Executive Protection and OPSEC

Executive Protection (EP)

also known as Close Personal Protection or bodyguarding refers to security measures taken to ensure the safety of one individual who may be exposed to elevated personal risk because of their employment, celebrity status, wealth, associations or geographical location.

Protective measures should include 

• Home Security Systems
• Bodyguard Armored Vehicle and Vehicle Scramble Plans
• Mail Screening
• Private Travel
• Background Checks for other employees, and all of this on top of many other precautions. 
• Executive Protection may also provide security for immediate and/or extended family members to prevent Kidnapping and Extortion Protection.

A Protective Security Team Leader is solely responsible for the makeup of PSD Teams, advanced skill sets, body protection, walking drills, medical, communications, driving, control and command of SAP (Security Advance Party) drills, PES (Personal Escort Section) drills, CAT (Counter Assault Team) drills, writing and documenting Standard Operating Procedures, conducting site surveys, route recon's, IED's, vehicle/personnel searching, conducting Operational Orders groups.

Executive protection occasionally becomes an item of general public interest, usually when it fails.

With this said, It is imperitive for the Security Person to understand and praticeOperations Security (OPSEC).

Operations Security,simply put, is a process that identifies critical information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by adversary intelligence systems, determines if information obtained by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary exploitation of friendly critical information.

The Process:

• Identification of Critical Information: Identifying information needed by an adversary, which focuses the remainder of the OPSEC process on protecting vital information, rather than attempting to protect all classified or sensitive unclassified information.
• Analysis of Threats: the research and analysis of intelligence, counterintelligence, and open source information to identify likely adversaries to a planned operation.
• Analysis of Vulnerabilities: examining each aspect of the planned operation to identify OPSEC indicators that could reveal critical information and then comparing those indicators with the adversary’s intelligence collection capabilities identified in the previous action.
• Assessment of Risk: First, planners analyze the vulnerabilities identified in the previous action and identify possible OPSEC measures for each vulnerability. Second, specific OPSEC measures are selected for execution based upon a risk assessment done by the commander and staff.
• Application of Appropriate OPSEC Measures: The command implements the OPSEC measures selected in the assessment of risk action or, in the case of planned future operations and activities, includes the measures in specific OPSEC plans.

Blackwater Worldwide - now Xe Services LLC

Xe Services LLC  is a private military company founded as Blackwater USA in 1997 by Erik Prince and Al Clark. The company has a wide array of business divisions, subsidiaries, and spin-off corporations.
In October 2007, Blackwater USA was renamed Blackwater Worldwide. It announced on February 13, 2009 that it would operate under the new name "Xe." In a memo sent to employees, President Gary Jackson wrote that the new name "reflects the change in company focus away from the business of providing private security."


Xe Services LLC consists of nine business units:

]United States Training Center

United States Training Center (USTC, formerly Blackwater Training Center) offers tactics and weapons training to military, government, and law enforcement agencies. USTC also offers several open-enrollment courses periodically throughout the year, from hand to hand combat (executive course) to precision rifle marksmanship. They also offer courses in tactical and off-road driving.

USTC's primary training facility, located on 7,000 acres (28 km²) in northeastern North Carolina, comprises several ranges, indoor, outdoor, urban reproductions, a man-made lake, and a driving track in Camden and Currituck counties. Company literature says that it is the largest training facility in the country. In November 2006 Blackwater USA announced it acquired an 80-acre (30 ha) facility 150 miles (240 km) west of Chicago, in Mount Carroll, Illinois to be called Blackwater North. That facility has been operational since April 2007 and serves law enforcement agencies throughout the Midwest.

Blackwater Target Systems

This division provides and maintains target range steel targets and a "shoothouse" system.^]

Blackwater MD-530F over Republican Palace, Baghdad

Blackwater Security Consulting

Blackwater Security Consulting (BSC) was formed in 2001, and based in Moyock, North Carolina. BSC is one of the private security firms employed during the Iraq War to guard officials and installations, train Iraq's new Army and Police, and provide other support for Coalition Forces.

