Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On The Modern Mercenary 20150409

At the scowcrofts school of diplomacy i think it is called. So there is certainly that. What effect they have had so far is hard to know and i dont explore that but he feels very fortunate to have lived a life a life that he hasnt feels that he has to pass these down and has one daughter, one granddaughter. He is intent on trying to nurture especially at the Aspen Strategy Group the Atlantic Council and getting people and meant touring them. Most of these people are probably still fairly young 40s tops 40s tops with maybe the exception of the hadleys and gates but there is some of that absolutely. Our last question here in the back against the wall. You talked a little bit about how were the conditions that he thought extremism and terrorism sort of come about or i forget the word. Can you talk a little bit about his thoughts on extremism or how it comes about . I did not really talk to him about that. I did not talk about the roots of that. I came one of my concluding comments because of his belief in tackling these problems and directly. Certainly i think he would see if there is some great problem he would want to have a multiple pronged effort and have forced but also force but also how clear repercussions and deterrence but also want to find ways to have portable water and create jobs and do those things, too. I unfortunately have to bring this to a close now but you can join us afterwards for conversation and a reception outside of this room. The book is available for purchase and i suspect citing as well. I would invite you all to come back next week when Heather Cox Richardson of Boston College will be speaking on march 2 on her new book to make men free a history of the republican p use of mercenaries in ports around the world today. He says we are headed toward a future that will resemble the middle ages by hiring mercenaries to fight in wars was the norm. Thank you for hosting us and thank you for making it out today on a less than auspicious weather day. This book is about the return of private military force in International Relations today and i wrote this not simply as an International Scholar but also as a practitioner. I work for a Company Called national for several years in africa and i saw while i was working there many press reports, many think tank reports reports, a lot of leftwing and rightwing kneejerk reactions that simply did not get what i thought the industry right. So the genesis of writing this book was not in any way a whistleblower etc. Book it was to pass salience around the clinical issue. That is the origins of why wrote this book. Now before you begin the actual argument of the book i want to lay out a few disruptive facts. First is using for example 2010 numbers the pentagon spent 366 billion obligated to contractors. 54 of it budget. Seven times the uks Defense Budget trade no one most people think about armed forces unarmed contractors they think 30 or so her arm. Thats not true. Only 10 to 15 during the war the wars plural, were armed. This is the element of the contract war that im focused on. The vast majority of contractors repairing trucks linguist etc. But i focus on this. For me the private military industry is this. Those who kill our train others to kill. I dont use euphemism in this book. If you look at contractor deaths in iraq and afghanistan you will see a start trend emerge. In the beginning blew our u. S. Troops, rather contractors. Around 2009, 2010 they started to crisscross. You have more contractors killed than usg u. S. Government and thats just the members that we know about. Companies dont always reveal this information readily. One could ask is there a growing dependency on the u. S. For the private sector when it wages war . And world war ii only about 10 to 15 of the workforce abroad deployed more contractors. In iraq it was 50 , a 1 1 ratio. And even higher in afghanistan. Sometimes when i talk to foreign journalists or other experts abroad this is the question i get. A generation from now will be the u. S. Be fighting its wars mostly with contractors . 80 contractors . So one could ask why did this happen . When i talk to people in washington d. C. They dont expect us. Even the experts. The problem at least in my opinion is that the allvolunteer force cannot recruit enough people, enough americans to go fight abroad to sustain to tenyear wars. Policymakers had a difficult dilemma on their hands. The first option they could do was just withdraw from iraq and afghanistan and avoid messy quagmires in the future. While there might be some merit to isolationist policy there are many who would also argue that the u. S. Is a global superpower with superpower and global responsibilities and it does not once have the option to sit down during conflicts. The second is to assume yes allies fulfill all u. S. Gaps. Thats an unreasonable expectation are the third is have a vietnam era subscription which would be political suicide. So the fourth and i think you see where im going with this is the contractors offer solutions. A truly bipartisan policy solution. Republicans and democrats in the white house contract to great deal and theres good reason for this. Before i get into that i want to differentiate types of contractors. I have a typology in the book that lays out different types of contractors but for this purpose i focus on two. What are mercenaries . Mercenaries are economists private militaries that can way to sensitive military campaigns for whomever. Think of you know mercenaries in the middle ages in the 1990s. In africa there was an Company Called executive outcomes that toppled rebel movements and could topple governments. They are now defunct. That is not the type of contract the u. S. Government uses in iraq or afghanistan. When i looked for dyncorp dime core is not a mercenary corporation. Its what i would call a military enterprise. This comes from the 30 years war that would create an raise military forces but not deploy them. They would use them to augment a Standing National army not to wage their own wars. That is actually what we saw in iraq and Afghanistan Military enterprisers and not mercenaries. Now why was there such a turning to the contractor world . It wasnt just because they fill crucial gaps. They actually did some things very well. They are generally cheaper. They can be better than Government Forces at certain tasks. They are good and stability