Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues

5762 users shared this document! click

Order Code RL32419 Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues Updated July 11, 2007 Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney American Law Division Nina M. Serafino Specialist in International Security Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues Summary The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, including security. From the information available in published
sources, this apparently is the first time that the United States has depended on
contractors to provide such extensive security in a hostile environment, although it
has previously contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia,
and elsewhere. In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Companies (PSC)
are currently providing security services such as the protection of individuals, non-
military transport convoys, buildings and other economic infrastructure, as well as
the training of Iraqi police and military personnel. By providing security for reconstruction and stabilization efforts, private contractors contribute an essential service to U.S. and international efforts to bring
peace to Iraq, according to many analysts and policymakers. Nonetheless, the use of
armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability.
Transparency issues include the lack of public information on the terms of their
contracts, including their costs and the standards governing their hiring and
performance, as well as the background and training of those hired under contract.
The apparent lack of a practical means to hold contractors accountable under U.S.
law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they could be
prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern. Contractors working with the U.S. military (or with any of the coalition forces) in Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat immunity under international law
if they engage in hostilities, and whose conduct may be attributable to the United
States. Section 522 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) makes military contractors supporting the Armed Forces in
Iraq subject to court-martial, but until the Department of Defense publishes
implementing regulations, it is more likely that contractors who commit crimes in
Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply extraterritorially or
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by
means of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). Iraqi courts do not
have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant
member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq. It is possible that some
contractors may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for
improper conduct in Iraq. This report summarizes what is currently known publically about companies that provide personnel for security missions in Iraq and some sources of controversy
surrounding them. A treatment of legal status and authorities follows, including an
overview of relevant international law as well as Iraqi law, which currently consists
primarily of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) orders that remain in effect until
superceded. The various possible means for prosecuting contractors under U.S. law
in civilian or military courts are detailed, followed by a discussion of possible issues
for Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 State Department and DOD Private Security Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 State Department Private Security Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
DOD PSC Contract Information from Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . 8 Sources of Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Legal Status and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Can Contractors Be Combatants? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Are They Mercenaries? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Iraqi Law (Including Coalition Provisional Authority Orders) . . . . . . . . . . 15
U.S. Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Prosecution in U.S. Federal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Need for and Suitability of Private Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Effects on the U.S. Military Force Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Effects on the U.S. Military Mission in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Concerns Regarding Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Concerns About Reliability and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Oversight and Control/Coordination Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Transparency and Congressional Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Oversight in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Control and Coordination in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Cost Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Human Rights Concerns: Possible Employment of Human Rights Violators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Human Rights Concerns: Alleged Mistreatment of Third-Country Private Security Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Perception of State Authority and Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Selected Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 S. 674 (Obama) Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 S. 1547 (Levin) National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 . . . . . 33
H.R. 369 (Price) Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 H.R. 528 (Lynch) Iraq Contracting Fraud Review Act of 2007 . . . . . . . 34
H.R. 663 (Blumenauer) New Direction for Iraq Act of 2007 . . . . . . . . 34 H.R. 897 (Schakowsky) Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 H.R. 1581 (Lantos) Iraq Reconstruction Improvement Act of 2007 . . . 35
H.R. 1585 (Skelton) National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 H.R. 2740 (Price) MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007 . . . 35
H.Res. 97 (Murphy, Patrick) Providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 1 Iraq appears to be the first case where the U.S. government has used private contractors extensively for protecting persons and property in potentially hostile or hostile situations
where host country security forces are absent or deficient, but it is not the first time private
contractors have been used for such purposes. In Afghanistan, there appears to be some
contracting for protecting Afghani government officials, but so far reports on its extent
suggest it is more limited than in Iraq. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported
that contractors have provided security guards in the Balkans and Southwest Asia, noting
that in Bosnia the Army replaced soldiers at the gate and base perimeter with contracted
security guards. Military Operations: Contractors Provide Vital Services to Deployed
Forces but Are Not Adequately Addressed in DOD Plans. GAO-03-695, June 2003, p 8.
