Updated Exclusive: The Cost of Private Security in Iraq

  A State Department document I obtained over the weekend, "Diplomatic Security - Use of Contractors for Protective Security," outlines, among other things, the total annual costs of the State Department's outsourced security.  The numbers strongly suggest that State cannot afford to lose Blackwater--not if it wants to keep its diplomats alive.  According to the document, private contracts currently provide security in seven areas under the Worldwide Personal Protective Services II (WPPS II) contract:

• Jerusalem,
• Kabul,
• Bosnia,
• Baghdad,
• Regional Embassy Office (REO)  Basrah,
• REO Al Hillah, and
• REO Kirkuk (including USAID Erbil).

The document provides the following financial data on the contract, broken down by the three contractors:

The approximate current annual costs under Worldwide Personal Protective Services II contracts for all areas of operation (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Israel, and Iraq) are as follows:
Blackwater $339,573,391
DynCorp 47,145,172
Triple Canopy 15,550,133
[Total] $402,268,696
The approximate total costs for Iraq only, inclusive of all contractors is $350,119,545.11.

According to the document, total WPPS II contract staffing in Iraq includes, "785 personal security specialists, 465 guards, and 158 support personnel."  This is consistent with figures provided in a recent Congressional Research Service Report:

Table 1. Department of State Security Contractors in Iraq 

Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contracts

Company	Number of Americans	Number of Iraqis	Number of Third-Country Nationals	Total
Blackwater, USA	744	12	231	987
DynCorp International, LLC	100	15	36	151
Triple Canopy	101	2	154	257
Total WPPS	945	29	421	1,395

 

For the entire WPPS II contract, Blackwater USA provides seven times the services in terms of dollar amounts than DynCorp and nearly twenty-two times the amount of Triple Canopy and it provides a little over 70% of the trained personnel.  (The actual breakdown, based on the CRS report is:  BW 70.5%; TC 18.4% and DynCorp 10.8%.) 

The contract amount as provided by Blackwater indicates that it is highly unlikely that one of the other two contractors could fill the void if Blackwater were expelled from Iraq.  No other US firms are positioned to provide such specialized services on such a large scale and only Blackwater has experience providing air support in theater to State, a contractual requirement.  (Security considerations--as in the CIA piggybacking on the contract--prevent the consideration of non-US firms.)  DynCorp has often been the subject of speculation about the quality of its security work and its security services in Iraq are limited to the more peaceful northern Kurdish regions.  Although it's a huge corporation, it's doubtful it could provide quality protective services at the level that the security situation in Baghdad demands.   Triple Canopy does provide services in Baghdad, namely guarding the International Zone and providing stationery guards to the US Embassy.  For the former contract, it relies heavily upon Third Country Nationals and both contracts are for guarding hardened facilities, not mobile targets.

Three years ago DynCorp was unable to meet State Department security needs in Iraq, so it's even more unlikely they could do fill a Blackwater void.  In fact, Blackwater stepped in to provide the services to State when DynCorp couldn't.   According to the document, DynCorp exclusively was awarded the first Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract in March 2000.  It was subsequently given a task order under the contract to provide security services in Baghdad, but it was unable to fulfill it, but Blackwater could.  BW was already providing protective services to the Coalition Provisional Authority and was awarded a sole source contract that was in effect until the DoS could re-bid the Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract as WPPS II.   

It's unlikely that the Department of State (and by extension the CIA) could function in Baghdad without Blackwater.

There might be one solution: break off diplomatic relations with Iraq and hand our affairs over to the Swiss.  The Swiss Guard uniforms are way cooler than Royal Robbins 5.11s...

Comments

[Rob]

Dr. Hillhouse,

How about sharing the entire report with your readers?

RS

[Richard Bluestein]

I just finished reading your book. It was fantastic! Nice work and thanks for the scoops!

[Alice Marshall]

Any special reason we can't go back to using the Marines?

[lee]

I guess this is new to the general public but certainly nothing new to those of us in the industry.

The reason you can't go back to the Marines is two-fold.

1. Their mission was changed from one of protecting the Embassy to one of protecting classified material within the Embassy; and

2. Their better used in their primary mission of ofensive operations.

Contractors will always be a cheaper option that provides only the required number of personnel to complete a task for the time required...no training costs...no pensions and no long term medical liability. You only pay for what you get for only as long as you need them. You can upscale and downscale a contract on short notice. If you use the military it takes months of training and you are committing to a minimum of 3 yrs of pay to said solider regardless of how long you actually need him (and you really only get 1 year of combat out of him when you facture in training, rotation time off and retraining.

Not sure what the fuss is about, make sure you enforce the rules that have been in play for about 2 years now and if a contractor (security or support) screws up they get charged. The laws already exist, it's simply time to enforce them.