operations. They bring innovation. They have flexibility. They are not for turf forces for turf wars etc. But there are also concerns. Profit motive to killing is a serious concern. The moral hazard, it lowers the barriers of entry to complex and policymakers. I dont want to dwell on this flight. We can discuss this in q a but there is both great benefit and risks and the question is should we use contractors moving forward . How do we maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks . What i want to really focus on today briefly are looking forward. Ive identified for trends beyond afghanistan and iraq. The first trend is this country is not going to go away when the u. S. Leaves afghanistan. A multibilliondollar industry when its chief consumer leaves finds new clients. We dont know who they are going to be. This is going on right now. Also the fact that the u. S. Uses this industry for 10 plus years has legitimized it in International Relations the fact though. It has created markets of force around the world. The second trend is that this industry as it searches for new clients is becoming more globalized and is proliferating. We are starting to see new demand. Ngos are hiring this industry. Oil Companies Come Extractive Industries and you can also tycoons rich individuals who have actresses who want to hire hire intervention in darfur. All of these are possible. We also seen companies, places like uganda. South africa. Recently for example nigeria is reported to have hired 300 private military private contractors in its fight against boko haram. Security is weird is that it can generate a demand for racketeering so the middle ages for example mercenaries demand 5000 pounds gold. Out of work mercenaries can create wars. They can elongate wars. They can become bandits which is a problem. We are also seeing proliferation across for the five demands of warfare. We have already seen land private Security Companies but we are seeing private navies off the coast of somalia and the gulf guinea. They have arsenal ships with contractors and armament and they will fly to a tanker and they will embark security and harden a tanker with concertina wire and once its off the pirate waters the contractors will turn to the mother ship. Contractors are also swimming with drums unarmed drones that he could easily make them into into, caused drums and in cyber, the bold the cyberwe have cybermercenaries which is a different thing entirely. The third trend is that the industry is going native. So we have private voluntary conflict. Selling their services to the u. S. Military. Who is buying them afghanistan . We also most of these companies are multinational. They may have american and british senior people but most of the personnel are from different countries. What happens to them when they go home or what happens to subcontractors or subs . Off in a big company will go to afghanistan and will create or hire a subcontractor to do Armed Security. When the big contractor goes back home to the United States of america when the contract ends to subcontractors left there to fend for themselves. And lastly and this is important, is that we are crossroad between a future market of force where you have mercenaries operating in a treat treat true freemarket fashion or military enterprisers enterprisers. These are what we saw in iraq and afghanistan who work in the Public Private partnership with the United States or the United Nations etc. Right now we are seeing both developed simultaneously and frankly if he could be one you could also be the other. So in conclusion what does this mean for world order . First of all this is not a new phenomenon. In fact most of the military history is privatized. Mercenaries are the second oldest profession. In the middle ages in europe for example contract warfare between mercenaries was actually how wars were fought. They hired huge mercenary armies. Cities did too. Aristocratic families hiring a contractor. They were called mercenaries. It was no different than hiring a contractor to build your most work to build your castle. It was considered a legitimate bloody legitimate form of trade. You also had three companies that had hired keep, everything from scotland to syria serving sidebyside with each other. In the late 17th century states started to consolidate the market of force and monopolizes so much so that the zenith of it in the 20 century the idea that a nonstate actor could legitimately yield force would be an anathema but we have seen a start to unravel in the last 25 years. And what we are doing is simply going backwards to the status quo auntie of what the world was before the states took over. The last couple hundred years have been anomalous. They have been the exception and not the rule. The question is if this continues to unravel where folks folks forces know longer monopolized by states what might this look like if it continues to autopilot . So it looks like durable disorder. A world order somewhat like the middle ages that can contain but not solve world problems. I call this in the book new medievalism. Its a nonstate centric world with overlapping allegiances and overlapping authorities and politics of identity. For example if you are terse and an pashtun are you a pashto first our are you afghanistan first or your local village. In liberia you have 14 to 16 of the tries. You also have liberia. You have language language groups so you had makes competing authorities and allegiances. You also have the commodification of conflict. What we are seeing gradually in the last 25 years where complex security can be bought in a very insecure world. Where people can buy military force for whatever reason they want. Mercenaries start to emerge. Right now we are only seeing military enterprises in the u. S. Scope but that might start to change. We are seeing things beyond u. S. Scope, beyond u. S. Optics in fact and this eventually could give rise to new actors. For the superrich multinational corporations can become superpowers. Already the fortune 50 in my opinion are more powerful than most of the 194 states of the world. If they were armed you can do the math. Contract warfare is resurrected. That responds to market logic supports sample just say im a city state and i want to take out my enemy, another city state. I could buy up all the mercenaries in the region to deny my enemy defense. But they can also bribe my mercenaries to defect on battle they which happened a lot during machiavellis