Mission planning requires more than just throwing the dice and hoping for good luck. It is an art that requires an in-depth understanding of numerous critical elements or factors that may impact on the mission – both positively and negatively - and an assessment/analysis of how those elements or factors can be either negated, overcome or exploited to give the PMC the advantage it requires in the execution of the mission.
Any mission can be broken down into:
1. Strategic objectives: These objectives are usually derived from the client’s strategic objectives but are further analysed and fine-tuned to the PMC management level
2. Tactical objectives: These objectives stem from the PMC management’s strategic objectives and are an indication of the priority objectives (or targets) and the secondary objectives (or targets) that the PMC needs to achieve in order to successfully accomplish the mission.
From these objectives are derived the Strategic Operational Concept and the Tactical Operational Concept. These concepts are NOT the final plans but merely serve as direction-pointers to ensure that the mission remains the prime focus of the PMC.
Only once the Strategic Operation Concept and the Tactical Operational Concept are fully understood can the mission planning proper begin.
The role of on-going real-time intelligence plays a crucial role in the development of both the Strategic Operational Concept and the Tactical Operational Concept and allows adjustments to be made to the concepts. It is also this intelligence that will ultimately determine the mission-profile of the PMC. The mission-profile, in turn, will determine the amount of manpower, weapons, ammunition (first-line and first-line reserve), the phase(s) of war, tactics and so forth that will be followed.
In order to enhance the development of the tactical plan, it is imperative that intelligence- and reconnaissance - teams are deployed as early as possible in order to ensure a real-time intelligence feed on the targets. This allows further adjustments to be made to the tactical plan and, in turn, the mission profile to be adjusted if necessary.
Planning is a vital component for success and although luck can play a role, it is the ultimate plan, carried across to everyone partaking in the operation with clarity that determines the success of any mission. Team leaders must be allowed to display flexibility within the overall plan and, in turn, must develop their own plans at their level.
Once the tactical concept has been developed, it must, along with the operational plans - at all levels - be tested against the principles of the relevant operation. The ultimate aim is to ensure the correct men, correctly equipped, are at the right time and place to achieve the mission. This requires constant coordination between the various elements that will partake in the execution of the plan. In turn, casualties will be reduced.
Mission planning can be a tedious process but it requires continued focus on the outcome of the operation.
It will do planners good to remember that there are no second prizes in an operation and that no amount of firepower can rectify a poor plan.
Showing posts with label PMC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PMC. Show all posts
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
SO WHO REALLY DECIDES?
Many governments in Africa are faced with growing external military threats, insurgencies, political upheaval and an escalation in violent crime. Indeed, this brutal phenomenon is not something new - Africa has faced it for decades – and will continue to face it in the foreseeable future.
Should a government decide - something it ought to be able to do without interference from foreign powers - that it wants to utilise outside sources to help it resolve these problems, it has four options:
1. Call on the United Nations and a multitude of NGOs to help
2. Call on the West to help
3. Call on the East to help
4. Call on a Private Military Company to help.
Arguably the largest sheltered employment agency in the world, the UN has time-and-again shown its ineptitude, inability and its partiality for rebel groups and other trouble-makers when “assisting” governments in Africa. The recent exposures detailing crimes by UN peacekeepers - in Africa and beyond - are likewise a major indication of its lack of control over itself. Additionally, the UN has, according to its own track-record, prolonged conflicts instead of bringing them to a closure. This large bumbling organisation and its associated NGOs have a habit of calling for ceasefires and giving the rebel movements critical time to prepare for their next offensive. Their dismal lack of achievement, which has no timeline and a never-ending budget, must surely rate at the bottom of the list of choices.
The West has a history of betraying African governments and backing both sides in a conflict. Coupled to this is the approach of giving sub-standard training under the guise of “military aid”. But these aid packages come at a price – “toe the line or else”. Additionally, the West is not beyond its own fraud and corruption. Take for example the latest report on the US military leadership in Iraq:
“In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US-directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme”.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html%20dated%2016%20February%202009)
And to think that the West is continually pointing a finger at Africa for corruption and fraud…but maybe this will serve as a warning for Africa.
Apart from this shocking exposé, the West’s recent containment strategies have not exactly yielded encouraging or significant results.
The East has always been keen to sell its weapons into Africa. More recently, the East has involved itself in a massive overt resource-exploitation drive in Africa. Despite voiced concern by the West, this has led to huge financial investments into Africa and in the process, some of these investments have found their way to both government and rebel forces. But the East has, like the West, not always dealt honourably with Africa. It too has its agendas and is not afraid to pursue them vigorously, regardless of the cost in terms of human lives or political integrity. But the East brings with it money and overt support to the government they are dealing with.
