Private Security Companies in Domestic Policy

Last week, I spoke about the value of the private sector in international operations, but this week I want to focus on how the private sector can add value to domestic operations; particularly in homeland security and disaster response.

Before 9/11, our borders, while periodically discussed, were not the topic of debate they are today. More importantly, all of the politics surrounding immigration and port security policies and solutions has left the American people with a big, fat lotta NOTHING. Witness Stephen Flynn's books, America the Vulnerable and The Edge of Disaster detail any number of catastrophic homeland security scenarios that could cripple the Nation.

From technology to training to operations, federal agencies have the ability to reach into the private sector for "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) solutions that can immediately enhance their abilities to fulfill their missions. For instance:

- Congress mandated years ago that there should be 2,000 new CBP Agents each year for five years for a total of 10,000 new agents. Blackwater and others have testified before Congress that they can either provide the surge manpower themselves or provide additional training capacity to assist in easing any capacity constraints the government, particularly FLETC might have. What happened? Nothing. Well, OK, politics happened and then some rice-bowl issues, and then... Well, nothing.

- The media is fond of quoting the statistic that says, "only 6% of the containers coming into the country are searched." I am not sure that's true anymore, but how about this idea? DHS can create a contract that would form a 500-person "boarding and inspection team" under the direct command and control of either the Customs & Border Patrol, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, or the U. S. Coast Guard. These teams could be broken down into 10-20 person teams and used on both coasts to inspect "vessels of interest" once they've crossed into U. S. waters.

- Probably the most visible and perhaps controversial use of the private sector in domestic operations was during relief efforts for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Private sector companies deployed to the area swiftly and efficiently in support of both commercial and government requests. While urban legend about their activities contained in polemical books and documentaries still periodically circulate, the fact remains that they provided security, airlift, and rescue support that saved countless lives and made follow-on operations more manageable. Contracts have already been let and awarded to DynCorp's joint venture, "Contingency Response Services".

In a world where our National Guard is deployed with all of its equipment for extended periods, leaving Governors with a resource deficit to respond to crises, the private sector must be looked to to supply needed response capacity. What is needed is a better understanding by all parties involved of that capacity, how it can fit, and why it's a partnership and not a used car deal.

The Private Sector in Sudan? Part Deux

One cannot speak only of Darfur when speaking of Sudan. The north-south civil war that culminated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is seen by some as a marriage between war criminals and victims. Largely brokered by the United States, it has specific provisions for wealth-sharing, common defense, and a timeline for both an election referendum and a secession referendum in 2011.

Last October, President Bush signed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act and revised Executive Order 13067 which kept sanctions on the Government of Sudan (GoS - the North) and rescinded them for the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS - the South). These efforts allowed direct investment by US companies in Southern Sudan except in the petrochemical and extractive industries. There was some confusion as to whether this applied to the private sector's involvement in security sector reform, but that was further clarified by President Bush this past April when he signed documents allowing the private sector to participate in defense and security initiatives. This is important, because a secession referendum that results in a vote for secession by the South most probably will result in the North re-invading the South. Certainly, Bashir has no intention to allow the South to control the oil there, along with the teak and gum arabic resources.

In Southern Sudan, the private sector has the ability to directly affect the security of a nascent democracy who has a very specific timeline for survival. Security-sector reform (SSR) programs like creating a police force, professionalizing the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), and engaging in disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) operations, so that rule of law/justice, agricultural, business, and political experts can perform their very important work are paramount and a perfect fit for the private sector. Blackwater particularly pitched such plans for both Darfur and Southern Sudan. Now may be the time for those plans to be revisited. Other companies like PAE and DynCorp have already been executing US government programs there.

As I mentioned in the previous post, investing in everything in Southern Sudan will have a huge affect on sustainability going forward. But nothing happens until demining is finished and roads can be built. Road construction will allow business and public safety operations to flourish. No roads, no nothing - period.

Sudan will not be the only opportunity for the private sector to have a positive affect in Africa, but it can demonstrate there to the world just how effective it can be in DDR and SSR programs and how a long-term investment can pay the greatest dividends.

Open minds and innovation can help assuage human suffering. The private sector is part of that innovation. We should no longer be asking, "why should we use the private sector?", we should be demanding why we aren't to the fullest extent possible.

The Private Sector in Sudan? Part One

For nearly four years, the word has watched in horror as the people of Darfur have been displaced, starved, and murdered. The result - roughly 300,000 to 400,000 killed, nearly 3 million displaced, and an emboldened Omar al-Bashir Sudanese government that seemingly fears nobody.

Darfur, nearly the size of France, has an African Union force of about 7,000 whose original mission was to monitor the safety of the UN monitors, not to intervene in the violence. The mandate was later upgraded but not the size of the force. 7,000 AU troops in such a large space is like playing, "whack-a-mole" at the carnival; you hit one Janjaweed head and another pops up somewhere else. Additionally, it has been reported that the AU, who to their credit have piece-mealed together a force against great odds has only been performing roughly 20% of its assigned patrol missions because of weapons, aircraft, and transportation maintenance issues which is attributed to a fiscal shortfall. Not a good thing for the only force who bothered to show up to the genocide.

The AU deserves credit for its efforts, but they need support; professional support. Could the private sector provide that support. Certainly. Here are some thoughts on how the private sector can partner with many different government/NGO/IGO players under the right international mandate:

1. Provide basic aircraft/vehicle maintenance tasks; perhaps even provide air transport.

2. When the AU moves against and channels or defeats the Janjaweed militias, provide "trailers"; a security program that can set up protection of the displacement camps and villages and provide safety within those camps and villages. This secure space would allow humanitarians to do the work that many of them have been prevented from previously doing.

3. Provide on-site training and mentoring to AU forces and over the long-term, create public safety programs with and for the Darfuris themselves.

4. Invest, invest, invest... What creates sustainable economies is a combination of world aid (with benchmarks and metrics) and private-sector investment. From micro-lending to infrastructure planning, to small-business mentoring, the private sector can create momentum and sustainable results.

5. Long-term security sector reform models which can be somewhat modified and duplicated around the region.

OK, so now you say, "Well, it's now moot because there are going to be 20,000 peacekeepers there soon." True, but the legendary Marine and former Commandant, Gen Robert H. Barrow once said, "Success in battle is not a function of how many show up, but who they are." 20,000 ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-motivated peacekeepers from varied third-world nations may not deliver the results that we should be demanding. Even with the numbers, you can still use the private sector for all of the things I listed above.

Additionally, there is a dangerous precedent being set in Darfur today. While hailing the fact that the Sudanese government has "accepted" 20,000 peacekeepers, we should also ask at what price? Have we been so captivated by process that we have forsaken innocent lives just to achieve an agreement with a government that has been hiding behind it's sovereignty? If so, who asked the dead if that was a fair deal for them?

Perhaps the private sector will not play a pivotal role in Darfur's security this time, but it will not be the only time "Never Again" will be challenged in the future. The responsibility to protect will be tested and an evaluation of the private sector's ability to respond to that test must be conducted today to prepare for tomorrow.