By Matt Loe

The other day I was watching a show called Democracy Now headlined by Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill, and I was appalled.  They had the family of Adam Hermanson on the show, and the supposed focus was the accidental death of Adam Hermanson in Iraq.  You would think the show would be centered on who did the electrical work that caused the death of this security contractor?  Or maybe even a focus on the lack of management and quality control by the contracting officers and construction company that was tasked with building Camp Olympia and it’s facilities?  But that wasn’t the case, and instead it was a disgusting display of politics.

What the show presented was Adam’s family being used as pawns by both Amy and Jeremy. Or basically,  the family was being used in Amy and Jeremy’s overall goal of demonizing security contractors in this war. They spent the show ripping apart Triple Canopy, or Obama’s New Blackwater, and chose not to focus on how this accident happened and who was responsible. What an insult to the family and friends!

Worse yet, every time Jeremy is on that show, Amy plugs his slanderous and poorly researched book about Blackwater.  And during this deal, he was completely cozying up to the family, and wrapping himself up in the death of the ‘poor victim’ of this accident, that happened to be a security contractor.

But wait, isn’t that security contractor named Adam Hermanson, a mercenary and member of Obama’s Blackwater (Triple Canopy)? I am just curious on how all of a sudden Adam changes from a ‘blood thirsty, war mongering mercenary’ to victim who so desperately needs Scahill and Goodman to defend them?

Lets take that a step further.  Would Jeremy or Amy have sat down with Adam when he was alive and have a beer with the guy? How about the family? Oh but love the security contractor when it is politically convenient and could potentially sell books.

I know I would have liked to of hung out with Adam, because we probably would have known some of the same people.  I know I would have asked him about his contract, and his thoughts about the pay and everything…typical contractor conversation. I just wonder if Adam would have liked to have sat down with Jeremy and Amy, and do the same thing?

Now if I was to sit down with Adam’s ghost, the conversation would have been a little different. I would have asked him what happened exactly.  Then I would have promised him that I would find out who was responsible for the poor electrical work and managing that work.  That is the least I could do.  I would also ask if he would want Amy and Jeremy to use his memory for political purposes and to sell books, and if he approved of this show.

Would Adam want his good name associated with these folks that basically would have had nothing to do with him prior to his death? After all, according to these two, Adam’s service to country, both as a contractor and in the military was worthless.  All of the guys that Adam knew that died in the war, all died for a worthless and despicable cause, according Scahill and Goodman, and I wonder what Adam would have thought about that?

That is what I kept thinking during this show, and it made me want to puke. It pissed me off, because I doubt that Adam would want to have his name associated with a group that certainly despised him and his sacrifice in this war.

The other angle on this, is that Triple Canopy just lost a family member as well.  They owe it to the family and friends to get the story correct on what exactly happened. That requires an investigation, and that can be difficult to accomplish in some circumstances. It is important to remember that this is a war zone, and not some city in America. The family deserves to know what happened, but they also have to understand that it takes a little bit of work and time to put together exactly what happened in some cases. But I do agree that Triple Canopy should work as fast as possible to get the family all the information and help they need.  The security contracting community and Triple Canopy lost a comrade too, and we all would like to know what happened.

Now if TC was responsible for the wiring, and they were covering things up to hide some kind of liability for such a thing, then of course they should be held accountable. But listening to Amy and Jeremy, you would think that Triple Canopy is already guilty, and that is politics.

That brings up another point.  Scahill and Goodman both fueled the idea that Triple Canopy was trying to cover this up. Ok guys, then investigate that responsibly, and see where it goes.  Try being more journalist, than political hacks, and maybe my community and the family would have more respect for what you are doing.  But instead of focusing on who actually built the facilities, they decided to focus on demonizing the security contracting industry. Is that journalism, or is that an agenda?  It would be like if someone got killed in a freak accident at a movie theater, and then going after the the victim’s employer because you don’t like their employer.  It is a strawman attack, and this bias and distraction does a huge disservice to the family and the memory of Adam.