Its primary public contract is from the U.S. State Department under the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Worldwide Personal Protective Services (WPPS) and WPPS II umbrella contracts, along with DynCorp International and Triple Canopy Inc. for protective services in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Israel. Blackwater's responsibilities include the United States embassy in Iraq.

Blackwater Security is also now pursuing domestic work as disaster relief workers, following their Katrina response. Blackwater officials have met with Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss earthquake response services.

Blackwater K-9

Training canines to work in patrol capacities as war dogs, explosives and drug detection, and various other roles for military and law enforcement duties.

Blackwater Airships, LLC

Blackwater Airships LLC was established in January 2006, to build a remotely piloted airship vehicle (RPAV). 

Blackwater armored vehicle

Blackwater recently introduced its own armored personnel carrier, the Grizzly APC.

Blackwater Maritime Solutions

Blackwater Maritime Security Services offers tactical training for maritime force protection units. In the past it has trained Greek security forces for the 2004 Olympics, Azerbaijan Naval Sea Commandos, and Afghanistan's Ministry of Interior. Blackwater's facilities include a manmade lake, with stacked containers simulating the hull and deck of a ship for maritime assaults. Blackwater received a contract to train United States Navy sailors following the attack on the USS Cole.

It also purchased a 183-foot (56 m) vessel, McArthur, which has been outfitted for disaster response and training. According to Blackwater USA, it features "state of the art navigation systems, full GMDSS communications, SEATEL Broadband, dedicated command and control bays, helicopter decks, hospital and multiple support vessel capabilities." McArthur was built in 1966 by the Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Company and served as the survey ship USC&GS McArthur (MSS 22) for the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey from 1966 to 1970 and as NOAAS McArthur (S 330)for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 1970 until her decommissioning in 2003. The ship is home-ported in Norfolk, Virginia.

Raven Development Group

The Raven Development Group is a construction management and management subsidiary. It was established in 1999 to design and build Blackwater Worldwide's training facility in North Carolina.

Aviation Worldwide Services

Aviation Worldwide Services (AWS) was founded by Richard Pere and Tim Childrey, and is based at Melbourne, Florida, USA. It owns and operates three subsidiaries: STI Aviation, Inc. Air Quest, Inc. and Presidential Airways, Inc. In April 2003 it was acquired by Blackwater USA.

AWS CASA C-212 Aviocar in Afghanistan.

Presidential Airways (PAW) is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 135 charter cargo and passenger airline based at Melbourne International Airport. It operates aircraft owned by AWS. Presidential Airways holds a Secret Facility Clearance from the U.S. Department of Defense. It operates several CASA 212 aircraft in addition to a Boeing 767. Several of the MD-530 helicopters used by Blackwater Security Consulting in Iraq are also operated through AWS.

Blackwater also operates an airport at its Moyock, North Carolina facility, called Blackwater Airstrip Airport (NC61). 

In late September 2007, Presidential Airways received a $92m contract from the Department of Defense for air transportation in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. 

Many of Blackwater's tactical and training aircraft are registered to Blackwater affiliate EP Aviation LLC, named for Blackwater's owner, Erik Prince. These aircraft include fourteen Bell 412 helicopters, three Hughes/MD 369 "Little Bird" helicopters and four Bell 214ST medium-lift helicopters. 

Aviation Worldwide Services was purchased for $200 million in 2010 by AAR Corp., an Illinois company. In a letter released on February 8, 2011, the new owners informed state officials that they are shutting down the Moyock, North Carolina, operation and moving some employees to a new business location in Melbourne, Florida. Some 260 staff are affected with about 50 losing their jobs, beginning at the end of February. The company views the aviation division as a growth opportunity. 

Greystone Limited

A private security service, Greystone is registered in Barbados, and employs third country nationals for offshore security work through its affiliate Satelles Solutions, Inc. Their web site advertises their ability to provide "personnel from the best militaries throughout the world" for worldwide deployment. Tasks can be from very small scale up major operations to "facilitate large scale stability operations requiring large numbers of people to assist in securing a region".