[kt]

Actually Dyn would have no problems filling the void if BW got booted. Dyn use to have the whole contract back before BW was even heard of and has been filling the State Dept. voids for years. Dyn could definitely take over the cotract with ease as the camp BW resides in was built by Dyn when they had the other half of the contract in Baghdad and BW actually had to move their guys in the same compound as they didn't have their own accommodations.

And it has been proven that contractors are far cheaper than soldiers and private security firms are here to stay and will only have an expanded role in the future.

[Bill]

In response to Richard- Being a former Marine and current BW contractor, I can tell you that the Marines' mission NEVER included protective security operations. Marines have, and still do, guard embassies- the Baghdad embassy is no exception. Marine Security Guards operate there as well, but are supplemented by Triple Canopy TCNs.

Marines have no experience doing personal security detail work. Contractors do it better for less. The end.

[anonymous]

Anyone with the ability to think critically and who knows anything of the situation knows that governments outsource assets all the time. The fact of the matter is, especially regarding BW, is that you have the single most corrupt entity in the Iraqi government (Ministry of Interior) giving one side of a story , specifically to the media. The whole thing right now is about politics, mainly influencing Americans and others through the media, which they appear to be doing successfully.

In response to the person who wrote in that Dyncorp could take over the WPPS contract, not by themselves they couldn't. They would have to employ most if not all of the current assets on the ground...and their operation of the facilities in Baghdad was mediocre at best, which is part of why they lost the contract.

However, with the current attitudes of the American society, outsourcing will continue because their are less and less young men and women willing to put on a uniform. Many would rather sit at home and wring their hands and despair about the plight of the world or wait for handouts.

Regarding using the military for the job...most of the men and yes even some women who work high threat security are former military. It's not a job for soldiers, the military has never done it for civilians. Also a military commander is not going to give up his best 'men' to work a PSD detail. You ask a military commander for a security detail and you get the slackers and malingerers.

Granted, there does need to be some clear legislation and oversight in place and those who do break the law should be held accountable. However a soldiers' job is on the battlefield, not providing security for diplomats and other civilians. As an addendum to that, if they're are enough soldiers that they're not needed on the battlefield, for God's sake send them home to their families.

As for those who despair because of all the "mercenaries", they obviously don't have access to a dictionary. The fact of the matter is we have all served our country, however, you can only get your ass shot off for so long while your family lives paycheck to paycheck before you get a little sick of it.

[DR]

Mr. Bluestein:

The Marines do not handle the security of U.S. Government civilian personnel outside the embassy grounds. This has not been their job for many, many years. Marines are real soldiers, not highly skilled babysitters. This is the job of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (not they are nothing more than babysitters, it just happens to be their responsibility). The facilities and intelligence of the Embassy are the responsibility of the Marines and they do a fine job.

SR

[Jason]

You are way off on the assessment that Dyncorp cannot provide what Blackwater does. Dyncorp ran effective mobile security in Baghdad with a great deal less use of force issues than BW. The reputation among the protectees in Iraq is that Dyncorp is the more professional operators, and BW has more of a "cowboy" way of operating, with many questionable uses of deadly force on Iraqi civilians. I wonder where you got your information to make a judgement on the companies in Iraq? Seems like you got it from someone at Blackwater....consider the source.

[Tony Foresta]

Gripping commentary Jason. And hense our dread concern. Here again the American people are forced to hazard, burdern, and endure an Hegelian dynamic concocted by the fascists in the Bush government. The American people are locked to BW now, without recourse, review, or remedy for abuse.

Are you experts actually informing this American citizen that the various applicable branches of the US military and intelligence aparatus' are incapable of performing tasks that were formally US military, and intelligence apparatus purview, - and that only BW a (an xtreme dominionist militia with deep tentacles into what Indira Singh aptly names "The Bush crime family cabals???

This American citizen is expected to believe that BW is the "only" force capable of "WPPS II" missions and operations?

These no-bid-openended-multihundredmilliondollar contracts award to BW are focused singularly and exclusively on wanton profiteering, and advancing PNAC pipedreams, and NOT, - NOT on the best interests of the American people. BW is the tip of monsterous iceberg of abuse, deception, lawlessness, fraud, and wanton profiteering.

By this logic, the democrats should prevent, or diminish BW contracts in Iraq, an excecise that would have immediate and global appeal, and the Bush government would have no choice, but exiting Iraq.

Contractors have their place and necessity, but NOT without the peoples recourse, review, and remedy for abuse. The offices of the executive are beholden to the same laws and principles that bind all American.

The fascists in the Bush government, and private military, intelligence, and media contractors are all accountable and beholden to the American people. It is the peoples money at stake, and this American citizen does not believe the BW can do any job better, or more cost effeciently that the peoples military, and intelligence departments and agencies. True, the fascists in the Bush government will not recognize the same amount of obscene profits laundered through off shore bank accounts,- but the American people would be far better served, and afforded much more recourse, review, and remedy for abuse.