# AFG to "dissolve" all private security companies



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

Follow-up question:  and replace them with what?



> Afghan President Hamid Karzai is to dissolve all private security companies, both international and Afghan, operating in the country, his spokesman said Tuesday.
> 
> “Dissolving the private security companies is a serious programme that the government of Afghanistan will execute,” Waheed Omer told reporters, adding that “very soon the president of Afghanistan will set a deadline”.
> 
> ...


http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/44-karzai-to-dissolve-all-private-security-companies-fa-07


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Follow-up question:  and replace them with what?


Police & soldiers who would be directly responsible to the Afghan government and without financial loyalty to a warlord or some other intermediary.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Police & soldiers who would be directly responsible to the Afghan government and without financial loyalty to a warlord or some other intermediary.




and where will they find all these highly trained, loyal (to the government) people and the required resources?


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> and where will they find all these highly trained, loyal (to the government) people and the required resources?


There will be a small pool of such people from the dissolved Afghan security companies.

The so-far unspecified date for this to happen should also allow time for training replacement forces.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> The so-far unspecified date for this to happen should also allow time for training replacement forces.


If what I read about training ANA and ANP forces in the MSM (always taken with a grain of salt) and blogs from on the ground (taken with a smaller grain of salt) is even close to true, I think that'll be easier said than done with the private security teams.


----------



## pbi (10 Aug 2010)

So this might deal with the Afghan companies (or it might just put a bunch of pissed-off guys with guns and no jobs out on the street). But what effect will it have on the offshore operations, some of whom use foreign nationals such as Nepalese, Brits, Americans, etc?

Cheers


----------



## GAP (10 Aug 2010)

It's a pipedream.....once enough NGO's, GO's, and various and sundry individuals get attacked and it's blamed on lack of security, it'll go back to what it was...

I think the promise is part of the anti-corruption promise Karzai had to make to ISAF (read US), especially with Karzai's brother providing security to convoys from Pak.


----------



## pbi (10 Aug 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> It's a pipedream.....once enough NGO's, GO's, and various and sundry individuals get attacked and it's blamed on lack of security, it'll go back to what it was...
> 
> I think the promise is part of the anti-corruption promise Karzai had to make to ISAF (read US), especially with Karzai's brother providing security to convoys from Pak.



I think you're right. How would they "dissolve" companies that aren't even based in Afghanistan? Maybe "regulation" is a more reasonable goal, but until they pay the ANSF more than what they'll make with a PMC, this will be hard to beat.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (10 Aug 2010)

As both a former soldier and contractor, it is lunacy to dissolve all the companies operating in Afghanistan.  Tighter controls, while nice, are almost impossible to enforce outside of Kabul.

 The other point is not all armed contract jobs are security related, and work under a Allied Military charter, not to mention the security services that the Western governments use to protect their own diplomatic and aid personnel, are usually not LE or Mil forces.

 As much as I hate the International Court, this sort of setting is necessary to manage these sorts or issues in countries who's fledgling legal system is not going to be acceptable to trying foreign nationals.  (Think what happens if AFG or IRQ LE tries to disarm or imprison western security... You can have my guns when they are hot and empty...)


----------



## Greymatters (10 Aug 2010)

There will always be a need for private security companies; by individuals who want their own security team with their objectives as a priority; by companies who want employees who obey their orders; or by individuals or companies who want security that the government cant or wont provide.  As many businesses have learned, its a lot cheaper to 'rent' already trained staff than it is to hire and train your own employees.

Sounds more like an excuse to get rid of foreign contractors that are competing with local service providers...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Sounds more like an excuse to get rid of foreign contractors that are competing with local service providers...


Sounds more like bringing them into the AFG security forces fold:  this from a national AFG TV network....


> The spokesman for President Hamid Karzai said the Afghan president will announce a deadline in the next few days to ban private security companies
> 
> The president is serious about the issue and he will talk to NATO and security forces about it, said Wahid Omar, the spokesman for President Hamid Karzai.
> 
> ...



....and, more vaguely, this from the BBC:


> Afghan President Hamid Karzai means to scrap private security firms and *could replace them with local security forces*, his office says.
> 
> Private contractors, who work mainly for Western companies and are not accountable locally, have long been an irritant to the Afghan government.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

This is actually all old news, and the reasons behind it have been exposed as well:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

News and discussion for Civilian Contractors working Overseas
*
Afghanstan war: Convoy security deal to benefit Karzai’s brother?
*
By Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy Newspapers 
May 23, 2010

LINK 


*An Afghan private contractor in Kandahar, with close ties to Karzai’s brother, is up for a contract to protect supply convoys for US troops in the Afghanistan war.*



KANDAHAR, Afghanistan

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is weighing approval of an expansive new business deal that could give his controversial half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, increased influence over the lucrative security business that protects supply convoys for U.S.-led forces in southern Afghanistan.

As American strategists prepare military and political moves to extend government control in Kandahar this summer, President Karzai has before him a plan that would give a key ally of his half-brother the power to run the newly created Kandahar Security Company.

If approved quickly, the deal could allow the firm to obtain millions of dollars in contracts this summer as the U.S. military sends thousands of additional troops into southern Afghanistan.