The last choice an African government has is it that it can contract a PMC to assist it. All such assistance is negotiated in terms of risk, cost and time and the PMC is contractually bound to give what it offered. Furthermore, the PMC is obligated to provide tailor-made training, achieve agreed results at a predetermined fee and fulfil its contractual obligations within a set time. The problem with PMCs is that they require careful vetting in terms of their REAL experience and not their own-imagined experience, their track record and their integrity. Ultimately, the fly-by-night, con-artist-types of PMCs should be exposed and weeded out – and there are many of them. (Note: Jake and Matt of http://combatoperator.com/blog/ and http://www.feraljundi.com/ respectively are working hard at showing the other side of the coin).
But for an African government to make such a decision, it is faced with problems that range from international condemnation, sanctions, political and economical blackmail, threats and even active support to the rebel movements.
To contract a PMC, these governments-in-need apparently require the permission of the UN, the NGOs, multi-national corporations, foreign governments and so on.
So, the question begs to be asked: Who decides what an African government can do to improve its security situation, ensure its territorial integrity, train its armed forces and assist it with the development of its national security strategy?
It appears that the under-siege government has no say in the matter and must instead bow to inept, unethical and/or corrupt foreign militaries.
Added on 19 February 2009: For those who thought I am forever having a go at the UN and its incompetence for no reason, please read the following - http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-02-19-un-accused-of-failing-to-protect-drc-civilians I rest my case.
Should a government decide - something it ought to be able to do without interference from foreign powers - that it wants to utilise outside sources to help it resolve these problems, it has four options:
1. Call on the United Nations and a multitude of NGOs to help
2. Call on the West to help
3. Call on the East to help
4. Call on a Private Military Company to help.
Arguably the largest sheltered employment agency in the world, the UN has time-and-again shown its ineptitude, inability and its partiality for rebel groups and other trouble-makers when “assisting” governments in Africa. The recent exposures detailing crimes by UN peacekeepers - in Africa and beyond - are likewise a major indication of its lack of control over itself. Additionally, the UN has, according to its own track-record, prolonged conflicts instead of bringing them to a closure. This large bumbling organisation and its associated NGOs have a habit of calling for ceasefires and giving the rebel movements critical time to prepare for their next offensive. Their dismal lack of achievement, which has no timeline and a never-ending budget, must surely rate at the bottom of the list of choices.
The West has a history of betraying African governments and backing both sides in a conflict. Coupled to this is the approach of giving sub-standard training under the guise of “military aid”. But these aid packages come at a price – “toe the line or else”. Additionally, the West is not beyond its own fraud and corruption. Take for example the latest report on the US military leadership in Iraq:
“In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US-directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme”.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html%20dated%2016%20February%202009)
And to think that the West is continually pointing a finger at Africa for corruption and fraud…but maybe this will serve as a warning for Africa.
Apart from this shocking exposé, the West’s recent containment strategies have not exactly yielded encouraging or significant results.
The East has always been keen to sell its weapons into Africa. More recently, the East has involved itself in a massive overt resource-exploitation drive in Africa. Despite voiced concern by the West, this has led to huge financial investments into Africa and in the process, some of these investments have found their way to both government and rebel forces. But the East has, like the West, not always dealt honourably with Africa. It too has its agendas and is not afraid to pursue them vigorously, regardless of the cost in terms of human lives or political integrity. But the East brings with it money and overt support to the government they are dealing with.
The last choice an African government has is it that it can contract a PMC to assist it. All such assistance is negotiated in terms of risk, cost and time and the PMC is contractually bound to give what it offered. Furthermore, the PMC is obligated to provide tailor-made training, achieve agreed results at a predetermined fee and fulfil its contractual obligations within a set time. The problem with PMCs is that they require careful vetting in terms of their REAL experience and not their own-imagined experience, their track record and their integrity. Ultimately, the fly-by-night, con-artist-types of PMCs should be exposed and weeded out – and there are many of them. (Note: Jake and Matt of http://combatoperator.com/blog/ and http://www.feraljundi.com/ respectively are working hard at showing the other side of the coin).
But for an African government to make such a decision, it is faced with problems that range from international condemnation, sanctions, political and economical blackmail, threats and even active support to the rebel movements.
To contract a PMC, these governments-in-need apparently require the permission of the UN, the NGOs, multi-national corporations, foreign governments and so on.
So, the question begs to be asked: Who decides what an African government can do to improve its security situation, ensure its territorial integrity, train its armed forces and assist it with the development of its national security strategy?
It appears that the under-siege government has no say in the matter and must instead bow to inept, unethical and/or corrupt foreign militaries.