Security Industry Authority Licensing

SIA Licensing

One of the main duties of the SIA is the compulsory licensing of individuals working in specific sectors of the private security industry.

Whether or not an individual requires a licence is determined by the role that is performed and the activity that is undertaken. These are described fully in Section 3 and Schedule 2 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (as amended). It is a criminal offence to engage in licensable conduct without a licence: if found guilty, the maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

Licensable Activities (Sectors)

The activities defined as licensable by the Act are:

• Manned guarding, which includes:
  • Cash and Valuables in Transit
  • Close Protection
  • Door Supervision
  • Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
  • Security Guard
• Immobilisation, restriction and removal of vehicles
• Key Holding

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (as amended) allows for SIA licensing of private investigation activities, security consultants and precognition agents. However, the SIA does not currently license these activities.

Types of SIA Licence

There are two types of SIA licence:

• A front line licence is required if undertaking licensable activity, other than key holding activities (this also covers undertaking non-front line activity). A front line licence is in the form of a credit card-sized plastic card that must be worn, subject to the licence conditions.
• A non-front line licence is required for those who manage, supervise and/or employ individuals who engage in licensable activity, as long as front line activity is not carried out - this includes directors or partners. A non-front line licence is issued in the form of a letter that also covers key holding activities.

Licence Application Fee

The licence application fee is £245 for a three year licence, except for front line vehicle immobiliser licences where the fee is £245 for a one year licence. The fee is to cover the cost of processing the application and is not refundable. Individuals paying their own licence fee can claim tax relief against their taxable income. For employers paying the licence fee on behalf of an employee there is no tax or National Insurance liability.

Multiple Licences and Licence Integration

Some people may need more than one licence; in such cases the additional licence(s) will be discounted by 50%.

In some cases, the SIA is satisfied that the licensing criteria to be met for one licensable activity are sufficient to allow a licensed individual to carry out other licensable activities. 

In-house Guarding

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 does not require manned guards employed in-house to be licensed unless their activities are in relation to licensed premises.

The SIA was charged by Parliament to investigate the implications of extending the legislation to cover in-house manned guards once licensing of the private security industry had been in force for three to four years. In order to meet this obligation the SIA consulted widely through a range of mechanisms.

Its assessment of the evidence took into account that regulation should only be targeted where action was needed; that regulation should only intervene where there is a clear case for public protection, and any proposal for further regulation should be proportionate and follow a risk-based approach.

Its conclusion is that there is no clearly defined or substantiated risk to public protection to be addressed and that it is unable to make a case which would justify extending its remit to include the licensing of in-house guards.

The SIA has committed to reviewing the situation again in the 2012-2013 financial year.

Licence-linked Qualifications

Individuals applying for a front line SIA licence must prove that they are properly qualified to do their job. If they don’t hold one of the SIA-endorsed qualifications then their licence application will be refused.

The licence-linked qualifications are intended for individuals entering the private security industry. Their purpose is to ensure that the individual is capable of performing their duties in a manner that will not cause harm to themselves or any member of the public. The qualifications are meant to address the core areas of the role; they are not intended to cover all of the training that an operative could possibly have.

The SIA does not run training courses or award qualifications; it also does not approve or vet training providers. The SIA specifies the knowledge and skills that a licence holder needs to know and be able to do, and these specifications form the basis of the qualifications linked to SIA licensing.

The SIA has endorsed certain awarding bodies to offer these qualifications and approve training providers. As of September 2010, these awarding bodies are: British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body (BIIAB); Buckinghamshire New University; City & Guilds; Edexcel; EDI; HABC; NOCN; SQA.

In January 2008, Panorama carried out an undercover investigation in to the training that candidates were undertaking to obtain their SIA licences. This revealed that mobile phone use and open talking in exams was common practice during the training course and examination that the reporter took.