So lets talk about Camp Olympia.  According to the comments section at MsSparky’s blog (the Hermanson family has made comments there as well, so that is why it is relevant), the readers had some interesting points to make. I found out about this, just by typing ‘Camp Olympia, Iraq’, in a Google search, and it came up on the first page.

For one, it is alleged that the First Kuwaiti Construction Company was the company that built up Camp Olympia.(says Sam) This is the same company that built the new Embassy compound in Baghdad.  There is even  a wikipedia page about the company that Jeremy and Amy could have visited, to learn more about the company and it’s history of faulty construction. I know Jeremy and Amy are aware of the construction problems at the embassy, so it is curious why they didn’t make the connection or even do a basic Google search about Camp Olympia?

According to the wiki, the Washington Post wrote a critical article of the company, ‘both for the physical quality of their work, and for allegations of labor abuse which came to light in testimony given by former First Kuwaiti employees’.  If I was Adam’s family, those are the folks I would be mad at if they were the ones that were responsible for the construction at the camp.  I would also be angry at the government for not monitoring the construction of the camp and applying some kind of quality control.

Finally, and I want to leave the reader on this important note.  You should talk with your family about your final wishes if killed out there.(speaking to my fellow security contractors)  Your death, like in the case of Adam Hermanson, could be used by some morally and ethically corrupt individuals who are just trying to sell books and political agendas.

If you are a family member of a contractor, it would also be wise to think what your loved one’s wishes would have been in regards to relations with the media.  Your actions can forever impact the memory and good name of your deceased loved one, and you need to be protective and respectful of that memory. And in the case of Adam Hermanson, I just don’t think he would have sat down and had a beer with Jeremy Scahill or Amy Goodman while he was alive, and I am pretty sure Adam would not have approved of those two using his good name to sell books and agendas.

I could be wrong, and I apologize in advance if that is the wishes of Adam.  I am just looking at this, as if I was in Adam’s shoes. I am a security contractor and I have worked in these camps in Iraq. I have seen first hand the burned out trailers caused by electrical fires, and I am completely aware of accidental electrical deaths.  Believe me, I have showered in plenty of facilities that gave me pause.  But I also know enough about the system to put blame, where blame is due.  In the case of Adam Hermanson, the blame needs to be placed on who built the facility, and who was tasked with managing and monitoring that contract.

Unfortunately, politics seems to be more important to the media these days, than respecting the memory of a security contractor or finding out the truth of what happened to him.

See article source here.

###

Matt Loe is a former Marine, a seasoned security contractor and a  frequent contributor to the Private Military Herald.  His blog, Feral Jundi, is an excellent source for news and commentary related to the private security sector as well as the U.S. military and foreign policy.