tenure. And lastly world war. If we live in an era with an industry invested in conflict going to the most conflict prone places on the planet we will likely have world war. So thank you for this and i would like to welcome my College General hamm and mr. Markey said he. Thank you very much for that presentation sean and its quite an ample scope for discussion and to kick this off we will turn it over to general hamm. As you look at this group on the stage you might be reminded of that sesame street broke them which of these things is not like the other . I think im the one that doesnt quite fit here. I had a good occasion to meet a number of times in africa and he has forgotten more about africa than i would ever know. I got to the point at the end of my tenure my knowledge of africa could be best summed up by saying i was just beginning to understand how much i didnt know about africa at the end of my tour. Sean of course is a noted author and professor. I was a pretty marginal students and certainly not an author. And markets you heard rights for one of our nations publications. I have been known to read the New York Times on occasion. So anyway im glad to be here and i will admit publicly that i very much enjoyed the opportunity to read seans book. I think its both timely and important subject for us to talk about. It probably wont surprise you that i dont agree with all of his promises and conclusions and im probably less alarmist about the trend of the expanding role for private Security Companies are private military Companies Globally but i think he is right to caution us about the direction in which this might be heading and i think there are some very iraq concerns. Many of you in this room i suspect have had the opportunity to read our review is fairly recently reseize released National Security strategy by the white house. There were two points and map that i thought were pretty important, too tenants that were described there. They were lead with capable partners and build the capacity to prevent conflicts. Now both of those in the National Security strategy context are much broader than the military but they do have implications for how the u. S. Military will operate and how the u. S. Government writ large will seek to strengthen the defense and Security Capabilities up hard nurse particularly the new or nontraditional partners around the globe. Is as this group knows quite well Security Assistance falls primarily under the preview of the state department. Thats where congress has placed most of the authorities and most of the resources for Security Assistance around the globe. In order to execute those functions for the most part the state Department Contracts that worked out to provide Security Companies as sean mentioned and highlights in his book. There is good reason for that that sean has articulated, the cost being perhaps if not at the top of the list kind of near the top of the list as to why thats a pretty good solution. But there has recently been some success in library, somalia and some other places with a bit of a blended approach where the primary authority has resided with the state department and is executed through private Security Company or military enterprise or to use seans turn but augmented for specific capability by the uniform military of the United States grade i think that lending of contractor and uniform military might offer us some insights into how we might think about maximizing the effect that the u. S. Government writ large can achieve and trying to achieve its goals of building partner capacity. There are some other authorities that have been specifically granted to the department of defense sections 1208 in 1206 that with the state department concurrence allows the department of defense to take the lead for some specifically focused Security Matters but even in those theres almost always some element of a contractor support whether its in logistics or facilities infrastructure or some other role for private Security Company or contractor and i think again thats a worthwhile world. The real challenge is john is laid out for us in the future we know that the u. S. Defense budget and Security Assistance budgets are going to decline in the coming years. So how is it that we will be able to achieve the stated goals of strengthening defense capabilities and Security Capabilities of our partners around the globe in an era of declining budgets. I think that almost always leads us to the conclusion of at least sustained if not increased reliance upon contractors to achieve that. For the u. S. Military i think this presents an interesting challenge for us in training and education, recognizing that private security contractors are going to be wherever the u. S. Military operates either in support of the u. S. Military, in support of the host nation or perhaps in support of the international organization. How do we prepare our next cohort of leaders to understand how to operate in that environment . What is the proper relationship between uniformed military in a contracted for his . How do we manage those and how do we develop leaders who recognize the complexities of that environment . And i think there is lots we can do in our training and Education Programs to have leaders who are more and more comfortable with that role. Sean has raised the possibility of perhaps the increased presence of contractors in u. N. Missions around the world then again i think that has some pretty significant input nations beyond just the United States. One of which is is many nations seek representation in u. N. Missions as a means frankly of sustaining their own force. Receiving this type in the training and equipment that they otherwise simply could not afford. If those forces from true pincher bidding nations are now supplanted by contractors i think we need to think through what the longerterm implications of that might be well into the future. Lastly sean talks about the invisible hand of the marketplace. He interested in his comments here and that too is something that is worthwhile thinking about. Positive direction the market will force most contractors who operate in this space to professionalize, 2 or provide Good Services to agree of accountability that we would hope for in order to be competitive to get awarded the contract to sustain their business. My concern is the other end of the spectrum. The contractors who say im not going to invest the money to attain those high standards