BLACKWATER to Xe....now ACADEMI...no more Prince...

[Magiccarpetrides]

First on CNN: Blackwater gets an even bigger makeover – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

[DaveTN]

A private company has no business providing security for government workers in another country or a war zone. Why should I as a tax payer be paying the high rates of a private security company when we have better trained personnel in the military we are already paying for?

[TMF]

Sounds like they're taking it in a good direction. I know there are many here that have used their facilities in Moyock and can attest to what a nice training facility it is. It would be a shame for that to go to waste because Blackwater did such a crappy job vetting guys in order to secure contracts and then not holding them to an acceptable standard. It's really two separate sides of the house.

[Magiccarpetrides]

A private company has no business providing security for government workers in another country or a war zone. Why should I as a tax payer be paying the high rates of a private security company when we have better trained personnel in the military we are already paying for?

Your missing a few key issues (and many i know nothing about)

1. Private security is not looked down upon or as an "invading" force in places like Iraq where the US military is seen as an occupier.

2. The cost to train a US soldier to be up to "snuff" is quite substantial so hiring people with existing skills sometimes isn't quite as expensive as it appears.

[Guest nysos]

Your missing a few key issues (and many i know nothing about)

1. Private security is not looked down upon or as an "invading" force in places like Iraq where the US military is seen as an occupier.

2. The cost to train a US soldier to be up to "snuff" is quite substantial so hiring people with existing skills sometimes isn't quite as expensive as it appears.

Not to mention many of them generally have a military background as is, so I don't see how less training is an issue.

[Dolomite_supafly]

You may not believe it but the cost of a single soldier is more than the cost of a single contractor. When you consider dollar for dollar the cost a contractor is a real deal compared to soldiers on the ground. Also, 90% of the military are not trained to work on PSD teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. Most contractors are very specialized in their skill sets and not all are run and gun types. As a matter of fact most are not run and gun types.

Also, not all contractors are making a lot. There are contractors that made just $200 a month and were from south America working over there.

Also, with some of the clients they do not want the military because it makes them a target. For some it is much safer running around in a beat up Toyota than a humvee.

You also have to realize that the vast majority of contractors have to pay taxes on what they make overseas and any service members in country do not.

And in the event a soldier is permanently injured, which a lot have been, there is a lifetime of benefits provided by the government. Contractors have to rely on private disability insurance for any benefits they receive, not the government.

Ask the average person how much money it would take for them to be shot at on a regular basis?

I would like to hear what everyone thinks a contractor makes? Unless you have worked as a contractor you have no clue how little it actually is.

Dolomite

[Guest BungieCord]

The Ugandans working for America company SOC-SMG, who performed armed fixed facility security throughout Iraq (PX/BX, DFAC, MWR, etc) were paid less than a Pvt in the US Army. And no benefits.

Prince is long gone from BW/Xe. He's now a resident of the UAE. The Emirates are paying him more money than the GDP of Guatemala to build a to-order mercenary army for them.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The Chileans were getting paid $200 a month as well. I know TC hires south Americans as a normal course of business.

Dolomite

[TMF]

A private company has no business providing security for government workers in another country or a war zone. Why should I as a tax payer be paying the high rates of a private security company when we have better trained personnel in the military we are already paying for?

It would cost the tax payer 3 or 4 times more to have the organic means of many of these private companies. Trust me, the government is saving money on this. Besides, our military is simply not big enough to meet the manning challenges in combat zones and other areas worldwide. It's not as simple as just grabbing a Pvt and saying "stand here and pull security". Just providing security for a mid-size logistical hub in either country is a Battalion + size mission. The military doesn't have the resources to staff 100+ logistical sites with a BN each. That would increase our footprint on an already overstretched force and result with guys like me who get out because we're away too much. In fact, the first few years of Iraq we used locally hired Iraqis for security because we didn't have the means to provide security for ourselves. If we were responsible for providing our own security we would have spent the entire mission doing just that. No time for any operations, just security. In that case we would be doing nothing except occupying a firebase and having no effect on the enemy and that would defeat the purpose for being there in the first place.