The United States also uses private contractors (U.S. and foreign citizens) for guard duty at
U.S. military installations and U.S. embassies and consulates in a number of countries where
stability generally is not an issue. 2 This report does not deal with private contractors whose function is to gather intelligence from prisoners, even though reports indicate that they may be armed. For information on
such contractors, see CRS Report RL32395, U.S. Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected
Legal Issues, by Jennifer K. Elsea. Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues Introduction The 110 th Congress is grappling with a broad range of issues regarding the use of private contractors to provide security for people and property in Iraq and
elsewhere. For over a decade, the United States has gradually increased the types of
tasks and roles for which it contracts private companies in military operations.
Congress has generally accepted the concept of using unarmed private contractors to
carry out support functions in military operations, such as providing food and laundry
services, although not without concerns regarding the costs of contracts and alleged
favoritism in issuing them. But Iraq is in some ways an atypical situation. There, the
United States is relying heavily, apparently for the first time in an unstable
environment, on private firms to supply a wide variety of security services. 1 Especially given a shortage of U.S. troops, private security contractors are widely
viewed as vital to U.S. efforts to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq. Nevertheless, many
Members are concerned about transparency, accountability, and legal and symbolic
issues raised by the use of armed civilians to perform security tasks formerly
performed by the military, as well as possible long-term effects on the military. This report first summarizes available information on the private contractors providing security services under U.S. government contracts in Iraq. 2 It then provides information on relevant U.S., international, and Iraqi law, and legal issues
involved in the use of armed contractors. It concludes with a discussion of issues CRS-2 3 According to one publication, Not since the 17 th century has there been such a reliance on private military actors to accomplish tasks directly affecting the success of military
engagements. Private contractors are now so firmly embedded in intervention,
peacekeeping, and occupation that this trend has arguably reached the point of no return.
Fred Schreier and Marina Caparini. Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance
of Private Military and Security Companies. Geneva, Switzerland: Geneva Centre for the
Democratic Control of Armed Forces, March 2005. p. 1. For discussions on the growth of
private companies providing security and other support to military efforts worldwide, see,
for example: Deborah D. Avant. The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing
Security. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Simon
Chesterman and Chia Lehnardt. From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of
Private Military Companies. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007; and
Singer, Peter W. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. For a discussion of United Nations use of such
contractors, see William J. Durch and Tobias C. Berkman. Who Should Keep the Peace?
Providing Security for the Twenty-First-Century Peace Operations. Washington, D.C.: The
Henry L. Stimson Center, September 2006. pp. 83-84. 4 The term security can encompass a wider variety of functions. This report uses the narrowest definition, that is, the provision of protective services. In its work, GAO adds the
provision of security advice and planning. In other works, the term can also include
military and police training, repair and maintenance for weapons systems, prison
administration, interrogation, and intelligence. A few works use the term to refer to the
entire spectrum of military functions performed by private contractors, including logistics
and base maintenance. 5 Security Companies Doing Business in Iraq, available at [http://travel.state.gov/travel/ cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1763.html]. involving the need for and suitability of private contractors, costs, and oversight and
control, as well as potential foreign policy implications. Background The U.S. government is just one of many entities including other governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations that
employ private security contractors in Iraq. The U.S. use of private security
contractors in Iraq represents a continuation of a trend that has seen the increasing
growth by many nations and organizations, including the United Nations of the
use of private contractors to provide security, as well as a variety of other functions
in support of stabilization and reconstruction efforts. 3 Private security contractors (PSCs) protect individuals, buildings and other infrastructure, and transport convoys. 4 Currently, U.S. contracts for these services in Iraq are issued by agencies of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of State (DOS). There are many companies providing private security
services in Iraq, but only a handful appear to be contracted directly by the U.S.