Training malpractice such as this is a matter for the various UK Qualification Regulatory Authorities. Training malpractice can be defined as any deliberate activity, neglect, default or other practice that compromises the integrity of the assessment process and / or the validity of certificates.

Confirmed cases of training malpractice may result in:

• the relevant awarding body or bodies removing the training centre's approval
• the SIA revoking the licences of those licence holders who benefitted from the malpractice.

Approved Contractor Scheme

One of the main duties of the SIA is to manage the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS), a voluntary quality assurance scheme that measures private security suppliers against independently assessed operational and performance standards. Organisations that meet these standards are awarded 'Approved Contractor' status. As of June 2010, the total number of approved contractors was 672.

The ACS is based upon widely recognised business improvement models: ISO9001 and the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model. The Scheme also references the British Standard codes of practice applicable to the private security industry and conformance to the relevant codes is built into the ACS requirements.

Companies applying to the scheme are assessed against 89 individual indicators of achievement. The SIA does not normally assess contractors directly, though it may do so in exceptional circumstances. The usual practice is for assessment by one of the SIA's appointed assessing bodies. As of August 2010, these UKAS-accredited assessing bodies are: BSI; Chamber Certification Assessment Services Ltd; NSI (prop. Insight Certification Ltd); ISOQAR; SSAIB.

SIA approval is only available for the activities of an organisation that are regulated under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Approval is sector-specific, so a company offering two different kinds of private security services may be approved in one but not the other. To maintain approval an approved contractor must re-register every year and renew approval every three years. This process means that approved contractors are independently assessed on an annual basis.

ACS Fees

The fees charged by the SIA relate to:

1. Pre-approval. The application fee, payable for processing of the application including initial eligibility checks. The application fee is non-refundable once the processing of the application has begun.
2. Post-approval. The annual registration fee, payable on approval to cover the operational costs of the scheme. This fee is payable each year that approved status is maintained.

Size of Organisation	Licensable Employees	Application Fee	Annual Registration Fee
Micro	Up to 10	£400	£17 per licensable employee
Small	11 to 25	£800
Medium	26 to 250	£1,600
Large	Over 250	£2,400

Other fees payable that are relevant to approval but are not levied by the SIA are:

• Fees paid to assessing bodies to assess whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval
• Fees paid to assessing bodies for relevant accreditations used to support Passport applications

Falsely Claiming Approval

Claiming to be an approved contractor when this is not the case is an offence under section 16 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. A section 16 offence includes use of the Approved Contractor Scheme accreditation mark or the use of language that may suggest approval or endorsement, such as "SIA registered" or "SIA member". The penalties for committing an offence under Section 16 are:

• Upon summary conviction at a Magistrate's Court, Sheriff Court or District Court, a fine of up to £5,000.
• Upon conviction on indictment at Crown Court, High Court of Justiciary or Sheriff and jury trial, an unlimited fine.

Security Industry Authority Discusses New Regulations

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is the organisation responsible for regulating the private security industry in the UK. It is a non-departmental public body reporting to the Home Secretary and was established in 2003 under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

The SIA has two main duties. One is the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities within the private security industry; the other is to manage a voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme, which measures private security suppliers against independently assessed criteria.

On 14 October 2010 the UK Government's Cabinet Office made an announcement on the future of many public bodies. Its intention for the SIA was stated as: 'Security Industry Authority - No Longer an NDPB - Phased transition to new regulatory regime'. The exact nature of this new regulatory regime is yet to be determined. In the meantime the existing regulatory regime remains in place and existing laws will continue to be enforced.

29 October 2010

The SIA has been asked by ministers to work with the private security industry and key stakeholders to lead the phased transition to the new regulatory regime announced by Government.

An initial meeting took place yesterday, calling together a number of industry representatives and stakeholders. During this session, the SIA's initial framework for phased transition, reflecting the proposals first set out by Ruth Henig in June this year, was discussed. James Kelly gave an industry view from the Security Alliance.