Also, in regards to the State Dept and the three letter agencies that hire out security, the requirement for the level of proficiency of those who would provide security for (what the enemy would regard as) high value targets is pretty significant. We have people in all branches with the skills to provide such a force, however, they're out hunting bad guys. To repurpose that force as a security element for State Dept employees and field agents would cripple our ability to conduct special operations.

Trust me, if the problem was that simple to use military personnel as opposed to security contractors it would have already been done. The reason Blackwater ended up the way they did was they got greedy in a bid for contracts and sacrificed quality for quantity. Not to say there aren't professionals that worked there, because there are plenty, but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the batch. They should have done a better job managing those trigger happy apples.

[TMF]

The Ugandans working for America company SOC-SMG, who performed armed fixed facility security throughout Iraq (PX/BX, DFAC, MWR, etc)

JUMMMBBOOOOOO!

[strickj]

Two things I must ask.

Why would a man risk his life in a war zone for 6 bucks a day?

What were the actual costs of hiring Blackwater for those "gigs"? Not the soldiers' take home pay, but the actual costs.

I just find it hard to believe that it's cheaper to source out when there are already 2.5mil on the payroll.

[TMF]

Two things I must ask.

Why would a man risk his life in a war zone for 6 bucks a day?

Good question. The countries they hire from are usually have a pretty low standard of living. I don't actually know how much companies such as SOC pay them, but I know it's not very much. $6 a day is a lot to most on the African continent. Not to mention they're not engaged in offensive operations and aren't usually guarding places that get attacked often. They man posts which require a body to man, but not necessarily a highly trained body.

What were the actual costs of hiring Blackwater for those "gigs"? Not the soldiers' take home pay, but the actual costs.

I just find it hard to believe that it's cheaper to source out when there are already 2.5mil on the payroll.

I don't know what the actual cost to manning ratio is. I know that the lower tier State Dept contracts were around 400 a day. That comes out to 150ish a year being paid to the actual person on the ground, but I don't know how much additional money is being paid to the company... let's say double that for argument's sake.

So if it costs around 300k a year for one guy it's still cheaper than using a uniform. For one, the companies recruit folks who already have a background. They don't just pull someone off the street, give them a few weeks of training and send them on their way. They're expected to show up already knowing how to function in a high threat environment.

Yes, the military already has people on the payroll. But how many of that 2.5 million are actually trigger pullers (as in combat arms)? Probably less than 120,000. Of that number, how many are qualified to perform security tasks required of these agencies (meaning they meet the standards required)? Probably around 15,000. You know how much training and money is spent on getting someone to that level? Millions. Literally millions. I'm talking about just one guy. For the military to respond to this need they would be sinking billions of dollars to stand up a sizable enough force to meet that challenge, which by the time they did, there probably wouldn't be a requirement for it anymore.

With a contract company they can recruit, train and have a body out in the field in a matter of weeks. The military can't mirror that. Maybe if the conflicts were a lot smaller it would be possible, but even in peace time SOF has a mission and it's not likely that the DOD would scoop up a bunch of SOF personnel to provide security for a bunch of fat field agents, especially since DOD isn't too keen on giving non-DOD organizations operational control of their units (i.e. some State Dept guy controlling the actions of a SOF manuever unit).

Edited December 13, 2011 by TMF 18B

[strickj]

Not to mention they're not engaged in offensive operations and aren't usually guarding places that get attacked often. They man posts which require a body to man, but not necessarily a highly trained body.

Of that number, how many are qualified to perform security tasks required of these agencies (meaning they meet the standards required)? Probably around 15,000. You know how much training and money is spent on getting someone to that level? Millions. Literally millions. I'm talking about just one guy. For the military to respond to this need they would be sinking billions of dollars to stand up a sizable enough force to meet that challenge, which by the time they did, there probably wouldn't be a requirement for it anymore.

By the sound of your first quote, sounds like any one of that 2.5mil could do the job.

Hell, by those standards, I could do it...

Signed, Strick-have gun,will travel-J

[TMF]

By the sound of your first quote, sounds like any one of that 2.5mil could do the job.

Hell, by those standards, I could do it...

