Naval Attaché Report Source

Inter-American Defense College (aka) Collegium InterAmericanum Defensionis

Naval Attaché Report Source
by, Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex I - Staff Writer
October 25, 2008 15:39:22 EST ( UPDATED )
This report pertains to information contained within two (2) reports earlier published, on:
1.) March 13, 2003 by the Offshore Informant website author Paul Collin; and,
2.) April 15, 2004 by Canada Armed Forces Naval Commander Lieutenant Colonel David Glenn MacDougall.
Few have heard of the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ), let alone understand the role it plays throughout the Americas. The Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) is the oldest collective security organization in the world, dating back to 1942, which sprang from southern hemisphere concerns surrounding Nazi occupied Germany and fascist run Italy.
After World War II, the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) was placed under the Organization of American States ( OAS ) umbrella, however today the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) is the ‘parent’ organization for both the Organization of American States ( OAS ) and Inter-American Defense College ( IADC ) also known as the Collegium Interamericanum Defensionis ( CID ) defined as the ‘supervisory defense trust group within the Americas’.
In 2001 the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) - comprised of 23 member nations - operated from the grounds of the U.S. Army military complex at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C. and although it ‘claimed’ it was “not a U.S. government agency,” the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) ‘did claim’, that it is:
1.) “Funded by the U.S. Government” based on its $12,000,000 (USD) 2001 budget report having received $10,000,000 (USD) from the U.S. government plus $2,000,000.00 (USD) million from Organization of American States ( OAS ) member countries; and,
2.) “Not charged for use of the U.S. Army military complex facilities at Fort Lesley J. McNair ( Washington, D.C., USA ), not charged for use of other U.S. government facilities, and not charged for U.S. Air Force military transportation.”; and,
3.) An “international organization chartered by the U.S. Congress.”
On April 15, 2004 Canada Armed Forces Naval Commander Lieutenant Colonel David Glenn MacDougall submitted his investigative report on “Defense and Hemispheric Security Studies” to the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) in order to receive his “Superior Class” ( Class 43 ) diploma from the Inter-American Defense College (aka) Collegium Interamericanum Defensionis” ( CID ), a ‘supervisory defense trust group within the Americas’.
Although the Inter-American Defense College (aka) Collegium Interamericanum Defensionis” ( CID ) is for the higher learning of the ‘supervisory defense trust group within the Americas’, it ‘avows authority over approving all report submissions from all students in-attendance at its school’, nevertheless it then ‘certifies disavowment of all student reports’ it categorizes as only ‘opinions’ but not those of the Inter-American Defense College (aka) Collegium Interamericanum Defensionis” ( CID ).
Commander MacDougall submitted his investigative report dated April 15, 2004 that eventually surfaced 1-year later on May 20, 2005 at the Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) internet website for the first time within its Inter-American Defense College ( IADC ) Library of reports submitted by students between 2003 through 2004 that held an academic agreement with the U. S. National Defense University ( NDU ) for servicing its students, faculty, and staff.
Within the Canada Armed Forces Naval Commander Lieutenant Colonel David Glenn MacDougall Class 43 report of April 15, 2004 quotes and references of his research sources saw one in-particular chosen by him from the internet website known as the “Offshore Informant” published 1-year earlier on March 13, 2003, 60-days ‘before’ Lt. Col. David G. MacDougall used it to submit in his report. In January 2004 the Offshore Informant website was mysteriously dismantled, along with its published report that Colonel David MacDougall used shortly afterward.
Commander MacDougall was listed by the U.S. Department of State as the Naval Attaché stationed at the Canada Embassy Chancery office [ 501 Pennsylvania Avenue, North West, Washington, D.C. 20001, USA, TEL: +1 (202) 682-1740, FAX: +1 (202) 682-7726 ].
Pertinent excerpts, for the purposes of this report, are seen ( below ) within the Commander MacDougall report, as follows:
APRIL 15, 2004
Commander David Glenn Macdougall
Canada Armed Forces
( CID )
The privatization of security and defense capability, historically the exclusive domain of state military actors, has become a viable and actively growing industry. These Private Military Corporations, or PMCs, have entered the mainstream of the global economy, being able to hold their own in terms of size and revenue with many of the world’s multinational corporations. How the Private Military Industry ( PMI ), as it is generally termed, is achieving this preeminence is based on the fact that it is, first and foremost, meeting a strong demand for its services. Secondly, but just as important, is that the PMI is fulfilling its obligations to its clients in a highly effective and efficient manner.
This paper examines the origins and current status of PMCs, analyzes their strengths and weaknesses, and, most importantly, looks at potential roles for the PMC in Hemispheric defense and security. In particular, this monograph addresses the various ways in which PMCs might be used to support specific governmental needs for security and defense in the Southern part of the Hemisphere. To that end, specific security and defense issues in Colombia are discussed in order to illustrate just one way in which PMCs might be employed by or for that country or, in fact, any other state in a similar situation.
Private Military Companies ( PMC ) are both a relatively new phenomenon and yet a natural evolution of the oldest of military professions: the mercenary. In contrast, however, the numerous corporate members of the Private Military Industry ( PMI ) would strongly disavow any association with mercenaries as they strive to polish and present a public image of thoroughly professional and ethical corporate entities. They acutely want to distance themselves from the lawless and unprofessional mercenary armies of the mid 20th century. In most respects, PMCs have indeed been highly successful in transforming their collective image.
