U.S. eyes cuts to Iraq embassy after troops exit

Tue, Feb 07 23:18 PM EST BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. government is looking to cut the size of its embassy in Iraq, by far its largest and most expensive mission, months after the last American troops withdrew, U.S. officials said Tuesday. A State Department spokeswoman told reporters in Washington the objective was to reduce the cost of the overall mission, which includes roughly 2,000 diplomats as well as 14,000 contractors who do everything from provide security to run the kitchens. The New York Times reported Tuesday that the U.S. government was preparing to slash its diplomatic presence, which includes consulate operations in Basra, Arbil and Kirkuk, by as much as one half. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said there were no plans to slash the number of diplomats in half, although some reduction was possible, and that she could not predict what cuts there might be in the number of contractors. "What we are doing ... is looking at how we can 'right-size' our embassy in Iraq and particularly how we can do more for that mission through the hiring of local employees rather than having to be as dependent as we have been in the past on very expensive contractors," Nuland told reporters in Washington. "What ultimate numbers will result from this in reductions in contractors, we don't know yet. This process has just begun," she added. "But we are trying to ensure that it is rigorous and that it gets us to a much more normal embassy like some of our big embassies around the world." Talks to reduce the size of the U.S. mission in Baghdad come after negotiations to keep around 3,000 American troops in Iraq as trainers fell apart over the sensitive issue of immunity from local prosecution for soldiers involved in crimes. Since the U.S. troop withdrawal, foreign contractors in Iraq, particularly those involved in security, have complained about increasing difficulty in securing visas and permits to work in the country. Many Iraqis have memories of abuses committed by U.S. troops and contractors after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion such as the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the 2007 incident in which 14 Iraqi civilians were killed by Blackwater private security contractors. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which sits inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, houses diplomats and thousands of support staff and security contractors. A handful of U.S. military personnel remain in the country, working with the embassy to help with arms sales and training for Iraqi forces. U.S. officials say there are about 16,000 people involved in the American diplomatic effort in Iraq. (Reporting by Patrick Markey; Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed in Washington; Editing by Andrew Heavens) =================== As Iraq, Afghan wars end, private security firms adapt Sun, Oct 21 01:25 AM EDT By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On a rooftop terrace blocks from the White House, a collection of former soldiers and intelligence officers, executives and contractors drink to the international private security industry. The past decade - particularly the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - provided rich pickings for firms providing private armed guards, drivers and other services that would once have been performed by uniformed soldiers. But as the conflicts that helped create the modern industry wind down, firms are having to adapt to survive. They must also, industry insiders say, work to banish the controversial image of mercenary "dogs of war" that bedevil many firms, particularly in Iraq. "This industry has always gone up and down," Doug Brooks, president of the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), told Reuters on the sidelines of its annual conference in Washington. "What we're seeing now is that it is becoming much more mature - and much more responsible." The free-for-all atmosphere that pervaded the industry, particularly in the early years of the war in Iraq, insiders say, appears gone for good. A string of high profile incidents - often involving armed private guards firing on sometimes unarmed Iraqis - trashed the reputation of firms such as Blackwater, a Virginia-based firm since renamed several times, as well as the wider industry. Members of the ISOA - which include some but not all of the major contracting firms as well as smaller players - subscribe to a code of conduct that they say helps identify responsible firms. Despite these efforts, industry insiders and other observers say quality remains mixed. Some firms providing armed guards for merchant ships passing through the Somali pirate-infested Indian Ocean, for example, only hire elite personnel who have served in the Marines or special forces. Others, however, have a reputation for being less discriminating and for unreliable staff and weapons. In the aftermath of last month's attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, critics have seized on the hiring of a little-known British private security firm now accused of providing inadequate protection at the mission. The clear industry aim is to distance itself from groups such as that led by former British soldier Simon Mann, who was captured in 2004 by authorities in Zimbabwe as they apparently headed to Equatorial Guinea to mount a coup. The word "mercenary," Brooks makes clear, is simply taboo. "Calling private security contractors mercenaries is clearly derogatory and serious journalists and academics don't use the term," he says. The most vulnerable firms, many in industry say, may be those who have relied on ongoing U.S. military work that is now drying up as the Pentagon "Operational Contingency Allowance" - the additional funding earmarked for the wars - tapers off. At its peak, the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting, a bipartisan legislative commission established to study wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, estimated there might have been as many as 260,000 contractors in the two countries. TIDE GOING OUT? "At the moment, everyone is looking for work that is not OCA-funded," one industry executive told Reuters on condition of anonymity, saying he expected an era of mergers and even bankruptcies. "It's going to be like when the tide goes out at the beach and you suddenly find out who has been naked." New Pentagon priorities, many believe, will provide fewer openings for traditional private military contractors. Washington's strategic "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific region will involve mainly warships or uniformed Marines, with little need for extra hired muscle. Companies that take a broader approach and also provide logistic, intelligence and other functions, however, could have a much better decade.

