Frontline
April 17, 2004

Colleagues,

In Al Kut, the Private Security Company personnel guarding the
CPA Headquarters (5 X Triple Canopy and 8 X Control Risks
Group) prevented a strategic defeat for the coalition by
holding off Anti-Coalition Forces attempting to overrun the
compound. Had it not been for the actions of those operators,
subsequent to the self-withdrawal of the Ukrainian force,
today and every day since 5 April (when the action occurred),
the entire focus of everyone inside the beltway and here
inside the Palace would have been on the dead and kidnapped
CPA personnel, and "Oh my gawd, what are we going to do now?"
.
The difference between mercenaries and the Private Security
Companies operating in support of Coalition objectives is the
difference between offensive operations and defensive
operations. Every action that the PSCs have been involved in
has been defensive in nature. In conducting defensive support
operations, as had occurred in Al Kut and elsewhere, the PSCs
should be able to count of increasedfirepower, as needed. Hope
is not a basis for sound planning. Expecting a Coalition Quick
Reaction Force to respond in a timely manner is similarly not
a sound basis for planning. These men (and some women) are
paid well, true, but they are not being paid to die. To tie
their hands by allowingsmall caliber weapons only, when the
enemy has no such restriction on their weaponry, is wrong and
must be changed. The Private Security Companies have operated
with high degrees of professionalism, integrity and
patriotism. They understand clearly why the Coalition is here
and are prepared to do their part to ensure success of this
noble endeavor. It is incumbent upon us in the CPA to ensure
the Private Security Companies have the means necessary to
carry out their professional responsibilities. To do less
would be immoral.

All the best,

Lawrence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4903701-103550,00.html

Private security firms call for more firepower in combat zone
Coalition forces do little to help as bodyguards protecting
foreign workers are targeted by deadly insurgents

Jamie Wilson
Saturday April 17, 2004
The Guardian

Private military companies guarding foreign contractors in
Iraq are demanding the right to carry more powerful weapons
after the deaths of a number of bodyguards during a series of
major battles with Iraqi insurgents.

At least six former special forces soldiers have been killed
in Iraq since the beginning of the month, and there has been
mounting concern within the industry that coalition forces
have been unable or unwilling to come to their aid when they
have been under fire.

The proposed move is likely to add to concerns about the
accountability and regulation of private military companies in
Iraq as well as illustrating the "grey zone" between their
formal role as bodyguards and the realities of operating
during an insurgency, when the whole country can become a
combat zone.

The Guardian has obtained details of a firefight in the town
of Kut, 100 miles south-east of Baghdad, between Iraqi
insurgents and five security personnel of the Hart Group, a
Bermuda-registered security consultancy run by former SAS and
Scots Guards officer Richard Bethell, the son of Lord
Westbury.

Gray Branfield, a South African, was killed during the battle
after coalition forces from Ukraine failed to respond to
repeated pleas for assistance from the small group of besieged
guards.

Under an agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) private security guards are only allowed to carry small
personal protection weapons. But a source at Hart Group told
the Guardian this week that discussions were under way with
the authorities governing Iraq to allow bodyguards to increase
their firepower.

"All of the security companies assumed that if you got into a
tight corner they would come and help you out," the source
said. "I cannot really answer for other security companies,
but there is a feeling among many that we should be asking
some questions and if we are not going to be supported then we
need to be able to carry heavier weaponry."

There are an estimated 15,000 private bodyguards operating
inside Iraq, of which about 6,000 are armed, making them the
second biggest contributor to coalition forces after the
Pentagon. The number is set to increase even further after the
proposed handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi administration on
June 30.

It is estimated that Iraq has boosted the revenues of British
military companies from £200m before the war to more than
£1bn, making security Britain's most lucrative postwar export
to the country.

Ex-SAS and other special forces veterans are charging up to
£1,000 a day, far more than any soldier, often for similar
work.

The incident which led to the demand for more firepower began
at 6pm on April 6 in the house where the five Hart Group
bodyguards were living in Kut. The men were attacked by a
large group, believed to be followers of the Shia cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr. Desperate calls were made to the local
coalition forces. A Ukrainian unit finally answered and
promised assistance. It never came. Coalition forces in
Baghdad were also contacted and a rescue attempt was promised,
but again it never came.

The house's defences were breached and the five bodyguards
retreated to the roof. The Iraqis fatally wounded Mr Branfield
but the four surviving men continued to defend the roof
against small arms and grenade attack for more than six hours.
During this time there were at least six promises that a
rescue mission was on its way. As dawn broke the four
surviving members of the team managed to escape.

Evacuation

It later emerged that the Ukrainian unit evacuated the nearby
CPA headquarters during the night without informing the four
men or attempting to assist them.

The battle in Kut was not an isolated incident. Last week Mike
Bloss, a former paratrooper who served in Northern Ireland,
was killed in a gunfight near the town of Hit, 100 miles west
of Baghdad, while trying to protect civilian contractors.
According to the Hart Group there has been an increase in
exchanges of information and there has even been talk of
"clubbing together" to help each other out.

But not every private security company wants to see the rules
of engagement changed. "Our job is to move people around Iraq
as quickly and safely as possible and our role is to make sure
that we don't get ourselves or our clients into those
situations," said a source at one of the bigger British
security companies, speaking on condition on anonymity. "We
are not sending soldiers to fight in battles, we are sending
civilians to provide a service for civilians. There needs to
be a clear delineation between security consultants and the
military, so the answer is not being allowed to carry bigger
weaponry."

But the line between private military companies and combat
units is becoming increasingly blurred. This was starkly
illustrated during a siege of the CPA headquarters in Najaf
last week involving the US company Blackwater Security
Consulting,which also employed the four men killed, burned and
mutilated in Falluja earlier this month.

The Blackwater guards, who are contracted to provide security
for the CPA building in the holy city, came under sustained
rocket-propelled grenade attack and AK-47 fire. A sniper on a
nearby roof apparently wounded three of them.
The commandos fired back, killing an unknown number of Iraqis.
But there were no military reports about the opening hours of
the siege because officially there were no military personnel.

"It is a real grey area what role we are going to allow them
to fill," said Michael Donovan, of the Centre for Defence
Information in Washington. "It is one thing having them to
guard Karzai [the president of Afghanistan] but quite another
to have them fighting battles for you."