By Matt Loe

You know, I really dig all the action schools out there.  That stuff is fun, and they are also vital to our core skill set for working in this industry.  But something is severely lacking in the training industry, and that is leadership training.     It is not enough anymore to say ‘I was an NCO or Officer in the military’, or ‘I was a Police Sergeant at my old PD’.  Nope, what we need is industry specific leadership/management training, and I just don’t see it out there.
     Better yet, we need to see companies putting more of an emphasis on good leadership out there, by setting up training for their contractors, managers and regional managers.  So much money these days is spent on shooting and all the other sexy stuff for overseas spin ups, but you see absolutely no training at all for leadership stuff. The companies make a god awful amount of money on these contracts, and the least they could do is spend the money for this training, and go over what they expect out of their leaders and aspiring leaders. To actually institute some system of management that will give the contractors out in the field, a better chance at doing well out there.
     That sucks that this is not happening, because if you look at what the core problems are out there, it’s not the lack of shooting skills or driving skills or whatever, it’s the lack of leadership skills.  Guys are put into management positions on good faith and whatever is on the resume and DD 214, and companies just kind of cross their fingers and hope they do good things out there.  That is odd to me, because a lot rides on the management skills of the leaders these companies hire and put into these vital positions.  You would think a company would ensure that the manager is good to go, by putting them through some company and industry specific training.
   And to take a hint from McDonalds and other fast food franchises, even they have management training for their floor supervisors.  So why don’t the companies in this industry have the same thing going on?  Well, I would speculate that McDonalds and others wanted to minimize liability (no more serving boiling hot coffee to folks, and them getting burned, and then suing the company for millions) and maximize customer service and satisfaction.  PMC’s and PSC’s are getting sued left and right, and they are dealing with the results of poor customer service and satisfaction.  They are also dealing with high turn over rates, because contractors that despise poor leaders or poor pay, usually jump contract and find greener pastures.  Funny how that works, and all roads lead back to leadership.
     I will also say that just because you were a Sergeant in the Marines, or whatever service, does not make you an outstanding leader in the private industry.  I learned that the hard way when I transitioned to civilian life from the military, and tried to apply military management principals to a civilian job.  I chuckle about it now, but boy was that a big lesson to me.  The take away from my experience is that you have to be very keen as to whom your team is, what their function is, and determine the best management style for that team.  You should have a proverbial ‘tool kit’ of management methods that you take with you from contract to contract and apply them judiciously.  And just having a hammer in that tool kit is not very smart, nor is it ‘being prepared’.
     So what kind of leadership skill sets are needed for contracts?  Hey, hey, hey….Are you listening to what I am saying there ‘training providers’? (hint, hint)  This could be an entire niche market that a provider(s) could fill, and I would really like to see it filled by some competent folks. I could see management courses for ‘how to manage LN and TCN forces’, or ‘how to plan for and lead convoy operations’, or ‘how to set up an effective evaluations system’, etc. etc.  I could even see management systems being developed, that are built upon a sturdy foundation of tried and true principles. (J 9 Systems or something catchy like that, lol)
     You know, building snowmobiles stuff, where you take the best concepts from all the companies and contracts out there, and build a leadership system out of it that companies and contractors could rally around.  A system that is built by, and specifically for security contractor leaders. Now that would be cool.
     The thing working against leadership training is if it is as fun and as sexy as a shooting course, or some high speed driving course?  Not really, but it could be close.  Maybe a creative company could make it fun and sexy, but that is up to the providers out there.  I just want an effective management tool, and if someone can make it interesting as well, then I think that would be nice.  And if guys got the hint from the companies that leadership training was a good thing to have on your resume, then I could see the providers ramping up for that need.
    The question to ask yourself, is if leadership training is necessary for your career in security contracting, if you want to get into management?  Yes.  Could being a really kick ass manager make you a lot of money, because the company recognizes your outstanding leadership skills and continues to advance you through the ranks? Yes.  Will contractors that were under your command tell others on how kick ass you were as a leader, thus putting you in a favorable light when it comes to the all mighty ‘reputation’?  Yes. Most of all, could your outstanding leadership save a life, save a contract, save a company, and protect the industry and client from anymore ‘black eyes’?  You bet it could, and to me, that is sexy.

By Matt Loe

The convention does not want to eliminate the use of private companies at all…. -Shaista Shameem

Over a decade ago, Kofi Annan concluded that the world wasn’t ready for privatized peacekeeping. It’s still not. But that shouldn’t mean that we are oblivious to the very important role that many private military and security companies are playing at what I would call the second rank level, freeing up national troops to play key frontline roles. We see these kinds of companies, for example, providing security analysis and training, local private security companies are often key in providing site security and in some cases, convoy support services, and humanitarians operating under a UN security umbrella come into contact with these kinds of companies in a wide variety of theaters and playing a wide variety of functions. -James Cockayne

Ok, here is a quick run down of this policy forum, book promotion and gathering of some really smart folks.  The general idea that I am getting from this group is that PSC’s and PMC’s are a fact of life, and it is on the various countries that use them to back up some kind of way to regulate them, all with the idea that accountability should be built into the whole process to prevent human rights violations.  The UNWG (UN Working Group) along with other groups (IPOA, PASA, BAPSC, etc.) have been working hard on some kind of a standard that companies and countries can adhere to, how to regulate it and also exploring what these security contractors should do and not do out there.