Added on 19 February 2009: For those who thought I am forever having a go at the UN and its incompetence for no reason, please read the following - http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-02-19-un-accused-of-failing-to-protect-drc-civilians I rest my case.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
CHOOSING TO DISINFORM
It is unfair to the many ethical, honourable, hard-working, nose-in-the-muck journalists and researchers to include them in this posting, so this posting, although generalising to a large extent, does not cover their good work. Instead, it is aimed at those who have a responsibility to inform but instead chose to rather specialise in misinforming – and they know exactly who they are. They alone give the media and institutes the bad reputation they sometimes do not deserve. It gets worse when these journalists and researchers view themselves as armchair strategists and want to, through the written word, dictate military and security strategies and tactics. The resultant damage and chaos that is born from their drivel is enormous.
The media does not only comprise journalists who write for the daily newspapers, but also those who work for radio stations, journals, television, credible research organisations, bloggers and the like. It also includes researchers whose work is often transmitted via the media. Deeply embedded in the fabric of the media are small groupings who strive to misinform wherever possible. Only they can explain their actions.
By fabrication, innuendo, fantasy, grey propaganda, black agents (not skin colour) and regurgitation they weave and twist their lies into an almost believable truth. Those targets that are aware of what they are doing are not hoodwinked but, by and large, the majority of the population swallow their fabrications as “truth”.
Words such as “an unnamed source”, “it is assumed that”, “allegedly”, “intelligence sources believe”, “reportedly” and such like are used to blur their lines between fact and fiction, truth and lies and achieve the impact that they hope for. The impact is even greater when some of them feed this to their secret masters who classify it as “secret” and then distribute it to a select policy-making audience.
Again, and no doubt very tediously, I make my statements based on my experience and the manner in which EO was tarnished in the media by these so-called journalists and researchers. Yet, as I recently discovered, there is great unhappiness when someone is caught out and is then quick to point the finger at others whose “work” was used in the “research” without checking the facts – something that shows that some are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. They claim “freedom of speech” as a democratic right only they are apparently entitled to. They and they alone reserve the right to pass judgement without any facts at hand. I recall trying to give them my side of the story – along with evidence to back up what I was saying – but I was told that what I had to say was “not in the public interest”.
Of course, it is well known that a journalist is only as good as his/her sources. But when their sources are the actual people/organisations that may be paying them a secret second salary in order to achieve a strategic aim, they become a danger to society. They are the very ones who, instead of honouring their profession and informing the people, fall into the trap of disseminating propaganda, lies and disinformation. Unfortunately, several respectable authors have used this disinformation in their books, thus helping to spread fiction dressed as fact.
All government agencies use journalists to get their message out to the public in a surreptitious manner. The media is also used extensively to counter political opposition and proclaim a government’s holy agenda. This use of the media is well known and has become almost acceptable. But, when government–, semi-state departments and multi-national corporations use these agents-of-influence (witting or unwitting) to negate/counter/smear a private company in order to protect themselves and their illegal activities, the situation begins to change somewhat. When these misinformers start claiming that a company is about to conduct murder, assassinations, are part of a neo-colonising advance guard, are planning coups, are being paid in mineral concessions, imply burglaries of government offices and the like, they deserve to be exposed. Don’t you agree De Wet Potgieter, Stephan Laufer, Anthony Lobaido, Khareen Pech, Ingo Capraro, Jakkie Cilliers, David Beresford, Talif Deen, Bruce Venter, Sean Cleary and your multitude of similar-ilk friends? (To list them all would be a mission impossible – but many of them inhabit the internet and are easily found there).
Ironically, when the misinformers are caught out they act with indignation…
Then of course, there is a despicable little man known as Riaan Stander, an ex-policeman turned National Intelligence agent. Stander penned his now famous “secret reports” which were sent directly to then-President Nelson Mandela and later Thabo Mbeki. Not only were they pure fabrications but they also included the telling comment: “Checked and verified by the analyst”. (For details, see http://cryptome.org/za-disrupt.htm). These fabricated reports were nothing other than a deceptive attempt to prove an undying loyalty to the “new” South African government.
This is the same Stander who found himself irresistibly drawn to secret government funds – of which millions went missing in the process. His secret documents were leaked to selected members of the media who lapped it up – again without checking anything. From there, these documents migrated to the internet. Stander and his documents have subsequently been exposed as frauds – but the damage was already done. These documents have subsequently been taken up by a “historian” in Kwa-Zulu Natal who has almost made it his mission in life to prove them correct.
Apart from maliciously causing companies irreparable damage and the loss of millions of dollars in revenue, their misinformation is used by scholars who write their theses based mainly on mistruths and disinformation. The value of these scholarly works is a big zero, yet in academic circles, they continue to tout their (lack of) knowledge and express their (lack of) understanding on military matters. Some even get awarded international prizes for their “work”. Never mind that a lot of it is made up and cannot even be remotely confirmed…
Some even get appointed to “respected” institutes such as the Institute of Security Studies (in South Africa) where they continue to - under the guise of “researchers” - spurt forth their self-constructed stories. This time their “sources” are people who act as advisors to rebel groups, disgruntled intelligence officers and mining corporations – something that to them is quite acceptable. Yet, these same “knowledgeable” people are not prepared to write about matters of international importance or security as they know that their poisoned pens will be exposed for what they are. Nor are they prepared to write about similar companies operating in areas where the values of resources are higher but where their paymasters have no interests.