"If your definition of a private security contractor is only someone with a gun at a checkpoint in Afghanistan, then yes, you may be seeing a decline," says David Isenberg, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington. "But if your definition is of private contractors performing tasks that would once have been done almost exclusively by government and military, it's a very different picture."

When it comes to conventional security, many in the industry believe the real growth will come from serving the private sector - particularly the oil, gas and mining industries. Even with U.S. troops gone from Iraq and the number of government contractors down, some companies say they are finding strong demand from energy firms for protection, particularly around Basra in southern Iraq. "We are as busy as ever and the need has never been greater," said Pete Dordal, senior vice president at GardaWorld, a global risk management and security services firm. "I don't want to say it's a gold rush, but business is very good." Private security firms, insiders say, evacuated the vast majority of the thousands of foreign nationals plucked from Libya as its civil war erupted early last year. Most were contracted by other private firms, although governments also used them heavily. London-based Control Risks told Reuters last year that China hired it directly to fly hundreds of its nationals out by airliner. STILL CONTROVERSIAL Some in the industry believe the number of contractors in Afghanistan could even rise with the planned departure of all U.S. combat troops in 2014, as mining companies exploit largely untapped mineral resources. It's a similar picture in Africa, where even in war-torn Somalia, a handful of companies are setting up shop. They often work with local tribes and other groups to safeguard visiting journalists, business representatives and prospectors. Focusing on finding reliable local staff, some say, may ultimately prove both cheaper and more reliable than foreign hired guns. In Libya, some energy firms long turned to local desert tribes to protect their facilities - a tactic that proved remarkably effective during last year's civil war after foreign security staff were swiftly withdrawn. The trick may be to avoid having grandiose ambitions. A handful of British firms in particular have made millions from providing on-board protection teams for Indian Ocean shipping. But those who have tried to go a step further and start their own private navies - hoping to escort merchant ships for cash - have struggled to find sufficient funding. Within Somalia some credit the hiring of private contractors with Gulf state money to bolster the Coast Guard of the independent enclave of Puntland as being behind recent drops in pirate attacks. But it proved so controversial that funding was eventually pulled, leaving behind half-trained local fighters that some worry could prove a regional security threat in their own right. Private contractors are increasingly central to operations such as the African Union's AMISOM peacekeeping mission in Somalia, performing roles such as bomb disposal, logistics and technical support. ISOA and some experts argued they could do much, much more. The few dozen foreign contractors from the now-defunct British firm "Executive Outcomes," together with the hundreds of local fighters they trained, are often credited with turning the tide in Sierra Leone's 2001 civil war. But after years of discussions at the United Nations, few of the world's governments appear enthusiastic about the idea of private security firms becoming the norm. "In some places, contractors might be more effective than some of the troops from contributing nations," said Edmond Mulet, U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations. "But the U.N. is simply the sum of its member states and some of them are opposed to the use of contractors in some roles," he told the conference. (Reporting By Peter Apps; Editing by Paul Simao) ============== Navy Seals Make Great Real Estate Investors: Learn From Them By Richard Dolan, President, The Real Estate Investment Network Where you are in the context of team? Who have you underestimated as a part of your team, who have you forgotten is a part of your team, and what purpose and role do you play inside the context and the framework of team? One of the things that I started talking a little bit about was a reference to Navy SEALs. Some of you would say, “Hey, you know what, I’m just a nurse, I’m just a teacher, I’m just a father of two and just want to make some passive income; I’m no Navy SEAL,” and I say, “You know what? You’ve got to look past the idea of referencing someone like a Navy SEAL.” I thought it might be interesting to delve into this as the theme of this week, which is around the subject matter of a characteristic that embodies a SEAL, and that is to be tough; by the way, “tough”--not as in a macho thing--tough as in mentally tough.

