The Pentagon recently updated its written guidance for using private security contractors in contingency operations to also include "humanitarian or peace operations, or other military operations or exercises."
The July 22, 2009, Defense Department instruction was changed on Aug. 1. Under the "applicability" clause, officials added the following:
The requirements of this Instruction shall not apply to a nonprofit nongovernmental organization receiving grants or cooperative agreements for activities conducted within an area of other significant military operations if the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State agree that such organization may be exempted. An exemption may be granted by the agreement of the Secretaries on an organization-by-organization or area-by-area basis. Such an exemption may not be granted with respect to an area of combat operations.
In a Feb. 21 report, the Congressional Research Service noted:
As of December 31, 2010, there were more than 27,000 private security contractor personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, representing 17% of DOD's total contractor workforce in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since December 2009, the number of PSC personnel in Afghanistan has exceeded the number in Iraq.
Further, the CRS report outlines the legislative actions lawmakers could take to "help minimize the harm that armed private security contractors could have on U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and future operations." Specifically:
Define the Role that Private Security Contractors Can Play in Support of Military Operations Taking Place in Unsecured Environments
Many analysts believe that the use of armed private security contractors in combat or stability operations poses significant risks to U.S. government interests, including undermining efforts to win hearts and minds during counterinsurgency and other contingency operations. Defining the role that PSCs can -- and should not -- play in supporting military operations could help minimize the risk that contractors will be placed in situations where their actions will undermine U.S. efforts. Below are three different options for defining the role of PSCs.
Prohibit armed security contractors from being deployed in combat zones
Proponents of this approach argue that in combat zones, the mechanisms for oversight and accountability of contractors are likely to deteriorate and that, therefore, the use of deadly force should be restricted only to the military. The military possesses a more robust chain of command and is focused on achieving the mission, without consideration for profit motives or contractual requirements. Opponents of this approach argue that DOD simply does not have the forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that restricting the use of armed security contractors deprives the military of the flexibility to hire and dismiss defensive security contractors that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.
Restrict armed security contractors to performing static security
Such an approach would permit DOD to use armed security contractors in and around the perimeter of a static location and would bar contractors from performing convoy and some personal security. Contractors would also be barred from serving as quick reaction forces that move to the site of an engagement to extract or protect an individual or convoy. Proponents of this approach argue that most of the high-profile incidents involving armed contractors shooting at local nationals have occurred during convoy or personal security movements outside of the perimeter of a secure location. Accordingly, this approach specifically restricts the use of armed contractors only in those situations where there is likely to be a shooting incident that involves civilians. Opponents of this approach argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also argue that this approach limits the flexibility that allows DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.
Restrict armed security contractors to static security, with an exception for local nationals perform critical functions to the extent necessary to operate effectively and maintain control of its mission and operations.
Proponents of this approach maintain that using contractors in this way could still give DOD the benefits of using armed security contractors, including serving as a force multiplier, employing local nationals, and leveraging particular expertise and knowledge of contractors. Opponents of this approach could argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it limits the flexibility of DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.
Allowing local national contractors to participate in convoy and personal security would minimize the impact of such a restriction on military forces. Proponents argue that reserving an exception for local nationals gives the military more flexibility in using PSCs without adding significant risk. As discussed above, using local national contractors is an important element in DOD’s counterinsurgency strategy. Local nationals understand the language and are subject to local jurisdiction. Few of the high-profile incidents between PSCs and local citizens involved local national security contractors who were working for the U.S. government. Opponents of this approach will still argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it limits the flexibility that allows DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment. Such a restriction could also hamper DOD in future military operations, particularly in the early days of a conflict when events are particularly fluid and the need to rapidly deploy security personnel could be acute. To address this last issue, Congress could empower a Combatant Commander to waive this restriction in initial phases of an operation, for a period not to exceed one year.
Use armed security contractors only in a supporting role for mobile security
Using primarily uniformed personnel (51% or more of total personnel) on each convoy security movement promotes a workforce mix that could give DOD actual command and control of security operations and contractor behavior. Alternatively, a minimal troop presence could be required, sufficient to maintain substantial command and control of contractor personnel. Such an approach appears to be in line with the Office of Management and Budget policy letter on inherently governmental which states that agencies should “ensure that federal employees perform critical functions to the extent necessary to operate effectively and maintain control of its mission and operations."
Proponents of this approach maintain that using contractors in this way could still give DOD the benefits of using armed security contractors, including serving as a force multiplier, employing local nationals, and leveraging particular expertise and knowledge of contractors. Opponents of this approach could argue that such a restriction leaves DOD with insufficient forces to accomplish its mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it limits the flexibility of DOD to mobilize and demobilize defensive security forces that can be tailored for specific situations in a highly fluid environment.