When one reads the papers, reports, blogs and books, there appears to have been an entire group working only on EO to generate false stories – or, they were receiving much of their (dis)information from the intelligence services. This “information” was then further shared with their other friends in the media who would publish the story in the mainstream media, quoting from “unnamed intelligence sources”. Once published, a process known as “blow-back” allowed them to re-write their stories and now quote it from the media – the very people they had fed the story to in the first place. Some selected pieces were then also fed to bloggers to help spread the story. Of course, they are also keen to assist authors who are writing on the subject of PMCs and again, this “information” is passed on as fact.
More frightening is the possibility that their misinformation can, regurgitated enough times, become entrenched in the minds of people as “fact”. When these quasi-facts are used to substantiate intelligence they become extremely dangerous and embarrassing, as the US can testify with its invasion of Iraq.
Today, there are still some journalists who generate stories on PMCs based on lies, speculation and political and other agendas. They are the ones who give credibility to rebel and terrorist movements and often champion their causes. Yet, when these journalists find themselves in troubles they are unable to cope with, they expect to be rescued – then even a PMC they have slated will do.
To some journalists and researchers, it appears as though their only aim is to underwhelm the public with information and overwhelm them with propaganda. They are the ones that should be held accountable for the lies and disinformation they spread and the chaos that results from their actions. Their shameful manipulation of information should be stopped by the media bosses.
But, despite these misinformers, there are still honourable journalists and researchers out there who are big enough to admit that they had been hoodwinked. I realised this when I read the full-page apology given to both EO and I in the Star newspaper of 5 November 2007. Others apologised to me in person. But, by then, the damage had well and truly been done.
The media does not only comprise journalists who write for the daily newspapers, but also those who work for radio stations, journals, television, credible research organisations, bloggers and the like. It also includes researchers whose work is often transmitted via the media. Deeply embedded in the fabric of the media are small groupings who strive to misinform wherever possible. Only they can explain their actions.
By fabrication, innuendo, fantasy, grey propaganda, black agents (not skin colour) and regurgitation they weave and twist their lies into an almost believable truth. Those targets that are aware of what they are doing are not hoodwinked but, by and large, the majority of the population swallow their fabrications as “truth”.
Words such as “an unnamed source”, “it is assumed that”, “allegedly”, “intelligence sources believe”, “reportedly” and such like are used to blur their lines between fact and fiction, truth and lies and achieve the impact that they hope for. The impact is even greater when some of them feed this to their secret masters who classify it as “secret” and then distribute it to a select policy-making audience.
Again, and no doubt very tediously, I make my statements based on my experience and the manner in which EO was tarnished in the media by these so-called journalists and researchers. Yet, as I recently discovered, there is great unhappiness when someone is caught out and is then quick to point the finger at others whose “work” was used in the “research” without checking the facts – something that shows that some are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. They claim “freedom of speech” as a democratic right only they are apparently entitled to. They and they alone reserve the right to pass judgement without any facts at hand. I recall trying to give them my side of the story – along with evidence to back up what I was saying – but I was told that what I had to say was “not in the public interest”.
Of course, it is well known that a journalist is only as good as his/her sources. But when their sources are the actual people/organisations that may be paying them a secret second salary in order to achieve a strategic aim, they become a danger to society. They are the very ones who, instead of honouring their profession and informing the people, fall into the trap of disseminating propaganda, lies and disinformation. Unfortunately, several respectable authors have used this disinformation in their books, thus helping to spread fiction dressed as fact.
All government agencies use journalists to get their message out to the public in a surreptitious manner. The media is also used extensively to counter political opposition and proclaim a government’s holy agenda. This use of the media is well known and has become almost acceptable. But, when government–, semi-state departments and multi-national corporations use these agents-of-influence (witting or unwitting) to negate/counter/smear a private company in order to protect themselves and their illegal activities, the situation begins to change somewhat. When these misinformers start claiming that a company is about to conduct murder, assassinations, are part of a neo-colonising advance guard, are planning coups, are being paid in mineral concessions, imply burglaries of government offices and the like, they deserve to be exposed. Don’t you agree De Wet Potgieter, Stephan Laufer, Anthony Lobaido, Khareen Pech, Ingo Capraro, Jakkie Cilliers, David Beresford, Talif Deen, Bruce Venter, Sean Cleary and your multitude of similar-ilk friends? (To list them all would be a mission impossible – but many of them inhabit the internet and are easily found there).