government. (A State Department website lists some 28 such companies operating
there, 5 but this list appears to be incomplete as it does not include at least one company with a U.S. government contract.) An unknown number are, however,
providing security services indirectly under subcontracts with U.S. contractors. CRS-3 6 A Washington Post article of May 27, 2007, attributes estimates of 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq to the Pentagon and company representatives. Steve
Fainaru and Saad Al-Izzi. U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad. Washington
Post. May 27, 2007. p. A21. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in
2006 that the Director of the Private Security Companies Association of Iraq estimated that
as of March 2006, there were a total of 181 private security companies with just over
48,000 employees working in Iraq. (U.S. Government Accountability Office. Rebuilding
Iraq: Actions Still Needed to Improve the Use of Private Security Providers. Testimony of
William Solis, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, before the Subcommittee
on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Committee on
Government Reform. GAO-06-865T. June 13, 2006.) 7 T. Christian Miller. Private Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Iraq. Los Angeles Times. July 4, 2007. Sources cited are State Department and Defense Department figures. 8 CQ Transcriptions. Opening remarks of Rep. Martin T. Meehan. Chairman. House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Holds Hearing on Iraqi
Security Forces Contracting. April 25, 2007. The New York Times attributes to the
Pentagon a figure of about 126,000 men and women as serving as contractors alongside
U.S. troops in Iraq. John M. Broder and James Risen. Death Toll for Contractors Reaches
New High in Iraq. New York Times. May 19, 2007. 9 CQ Transcriptions. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Holds Hearings on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Iraq Reconstruction, Part 2. February 7, 2007. (Part 1 of
these hearings was held on February 6; Part 3 on February 8.) There is no count of the total number of contractors or subcontractors who carry
weapons while performing services contracted for by the United States. The numbers employed under U.S. government contracts in Iraq for functions once carried out by the U.S. military are but estimates. An estimated 20,000 to
30,000 individuals perform protective security functions for private firms under U.S.
government contracts. 6 Of these, a little over 2,500 were serving under Department of State contracts as of May 2007 (see Table 1 below). The great majority of the
remainder are most likely under DOD contracts, although at least one other U.S.
agency has contracted for private security personnel at some point. Private security contractors constitute a small but significant portion of the many thousands of individuals employed under U.S. government contracts to perform the
spectrum of functions once carried out by U.S. military personnel. According to a
July 2007 news report, some 182,000 are employed under U.S. government
contracts. 7 Of these, some 127,000 are under DOD contracts, according to testimony at April 2007 congressional hearings. 8 In recent congressional hearings, Representative Patrick T. McHenry, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, stated that
approximately 60 private security companies are currently working for the U.S.
government in Iraq, according to the research weve done. 9 DOD has not released figures on the number of private contractors providing protective services under
DOD contracts. In May, the Department of State listed 2,522 private security
contractors working under its two security contracts, but did not know how many
such contractors were working on subcontracts under Department of State and CRS-4 10 Private Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Iraq. op.cit. There appears to be some disconnect between the numbers report in this article and the earlier testimony on DOD
contractors, unless it can be assumed that virtually all Americans working as contractors in
Iraq, except for the approximately 2,500 working under Department of State security
contracts, are working under DOD contracts or subcontracts. 11 CQ Transcriptions. Remarks of Gary Motsek, Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Program Support, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics. House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Holds Hearing on Iraqi Security Forces Contracting. April 25, 2007. The
percentage of U.S. citizens may have changed somewhat, as Mr. Mostek indicated that new
figures were due in May 2007. 12 Conversation with Peter Singer, Brookings Institution, June 13, 2007. 13 E-mail correspondence from Doug Brooks, President, International Peace Operations Association, July 2, 2007. 14 David Barstow. Security Companies: Shadow Soldiers in Iraq. New York Times, April 19, 2004. 15 Interview with Doug Brooks, December 13, 2006. USAID reconstruction contracts. (See below for details on the Department of State
contract). Most individuals hired by the companies providing security services under U.S. government contracts or subcontracts are Iraqis, and a good number are third-country
nationals. Of the 182,000 total contractors cited above, some 118,000 (i.e., about
two-thirds) are Iraqis, and some 43,000 (about one-quarter) are third-country
nationals. Only some 21,000 (a little over one-eighth) are Americans, according to
the same news article. 10 According to a DOD official, just 17% of the total 127,000 individuals working under DOD contracts or subcontracts in Iraq (i.e., somewhat
over 21,000) are U.S. citizens, although the proportion may be different for private
security contractors. 11 Citizens of Chile, Fiji, Nepal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and other countries reportedly carry arms under private security contracts.
Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution estimates that citizens of some 30 countries
are employed by private security companies in Iraq. 12 Nonetheless, most of those working in Iraq as private security contractors are Iraqi, according to Doug Brooks
of the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), an industry group. 13 U.S. citizens also work for foreign companies providing security for foreign employers. Pay scales for these contractors reportedly vary depending on their experience and perceptions of risk, as well as their nationality. When the hiring of such
contractors first became controversial, the news media reported (in April 2004) a pay
range of $500 to $1,500 per day. 14 Now, however, some analysts state that pay is on the average lower globally as the supply of those desiring such work has risen, 15 even as risk may be perceived as increasing. The highest amounts are paid to highly
experienced former military personnel, such as former U.S. and British special
forces, with lower amounts paid to personnel from Third World countries such as
Chile and Nepal, and the lowest amounts going to locally hired Iraqis. CRS-5 16 Steve Fainaru. Iraq Contractors Face Growing Parallel War. Washington Post. June 16, 2007. p. A12. 17 Ibid. 18 New York Times. May 19, 2007. op.cit. The article states that the New York Times obtained the data through a Freedom of Information Act request it filed with the Department
of Labor. 19 As cited in CRS Report RL31833, Iraq Reconstruction Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff. April 6, 2007. p. 25. 20 CQ Transcriptions. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Holds Hearings on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Iraq Reconstruction, Part 2. February 7, 2007. This is about
a fifth of the $20 billion in spending through FY2007 from the Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund and over a tenth of the $35 billion in total U.S. Reconstruction
Assistance, as computed in CRS Report RL31833, op. cit., p. 3. Like soldiers, private security contractors incur the risk of death and injury from insurgents in Iraq. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data reportedly show that an
increasing proportion of registered supply convoys has been attacked, rising from
5.5% in 2005 to 14.7% for 2007 through May 10 (i.e., about the first 18 weeks of
2007). 16 Of those involved in the 12,860 Corps-registered convoys that transported supplies in Iraq from August 2004 through May 10, 2007, some 132 security
employees and drivers were killed and 416 were wounded, according to a report on
that data. 17 (The cause of death and injury was not reported, however, and may include accidents and well as shooting deaths. The totals for all convey may well be
substantially higher as there are likely deaths and injuries associated with convoys
that are not registered with the Corps Reconstruction Logistics Directorate.)
Convoy-related deaths appear to be a significant portion of total private contractor
deaths. An earlier news report cited Department of Labor statistics showing 917
private contractors have died and more than 12,000 have been wounded in battle or
in job-related accidents in the four years since the war (i.e., March 2003 through
March 2007); of these, some 146 died and another 3,430 were wounded or injured
in the first three months of 2007. 18 During that same period, some 244 U.S. soldiers died, according to the news report. The total cost to the U.S. government of such security services in Iraq is not known. Estimates of the portion of reconstruction project costs consumed by security
have varied. A 2006 SIGIR report surveying nine major U.S. contractors found their
costs to range from a low of 7.6% to a high of 16.7%, whereas the State Department
estimated it in 2005 as 16%-22%. 19 This year, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman stated at the committees February
hearings on Iraq reconstruction that almost $4 billion has been paid for private
security services in the reconstruction effort alone. 20 Whether the use of private contracts for such services is cost effective is another question that cannot be answered definitively with current information. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a recent report on costs of operations
and maintenance support services notes that appropriate information is lacking to CRS-6 21 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Trends in Operation and Maintenance Costs and Support Services Contracting. GAO-07-631. May 2007. 22 Information on the Department of State in this paragraph from the authors interview with State Department officials on May 24, 2007. 23 The WPPS contracts are also used to provide security services not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Israel. 24 Information on the companys history and size from its website at [http://www.dyncorpinternational.com]. DynCorps performance under the INL contract (continued...) make such a calculation for such services and that the analyses needed to make such
a determination can be expensive and time-consuming. 21 State Department and DOD Private Security Contracts 22 Little information is publically available on State Department and DOD contracts for private security services in Iraq. The State Department has recently
made available the names of the companies holding its primary contracts for such
protective services and the numbers of security personnel serving directly and
indirectly under those contracts. The State Department has not made public the
names of the subcontractors who perform security services for those carrying out
reconstruction activities under State Department contracts. The DOD has not
publically released information on its contractors and subcontractors; information on
these subjects must be compiled from secondary sources. State Department Private Security Contracts. The State Department has three prime security contractors hired under a Worldwide Personal Protective
Services (WPPS) umbrella contract, dating from July 2005, according to information
provided by the department: Blackwater U.S.A.; DynCorp International, LLC, and
Triple Canopy, Inc. 23 WPPS contracts are used to provide bodyguards and static guards (i.e., guards for buildings and other infrastructure) in Baghdad and other areas
throughout Iraq. Triple Canopy also holds another State Department contract to
provide local guard services for the U.S. Embassy and other sites in the Baghdad
Green Zone, which are under Chief of Mission control.