Mark Twain once wrote, back in 1894, that, “courage is the resistance to fear and mastery of fear, not absence of fear.”

So, you can say that the idea of tough is the essence of a Navy SEAL. Only in being tough, can someone be unbeatable or unstoppable; but this is an attribute, folks, an attribute possessed by most extraordinary people. To be tough is to be strong and resilient and able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking. This is certainly true of Navy SEALs, but not only in the physical sense. To be tough is not solely a male attribute; women can and are, in many cases, tough. I’ve got to tell you, by the way, as a footnote, my mother is far tougher than my father could ever dream of being, but keep that between us. You see, tough is not considered to be masculine. To be tough is an attribute that everyone possesses, but at their own level of proficiency. You see, women most definitely possess this particular element physically, emotionally, even intellectually, but I may have survived, for example, having endured much training in workshops in 20 years of being developed. Back to our good friend and mentor, Jack Schropp; this guy survived three tours to Vietnam, and Navy SEALs training, but he would admit that there’s no comparison to the toughness of a mother. So, the reality there is this: The idea of being tough is one thing, but look at Mother Theresa as an example. She was renowned for possessing this particular element--not just being compassionate, but being ferociously tough. So, to be tough is not to be the following, pretending to be fearless, or withholding your feelings from others, wearing the symbols or insignia like tattoos, gang colors; taking steroids isn’t tough, shaving your head isn’t tough, using foul language, trucking or owning a big old pickup truck, ignoring rules, or even fighting for that matter. Under the umbrella of success, in any given field, you will find the leader of the team fully expressing this particular element of being tough. You see, being tough means to play the game - whatever the game is—full out. Not acting like you are playing full out. This encompasses concentration on the job at hand and a focus on all of its details, moment by moment. To be tough is to be fully intent on fulfilling one’s commitments, so much that one is impervious to any adverse conditions or circumstances. You know, these adverse conditions can be physical, psychological, even emotional, by the way. Playing full out means playing the game without thought or hesitation. You see, often when people are playing full out and are being intentional, others can mistake this behavior as anger or edginess - I get this all the time by the way. This is no doubt where, to go back to our example, Navy SEALs, unwittingly, obtain their hard-ass reputation. This drive is not a by-product of edginess or anger, in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is while in a state of such extreme focus that the intentional person experiences peacefulness in the midst of action and in the face of external chaos and in adverse conditions, despite how others may interpret their actions. You see, on the outside, this drive might appear as one being stern or aggressive or even cold. When a person is directing their thoughts or attention towards the job at hand and has clarity about their objectives in the moment and, at the same time, is considering all steps like all the evolutions and details required to achieve the desired outcome, there’s no room to dillydally in emotions and feelings. You see, emotions and feelings are not part of the equation. In fact, when playing full out, emotions and feelings often require too much attention and energy and, therefore, hinder momentum. So, back to our lioness, the female tough image and/or mentor in our lives. Can you imagine Elsa, the famous lioness telling her mate Leo, “big guy, give that roaring a rest, will you; me and the pride are a little fed up of your bossiness and language.” It’s when we are uncommitted and playing haphazardly, that we experience temptation for something other than our committed goals. Whenever people are faced with adversity, one foot is often found moving out of the door considering option two, and breaking their commitment. Can it sound like should I or shouldn’t I? When this happens, we start to think about some things other than our commitments: We think about how hard we are working, or how we are not being appreciated, or we ask ourselves, “Why should I be committed; I’m not getting anything out of this anyway.” You see, our thinking gets us into trouble and we see this all the time, for example, at REIN, we’ve seen this for 20 years. Where, at the end of the day, people start moving away from what they’re committed to and they actually begin to dilute the toughness that they should, in fact, be exercising in the face of them not getting what they want. You see, when adversity strikes, our self-talk increases in volume and the problem is that the job