Ironically, when the misinformers are caught out they act with indignation…
Then of course, there is a despicable little man known as Riaan Stander, an ex-policeman turned National Intelligence agent. Stander penned his now famous “secret reports” which were sent directly to then-President Nelson Mandela and later Thabo Mbeki. Not only were they pure fabrications but they also included the telling comment: “Checked and verified by the analyst”. (For details, see http://cryptome.org/za-disrupt.htm). These fabricated reports were nothing other than a deceptive attempt to prove an undying loyalty to the “new” South African government.
This is the same Stander who found himself irresistibly drawn to secret government funds – of which millions went missing in the process. His secret documents were leaked to selected members of the media who lapped it up – again without checking anything. From there, these documents migrated to the internet. Stander and his documents have subsequently been exposed as frauds – but the damage was already done. These documents have subsequently been taken up by a “historian” in Kwa-Zulu Natal who has almost made it his mission in life to prove them correct.
Apart from maliciously causing companies irreparable damage and the loss of millions of dollars in revenue, their misinformation is used by scholars who write their theses based mainly on mistruths and disinformation. The value of these scholarly works is a big zero, yet in academic circles, they continue to tout their (lack of) knowledge and express their (lack of) understanding on military matters. Some even get awarded international prizes for their “work”. Never mind that a lot of it is made up and cannot even be remotely confirmed…
Some even get appointed to “respected” institutes such as the Institute of Security Studies (in South Africa) where they continue to - under the guise of “researchers” - spurt forth their self-constructed stories. This time their “sources” are people who act as advisors to rebel groups, disgruntled intelligence officers and mining corporations – something that to them is quite acceptable. Yet, these same “knowledgeable” people are not prepared to write about matters of international importance or security as they know that their poisoned pens will be exposed for what they are. Nor are they prepared to write about similar companies operating in areas where the values of resources are higher but where their paymasters have no interests.
When one reads the papers, reports, blogs and books, there appears to have been an entire group working only on EO to generate false stories – or, they were receiving much of their (dis)information from the intelligence services. This “information” was then further shared with their other friends in the media who would publish the story in the mainstream media, quoting from “unnamed intelligence sources”. Once published, a process known as “blow-back” allowed them to re-write their stories and now quote it from the media – the very people they had fed the story to in the first place. Some selected pieces were then also fed to bloggers to help spread the story. Of course, they are also keen to assist authors who are writing on the subject of PMCs and again, this “information” is passed on as fact.
More frightening is the possibility that their misinformation can, regurgitated enough times, become entrenched in the minds of people as “fact”. When these quasi-facts are used to substantiate intelligence they become extremely dangerous and embarrassing, as the US can testify with its invasion of Iraq.
Today, there are still some journalists who generate stories on PMCs based on lies, speculation and political and other agendas. They are the ones who give credibility to rebel and terrorist movements and often champion their causes. Yet, when these journalists find themselves in troubles they are unable to cope with, they expect to be rescued – then even a PMC they have slated will do.
To some journalists and researchers, it appears as though their only aim is to underwhelm the public with information and overwhelm them with propaganda. They are the ones that should be held accountable for the lies and disinformation they spread and the chaos that results from their actions. Their shameful manipulation of information should be stopped by the media bosses.
But, despite these misinformers, there are still honourable journalists and researchers out there who are big enough to admit that they had been hoodwinked. I realised this when I read the full-page apology given to both EO and I in the Star newspaper of 5 November 2007. Others apologised to me in person. But, by then, the damage had well and truly been done.
Added on 7 December: Here is an interesting article on Wars That Matter, That You Hardly Ever Hear About by James Dunnigan:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200812701441.asp (see Point #4)
Monday, December 1, 2008
PIRACY HAS NO “QUICK-FIX” SOLUTION
The problem of piracy cannot be solved with a “quick-fix” solution. The root cause extends further than just the failed state of Somalia. But, unless drastic, hard-hitting action is taken on both land and sea, the pirates will continue to flourish off the East African coastline and continue to intimidate and capture ships and their cargoes and crews. While the world watches and responds with shock and words, and does nothing, these simple operations by the pirates are simply fuelling more crime and filling the pirates’ coffers.
For some very strange reason the shipping companies believe that a few men armed with a water cannon and a noise-generating device can actually stop an armed assault on a ship. This attempt to stop armed crime with a quick-fix solution is both irresponsible and stupid. But, it is probably considered “humane” and unlikely to interfere with the pirates’ human rights.
I recently wrote a counter-piracy document for a very large shipping company. The gist was to stop the pirates before they even got close to the ship they were targeting. Whereas any such plan is only a temporary solution to a growing but more complex problem, the ideal plan will be to take the war to the land bases the pirates occupy and destroy them on the ground. But, no government or organisation has currently got the courage to do this. Besides, the UN would most probably condemn it and call for sanctions to be put in force on the “aggressors”.