or a customer whos not willing to pay the high price for the highend contractors, do they seek out a bargain contractors who are less discipline, wealth wealth less welltrained and less accountable and at that end of the spectrum does that create additional challenges as we move forward forward . And some i think sean is exactly right to say while understanding the history of this which i think he does a great job in his book, but to think forward and say how were we going to as a nation and a member of the International Community what do we think is the proper role for private Security Companies and what is this relationship between Government Forces beat a civilian or military and the contract forces as we move forward to thanks for teeing up a great issue for us. Thank you general ham for those comments. I will turn to mark garcetti. My role is to speak for a few minutes and then to put some questions to the experts here before peter opens up questions to the audience. I wanted to talk about what general ham said about seans book. I think its terrific to its very cleareyed and levelheaded but at the same time comes to some scary conclusions. I really for writing it and i think for those who havent read it yet you will learn a tremendous amount not only that whats happened over the last few decades that the history of contractors and mercenaries in the middle ages. Companies like im particularly struck by a Company Called the company of the star. But in the company of a hat which all of these i thought needed further marketing in order to make them sound a little bit sexier. But i think one of the important things about seans book is that it picks up the theme and one of the important themes of the post9 11 period which is how war is being waged outside of the big declared war zones with a big armies. So what happened in afghanistan and what happened in iraq with the u. S. Military campaign there i think is really only part of the real important history of this period. A lot of the importance is what is happening outside of the declared war zones with different unorthodox types of armies. So i think that is what is particularly interesting about seans book. I also wanted to raise the theme that sean does a little bit in his book and he talked a little bit in his presentation and that is the rise of contractors on the classifieds site. Not only did the pentagon find itself illequipped to wage war in multiple places at the same time with large armies and therefore had to rely on contractors to carry out the wars but so did the cia and so did the nsa and other intelligence agencies. So just as we have seen the overt side things done which used to be called traditional military activities are traditional government that 70s now done by contractors raid we now see what we would normally think art government functions like espionage gathering intelligence analyzing intelligence even covert action missions. A lot of it is done by private contractors and i think there is an even greater issue of transparency and accountability finding a contract for these services. So you can understand how much is being spent where the oversight is. That is a particular area of focus for me, trying to get at this area contractors on the intelligence side but it also raises this issue that sean put in his opening presentation which is the downside of it because its being done for plausible deniability. We think one of the benefits of an open and democratic societies when we go to war in public and have debate about it and get diane from the public the benefit of contractors at least the classified side can be they play roles of the u. S. Denies what they knew. So theres another layer there that its harder for the public to know more about that its very much things done in americas name. I think thats something we need to keep getting at. So these are all issues that i would like to discuss during this period. I also wanted to before i forget give a shoutout to the Africa Center which i think does incredibly important work in an area that is hard finding anyone in washington who knows the first thing about africa or cares about what happens in africa but people like peter and and do important work so im really honored to be here as part of this panel. Let me just close before i go to the questions with maybe some areas that i think i would like to get that and maybe we can all discuss which is what is the future and where the areas were contractors like it to be used extensively . General ham mentioned his time as head of the Africa Command and certainly in the future we are seeing the United States is seeing a perceived threat in africa and yet there is no rate interest to deploy military forces and there is obviously great persistence and african countries of perceiving American Military forces. Thats why sometimes you see that recipe for having a greater contract so thats one area. The second is sean points about where the money goes. United states draws down its budgets as it is where do the contractors go to find new clients . One place i think is certainly the gulf that has the money to pay for contractors and certainly the ambitions to be big players and they dont have a large standing armies that might allow them to execute those ambitions. Thats another place where you might see contractors and are seeing contractors fill the void. So those are some of the issues i wanted to lay out that i thought we could get the q a. So general ham let me start with you. You took over u. S. Africa command and africom you were not going to have large amounts of american troops under your command on the ground if any. Did you feel at times that you are a general in charge of a contract are me . No, not at all. There is a proper role i think for the contractors but theres also a proper role for the uniformed military. Like the other Combatant Commanders and the Service Chiefs i was in discussion with a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense and ultimately yielded the defense strategic guidance of 2012 which was approved by the president and in that with regard to africa says the department of defense will seek a light footprint innovative and lowcost to africa. I happen to think thats valid because it was part of that discussion but i think thats the right approach. I dont think theres a need for a large military presence in africa. But there is a role and there are places where the u. S. Military is wanted and is desired and there is