For the most part, the folks on this panel think it is just fine that PMC’s and PSC’s should do defensive tasks, like convoy protection, PSD or static security (note the quotes up top).  It’s just anything in the realm of offensive actions is what they are against and very wary of.

Also, the Montreux Document (MD) is becoming quite the popular document throughout the world, and it is looking like the MD will be the standard to implement for any kind of regulatory commission.  So that is good–everyone agrees that the MD is something to rally around. I agree too.

The problems that everyone is bumping into are how do you regulate the companies once we have standards in place?  Who will regulate it, and how do you provide teeth to that regulation?  And that is what the Beyond Market Forces book explores. I have yet to come to any conclusions on how that is to be done, and I would love to hear some ideas from the readers for that.  This book will be a great resource to help in that process.

Further along with the discussion, the two points that piqued my interest was the mention of Executive Outcomes, and of protecting FOBs in Afghanistan with security contractors.

For EO, they pretty much used that company as an example of how PSC’s and PMC’s used to be viewed, and how there is a more logical and rational conversation taking place now about the possible uses of companies in conflicts and peacekeeping.

I will let Eeben be the judge if he is offended or not by any mention of his company by this group. I know he is pretty skeptical of anything they have had to say in regards to EO, and I don’t blame him. I noticed that Sierra Leone was mentioned, but nothing was mentioned of the success of EO there.  Or nothing about the conversation between the UN and EO during the Rawandan Genocide crisis.  I think that is the kind of questioning that I would have liked to have heard at this meeting.  Or even something about Responsibility to Protect, and what involvement PMC’s and PSC’s could and should have in the implementation of R2P?

Now on to the ‘contracting security for FOB’s in Afghanistan’ conversation.  The whole point there was to identify somehow that defensive security on a FOB in Afghanistan would be a bridge to far for companies.  Really?  Obviously this group has not done it’s homework for some of the key historic defenses of facilities by contractors in Iraq?  Places like Najaf, with Blackwater guards on the rooftop of their facility, holding off and killing hundreds of Mahdi militiamen, come to mind as an example of such defensive activity.  Or the thousands of defensive actions of protecting a PSD or Convoy detail, when ambushed in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Does a company use harsh language to protect self or others, or do they actually get to fire their weapons to survive such a thing?

My point is, is that contractors have been operating in this capacity for awhile now, and they have certainly saved lives and property because of their extreme violence of action.  Why is this somehow ‘illegitimate’ when it gets to that point, is beyond me.  Rubber bullets do not stop RPG’s.  Flares do not stop bullets.  Intimidation does not stop a committed enemy that wants to kill you.  It takes violence, to deal with violence, and to advocate anything less than that would hamstring a defenders ability to defend.  So to me, this position is idiotic and extremely irresponsible.

You cannot have it both ways in my book.  If you are going to sign off on the idea that PMC’s and PSC’s are a good idea for defending people and property in war zones, then you need to go all the way with that support.  You cannot just say, ‘we support your defensive actions, all the way up until you make contact with the enemy’.  In other words, this group needs to profoundly state that contractors are legitimate throughout the entire scope of the defense. And during the defense, sometimes things are not pretty and perfect.

To defend yourself in a war zone often requires killing someone in order to survive or protect a principle.  Hell, there might even be an accident, and civilians might be killed or hurt in that process.  The enemy might even set it up so that civilians could be killed during an attack on contractors, just so they can create a Nisour Square propaganda type campaign.  Either way, the group has to keep in mind the realities of war zone protection services, and build into the regulation of such a thing, mechanisms that recognize these complexities.

So that is where I took issue with the conversation here, and obviously this group has not taken the time to bring in folks that have actually lived and breathed these kinds of contracts out there. It is called ’shared reality’ folks, and ‘people will support what they help to create’. You bring in some meat eaters that have actually been out there in the war, and they will help you to develop a product that everyone could support.