My plan was also not what the shipping company was looking for as they apparently felt the plan was “too forceful” and besides, why harm these poor men who are simply trying to create a livelihood? Although this wasn’t directly said, it was clearly implied. Plus, they only want a very small group of between 3 and 4 men to protect their ship, the crews and the cargoes.
The Times of 29 November 2008 ran an article on the “British and Irish anti-piracy experts” who were forced to jump ship – the very ship they were contracted to protect. Whereas the article (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5253731.ece) pointed out that the men had, for 40 minutes, held the pirates at bay before jumping overboard, it does highlight some of the problems associated with a “quick-fix” solution. It also illustrates very clearly that 3 unarmed men aboard a ship cannot fend off an armed enemy. But, good money was paid by the shipping company and no positive result was forthcoming as the guards abandoned the ship - the Liberian-flagged tanker, Biscaglia with its cargo of palm oil - and its 27-member crew.
The Biscaglia is the 97th vessel to be attacked this year in the waters off Somalia. At least 15 ships, and more than 300 crew members, are currently being held for ransom. This will most certainly not be the last vessel to be captured by the pirates.
As the situation off the Somali coastline steadily develops into a high-risk zone, more and more PMCs (some with very little or no experience) are vying for contracts to protect ships sailing those waters. Some are trying to “economize” on manpower and maximise on profits. Others are looking at other “non-lethal” methods of stopping this high-sea crime. In many ways, this is akin to taking a knife to a gunfight – they are bound to lose. But, cheap solutions usually deliver cheap results – or in this instance, gave the shipping company a false sense of security but will cost, in the long run, a lot more than they bargained for.
A counter-piracy team must be able to give more to a shipping company than simply a warm, fuzzy feeling. These men need to be armed with real weapons, with real bullets and take every action possible to prevent the pirates even approaching the ship they are supposed to be protecting.
The concern that a trained guard will accidentally fire his weapon into some hazardous cargo does not hold much water. Real soldiers are used to carrying weapons on aircraft, submarines, inside vehicles, next to ammunition and so forth. Fire discipline is something every good soldier is taught. But, how many of these guards are well trained and sufficiently dedicated to honour their contracts?
International customs laws, in an effort to contain the illegal movement of arms and ammunition, provide an obstacle some shipping companies simply do not want to challenge or overcome. But, if a ship is not allowed to take whatever measures it needs to take to protect itself, then international law needs to be revisited and reviewed.
Well-trained, well-armed security teams on a ship must make life so unbearably dangerous to the pirates that they prefer to stay on land. Failure to respond to the IFF protocol should lead to an immediate sinking of the pirate vessel with no time being wasted on saving them for a court appearance. But, of course there are groups that will argue that such actions will infringe on the human rights of the pirates and that furthermore, such actions will be politically incorrect.
It is because of always trying to be politically correct that the world finds itself in the position it is in. Crime is rampant and will continue to flourish as long as everyone allows criminals such as these to operate with impunity.
Piracy can be stopped but it will require more than just words and water cannons.
Added on 3 December: Here is an interesting article on piracy for those who wish to read it: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/12/piratemerc-late.html#more Also see http://feraljundi.com/ for Blackwater's approach to solving this mess.
Another update on 3 December 2008, 1500B: Finally, they have woken up….The United Nations Security Council has approved a law that allows countries to enter the troubled Somalia sea waters and use military force against the dangerous pirates who are hijacking commercial ships off the coast of the Horn of Africa.
The Security Council newly adopted resolution gives authority to any country to attack the pirates. The European Union says in six days time it will be there in Somalia with a massive air and naval offensive against the pirates. The Council's authorization of a military solution against piracy in Somalia will be for a period of one year.
For some very strange reason the shipping companies believe that a few men armed with a water cannon and a noise-generating device can actually stop an armed assault on a ship. This attempt to stop armed crime with a quick-fix solution is both irresponsible and stupid. But, it is probably considered “humane” and unlikely to interfere with the pirates’ human rights.
I recently wrote a counter-piracy document for a very large shipping company. The gist was to stop the pirates before they even got close to the ship they were targeting. Whereas any such plan is only a temporary solution to a growing but more complex problem, the ideal plan will be to take the war to the land bases the pirates occupy and destroy them on the ground. But, no government or organisation has currently got the courage to do this. Besides, the UN would most probably condemn it and call for sanctions to be put in force on the “aggressors”.
My plan was also not what the shipping company was looking for as they apparently felt the plan was “too forceful” and besides, why harm these poor men who are simply trying to create a livelihood? Although this wasn’t directly said, it was clearly implied. Plus, they only want a very small group of between 3 and 4 men to protect their ship, the crews and the cargoes.