also primarily a support role for contractors specifically u. S. Contractors. I think its a little bit again one of the things you learn about africa is as soon as somebody says the africans think this or this is the way things are in africa the person has no idea what theyre really talking about. They are at the very least 54 different ways of thinking about how things play out in africa. In some african countries there was a very strong desire for the uniformed u. S. Military. They wanted that relationship with their own military and most occasions we were able to accommodate them. In other places that desire was we really dont want a big uniformed presence and we are happier and is more suitable for contractors to fulfill that role. Again at least in africa i think we have to be a little careful of generalities and make sure we are looking at the individual circumstance and tailor the right force. Very seldom will it be exclusively uniform because almost every place the uniformed military goes theres a contractor or support for them whether its logistics or sustainment or infrastructure and sometimes it will be a contractor heavy presence. So as the theater commander it was in collaboration with the ambassadors around the continent seeking to say how do we tailor the force to achieve the specific mission and it was different in different agencies. How did countries few contractors differently from American Military . If you have trainers by bancroft or trainers by dyncorp was that different than having a special forces group or what was the difference in the eyes of the specific nations have asked for contractors as opposed to u. S. Military . There a couple of issues. Some are treated by u. S. Policy. In somalia u. S. Policies were not going to put u. S. Uniformed military on the ground there so contractors filled that void and did so pretty capably in my view. There are other minifit benefits. One of the methods of a contract particularly in the Training Mission as you typically get greater continuity than you do with the uniformed military. The uniformed elderly military would generally subscribe to whatever they Service Rotation policy czar which could be as short as 60 days in most cases longer than a year. Some of the security contractors that i encountered in africa some of the individual trainers have been there for a number of years. They have built relationships that were very important that trust the continuity, the deeper understanding of the culture so there again its finding the right balance. And i would say frankly that the actions of some contractors particularly in iraq and afghanistan have affected the relationship. There was a sense in some countries, african countries. They say we read about or we have heard stories about how the security contractors have operated in iraq and afghanistan and we dont want that. Thats not what we wanted our country. So sometimes it was making sure that there was enough oversight and enough control that the contractors could perform their mission and do so in a responsible way. I will come back to the second general. Shawnee raised this sort of somewhat dystopian future of europe a breakdown of the state and a future where you could have the exxonmobil army take on the bp army for control of oilfields. And i wonder and in your book and in your presentation you sorted set that all of these trends are in motion now. Im wondering do you think this is the inevitability that there is going to be this breakdown that they are going to be moving the private armies to fortune 500 companies countries or are there any checks along the way to prevent that from happening . Thats a great question. So let unchecked that could be a possibility and i in the book there because i want there to be some sort of attention paid to this that doesnt go on autopilot. Its not inevitable and its not that the sky is falling. States will just matter less and already we are seeing starting to see the industry use elements of its industry and make defensive capability. We cant forget for most of World History there was no states monopoly on force. Thats just the last 300 years. If we are starting to unravel that maybe in three decades its a possibility. I dont think its going to, i dont see exxonmobil invading england to take over oil wells. Thats not what im suggesting that this goes beyond what we think of as lack water in baghdad for example. Trying to get us beyond 2007. What we have seen in the last year or year and a half has been certainly a proliferation of more Armed Conflict around the world in terms of isis and ukraine. It seems that whatever people caught thought a couple of years ago that the thais were receiving and things were going to be calm or certainly hasnt happened. And yet if you look at United States there are certainly no great appetite with the American Public to deploy large amounts of american troops to deal with the conflict to you do you think its inevitable that given this recipe that the threat and the feeling that we dont want to get back into another iraq or afghanistan its inevitable that we will be relying on the contractors to do this kind of work that normally the army would do . I fear that thats true. If the u. S. Wants to have a Global Presence everywhere in the world but americans dont want to have proverbial skin in the game contractors are way to do that. That or a draft. I find it disheartening for example that a small minority of congress are veterans so i dont see unless we put up a good fight i dont see the use of contractors giving u. S. National interest abroad. General hammond fewer like that question. I dont see that as a likely possibility where the traditional military role will be at least in terms of combat operations will be contracted out. I think there will be increased reliance on contractors for support functions. There are certainly good logistics and certainly theres a large contract force that helps in the intelligence analysis and dissemination process as well. Its hard for me to conceive that the American People being supportive of supporting a contracted force to conduct combat operations which i think rightfully so have been the purview of the u. S. Military. Im more concerned at the other end of the spectrum. Again not to be true terribly alarmist about this but there are individuals and there are organizations that are less reputable that do perform these functions almost exclusively for the monetary incentive. So what is to hinder