Top Afghan officials say they’re backing the deal as a way to gain control over rival security firms that have sometimes engaged in violent clashes over multi-million-dollar contracts in the Afghanistan war.

Karzai’s critics view the security consolidation as a covert effort to solidify Ahmed Wali Karzai’s already-unrivaled hold on power in Kandahar. His grip on the city is widely seen as a major obstacle to establishing good local governance, a critical requirement for the success   Read the full Story here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

Handy, that - good recall, GW!


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Aug 2010)

This from the Associated Press:


> Afghanistan's president is issuing an ultimatum to thousands of private security contractors he says are undermining his nation's army and police force: Cease operations in four months.
> 
> President Hamid Karzai's strident decision, announced Monday by his spokesman, is expected to meet resistance from NATO officials who rely heavily on private security companies to guard convoys and installations across the country.
> 
> ...



More from AFP, LA Times, Al Jazeera English and RFE/RL.


----------



## medicineman (16 Aug 2010)

How many foreign embassies rely on PMC's there?  Somehow I don't see alot of them handing their security over to the locals if it appears even remotely like the lunatics are running the asylum, so to speak.

 :2c:.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2010)

The Canadian angle, from the Canadian Press:


> The Canadian Forces will review several contracts it has with private security companies in Kandahar following an order from President Hamid Karzai that the firms cease operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> Canada has nine contracts worth $9 million this fiscal year with four companies to provide security at its forward operating bases.
> 
> Forces spokesman Capt. Yves Desbiens says the private companies provide security and invaluable local knowledge to Canadians in Kandahar, and allow Canadian soldiers to focus their efforts on operations ....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Aug 2010)

PMC's also provide security for the Canadian Embassy in Kabul. Link below from a G & M article:



> Ottawa won’t divulge details of its current security contract in Kabul, but the most recently confirmed pact was with Saladin Security, a British-based firm with a long and sometimes murky lineage dating back decades that includes covert operations for the CIA and others in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Saladin provides Canada’s embassy guards and a heavily armed rapid-reaction force in Kabul, although Canadian officials say close personal protection for diplomats and visiting politicians is provided by Canadian special-forces soldiers.


 (My Emphasis)

 Article Link


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Aug 2010)

Conclusion of a post by BruceR. at _Flit_:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_08_23.html#006770



> ...It really seems quite unwise. One can only assume this is an attempt to:
> 
> **First, satisfy Afghan public opinion by reducing the number of non-uniformed Westerners with guns driving around the cities (not in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing, particularly in the EuPol case Tim cites, above);
> **Second, formally deputize the much larger numbers of Afghan security companies and militias, many of which are being bribed to support Karzai already, imbedding them more deeply in the security structure;
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2010)

> The Counter-terrorism Directorate of the Afghan Ministry of Interior has collected hundreds of weapons from private security companies in Afghanistan
> 
> The Directorate said in a press release on Saturday that they have seized 305 Kalashnikovs and 35 machine guns from Oqab-e-Safid (White Eagle) Security Company in the south-western Helmand province.
> 
> ...


More here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2010)

"Hamid, old buddy, how about one itsy-bitsy exemption for your old pals?  How 'bout it?" 


> The United States and its NATO allies, worried about how the Afghan government's ban on private security companies  might affect their operations, have asked President Hamid Karzai to sign a letter allowing such companies to continue protecting the foreign aid community, according to Western officials in Kabul.
> 
> Karzai was given the letter by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander here, while they flew to Kandahar on Saturday, and he had been expected to sign it Monday, according to minutes of a U.S. Embassy meeting on the topic obtained by The Washington Post. But he has not yet done so, and U.S. officials have warned that the issue could escalate quickly.
> 
> The minutes of Tuesday's meeting, written by a U.S. Agency for International Development official, said William E. Todd, a top embassy official, told the group that without Karzai's signature, *the U.N. assistance mission here "would step in with its intention to close down all donor programs in Afghanistan, [and] next it could rise up to Secretary of State Clinton personally telephoning President Karzai."* ....


More in the _Washington Post_ here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2010)

Karzai's response to request for exemption.....


> The Afghan president has rejected pleas from the international community to reverse his order to disband all private security companies, saying money spent on those firms should be invested in the national police force instead .... Mr Karzai told reporters he was tired of hearing complaints from embassies about the order, and said his decision to shut them down was final.  "We hope that our international friends will not get back to us or try to put pressure on us or talk about it in the media because none of these are going to work," he said. "These companies are closed - that is it." ....


More here.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2010)

I'm all for giving more cash to their national police force... just let us pay the individual officers. Because they're sure as heck not getting the money they're supposed to be getting now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2010)

Wonder how THIS will fly....


> U.S.-funded development firms are beginning to shut down massive reconstruction projects because the Afghan government has refused to rescind a ban on their use of private security guards, according to U.S. officials and aid workers here.
> 
> The decision to start shuttering the projects, collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars, could have far-reaching effects on the U.S.-led military campaign against the Taliban, disrupting a central component of the strategy to counter the insurgency at a critical moment in the war. Programs to assist Afghan farmers and improve local government, which are vital to the overall U.S. effort to stabilize the volatile southern and eastern parts of the country, are among those that will be affected, the officials said.
> 
> ...


More in the_ Washington Post_ here.


----------