The Times of 29 November 2008 ran an article on the “British and Irish anti-piracy experts” who were forced to jump ship – the very ship they were contracted to protect. Whereas the article (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5253731.ece) pointed out that the men had, for 40 minutes, held the pirates at bay before jumping overboard, it does highlight some of the problems associated with a “quick-fix” solution. It also illustrates very clearly that 3 unarmed men aboard a ship cannot fend off an armed enemy. But, good money was paid by the shipping company and no positive result was forthcoming as the guards abandoned the ship - the Liberian-flagged tanker, Biscaglia with its cargo of palm oil - and its 27-member crew.
The Biscaglia is the 97th vessel to be attacked this year in the waters off Somalia. At least 15 ships, and more than 300 crew members, are currently being held for ransom. This will most certainly not be the last vessel to be captured by the pirates.
As the situation off the Somali coastline steadily develops into a high-risk zone, more and more PMCs (some with very little or no experience) are vying for contracts to protect ships sailing those waters. Some are trying to “economize” on manpower and maximise on profits. Others are looking at other “non-lethal” methods of stopping this high-sea crime. In many ways, this is akin to taking a knife to a gunfight – they are bound to lose. But, cheap solutions usually deliver cheap results – or in this instance, gave the shipping company a false sense of security but will cost, in the long run, a lot more than they bargained for.
A counter-piracy team must be able to give more to a shipping company than simply a warm, fuzzy feeling. These men need to be armed with real weapons, with real bullets and take every action possible to prevent the pirates even approaching the ship they are supposed to be protecting.
The concern that a trained guard will accidentally fire his weapon into some hazardous cargo does not hold much water. Real soldiers are used to carrying weapons on aircraft, submarines, inside vehicles, next to ammunition and so forth. Fire discipline is something every good soldier is taught. But, how many of these guards are well trained and sufficiently dedicated to honour their contracts?
International customs laws, in an effort to contain the illegal movement of arms and ammunition, provide an obstacle some shipping companies simply do not want to challenge or overcome. But, if a ship is not allowed to take whatever measures it needs to take to protect itself, then international law needs to be revisited and reviewed.
Well-trained, well-armed security teams on a ship must make life so unbearably dangerous to the pirates that they prefer to stay on land. Failure to respond to the IFF protocol should lead to an immediate sinking of the pirate vessel with no time being wasted on saving them for a court appearance. But, of course there are groups that will argue that such actions will infringe on the human rights of the pirates and that furthermore, such actions will be politically incorrect.
It is because of always trying to be politically correct that the world finds itself in the position it is in. Crime is rampant and will continue to flourish as long as everyone allows criminals such as these to operate with impunity.
Piracy can be stopped but it will require more than just words and water cannons.
Added on 3 December: Here is an interesting article on piracy for those who wish to read it: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/12/piratemerc-late.html#more Also see http://feraljundi.com/ for Blackwater's approach to solving this mess.
Another update on 3 December 2008, 1500B: Finally, they have woken up….The United Nations Security Council has approved a law that allows countries to enter the troubled Somalia sea waters and use military force against the dangerous pirates who are hijacking commercial ships off the coast of the Horn of Africa.
The Security Council newly adopted resolution gives authority to any country to attack the pirates. The European Union says in six days time it will be there in Somalia with a massive air and naval offensive against the pirates. The Council's authorization of a military solution against piracy in Somalia will be for a period of one year.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION
When I was very recently approached by an independent Russian television station and asked why I was setting up offices in Moscow, I was more than just a litle surprised.
This question was put to me by the interviewer as a new South African company claiming to be a “reconstutitued” Executive Outcomes is now Russia-bound. Operating as “Professional Outcomes” these men, according to my sources in Russia, are apparently enroute to “sort out” problems in that country.
I initially found this to be very amusing but then it struck me that those people and companies out there claiming to either have founded or to have been part of Executive Outcomes ought to be exposed for the liars and conmen they are. Besides, the registration of the company in 1989 by myself ought to still be available at the Registrar of Companies in Pretoria thus giving anyone who really wants to know when and by who the company was registered the information they seek.
A lttle digging into “Professional Outcomes” brought up some very interesting information: There is a strong belief that they are a front company for an intelligence agency. I advised the Russians accordingly as I have now got to the point where I can no longer stand by and allow fraudsters to claim their involvement in the company. Besides, I still have a duty towards the real men - both black and white - who served EO so loyally and therefore I cannot allow these people to tarnish the repution of those good men that established EO’s reputation.
Professional Outcomes are not the only ones riding the crest of someone else’s success. What I find rather surprising is that given how hard some intelligence services, especially the South African ones worked at fabricating false intelligence reports to prevent EO helping African and other governments, they now want to ride the EO bandwagon. It appears that one of the principles of establishing cover has been either forgotten or overlooked.
It has become semi-common knowledge that there are a few PMCs out there that claim to be the reincarnation of EO. In one instance, they even claim to be the “real” EO. I am aware of two such companies in the USA and one in Australia. Maybe there are several more operating under the radar that I am blissfully unaware of. It appears as though some of them have even negotiated contracts based on this fallacy.