Blackwater USA, founded in 1997 and headquartered in Moyock, North Carolina, has provided a variety of protective services in Iraq. It was one of the
original companies providing such services to the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA), including protection for CPA chief Paul Bremer as well as other CPA
employees and visiting dignitaries. Its staff includes former military, intelligence,
and law enforcement personnel. According to news reports and its website,
Blackwater was founded by three former Navy SEALs. DynCorp International LLC evolved, according to its website, from a company formed in 1946 that provided support and services to U.S. military aircraft and
weapons systems under Air Force contracts. Named DynCorp since 1987, it was
acquired in 2003 by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and now has nearly
14,000 employees in 30 countries. 24 Besides the WPPS contract, DynCorp also holds CRS-7 24 (...continued) was reviewed by the OSIGIR. Review of DynCorp International, LLC, Contract Number
S-LMAQM-04-C-0030, Task Order 0338, for the Iraqi Police Training Program Support.
SIGIR-06-029. DoS-OIG-AUD/IQO-07-20, January 30, 2007. According to this report, the
contract was awarded in February 2004, for a base year and four renewable one-year
options. Its potential value was $1.8 billion. 25 From the companys history posted on the Triple Canopy website at [http://www.triplecanopy.com]. 26 Telephone conversation of June 26, 2006. another State Department contract, under the Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement, to provide police training and related services in Iraq. Triple Canopy, Inc., founded in September 2003, bills its operational leadership as comprised of former operators from tier-one special operations units.... Its two
founders and co-chairman both served with the U.S. Army Special Forces, one with
Special Forces Delta Force unit. 25 The State Department provided information on the number of people performing under contracts with these companies, as well as related subcontracts, and identified
them by nationality group (i.e., U.S. citizen, Iraqi citizen, and other foreign
nationals). The numbers of those serving are only the DOSs prime contractors and
their subcontracts. It does not include private security personnel who have been hired
by DOS contractors providing other services, for instance, guards hired by a company
that has a contract to provide engineers. The U.S. Agency for International Development initially contracted Knoll, Inc. to provide security for its personnel, but now they receive protection under the State
Department contracts. USAID contractors hire their own security; a USAID official
stated that the organization has no accounting of the number of security companies
for personnel providing security to USAID contractors. 26 Table 1. Department of State Security Contractors in Iraq Company Number of
Americans Number of Iraqis Number of Third-Country Nationals Total Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contract</i>s 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 Local Guard Service Contract Triple Canopy 113 122 992 1, 227 Source: Department of State.
