. Private military corporations provide the United States the ability to respond across the spectrum of conflict by contracting out for required non-core or emerging capabilities. Their use for peace and humanitarian operations, as well as to provide cutting-edge capabilities for combating transnational threats, conducting offensive information operations, or facing asymmetric threats at the lower end of the conflict spectrum represents untapped potential. This is a pattern in state affairs that is not entirely new; indeed, it is one that has been used successfully by states for ages. Rather than a usurper of state legitimacy, the PMC can become an extension of the United States as a tool to further American strategic interests.

THE UNITED STATES NEED NOT SUCCUMB TO MACHIAVELLI'S DIRE PREDICTIONS NOTED ABOVE. Adequate supervision and oversight can be provided for PMCs to mitigate domestic and international concerns. Control and oversight can be maintained by deploying an integrated military-diplomatic plans and operations team with the PMC and by inviting outside observers to monitor adherence by the corporation to applicable Geneva Convention protocols. Contracts can be written to ensure they are executed in the best interests of the United States and are fully compliant with international laws. Congressional concerns can be addressed by actively exercising the constitutional provision to grant letters of marque and reprisal and by requiring that such letters be granted prior to any commitment of PMCs for offensive actions.

Strategy is the calculated relationship of ends and means. The use of PMCs would ultimately help the United States to avoid a mismatch of these two variables. Additionally, these organizations would mitigate risk by allowing America to achieve military strength focused on core capabilities instead of trying to create a force spread so thin across the operational spectrum that it is in danger of inadequacy or indecisiveness at every point on that spectrum."

SOURCE:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_4_32/ai_95447364/print

[tim fong]

I guess the big question is, where is the transparency? Sure Walmart and Blackwater can move quickly, but who elected them? And what do we do when they violate someone's rights?

I can accept that PMC's have a valuable role in providing flexibility, but I still wonder how accountable they are to the citizenry.

[liabilities]

It appears that the growth of PMCs is driven by sustainability, or the lack there of, not performance. During the 90s the US reduced active duty resources and now those assets are in private hands.

Also, the US in general is down sizing long-term benefits and this appears to be the easiest way to elimate long-term liabilities to active duty soldiers.

Long-term PMCs that have the ability to develop and retain human resources as the cascade of resources from military slow to a trickle will thrive as the market surges.

[Cardenio]

The money is running the show and the money elects itself.

[Greg Burton]

PMCs are a fact of life at this point. All of the questions and comments about accountability are excellent. As usual though, John, you're focusing on a critical piece of the puzzle - adequate support platforms. Regardless of theory, without adequate platforms response will be at best delayed and at worst counterproductive.

This applies to emergencies of all kinds, of course. In a networked age, platform failure leads to cascade effects - "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost" - but additionally to emergent-network attempts to create or repair the platform.

I believe that that's what is happening with
Recovery 2.0, our attempt to form an open-source, non-governmental clearinghouse for disaster recovery communications and infrastructure. This is a clearly different way of responding, and builds on some of the crucial principles we discuss here.

One concern I have, though, is about the application of this untraditional NGO model to failures of a military support platform. We've seen that DHS (or FEMA in particular, take your pick) has not been responsive to volunteer relief efforts. Co-ordination is a necessity, and some of their concerns are quite valid.

In a military scenario, however, frustration with officials in a platform failure situation could well lead to attempts to route around military C&C completely. I believe this would have disastrous consequences in terms of state legitimacy, as well as the immediate tactical needs on the ground.

So it appears that platform failure needs to be addressed, as well as design.

[eatingsoupwithaknife]

"Kevin - Thanks for the confirmation, I have heard the same."

Your welcome

[Chinatronic]

SUBJECT: Blackwater needs contractors in NOLA

MESSAGE: So Blackwater needs 200 contractors for infrastructure security, convoy protection, etc. Pay is $200.00 a day, per diem, expenses, 14 day contract, probably extended. Equipment provided, must know what you are doing.

Posted by Chinatronic.com