Signed, Strick-have gun,will travel-J

Absolutely, the problem is those Soldiers/Marines/Airmen have more important jobs to do other than stand in a tower/guard DFAC/PX. Support jobs alone take up over 2/3rds of those who wear a uniform downrange. That leaves very, very few combat arms folks to cover down on such large swaths of battlespace.

Like I said before, if the military was to completely staff all those positions with what they have from the military then the mission wouldn't happen or our military would become so overstretched due to deployment numbers that no one would stay in past 3 years (which causes a whoooooole new world of problems for our military; think Vietnam and a lack of experienced leadership). It would just be a whole lot of service members in a dangerous place holding a little piece of real estate, which would probably result in higher casualty numbers for us because the enemy would have more freedom of movement to conduct offensive operations instead of just setting out roadside bombs and firing some mortars/rockets every so often.

[TMF]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist doing this.

[strickj]

Absolutely, the problem is those Soldiers/Marines/Airmen have more important jobs to do other than stand in a tower/guard DFAC/PX. Support jobs alone take up over 2/3rds of those who wear a uniform downrange. That leaves very, very few combat arms folks to cover down on such large swaths of battlespace.

Like I said before, if the military was to completely staff all those positions with what they have from the military then the mission wouldn't happen or our military would become so overstretched due to deployment numbers that no one would stay in past 3 years (which causes a whoooooole new world of problems for our military; think Vietnam and a lack of experienced leadership). It would just be a whole lot of service members in a dangerous place holding a little piece of real estate, which would probably result in higher casualty numbers for us because the enemy would have more freedom of movement to conduct offensive operations instead of just setting out roadside bombs and firing some mortars/rockets every so often.

Sorry, I still do not buy it. We have enough military and enough money wrapped up in it as is. If 2.5 mil is not enough then we need to rethink our priorities.

FWIW, I have no problems with Blackwater's past problems and controversies. I just have a hard time seeing 3rd parties doing a job that we pay our military to do. If our military is unable to do the job, then why the hell do we have them?

[TMF]

Sorry, I still do not buy it. We have enough military and enough money wrapped up in it as is. If 2.5 mil is not enough then we need to rethink our priorities.

FWIW, I have no problems with Blackwater's past problems and controversies. I just have a hard time seeing 3rd parties doing a job that we pay our military to do. If our military is unable to do the job, then why the hell do we have them?

Well I think that opens up a whole new argument that involves lots of politics. For as it is right now, the military and other government agencies wouldn't be able to function in their current capacity without the aid of privatized security. It would be too much of a strain on personnel. I can promise you though, it IS cost effective. By not making these capabilities organic they don't have to worry about wasting money on them when they don't need them. I think it's less of an issue now with Iraq being done with, and there isn't quite the footprint in Afghanistan in regards to private security as there was in Iraq. There are less large bases and a lot of NATO presence to pick up the "ash and trash" jobs since their countries prohibit them from being involved in offensive operations.

[Smith]

Sorry, I still do not buy it. We have enough military and enough money wrapped up in it as is. If 2.5 mil is not enough then we need to rethink our priorities.

FWIW, I have no problems with Blackwater's past problems and controversies. I just have a hard time seeing 3rd parties doing a job that we pay our military to do. If our military is unable to do the job, then why the hell do we have them?

We pay substantially less and they can do substantially more. No bureaucracies, red tape, or idiots in Washington to tell them how to do it right. Makes an incredibly more efficient force. Good example is Sierra Leone and Executive Outcomes. The UN decided to ban PMC's after they were embarrassed by their (NATO's) ineffectiveness and EO kicking butt with minimal forces. They inserted NATO troops and the country was overrun again in months. Blood Diamonds anyone? Brought to you courtesy of NATO. Sierra Leone Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A very good unbiased documentry is "Shadow Comapany". Excellent if you want to understand PMC's history and current state. Shadow Company ? Iraq War Documentary Movie, Award Winning Film about Private Military / Security Company voiced By Gerard Butler

[Dolomite_supafly]

It is how effective the 2.5 mil can do the job. The majority of military are not trained to do the job. Also the cost to support the military doing those jobs the contractors do is going to cost a lot more.