Notes: The information was provided in May 2007, from data collected May 9, 2007. It comes with
the warning that the actual numbers of employees working in Iraq vary widely on a daily basis due to
personnel rotations, medical evacuations, and R&R travel. CRS-8 27 These companies were identified and discussed in the May 28, 2004 edition of this report. They varied greatly in size and several offered a wide variety of security-related and other
services. Some were founded decades ago, some within the last few years. The companies
were: ArmorGroup, Blackwater Security Consulting (now Blackwater USA), Custer Battles,
Diligence LLC, Erinys Iraq, Global Risk Strategies, ISI Iraq, Special Operations Consulting-
Security Management Group (SOC-SMG), and The Steele Foundation. Sources consulted
for these profiles include company websites, where available, news articles, and government
sources cited in that edition of the report. 28 The U.S. Department of the Army was named the CPAs executive agent with the responsibility of executing contracts on behalf of the CPA, but it appeared that not all of
those contracts were issued by the Army. 29 Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). Audit Report: Compliance with Contract No. W911S0-C-0003 Awarded to Aegis Defense Services
Limited. Report Number 05-005. April 20, 2005. p. 1. The audit found several
deficiencies in the areas of personal security detail qualifications, regional operations
centers, and security escorts and movement control (p. 3), which the Aegis website states
had been corrected by the time the audit was issued [http://www.aegisworld.com/aegis-
faq.html]. 30 SIGIR, op.cit., p. 3. DOD PSC Contract Information from Secondary Sources. There is little public information at this point on DOD contracts for security services; it is not
even clear how many companies provide such services directly or indirectly under
DOD contracts. In 2004, CRS prepared a list of nine companies that public source
information, primarily press reports and websites, described as providing security
services to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, 27 which may have indicated the existence of a DOD contract. 28 A scan of the same sources this year yields much less information, with only four companies linked to recent and current DOD security
contracts or subcontracts. There is authoritative secondary information on only one company, Aegis Defense Services Limited, that directly provides security services under a DOD
contract. On May 25, 2004, DOD contracted Aegis Defence Services Limited, a
British firm, to provide a variety of security-related services, including intelligence
and protective services. According to an audit report prepared by the Office of the
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Aegis was contracted to provide
a comprehensive security management team that provides anti-terrorism support and
analysis, close personal protection, movement and escort security, and security
program management 29 throughout Iraq. Under the contract, Aegis is to continuously gather, interpret, and expeditiously disseminate information on the
security situation throughout Iraq... and to provide guidance and coordination for
the security planning and protection of the ten major prime reconstruction contractors
and their subcontractors. The contract also calls for Aegis to provide a range of
guard services to DOD Project and Contracting Office (PCO) personnel and offices,
as well as to PCO reconstruction contractor personnel. Such services include security
escort teams for travel to reconstruction sites, around-the-clock personal security
details for senior PCO management, and static guards for PCO facilities. 30 CRS-9 31 Ibid. 32 Alec Klein and Steve Fainaru. Firms Protest Exclusion From Iraq Security Bid. Washington Post. May 5, 2007. 33 FedSpending.org [http://www.fedspending.org] is a project of OMB Watch. It provides data in readily retrievable form that it obtains from the Federal Procurement Data System
(FPDS) Next Generation and other federal government sources through Eagle Eye
Publishers, Inc. 34 Washington Post. May 5, 2007. op. cit. 35 Erinys Iraq held a major contract to protect Iraqs oil fields, and trained Iraqis for that task. The contract reportedly was worth $39 million over two years. Also, according to its
website in 2004, Erinys Iraq had a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
provide nationwide personal security details and protective services. According to one
news account at the time, the company was a joint venture between Erinys International,
(founded in 2001 and cited by some sources as a South African company, by another as
British) and associates of Ahmad Calaba. (Financial Times, December 12, 2003. op.cit.) At
that time, the company employed a small number of former British special operations
personnel as managers and trainers, according to one source (telephone interview with
Patrick Culled, April 16, 2004), and some 14,000 Iraqis to guard the wells, according to a
variety of reports. 36 Washington Post. June 16, 2007. op.cit. The Aegis contract extended over a base year and two optional renewable years: the first year was valued at approximately $92 million, the second at $97 million, and
the third at $103 million, 31 for a potential total value of $292 million. The contract was to expire at the end of May 2007, but reportedly has been extended for up to six