A framework for the future and a delivery plan will be developed with industry and other stakeholders in the coming months, for presentation to ministers early next year. A further stakeholder meeting will be held in the New Year.

SIA chief executive Bill Butler said:

"Currently, the existing regulatory regime - licensing and the Approved Contractor Scheme, remain in place and existing laws will continue to be enforced. All individuals undertaking licensable activity must ensure they have the required SIA licence.

Work and planning will be underway immediately, but it is not expected that any significant changes will take place before the Olympics in 2012. The phased transition to the new regime will then take place. Subject to agreement, the transition could then be completed by 2014. Any changes will be implemented so as not to disrupt the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014.

There is now much to be done, and the next step will be for the SIA to establish initial arrangements to work with the industry and stakeholders, including the devolved governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland."

Following the meeting, SIA chairman Ruth Henig said:

"We welcome the efforts made so far by the industry to inform the debate and to come together with the SIA to develop and ensure a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime."

Notes to Editors:

• On 14 October the Cabinet Office made an announcement on the future of public bodies following its review. Its intention for the SIA was stated as: 'Security Industry Authority - No Longer an NDPB - Phased transition to new regulatory regime'.
• The governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland wish to ensure that regulation of the private security industry continues in their countries. How this will work will be a policy decision for the devolved administrations.
• The Security Alliance is an industry group formed after the announcement of plans for a transition to a new regulatory regime. James Kelly is chief executive of the BSIA and spoke on behalf of the Security Alliance.
• The Security Industry Authority regulates the private security industry in the United Kingdom under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, reporting to the Home Secretary. Its main duties are: the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities; managing the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme approving private security suppliers.
• We are committed to the Regulators' Compliance Code, a statutory code of practice for regulators that promotes a risk-based, proportionate and targeted approach.

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/about-news.aspx?newsid=245

Koevoet - Unsung Heroes...

Koevoet, meaning "crowbar" in Afrikaans , also known as "Operation K" and officially known as the "South West Africa Police Counter-Insurgency Unit" (SWAPOL-COIN), was a police counter insurgency unit in South-West Africa, now Namibia,  during the 1970s and 1980s. ("Crowbar" was an allusion to their mission of prying insurgents from the local population).

They were the most effective unit deployed against SWAPO fighters (seeking Namibian independence from South Africa), and were accused by them of brutal and indiscriminate use of force.

Koevoet was a +-1000-man force consisting of about 900 Ovambo and about 300 white officers and white SAP (South African Police), non-commissioned officers (NCOs). It was organized into 40 to 50 man platoons equipped with mine-resistant wheeled armored personnel carriers of the types Hippo, and later Casspir and Wolf (including one, Zulu Alpha One, informally armed with a 20 mm cannon), a Duiker mine-protected fuel truck and a Blesbok mine-protected supply truck. They rotated one week in the bush for one week at camp.

There were three units based in Kaokaland, Kavango, and Ovambo with each unit controlling several platoons.

It was the 1978 brainchild of then Colonel Hans Dreyer (later a Major-General in the SAP) to develop and exploit intelligence and was based on the Portuguese Flechas and the Rhodesian Selous Scouts. Koevoet was based in Oshakati and suffered 153 killed in action and several hundred more wounded. They killed more than 3,681 SWAPO insurgents which resulted in a 1:25 or one to 25 kill ratio.

Koevoet learnt many of its techniques, especially training and vehicle patrolling, in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.This came about because Col Hans Dreyer kept a team of "training observers " right up to 1980, based at the Chikarubi Barracks of the BSAP/ZRP Support Unit. The Support Unit were known as the "Blackboots" due to their distinctive black footwear (other police units all wore brown boots and shoes). Koevoet therefore became known by association as the "Green boots". Training and discipline at the BSAP Support Unit was harsh. Observers were frequently shocked at how recruits — black and white — were treated by the BSAP Support Unit training team. The pass rate was about 30–50 percent, but incorporated a lot of junior leader incentive training. First phase in training patrol officers usually lasted about 11 weeks, longer than the Rhodesian Light Infantry, which was only 6 weeks long. On leaving Zimbabwe in 1980, Koevoet offered positions to any Support Unit details who wished to change over to them, such was the high esteem they had for the "Blackboots".