International Criminal or terrorist organizations hiring their own private military force . That to me is much more concerning than i think it might do a farfetched idea that we are going to that the United States is going to contract out its warfighting functions. Lets talk about these other possible clients whether they be organizations or states. As you said if the United States is going to be spending less on its own defense then it has certainly over the past decade sean said in his Opening Statement that this industry has grown and has a momentum of its own. Its going to look for other places. You are looking at the future again at the present, who is filling the market for these services . Are they countries in what countries are they or are they organizations . I think there is a Global Market for services that defense contractors provide whether it is military hardware or whether it is a training function or in some cases institutional. Certainly in the mideast and the gulf where there are enduring security challenges for the nations of the gulf and they have the National Wealth to commit to some significant defense contract, think thats one place where i think the u. S. Defense companies as they look to see in an era of declining u. S. Government spending for their products and services where else do they go . I think certainly the gulf is one region that would rise to the top trade. Sean . I think we are already sing at diversity of demand so we are seeing the extract it Industry Oil Gas mining with to this industry. We are seeing ngos that are up rating in different places like somalia to protect their people and their property. We are seeing also qadhafi hired mercenaries to defend him in his last days. There is controversy about that. We are seeing states like nigeria allegedly hiring private military contractors out of south africa to go after boko haram. These are small and these are gradual but my concern is what happens before we open it up let me pick up on johns last comment. Take back to an earlier stage. When you were doing liberia, there is a bit of controversy at the time about whether clearly the armed forces of liberia need to be stood down and he mobilized and hopefully reintegrated. But there was some controversy and backandforth over whether liberia should have them military but the 2000 person military for a variety of reasons. But in a different fiscal climate than the one today a bit of funding wouldnt have calmed do you see a future where two points and maybe general ham might want to jump in as well. You see a future where the future in statebuilding we dont have the resources that can help you do a security reform. If you have trouble in the future hire someone but lets not go through this ssr process. And if thats the case and the other one a corollary to that is something the u. N. General ham brought up this issue nigeria being example but others were peacekeeping especially International Peacekeeping has become the resource line for many of these militaries. If your trend is correct and perhaps the peacekeeping operations move more efficiently if you will to a contractor or enterpriser basis what to do with these militaries which already dont have warfighting skills as we have seen in nigeria and they dont even have peacekeeping skills. Two really good questions. I think for Security Sector reform it would be hard for me to imagine the u. S. Saying to a country we cant help you build your military. Feel free to buy and open market. If they did that i would only imagine it would be done if there were certain regulations licensing registration existence where we say these are the contractors you have to work with. But i can see countries doing that of their own volition or ahmed to the forces. Contractors can provide specialty skill sets. We think about this is a u. S. Phenomenon but if you are fragile state and even if you are the head of state you dont trust your politicized military contractors can be very attractive to you for better or for worse. I do think regarding the United Nations that the u. N. Do you think certainly if u. N. Peacekeeping operations, it would certainly have an effect on countries participating in that. But if you look around the world most of those are pretty thin as it is. It seems like demand for helmets rices tahrir. I dont see Companies Taking over the mission but augmenting one is an enterpriser trade i dont think it would necessarily be a bad idea for the right Regulatory Framework was set up. I do worry about the first panoma that you described. The budgetary pressures will cause us to make some shortterm decisions which could be harmful in the long term. So id do worry about a decision that says we are not going to invest in Security Assistance. We just cant afford that right now and typically what happens is a crisis develops and then we do intervene at much greater cost over the long term. So i do worry about the nearterm negative budgetary pressures on this effort created created. Lets open it up. Please wait for microphone to come to you. Bing harlan will be dessa is we didnt talk enough about the navy. Thank you very much. I not surveys meant a question for colonel ham. I think the other side of the contractor issue is far more dangerous. That is to say the vulnerability and dependency not from the military contractors who are mercenaries or enterpriser spec from the dependence we are placing on contractors. For example for 800,000 contractors many are filling military jobs because the military was being deployed. You run the risk of Edward Snowden for example or losing a capability because you have people working on the joint staff who work eight to four. More partly on the logistics and support site and this is my question if you deploy a Brigade Combat Team or an expeditionary brigade for an extended time youre completely dependent upon support for a vote that just exclude etc. Etc. Etc. My question carters how much did you regard that as a potential endcap not just in africa because i was a limited military expedition area but if you had to deploy large force and he really have to have perhaps another 50 increment of contractors as we have seen in iraq and a stamp just to sustain the logistics as well as the support of the force how much do you think thats really going to be a problem in the future . I do think the reliance for contractor support is a worrisome trend. We have made policy decisions over successive years and we would outsource