Blackwater Getting Out Of Security Business
MOYOCK, N.C. — Blackwater Worldwide said Monday that it planned as complete as possible a shift away from the security contracting business that earned it millions of dollars and made it a flash point in the debate over the use of security contractors in war zones.
“The experience we’ve had would certainly be a disincentive to any other companies that want to step in and put their entire business at risk,” company founder and CEO Erik Prince told The Associated Press during a daylong visit to the company’s North Carolina compound.
Blackwater executives say they have unfairly become a symbol for all contractors in Iraq and thus the company is a target for those opposed to the war. It will continue guarding U.S. officials in Iraq but its future will be focused on training, aviation and logistics.
“Security was not part of the master plan, ever,” company president Gary Jackson said.
In 2005 and 2006, security jobs, including protecting diplomats and helping secure New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, represented more than 50 percent of the company’s business.
In the past year, Jackson said, the name Blackwater has become synonymous with security contractors. “It’s been like Coca-Cola,” he said. “Blackwater: Security contractors.”
The security business is down to about 30 percent of Blackwater revenue now and Jackson said it will go much lower.
“If I could get it down to 2 percent or 1 percent, I would go there,” he said, adding that the media have falsely portrayed much about that aspect of the company. “If you could get it right, we might stay in the business.”
The Justice Department is expected to decide soon whether to bring charges against a handful of contractors involved in the shooting in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square. The company itself is not a target of the investigation and has pledged its cooperation with the probe.
The company has made hundreds of millions of dollars defending U.S. diplomats in Iraq, one of several government contracts that earned Blackwater more than $1 billion since 2001.
The company has been under intense scrutiny since September when its security contractors opened fire in a crowded Baghdad intersection while responding to a car bombing. Seventeen Iraqis were killed, prompting congressional hearings and an FBI investigation.
Company executives would not say whether they expect their contractors to face charges but said an indictment likely wouldn’t affect the core business model.
“Indictment of any of the folks who were in Nisoor Square wouldn’t be grounds for disbarrment (from government contracts),” Andrew Howell, the company’s general counsel, said.
Blackwater’s 7,000-acre compound offers unparalleled training facilities that attract swarms of U.S. military, federal law enforcement and local officials each year.
The company also has expanded its aviation division, which provides airplane and helicopter maintenance and also drops supplies into hard-to-reach military bases. A 6,000-foot runway is under construction and a large map in the company’s hanger shows units based across the world, from Africa to the Middle East to Australia.
“Our focus is away from security work. We’re just not bidding on it,” Jackson said.
The State Department extended Blackwater’s contract to provide embassy security this year. Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy said Monday he has not been notified by Blackwater that it intends to reduce or eliminate security work.
“They have a contract with us through the next nine or ten months,” Kennedy said. “They have not indicated to us that they are attempting to get out of our current contract.”
That decision reflects not only the difficult year Blackwater has had but also the fact that there’s likely not as much growth opportunity.
The growth in Blackwater’s aviation and international training sectors could also buffer the company against other changes in military policy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is looking into why the military uses private contractors for combat and security training.
“In my mind, the fundamental question that remains unanswered is this: Why have we come to rely on private contractors to provide combat or combat-related security training for our forces?” Gates wrote in a July 10 memo to the Pentagon’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.
“Further, are we comfortable with this practice, and do we fully understand the implications in terms of quality, responsiveness and sustainability?”
The memo was released Monday to The Associated Press by the office of Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. Webb raised concerns about the role of private contractors and specifically Blackwater, which opened a new counterterrorism training center in San Diego last month over the opposition of city officials.
Webb had been blocking Senate consideration of four civilian Defense Department nominees while waiting for answers. On Monday, Webb told Gates he was lifting his opposition to the nominees.
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Could not have done the job as easily without them.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm“In my mind, the fundamental question that remains unanswered is this: Why have we come to rely on private contractors to provide combat or combat-related security training for our forces?” Gates wrote in a July 10 memo to the Pentagon’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.
“Further, are we comfortable with this practice, and do we fully understand the implications in terms of quality, responsiveness and sustainability?”
——————-
Personally, as a citizen, I am comfortable with whomever can get the job done in the most effective and efficient manner. War is never really “cost effective” and the old saying goes that you get what you pay for - which is another reason why are military is also so much better now because we spend so much more money training and equipping them than ever before.
On a side note, speaking about the increased use of private companies in combat and security operations, anyone ever seen the movie “The Mutant Chronicles?” Classic example of vilification of major corporations.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:21 pmThey were hired because they could do things the military couldnt. All those rules and regs didnt apply to them. Since when can the DOJ get involved over something that happened in Iraq?
July 21st, 2008 at 7:11 pmThats why I havent seen the Mutant Chronicles.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pmThe best stuff to come out of Hollywood is SciFi or comic book characters. The rest is garbage.
The reason Blackwater and other companies have stepped in to provide personal protective services and logistical support for example, is because the military was gutted and outsourced over the tenure of the Clinton administration without a bat of a lash by the majority Republican Congress.
Jobs many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines were more than capable of doing and at a relatively minimal cost in comparison to the expense of private contracting, are now being done by civilians. That is just the fact of the matter and there is no reason to bellyache.
Besides, who else are they going to get to do the heavy lifting? Code Pink, Kos, or the rest of the Moon Bat Legions I forgot they are too busy providing material support and comfort for Al-Qaeda.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pmHow did they get webb to join code pink?
July 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pmHow did they get webb to join code pink?
July 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
———————————-
He was a “walk on”.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:29 pmwell, that Eric Prince is a businesses man ;
he understood the marcket ; now, he knows that the opportunities are getting tight in that sort of business.
They were hired because they could do things the military couldnt. and I would add that the army “code of honor” wouldn’t allow either.
Can’t see there is something “noble” in that “work” ; though I know that the armies through the centuries had more often hired mercenaries.
y compris, Napoleon : the “Kravat regiments” (Croatians)
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 amfranchie, allow me to suggest you locate a dictionary and look up the word, “mercenary”. A mercenary is one who fights a war for a foreign government…..much like the example in your post. The private contractors for these companies are not, by definition, mercenaries.
Not only are what they doing noble and honorable, it is necessary as the military just does not have the number of personal to carry out all duties and details that they are tasked to accomplish.
Most of the contractors have advanced, post graduate degrees. All, have decades and decades of experience, both military and police.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 ammer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
OK, my interpretation came unfortunately cause I read that these “contractors” also hired foreign “employees”…
Southern Africa, former french legionnaires….
there were also advertisings in our papers for such jobs
Most of the contractors have advanced, post graduate degrees. All, have decades and decades of experience, both military and police.
OK, they are not the “stores guards” that we commoly refer to when we think of private contractors Cies, but “professionnals” that also master english language
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 am