months because of challenges to the process for a new contract to provide the same
intelligence and protective services. Aegis reportedly is bidding on the new contract,
valued up to $475 million, as are several other companies, including the two
challengers, Blackwater Security Consulting and Erinys Iraq. 32 FedSpending.org, a website operated by a nongovernmental organization 33 indicates that a third company, Erinys International, Iraq, held a DOD contract to
provide security services in Iraq during FY2006. A recent news article reports that
Erinys works side-by-side with Aegis in Baghdads Green Zone on similar but
separate contracts. 34 Erinys was one of the nine contractors CRS identified in 2004. 35 Triple Canopy, Inc. has been identified in the press as providing security services to a DOD contractor, KBR. This identification surfaced as a result of the
court case brought by two former Triple Canopy employees. ArmorGroup International, a British company founded some 25 years ago, was also identified in a recent news article as a U.S. government contractor. According
that article, ArmorGroup, with some 1,200 employees in Iraq, protects 32 percent
of all nonmilitary supply convoys and has lost some 26 employees in Iraq. 36 It is not clear from the article whether ArmorGroup operates as a contractor or subcontractor
for all of its work, but other information indicates it works as a subcontractor. CRS-10 37 ArmorGroup provided security services to the CPA. According to its website, ArmorGroup provides defensive, protective security services to national governments,
multinational corporations and international peace and security organisations operating in
hazardous environments. It currently has some 9,000 employees and long term
operations in 38 countries, [http://www/armorgroup.com]. A 2005 publication provides a
list of ArmorGroup clients, apparently for security guarding supply convoys and
humanitarian aid deliveries, at that time: UN agencies, the governments of the UK [United
Kingdom], US, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, and Canada, the EU [European Union], ECHO
[the European Commissions humanitarian aid department], USAID, the ICRC
[International Committee of the Red Cross], as well as a number of NGOs including the
International Rescue Committee, CARE, and Caritas. 38 Washington Post. June 16, 2007. op.cit. 39 Ibid. 40 Barry Yeoman, Need an Army? Just Pick Up the Phone [Op-Ed], New York Times, April 2, 2004. ArmorGroup is reportedly a leading contender for the Aegis contract now up for bids.
ArmorGroup was one of the nine contractors CRS identified in 2004. 37 The U.S. military plans to let three large security contracts valued at about $1.4 billion this year, according to a recent news report. One is the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers contract for up to $475 million in intelligence and protective services that
is currently under challenge, as discussed above. The others are (1) a contract to
protect U.S. bases in Iraq valued up to $480 million, and (2) a contract to protect
reconstruction convoys valued up to $450 million. 38 The news report also states that the Army has tested a plan to use private security on military convoys for the first
time, a shift that would significantly increase the presence of armed contractors on
Iraqs dangerous roads. 39 Sources of Controversy Public awareness of the extent to which private contractors were being used for security purposes was highlighted by the deaths on March 31, 2004, of four
Blackwater guards in Fallujah. The guards were three former Army Rangers and a
former Navy SEAL. They were killed while escorting trucks carrying supplies for a
private company that provided food services to U.S. military dining facilities in Iraq,
and their bodies were then dragged through the streets and hung for display. Days
later, Blackwater personnel again hit the news as they reportedly fought a prolonged
gun battle in Najaf on April 4, 2004, defending the U.S. government headquarters
there. These events sparked congressional debate over the role of private contractors
in U.S. military operations, the desirability of using such contractors, and the
appropriate legal and contractual framework to control them. Concerns over the quality of security personnel being hired under U.S. government contracts were triggered by news reports that possible human rights
violators were being hired. According to one source, in February 2004, Blackwater
started training former Chilean commandos some of whom served during the
Pinochet years in Chile for duty in Iraq. 40 Another news report at the time indicated that four guards killed in January while working for an Erinys subcontractor CRS-11 41 New York Times, April 19, 2004. op.cit.. 42 Tom Jackman. U.S. Contractor Fired on Iraqi Vehicles for Sport, Suit Alleges. Washington Post. November 17, 2006. 43 Washington Post. May 27, 2007, op.cit. 44 Conduct that violates international obligations is attributable to a State if it is committed by the government of the State or any of its political subdivisions, or by any official,
employee, or agent operating within the scope of authority of any of these governments, or
under color of such authority. A MERICAN L AW I NSTITUTE , R ESTATEMENT (T HIRD ) OF THE F OREIGN R ELATIONS L AW OF THE U NITED S TATES , Vol II (1987),

Comments