Training

The white officers were either South-West African or South-African police officers and, as often as not, untrained for what were effectively military operations. Accordingly, these officers were usually sent for additional training with South African Special Forces Brigade in bushcraft, tracking and small arms handling and tactics.

The Ovambo and Bushman trackers were rated as Special Constables, who essentially underwent intensive basic infantry training although many were captured and "turned" SWAPO fighters that had already received training elsewhere.

From a Koevoet Operators perspective, Special Constables were "TIN" or "COIN" ("Teen Insurgensie" in Afrikaans) or in English " Counter Insurgency", and Koevoet Operators (local) were KOEVOETE (meaning plural of Koevoet) and were "a cut above the rest (of Special Constables)" because they had been accepted - Not just anyone could be accepted in a Koevoet fighting team!. The trackers of the unit in the early days were local Owambu and not Bushmen as often claimed. Operations were conducted with the bushman and paratrooper "bat" units with success. The Owambu, although accepting the skills of the bushmen, were in close competition and were in "actual" tracking and not just knowledgeable of the habits of the "tracked' equal.

Tactics

Koevoet operations were devoted to tracking groups of SWAPO fighters who were on foot. Their tracks were picked up in various ways, but most often from:

• Patrols of areas favoured for crossing by SWAPO fighters.
• Information from local inhabitants.
• From areas surrounding a recent attack.

Once a suspicious track was found, a vehicle would leap-frog ahead a few kilometres to check for the same tracks, and once found, the other vehicles would race up to join them. Using this technique they could make quickly catch up with the guerillas who were travelling on foot. The technique borrows strongly from experience gained during the Rhodesian Bush War.

The trackers were so skilled at their art that they could provide very accurate estimates on the distance to the enemy, the speed at which they were travelling and their states of mind. They were able to do this by "reading" factors such as abandoned equipment, changes from walking to running speed, reduced attempts at anti-tracking or splintering into smaller groups taking different directions ("bomb shelling").

Once the trackers sensed that the SWAPO fighters were close, they would often retreat to the safety of the Casspir armoured personnel carriers to face an enemy typically armed with RPG-7 rocket launchers, rifle grenades, AK-47s, SKS carbines and RPK and PKM machine guns.

Koevoet members were financially rewarded through a bounty system, which paid them for kills, prisoners and equipment they captured. This practice allowed many of the members to earn significantly more than their normal salary, and resulted in competition between units.

In October 1989, Koevoet was disbanded so that SWAPO could not accuse South Africa of influencing the election. Its members incorporated nationwide into the South West African Police (SWAPOL). Its former members conducted many operations in support of or with the South-West Africa Territorial Force.

Executive Outcomes - The Legend

Executive Outcomes was a private military company founded in South Africa by former Lieutenant-Colonel of the South African Defence Force, Eeben Barlow in 1989. It later became part of the South African-based holding company Strategic Resource Corporation.

Executive Outcomes (EO) provided military personnel, training and logistical support to officially recognized governments only. Where assistance was given to corporations in conflict areas, EO had the host government’s approval to provide such assistance.

Background

In 1989, following the conclusion of South African Border Wars in Angola and Namibia, the apartheid regime in South Africa was beginning to dissolve. The South African Defence Force was looking at broad cuts in its personnel. African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela demanded that then South African President Frederik Willem de Klerk dismantle some of the South African and South-West African Special Forces units such as 32 Battalion and Koevoet. One of these was the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), a unit that carried out covert operations which included assassinations of government opponents, and worked to bypass the United Nations apartheid sanctions by setting up overseas front companies.

Only Koevoet — being part of the South West African Police (SWAPOL) — was disbanded as part of independence negotiations for South-West Africa (now Namibia). Many members of the other units, or simply former national servicemen, were recruited by Executive Outcomes (EO).

