Private Military Security Contractors

In his 1960 Farewell Address, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought attention to the “military-industrial complex”, a term that is used to describe how the government uses private industry to meet its various demands during war or peace. Since World War I and World War II, the United States has witnessed a greater connection between the public and private sectors as private industry pumped out the goods to keep the government and country going. Similarly, there were changes on the battlefield as now private contractors became common sights. Eventually, the government would call on private contractors to provide aid on the military battlefield and even fight in some instances. The use of non-governmental workers on the battlefield

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

The topic for this paper will be to consider the role of civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and where applicable investigate how they were utilized in joint operations in both theaters. Also, the research will extend to the expectations for civilian contractors versus that of their military counter parts. The tentative title is, “Civilian Contractors and Their Impact on Joint Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This may need to be focused a bit more once exploration and study is done as the approach may be too broad, but only investigation and application of resources will determine whether the scope needs to be narrowed or not.

When using force, private security personnel are high risk for criminal and civil prosecution. The use of deadly force must be limited to clear and present dangers to the life of the security officer. Even when tasked with guarding highly valuable property, the use of deadly force is not appropriate in all situations. In many cases, it will be the poorly trained or overly zealous security officer that ends up being charged with a crime (Satchell, 2017).

The Operations Superintendent would have OPCON and TACON as well. Making small changes to how we operate as an organization to become more effective in daily operations would be TACON. The flight chief is the best example of TACON as they run the flight who is conducting the daily operations. They are told to conduct guardmount, but they are not told in what order they conduct their briefings or what type of information needs to be briefed every day. They also assign who gets posted at each location for the day. OPCON would be the post priority chart that tells the flight chief which posts are the most important and require the most manpower. TACON is used when the flight chief decided who will work the most important post and who will work the gates. Below is a flow chart to help you understand how OPCON and TACON blend together (Figure 1-1). ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL (ADCON) Administrative Control is the direction or exercise of authority over subordinate or other organizations in respect to administration and support, including organization of Service forces, control of resources and equipment, personnel management, unit logistics, individual and unit training, readiness, mobilization, demobilization, discipline, and other matters not included in the operational missions of the subordinate or other organizations. ADCON is mostly the responsibility of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries. However, some functional areas can also utilize ADCON. CONCLUSION Understanding

The Department of Defense (DOD) must decide how to rebalance the armed forces general force structure to meet future challenges and opportunities in an austere fiscal environment. The general force structure and capabilities of Joint Force 2020 necessary to adjust the force based on current strategic direction and fiscal constraints is a smaller, efficient, adaptable and integrated joint force. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes US military forces will evolve and remain modern, capable, and ready while accepting some increased risk through force reductions. Rebalancing will require innovative approaches and solutions to protect the homeland, build global security, project power, and win decisively with a leaner force.

The first essay question in the final assignment asks students to discuss the capabilities and limitations of intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts. Intelligence matters have greatly improved on this front compared to the way things used to be prior to the September 11th terror attacks, but there are areas that still need to be addressed. The Department of Homeland Security has also helped get information to the field by creating fusion cells, the (JCAT), and encouraging the use of intelligence-based policing.

The relationship between Civilian and Military authorities has become increasingly complicated. Gregory Foster worked to identify a number of areas that have compounded this expanding divide in his article, “The Silent Crisis”. Of the many issues presented, there are three that the author of this paper believes to be the most pressing. First, the increasing politicization of the upper military leadership. Second, the lack of strategically competent civilian authorities enhances this disparity. Lastly, an increasingly influential military-industrial complex continues to cloud the judgement of civil authorities.

This article is another piece in the puzzle which brings the story to life; in previous articles did not fit the writing; as well as the author has been honored by his peers as a factual writer; plus, the legitimate web site by premier search professionals. The author seems straight forward and not biased by author articles similar in views. The source will try to enforce the idea of the militaries complex powerful authority over

The headquarters for the United States Department of Defense has twice the number of bathrooms needed for a building its size. Known more commonly as “the Pentagon” after its unique, five walled frame, the defense building was constructed during the early 1940’s in Virginia, where a code of regulations dubbed the “Jim Crow laws” required people of color to use separate facilities from white citizens. The Jim Crow laws segregated schools, transportation and public places. Although they claimed to make colored and Caucasian citizens “separate but equal” they typically left African Americans with inferior conditions and facilities; their libraries only carried secondhand books, their schools were overcrowded and underfunded, and they

Department of Defense: gives the military qualities anticipated that would upset war, and to guarantee the security of the United States. The Department of Defense is America's most prepared and greatest government office. With our military after its roots back to pre-Revolutionary times, the Department of Defense has created and progressed with our nation.

While the term “lawfare” can be defined as the use of the laws governing an enemy to provide yourself with an advantage over them, much like the Taliban did with NATO by immersing themselves in the civilian population, it can also refer to the use of law to achieve military objectives. Worldwide, NGOs and states alike have pursued lawfare as an alternative to traditional warfare, with varying degrees of success: however, the United States government continues to lag behind competitors like China and even far weaker actors like the Palestinian Authority in some ways. Kittrie issues a “call to arms” to the United States government, showing that the U.S. can and should pursue lawfare as a more effective and less costly alternative to war. Should they listen, the U.S. has the capability to emerge as the world’s preeminent lawfare

When you finish this series, you are either going to dislike me, or dislike me more, and I mean this sincerely. The following is a response to the CISO Manifesto, and it is coming from the Security Service Provider / Solutions Provider sector. While I don’t represent my industry as a whole, I will present my view from the technical side of the scope. While I enjoyed the manifesto, I couldn’t help but notice the same tried and true “follow the herd” conformity roles that too many security professionals follow, especially up at the higher end of the spectrum. With that said, this series (because it will be too long to fit into one article) will attempt to offer some insight (or counters) surrounding some of the gripes described in the CISO

Organizations such as the ICRC, SARC and MSF are supposed to be protected during times of war. In a very broad aspect, they are protected under humanitarian law, which is a part of International law. Humanitarian law protects those who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities (ICRC, 2004). The law also restricts the use of warfare against these individuals.

For example, “the British arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, was being investigated for bribing Saudi officials into buy fighter planes, but the government intervened in the investigation citing national interests.” (Shah, Corruption) The involvement of the government is not a particularly new concept, seeing that many governments and armament firms work together to achieve profit goals and complete geopolitical agendas. For instance, Anup Shah studied that after the 1991 Persian Gulf crisis, the United States agreed to sell 80 advanced F16s to the United Arab Emirates. In return, the US was to be able to build military bases in the area with access to the only deep-water port capable of storing carriers in the Persian Gulf. Companies and governments export arms to many regions around the world; however, these places sometimes include war torn countries and brutal regimes. It was in the year 2000 “that U.S. contracts accounted for 49.7% of global sales … and the U.S. controlled half of the developing world 's arms market with $12.6 billion in sales.” (Stanton, Madsen) Companies end up selling to these areas of the world because “in order to make up for a lack of sales from domestic and traditional markets for military equipment, newer markets are being created or sought after.” (Shah, The Arms Trade is Big Business) To rid the industry of high rates of corruption and to stop companies from making secret deals with governments, the ATT needs to be better enforced amongst