military functions whether it was maintenance or feeding or any number of other support activities principally cost or event as sean pointed out. Almost always a contractor is less expensive particularly in the long run than a uniformed military prison. As a commander worry about that capability being frankly outside of my control. I think the largescale operations such as evidenced in iraq and afghanistan as we were talking before this session are probably somewhat anomalies and that some might did it we will see something of that scale in our lifetimes. But even a smallscale operations you correctly point out have a degree of contractor dependence upon them. Think what we have to work through the various service contracted mechanisms is to make sure that in those cases where theres a policy decisions this is where not going to include this capability in the uniformed force structure, we are going to buy design reside in the contract. The mechanisms are there for that contracted capability to be just as responsive as the uniformed military and it has implications for how you train, how you develop leaders and they found over and over again the first time you meet someone you are going to fight with us on the battlefield thats a recipe for failure. I concur with your concerns about u. S. Over dependence on the private sector has a way to sustain and lead wars. Thats a question for the nation. Robert gelbart. Im on the Council Board of directors. First i want to thank you for the discussion and the presentation. And i concur with mark mazzettis station statement. One major omission in the discussion today is civilian policing. That has become a major aspect of the contracted business on the part of United States. At least for the last 20 years the United States played has played a major role in international civilian policing and its all done through contracting. We dont have a National Police force that this Community Based policing the way that other nations do. This general plays directly into the question you raised about International Peacekeeping roles where the United States government convinced the u. N. Dpko of the need to exempt u. S. Police or former retired police or active duty police who were on loan but who are not at the same situation as those supplied by other nations. I wonder if any of you have any comments about this phenomenon and how you see this moving forward . I would start i agreeing with you that i think that is a shortfall in her national capacity. There is tremendous demand for the training and development of Police Forces globally. I certainly saw that in africa. One of the dilemmas that we wrestled with his not having a National Police force and also recognizing that in many african countries the military have a domestic policing role which is of course not a role that the u. S. Military performance. So we found ourselves in this gray area where we had a desire to help fill a need but we didnt have the right capacity to meet that need. In many cases other nations were able to step in and i would single out the italians who have that capability and they were quite effective in a number of different roles. But i think you have identified a gap that we need to figure out how do we fill it either with specifically authorized in designs u. S. Government capability or whether we place that into the demand of the contractors. Its funny that policing remains this huge gap going back to the balkans and it gets contracted out as a plug to capacity. This is not contracting problem. See you a systemic album is a general said. We dont have an mi5 in this country to draw from and we contract ended their pros and cons to that. I wish we could confront this because Law Enforcement so critical for stability operations. [inaudible] [inaudible] i think it i would be interested if you took economics a step further not dystopian view. That is the investor. There is a tremendous governing break on the Security Companies multiple markets when you look at the way publicly traded corporations consider whether or not services and also there are a number of companies that are simply not in the security part because of investor reaction. I think it does have a governing effect. I do think in the minds of a lot of the investors there is a difference between killing and training for protection and building up a foreign entitys capability whether police or military or peacekeepers to be able to support this. The first comment grew with you. Especially a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange is very vulnerable to critique and that does act as not as a regulation but governance of sorts. But really when i look over the horizon im not worried about those companies. Im worried about some warlord in somalia saying hey ngo you are coming to somalia, let me protect you was obviously the governance there is much more less so. So i agree with you that when we think of the types of companies that have been used for the u. S. Government in the last 10 years that is not my concern. Its not my concern that one of those companies is going to invade a country and take over the oil and sell it to some houston wildcatter. Its the countries that we dont think about who are involved. Thats my concern. On the issue of taxonomy there are those that think that raising the military is different somehow than killing people and of course thats true but in the military world only an infantry unit can take and create another infantry unit so its the same moral universe for me and if you are a military enterprise or you have the skill sets to become a mercenary. In no way am i suggesting that they will do that or want to do that but its a slippery slope. Its not even a different category. Some disagree. There is a difference of opinion. I know work for dyncorp but in 2001 kofi annan on had a u. N. Study on the use of Armed Security forces in the u. N. And the conclusion was there was a range of services that goes from one end where you have got a single guy with a rusty rifle standing in front of the shed some place to the other end where you have a capable armed veteri force working on peacekeeping missions. The conclusion was the u. N. Would use Armed Security up to this point and he said beyond that point its not where the u. N. Is ready to go. Can you talk about where you think that line should we for u. S. Government to hire Armed Security people and what they are and can should be used for and what is a bridge too far . Within the u. S. Context and i would suggest the u. N. Context these companies are used in exclusively defensive plays mostly to defend people and property. They dont engage in offense. In a regular border which is what most worries today offense and defense may be a false dichotomy that i enlarge theyre not used to go after the m23 in the congo. I agree with general ham i cant see the u. S. Ever contracting the company for offenses autonomous campaigning as a mercenary would. To me the simplest way to say this defense of operations only and then obviously a lot of concern about creating and licensing and regulation and predatory scheme within the u. N. For how they deploy this. They would have to be controlled. I would agree with that. Assuming on the u. S. Side, on the u. N. Side cautious because of the budgetary pressures. I havent done the study but my guess is the contracting out of forces is probably cheaper than funding a contributing nation for its deployment. So i would worry a little bit about mike the budgetary pressures drive the u. N. To a deployment of contracted Security Forces beyond the line that you described some point in the future if the budget causes them to do that. Just so im clear on where the law is is it against the law to hire a company or Contractor Services do combat operations . I think its something we still dont feel comfortable doing. Are you asking near the general . Im asking either or both trade. I believe its contrary to u. S. Law. I think you need some export licensee that but the question is the bigger question is what happens when you have a side do this. Im trying to look beyond the u. S. Experience to a less reputable as general ham would say actors doing this. Take one from the back. Doug brooks. A great presentation for anybody who hasnt read it its an excellent book in well with well worth purchasing getting signed by the author. My russian is National Code of conduct. You are critical of it. The swiss government International Community the Ngo Community and industry came together to create code of conduct for private security providers and you are critical and i would like you to itemize what problems you have with this document and the associations creating standards and guidelines . The interNational Code of conduct for something i was involved in with the montreux document. I think its a great start. I dont think its regulation. Basically the way it works, its a club and if you are a company and you want to be seen as a grade a company best of breed you up and you would have to be vetted and you get a certificate of health. Hopefully they would introduce your get you clients but at the end of the day there is no coercion. The worst interNational Code could do is to kick you out of the club and to me thats not regulation. So i think its a magnificent beginning and it could be a future framework but its not like laws of Armed Conflict. I am dan whitman with american university. You mentioned multilateral organizations and countries like nigeria dont think ive heard a conversation about echo wass as a potential client for these services. Echo wass has had little bit of success in doing pko in its region. Au is an organization without much money. What is the present and future of the use of this type of service by those entities . My sense is that for both the African Union and its Regional Economic communities they are more interested in providing and my personal opinion and seeking collaboration between the Member States of each region and the larger African Union. There is as you rightly point out there is a fiscal reality here that says probably the au without external funding such as the mission in somalia simply would not have the wherewithal to undertake a significant private contracting military effort. I 100 percent agree with that. Was. I have a question of a followup is important to this discussion with the issue of accountability and chain of command with contractors under your purves o having been raised in the military culture did you encounter issues those that are under your command . For outside the culture . Was the problems as head of african . It did not. There were contractors surveyed Africa Command. While certainly not the chain of command it was the clear line of a third date authority and those relationships were pretty sound. With instances of misconduct just like uniform numbers but they are gross violations. I will is there probably the ambassadors of the Africa Bureau that oversaw the state Department Contract in force would say the same. Over those situations that cause problems there were not institutional contract force. If is a business. Right . The last thing the one to do is alienate the state or the dod. With the influence of china were urge you see too high of of a way with military intervention . I will take a first shot. China is omnipresent in almost every african country but in the different way than the u. S. Not us sizable active military presence in most cases. Their interests lie in other areas. In some incentives if there were the same issue that weve talked about of the private Security Force but there certainly was i never encountered any conflicts with that continent is a pretty significant economic competition but it never struck me other than competition at the adversarial. With the chinese system is almost the opposite is a reflection of our armed. How to mention how theyre reluctant to put brusa the ground. China has u. S. Peacekeeping the largest high contribution as they are operating in africa. Pahang house since the end of 2008 with the task force of the chinese navy off the coast of somalia since 2008 continuously in the piracy operation. Then to match the economic interest. As part of the International Coalition there were part of a broad coalition. Good to see you again general. Talk about capabilities going back to benghazi but in terms of a Contract Security capability were was the tremendous shortfall . The group that supports him. If you had embassadors stevens where do you see the validation with those units that are supposed to be providing security. You are asking the wrong guy per a former soldier to comment on the state Department Security effort. But the principle is right it is the right degree of security that sometimes we have to wrestle with that over bearing presence running people off the road. That we had to do some of repair work of course, we to go the other way to have too small for prisons with