In defense of Doug Brooks, he did bring in some shared reality and tried to correct some of the misperceptions, but it would have been better to actually have some basic security contractors who have worked a few gigs in the war, and put them in the audience or on the panel.  Or how about some video conferencing, and bring in guys like Eeben or Jake or Tim into the fold and have a really comprehensive discussion about such things? Advertise with the forums and various associations, and reach out to those that will be most impacted by these regulations– the security contractor.  I could point you guys to several forums and Facebook groups that are extremely active.

Finally, and for a really interesting tidbit that one of the panelists mentioned. Shaista Shameem mentioned a positive side of security companies in Afghanistan.  That a market for security, has created the formation of companies as opposed to warlords creating militias.  And by creating this market in Afghanistan, the government of Afghanistan has an opportunity of reeling in these warlords turned business owners.  In other words, if a company wants to do business as a security provider for government contracts, they must answer to the government in some way, shape, or form.

That gives the government more control over groups that were once only managed and controlled by warlords.  And if the Afghan government was signed on to the Montreaux Document or to some kind of international regulatory body that monitors the actions of PSC’s and PMC’s, and there was some way to hold Afghanistan and the companies accountable, then that is a far better position to be in for preventing human rights violations in the war.

Most importantly, it is a mechanism to which the state could have more control or even a monopoly on the application of the use of force, by having a international system that backs them up in monitoring and regulating these companies in their country.  How to get them on board though is the tricky part, and that is a big part of this book as well.

This takes us back to the teeth of regulation and who will provide it?  Would all countries accept the powers of that regulatory body?  That to me is the 60,000 dollar question.  This book called Beyond Market Forces gives some ideas on what direction to go with that, and I really hope we come to a consensus as to what to go with.  Somewhere out there is the best model, or models of operation, and we have to ‘build that snowmobile’ to get it done.

The pay off of such a thing, is that the industry could actually say ‘look, we are regulated, there is an enforcement system in place, and we are an honorable and respectable service industry that abides by a standard agreed to by all’.  Once we get to that level, then we have achieved a great step towards being a legitimate industry. An industry that could be a place of consistent and honorable employment for professional security contractors throughout the world, and an industry that can stand to protect and save many lives throughout the world.  (God forbid if the world actually got to a point of respecting this industry) We will get there, just as long as we continue to apply Kaizen, customer service and satisfaction, and outstanding leadership at all levels. (pure Jundism baby)

Also, let me clarify another position of mine in regards to this industry.  I do not like war, and to me, it is a disgusting and energy wasting activity. Nor do I advocate creating war just for the sake of employment of security contractors or stimulating the defense industry.  But I do recognize that war will not go away any time soon, that there is a need for protective services in these war zones, and that there are those of us willing to offer those services for a price.  We are sheep dogs, in the words of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, and there are many sheep dogs out there, willing to step up and make a difference in these war zones. The motive is not evil, nor is it unethical, it is just guys who have the desire, the skill and experience, to protect the things worth protecting in really bad places.

Oh, and you get what you pay for–if you want the best, you have to pay for the best, and that is the way the world works.  For those who think otherwise, just replace security contractor with doctor.  Do you want your life in the hands of the cheapest doctor, or the most competent doctor whose services are expensive because they are in such high demand?  How much is your care worth, and better yet, how much is your life worth in a war zone?  Something to think about, next time a discussion about how much security contractors cost comes up.

To me, security contractors are a necessity, much like soldiers or police are a necessity.  I firmly believe that security contractors can fill in the gaps that soldiers or police are unable to fill, do to whatever reason or emergency. We have seen examples in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in the US with Hurricane Katrina.  If there is a manpower shortage, and security is essential, then security contractors are the resource to turn to.

What is really cool is that the conversation here is actually leaning towards a meaningful discussion about what we can or cannot do, and not towards some irrational discussion that all PSC’s and PMC’s are bad and should not be used.  So with that said, us sheep dogs are protecting our flocks, while patiently waiting and watching this process with cautious optimism.

Matt Loe is a former Marine Corps infantryman and currently works as a private security contractor.  You can also find his blog at Feral Jundi.