of our self-talk is to dwell in our feelings and expectations about our life. When our feelings and expectations are not aligned with what’s happening in reality, we decide that reality, in that moment, should get aligned with our expectations. In other words, people resist what is actually occurring in reality and, when faced with adversity, most people would rather revel in their grand illusions about how life should be, rather than deal with the way life really, really truly is. This often shows up in conversations such as “he or she shouldn’t be this way” or “my company should be doing this or it should be doing that.” Life is simply what it is and is what it isn’t. You see, when we are cold we want heat, when a market plummets we want it to flourish. If, during combat, the SEALs would experience the cold or heat, they simply accept it and focus on the commitment. Those who groan about wanting the conditions to be other than they are, are ludicrous. It would have to make everyone have to say, “Hey, this has to be different and it won’t just change because you say so.” This is the case: Lack of commitment can best be expressed as, “well, stuff happens.” People might argue that Navy SEALs do what they do because they’re detached or cold-hearted or free from emotional involvement. Movie and television writers like to depict these guys this way but that’s just, maybe, a compliment; because to tell you the truth, I’ve gotten to know one quite well over the past two decades. You see, being detached is an attribute of saints and gurus; that certainly isn’t the case when you’re talking about the men with green faces covered in swamp slime or crawling into someone’s cave in Afghanistan. Anyone committed to anything greater than oneself, such as defending one’s country, is highly passionate and deeply emotionally connected whether they express it to anyone else’s satisfaction or not. To be committed is to be bound emotionally and intellectually, and some might say, spiritually, to an idea, a principle, a course of action, or to someone. What’s your commitment in REIN and your membership; what are you here to do? What are you here to get; what life changing direction are you here for? You see, it is to pledge a promise or a vow to someone else; it is to maintain this bond you made of your own free will on a moment by moment basis. So, look into your life to where you were suffering, for example. Maybe you have emotionally, financially, I don’t know—something, but think to yourself, if you look at some place that you’re suffering emotionally (this might include being worried, depressed, frustrated, maybe even angry), and in this area you consider holding this particular secret, this particular element, this particular lesson to be tough. If you feel you are working too hard or you experience defeat or fatigue, do you have one foot out of the commitment door? If not, everything you do will feel like a chore or like hard work or even like a hopeless pursuit. You might not be playing full out, except in your own sob story. So, being tough is an attribute you might want to enhance your romantic relationship, your family situation, or even something in your career--maybe even your financial status. If you find yourself criticizing others like “you stink” or “too bad you’re aggressive,” think again. Maybe they’re just expressing the secret called “tough” in its full glory. You just might be pointing your fingers to deflect, defend, or protect your own lack of commitment, laziness, or even scattered, disorganized behavior. People who are successful in their fields are tough, which is part of why they are successful. Those who are being tough are often considered the bad guys. In the media, for example, Martha Stewart been reported as being tough; but the media likes to interpret tough in association with terms like cold-heartedness or ruthlessness. Someone might very well be this way, but this is not the definition of tough. To be tough is to be strong, resilient, and able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking. A tough person, not in the heat of action, might also have the capacity to be warm-hearted, thoughtful, considerate, or even open minded. Cold-hearted and ruthless are interpretations projected onto people by those who, most likely, have never committed themselves to something greater than themselves and played the game of life as though their lives were at stake. Michael Jordan and Larry Bird, for example, have actually been described by various media folk as “assassin-like,” which goes way beyond the idea of tough. The media’s interpretation was attempting, in my perspective, to describe some inner, extraordinary quality possessed by these two professional basketball players. So, people in your life such as your boss, are too tough and you’re making them wrong in some way or seeking an agreement of your point of view from others. We have given up and are now feeling bored or resigned. Reconsider that you have another option: If you’re