The amount paid to the contractor is a lot less than what is actually paid to the contracting company per person. The per person amount paid to the company by the client is generally all inclusive as well. That means that the contracting company is responsible for everything it takes to get the person on the ground and keep him there. I have heard reliable numbers batted around and they tend to be $1,000-$1,500 per person, per day for the average contractor. But as I said included in that is the airfare, training, meals, weapons systems, ammo, etc to get him there and keep him there as well as get him back home. And as a general rule the company is only paid when people are on the ground. Also, the contracting companies are paid a flat per person rate regardless of what position the person holds. So the additional money paid to supervisors and in country program managers comes out of the per person, per day rate as well as any of the support people back in the states.

What the contractor actually receives varies widely from contract to contract and from company to company. This makes it hard to get an idea of pay but it ranges from about $250 a day to $750 a day for the average security contractor. It all depends on the company, your location and your negotiating skills. As many of you know I like to haggle and I did on everything including contracts. Most times a contractor will sign and individual contract for each trip or at least that is how the majority of the companies I worked for did it. That way you knew where you were going and how much you were going to get paid. Most cases the companies wouldn't budge on the daily rates but would give bonuses or some other perk. I knew a guy who negotiated a set of drums as part of his contract. They were waiting for him when he got home.

I have worked for some of the bigger companies out there. The bigger they are the bigger the target they are for the media and others. I have worked for Blackwater on several different occassions over the three years I did this type of work and by far they were the best company I worked for. I do not believe they, BW, intentionally sacrificed quality for quantity but I do believe a few made it in that shouldn't have. It is the client who does the background on the contractors not the contracting company. And during training or vetting, in which there is almost always is a client representative present, things are so fast paced a potential problem with an individual is hard to spot by the company as well as the client. As long as there are no glaring problems and their skills are there they will likely not get disqualified. I have met some odd individuals in my travels but as long as their skill were there it didn't really bother me.

I worked for another company that I thought was good as BW but in the end screwed me out of some serious cash. And it cost them a lot when I walked off the contract. When they refused to pay me what they owed me I told them I was getting on the bird that night and leaving. The company rep laughed saying I was bluffing and that I wouldn't do it. But in the end the rep had to tell the client they didn't have the manpower required by the contract. And that cost them more in fines than what they owed me. Not sure if it cost them a country contract but during this time companies were bidding on contracts for clients. And being short manned was a bid killer. The biggest thing about doing this is to make sure you get it in writing and be willing to stand your ground to get it. And i would rather work for the largest company regardless of reputation than the smallest company regardless of pay.

It is a very dangerous job. The safest place in Afghanistan is still more dangerous than any street in America. I was attacked on every single trip. Now some trips were more active than other but none were a cake walk. My last trip I averaged an attack of some sort every 4 days, mostly indirect fire but not always. You also had to contend with catching malaria, hepatitus as well as a slew of other diseases that are prevalent over there. It is also a very stressful as well as physically demanding job that can can take a toll on the body.

Not going to get into numbers but my particular contract had a very, very small group of people. It was not the usual State Department gig we hear about all the time on TV. The lion's share of people who worked the same gig as I were SF, CAG, SEAL, Ranger or just plain combat arms types because that is what the client wanted. Not really sure why I was chosen to work it because I am none of these but I was. Most clients want a certain type of individual for their contracts and it isn't always those with a HSLD background. But the contracts for the HSLD tend to pay more as well as those with specailized skills like pilots, medics or comms guys.

Even to this day I get requests from people who don't know I am on the injured rolls.

It all ended for me when I was in a helicopter crash on my way home. I was leaving a remote region on my way back to Kabul when we nosed in the the ground at speed. I walked away from the crash but have a slew of other problems related to it.

Dolomite

[strickj]

I can promise you though, it IS cost effective. By not making these capabilities organic they don't have to worry about wasting money on them when they don't need them.

How is it cost effective to pay someone else when we are already paying our military to do it? Sounds like the proverbial double dipping to me.