Then there is the Simon Mann myth: Despite the claims, he was never a founder-member let alone even a member of EO. Nor was he ever the “close friend” of mine as some journalists and bloggers claim he was. In fact, I would have been ashamed to have had him as a senior member of the company. But this never stopped him from insinuating that he was in some manner or form the founder of the company. On his latest adventure, he apparently even recruited men by somehow intimating that he was doing it on behalf of EO. But, talk is one thing and look where it got him.
There are others who likewise are out there winning contracts on the basis of their fabricated involvement in EO.
I find it a great pity that there are people out there that are willing to stoop so low and falsely lay claim to what some very good men built up with their sweat and blood. An ever greater pity that these frauds (I can think of no other name for them) never had anything to do with EO but now swagger about with a “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” attitude and by implication act as though they were part of the company. This is a slap in the face of the good men who served in EO and gave their all to the company and those governments that contracted us.
One trait a PMC ought to have is integrity. Sadly, these men seem to have none and therefore are blots on the names of those PMCs who are honourable and do the best they can, often under very difficult and trying conditions.
As I still have the complete name list of everyone who worked for EO, I would gladly verify any queries a company or organisation may have regarding a person who claims to be an ex-EO member. As every EO member had a specific “book number” – this was the person’s EO identity and file number – it will be very easy to establish his bona-fides.
As far as I am concerned, it is a crime to represent yourself or your company as something it isn’t and never was. Crime and associated elements such as security and personal protection are subjects I will shortly be addressing.
But first of many on the agenda will be the UN’s spectacular failures in Africa. After all, freedom of speech is something the UN subscribes to.
This question was put to me by the interviewer as a new South African company claiming to be a “reconstutitued” Executive Outcomes is now Russia-bound. Operating as “Professional Outcomes” these men, according to my sources in Russia, are apparently enroute to “sort out” problems in that country.
I initially found this to be very amusing but then it struck me that those people and companies out there claiming to either have founded or to have been part of Executive Outcomes ought to be exposed for the liars and conmen they are. Besides, the registration of the company in 1989 by myself ought to still be available at the Registrar of Companies in Pretoria thus giving anyone who really wants to know when and by who the company was registered the information they seek.
A lttle digging into “Professional Outcomes” brought up some very interesting information: There is a strong belief that they are a front company for an intelligence agency. I advised the Russians accordingly as I have now got to the point where I can no longer stand by and allow fraudsters to claim their involvement in the company. Besides, I still have a duty towards the real men - both black and white - who served EO so loyally and therefore I cannot allow these people to tarnish the repution of those good men that established EO’s reputation.
Professional Outcomes are not the only ones riding the crest of someone else’s success. What I find rather surprising is that given how hard some intelligence services, especially the South African ones worked at fabricating false intelligence reports to prevent EO helping African and other governments, they now want to ride the EO bandwagon. It appears that one of the principles of establishing cover has been either forgotten or overlooked.
It has become semi-common knowledge that there are a few PMCs out there that claim to be the reincarnation of EO. In one instance, they even claim to be the “real” EO. I am aware of two such companies in the USA and one in Australia. Maybe there are several more operating under the radar that I am blissfully unaware of. It appears as though some of them have even negotiated contracts based on this fallacy.
Then there is the Simon Mann myth: Despite the claims, he was never a founder-member let alone even a member of EO. Nor was he ever the “close friend” of mine as some journalists and bloggers claim he was. In fact, I would have been ashamed to have had him as a senior member of the company. But this never stopped him from insinuating that he was in some manner or form the founder of the company. On his latest adventure, he apparently even recruited men by somehow intimating that he was doing it on behalf of EO. But, talk is one thing and look where it got him.
There are others who likewise are out there winning contracts on the basis of their fabricated involvement in EO.
I find it a great pity that there are people out there that are willing to stoop so low and falsely lay claim to what some very good men built up with their sweat and blood. An ever greater pity that these frauds (I can think of no other name for them) never had anything to do with EO but now swagger about with a “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” attitude and by implication act as though they were part of the company. This is a slap in the face of the good men who served in EO and gave their all to the company and those governments that contracted us.
One trait a PMC ought to have is integrity. Sadly, these men seem to have none and therefore are blots on the names of those PMCs who are honourable and do the best they can, often under very difficult and trying conditions.
As I still have the complete name list of everyone who worked for EO, I would gladly verify any queries a company or organisation may have regarding a person who claims to be an ex-EO member. As every EO member had a specific “book number” – this was the person’s EO identity and file number – it will be very easy to establish his bona-fides.
As far as I am concerned, it is a crime to represent yourself or your company as something it isn’t and never was. Crime and associated elements such as security and personal protection are subjects I will shortly be addressing.
But first of many on the agenda will be the UN’s spectacular failures in Africa. After all, freedom of speech is something the UN subscribes to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)