interested in recreating your life as extraordinary, to be around tough people will provide you the opportunity to polish, within yourself, the secrets of commitment that we talked about; steadfastness, toughness, trainability. If this doesn’t interest you, then remember that your tough boss just might be the source that keeps shoes on your feet and food in your refrigerator, so you are the best to accept it. If you are proficient at this particular lesson and others say you are edgy and aggressive when you’re just playing full out, be responsible for your proficiency with this attribute. Express your commitment to your teammates, share your desire to achieve the team’s objectives, let them know that they need not personalize your perceived insensitivity. You also need not diminish this quality; on the contrary, to be tough is an attribute for which you should be proud. This is also not an argument for you to abuse people verbally at home or at work in the name of being tough. Remember, feelings and emotions thwart one’s intentions. To abuse someone is a highly reactive emotional state, and the emotional state that you’ve got to watch--and it’s the opposite of tough. So, be mindful that your spouse or your partner in life or your co-worker has the right to express their toughness in their own way. While they’re playing a game of baseball or basketball, family unity or professional success, or your real estate investment portfolio, whether for yourself, for one door or for many; we all want the tough ones on our side. You all want the toughness in your life, on your side. We all want our teammates to be absolutely extraordinary. Richard Dolan is the President and Founding Partner of The Real Estate Investment Network. This article is part of an ongoing Mastery Series available to REIN members. ============== Inquiry harshly criticizes U.S. State Department over Benghazi attack Tue, Dec 18 22:37 PM EST By Arshad Mohammed and Anna Yukhananov and Tabassum Zakaria WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was grossly inadequate to deal with a September 11 attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three others because of systemic failures within the State Department, an official inquiry found on Tuesday. In a scathing assessment, the review cited "leadership and management" deficiencies at two bureaus of the department, poor coordination among officials in Washington and "real confusion" on the ground over who had the responsibility, and the power, to make decisions that involved policy and security concerns. The attack killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a political furor as Republicans used the issue to attack President Barack Obama before the November 6 election. The report's harsh assessment seemed likely to tarnish the four-year tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said in a letter accompanying the review that she would adopt all of its recommendations. "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," said the report by the official "Accountability Review Board." The report specifically faulted the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and its Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The incident has raised questions about the adequacy of security at U.S. embassies around the globe and where to draw the line between protecting American diplomats in dangerous places while giving them enough freedom to do their jobs.

Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the assessment reflected poorly on Clinton and its recommendations would probably make life harder for diplomats in the field "This is a mark against Secretary Clinton. While she was not singled out, the report highlighted the lack of leadership and organization on security issues, and those fall into her bailiwick," Alterman said. "The report, however, relies a little too much on bureaucratic fixes," he added. "Sprinkling people throughout the system who are not only empowered to say 'no,' but have an institutional interest in doing so, will make it harder for diplomats to get out of tightly guarded facilities."

The political uproar in the United States over the Benghazi attack has already claimed one victim. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, widely tipped as a front-runner to replace Clinton when she steps down as secretary of state early next year, last week withdrew her name from consideration, saying she wished to avoid a potentially disruptive Senate confirmation process. Republican lawmakers had blasted Rice for comments she made on several television talk shows in the aftermath of the attack in which she said preliminary information suggested the assault was the result of protests over an anti-Muslim video made in California rather than a premeditated strike. The review. however, concluded that no protest took place before the attack. Rice has said she was relying on talking points drawn up by U.S. intelligence officials. (Editing by Christopher Wilson) ===========