And then, I'm hearing that contractor's hire untrained people from other countries for unskilled, low-combative positions. Yet, we have a HUGE military force that is being unused... but would be spread too thin if we used them to fill these positions.

Why do we have a military force of 2.5mil if they're not being used?

Seems to reason that one of these could go....

[TMF]

I have worked for some of the bigger companies out there. The bigger they are the bigger the target they are for the media and others. I have worked for Blackwater on several different occassions over the three years I did this type of work and by far they were the best company I worked for. I do not believe they, BW, intentionally sacrificed quality for quantity but I do believe a few made it in that shouldn't have. It is the client who does the background on the contractors not the contracting company. And during training or vetting, in which there is almost always is a client representative present, things are so fast paced a potential problem with an individual is hard to spot by the company as well as the client. As long as there are no glaring problems and their skills are there they will likely not get disqualified. I have met some odd individuals in my travels but as long as their skill were there it didn't really bother me.

Dolomite

Just to be clear I'm not trying to bash BW. I don't personally know Prince, but from what I understand I don't believe he's a bad guy. I know a few guys who worked out there who are locked on and I've used their facilities, however, the traffic circle incident wasn't the only one and I ran into a bunch down in Baghdad a long time ago who acted like a bunch of jackholes. I guess this is par for the course with the rifle-toting side of the contracting industry though; a lot of tough guys who think they're mercenaries. TC and Aegis had their issues as well being a little too quick on the trigger. I have very strong opinions regarding trigger happy folks who equate their toughness to how many people they can shoot. Very strong opinions. So when I see a company get burned down because of it I have a hard time feeling bad and feel as if the company should be enforcing standards to prevent such events. At a minimum whoever the team leader happens to be should police his guys up, but I know if I was in such a situation I would have no issues squaring that guy away on my own.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Blackwater did have issues but when you consider the footprint of the company they are inline with most other companies out there.

I know on my particular contract we got rid of those who seemed a bit headstrong. Not so much as "your fired" but never called them back for another contract. And especially after the 2007 incident they began to err on the side of caution and not call people back if there were even a question about their abilities.

Another thing people have to realize is contractors are everywhere. We have goverment clients who need protection but we can't use the military because of where they are. I know I passed on a contract with TC to go to Africa.

As far as hiring unskilled labor to do what the military can do. It is cheaper to have a $200 a month contractor vs a $3,000 a month soldier. Even if you take the contracting company being paid $20,000 a month per person and compare it to a single combat arms soldier it is still cheaper. The reason the soldier needs support folks and I have heard it take 7-9 soldiers to support one combat arms soldier. So the $20,000 is a cheaper when each soldier is making $3,000+ a month in theater.

It also keeps our miitary members safe. It allows them to rest at home for resting the next deployment. With the tempo we are running now anything we can do to ease the burden on them and their families is a good thing.

Dolomite

[R1100R]

I know the Filipino's we had working for us made almost a grand a month working in the DFAC ( Mess Hall). I can't believe a contractor with a PMC would work for $200.00 a month.

[TMF]

I know the Filipino's we had working for us made almost a grand a month working in the DFAC ( Mess Hall). I can't believe a contractor with a PMC would work for $200.00 a month.

The Flips you were talking to were either lying or they were the luckiest folks in both theaters. I can tell you with great certainty that they don't make that now.

[R1100R]

The Flips you were talking to were either lying or they were the luckiest folks in both theaters. I can tell you with great certainty that they don't make that now.

I have to defer to you for recent times.

I know for a fact in the beginning, don't know now. But when I worked closely with contracting it was more than $200.00 a month that was stated some PMC Contractors were making. Even the security guards were at $450.

Doesn't seem like much to put your life on the line.

In the beginning I couldn't believe what they were paying Iraqis that lived in America to go as translators before the war started. We processed them through Ft Benning. Most I am speaking of was 2003/4. So I don't know about recent times.

But the contracts were massive to the companies that were awarded them at the start. With permanent establishment

and time most contracts come down in price in any situation. Hell, when we left even what we were doing was turned over to a civilian contractor.

Edited December 15, 2011 by R1100R