]Formation

Eeben Barlow, formerly in charge of the Western European section of the CCB, established Executive Outcomes (EO) in 1989. Its aim was to provide specialised covert training to Special Forces members. Barlow was also awarded a contract by Debswana to train a selected group of security officers to infiltrate and penetrate the illegal diamond dealing syndicates in Botswana. When Debswana discovered EO was training the Angolan Armed Forces (FAA), it promptly cancelled EO’s contact.

Many of Barlow’s Special Forces students would later join him at EO after he started recruiting men to assist with the training of the Angolan forces, according to Walter Halicki, one of Eeben's associates in the FAA.

The company also went on to recruit many of its personnel from the units President F. W. De Klerk disbanded. Within a short period, EO could boast of having 500 military advisers and over 3000 highly-trained military personnel at its disposal. Although EO was approached by many foreign soldiers for work, it only recruited men from South Africa who had either served in the SADF, Koevoet or the ANC’s armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK).

Barlow registered Executive Outcomes Ltd in the UK on the insistence of the South African Reserve Bank.

]Activities

Executive Outcomes initially trained and later fought on behalf of the Angolan government against UNITA after UNITA refused to accept the election results in 1992. This contract was awarded to the company after EO had assisted Ranger Oil with an equipment recovery operation in the harbour town of Soyo. Dubbed by the South African media as an attempt to assassinate the rebel leader Dr.Jonas Savimbi, EO found itself under constant UNITA attacks where it lost three of its men. This action saw EO as being recognised by the FAA and a contract to train its forces was duly awarded. In a short space of time, UNITA was defeated on the battlefield and sued for peace. The Angolan government, under pressure from the UN and the USA, were forced to terminate EO’s contract. EO was replaced by the UN’s peacekeeping force known as UNAVEM. Angola returned to war shortly thereafter.

In March 1995, the company contained an insurrection of guerrillas known as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, regained control of the diamond fields, and forced a negotiated peace. In both these instances they are credited with rescuing the legitimate government in both countries from destabilizing forces. In the case of Angola this led to a cease fire and the Lusaka Protocol, which ended the Angolan civil war — albeit only for a few years. As is characteristic of one of the first Private Military Companies (PMCs), Executive Outcomes was directly involved militarily in Angola and Sierra Leone. The company was notable in its ability to provide all aspects of a highly-trained modern army to the less professional government forces of Sierra Leone and Angola. For instance, in Sierra Leone, Executive Outcomes fielded not only professional fighting men, but armor and support aircraft such as two Mi-24 Hind and two Mi-8 Hip helicopters, the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle and T-72 main battle tank. It also possessed medevac capabilities for the wounded to airlift out of combat zones via Boeing 707 aircraft. These were bought from sources in the worldwide arms trade within Africa as well as Eastern Europe. Executive Outcomes had contracts with multinational corporations such as De Beers, Chevron, JFPI Corporation, Rio Tinto Zinc and Texaco. The governments of Angola, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia were also clients.

]Key personnel

Apart from Eeben Barlow, other senior Executive Outcomes personnel were Lafras Luitingh and Nic van der Bergh.

]Dissolution

EO actively encouraged the SA government to enforce a regulation of PMCs as several South African and international companies were masquerading for work under the banner of Executive Outcomes. Additionally, EO was actively engaged in providing input into the formulation of the bill which became known as “Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act” in 1998.

EO was duly provided with a license stipulating that it met the requirements of the newly introduced Act.

Executive Outcomes was dissolved on 31 December 1998.

The aim of the Act was to stop mercenary activities by the dual actions of:

1. preventing direct participation as a combatant in armed conflict for private gain including the training, recruitment and use of mercenaries; and,
2. requiring approval of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee for offering of military assistance overseas.

Many of the company’s members went on to seek employment with other PMCs and PSCs such as Lifeguard, Sandline and Saracen. Despite numerous allegations in the media, these companies were never proven to be a reconstituted Executive Outcomes.

  






























































































































]