The rise of the Private Military Industry ( PMI ) is attributable to many factors. The end of the Cold War saw the downsizing of most military establishments, releasing a veritable flood of newly retired and unemployed ex-soldiers, sailors and airmen onto the job market. Privatization of many military functions has also been embraced by many governments as a cost saving measure. In the case of the United States, outsourcing has allowed the Pentagon to provide a substantive and important pseudo-military presence in such war zones as Bosnia, Colombia and, most recently, Iraq at times when manpower shortages, budgetary constraints and political pressure limits or prevents the deployment of active duty personnel. Given these factors, it is only natural that the PMI would see such dramatic growth.
The use of Private Military Companies ( PMC ) by governments, especially in conflict situations, has lead to much criticism. It is, in fact, truly debatable whether or not PMCs are truly cost effective or more efficient than the deployment of regular military troops as is claimed. Also, ethical and moral considerations are highlighted by the issue of uncertain legal accountability of PMCs acting on behalf of a governmental client. The key question is that of responsibility of a PMC for human rights or other abuses exacted in the course of service to a client state. More specifically, how can a PMC be held accountable if it is acting outside the reach of its home state? A closely related issue is with respect to the PMC’s accountability for the injury or death of its employees, as highlighted in the kidnapping or killing of contractors in Iraq. In a recent case in Colombia, the PMC ( as well as the home state of the deceased ) disavowed any responsibility for their actions or fate. Ultimately, much uncertainty exists over whether or not a client will indeed save much ( if any ) money by hiring a PMC or, in fact, be able to control it once under contract and in-country.
The purpose of this Monografia is to examine the current status of the PMI and its constituent member corporations by first defining the present nature of the business and then by examining its historical basis. The capabilities and limitations of the PMC, largely shaped by the history of the industry, will next be analyzed in order to ultimately further discuss their potential for use in the Hemisphere, in particular their utility for security and defense of the region. In this respect, security issues in Colombia, and the possible utility of PMCs in addressing at least one of them, are brought forward as a case study in order to more concretely illustrate the potential of PMCs in Hemispheric security and defense.
Page 18:
Advantages and Limitations of Private Military Corporations
3.1 Advantages of PMCs
“A somewhat questionable advantage to be found in the employment of PMCs is that they can be used to circumvent certain government policies and statutory limits. PMCs might be used by a client to hide or exceed troop levels, or facilitate the mounting of clandestine operation, without oversight. Governmental clients could thereby distance themselves – i.e. “plausible deniability” – should the operation be exposed or if the contractor makes mistakes or gets killed. For example, federal law prohibits U.S. personnel from active combat in Colombia, however, employees of DynCorp are indeed currently in-country conducting counter-narcotics operations, reputedly as armed combatants. In essence, cooperation with “professional outsiders” like PMCs enables any government to maintain a respectable distance from potentially dangerous or compromising situations in the conduct of foreign policy. {36}”
{36} Offshore Informant.  “PMC Secret Background Functionaries“.
The purpose of the aforementioned information is to demonstrate that although the Commander MacDougall report only ‘cites’ one (1) quotation, from the copyrighted Offshore Informant website report, he unfortunately and mistakenly cites, references, and credits other sources whom had earlier copied ‘without permission’ information stolen from the copyrighted original Offshore Informant website report published 1-year earlier.
Commander MacDougall can hardly be faulted for what other internet website sources, he chose to use for references in his report, had been previously and unlawfully copied that failed to credit earlier published reports from the Offshore Informant website original report published 1-year earlier.
Inter-American Defense Board ( IADB ) Inter-American Defense College ( IADC ) Library, Canada Armed Forces Commander Lieutenant Colonel David Glenn MacDougall report dated April 15, 2004 entitled, “The Potential Of Private Military Corporations (PMCs) In Hemispheric Security And Defense” ( full English language report with Spanish language inserts ) is still on the official internat website, at:
Offshore Informant website ‘off-site published report’ dated March 13, 2003 entitled, “Global Economic Brinkmanship – Part 1: PMC Secret Background Functionaries” still on the internet, at:
Offshore Informant website ‘original published report’ dated March 13, 2003 entitled, “Global Economic Brinkmanship – Part 1: Private Military Contractors - Secret Backgrounds” removed from the internet ( and internet archives ), was formerly at:
Spanish language definition legend ( below ):
Collegium = Supervisory Trust Group
Defensionis = Defenses
InterAmericanum = Within Americas
- – - -
Unwanted Publicity Intelligence ( UPI ) Staff Writer
Offshore Informant

About Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex I

Researching, collecting, analyzing, predicting and providing international information details, from a private intelligence research database and private international network information assets, for Unwanted Publicity Information Group private clientele case situations. General public viewing audiences enjoy the following website(s): Unwanted Publicity Intelligence website(s): Unwanted Publicity Intelligence; Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex I; Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex II; Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex II; and, Unwanted Publicity Information Group - Media Division. Thank you for your review and commentaries at this 'new' Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex I Blog website location. - Unwanted Publicity Intelligence, the website(s), Host
This entry was posted in Banking, Business, Business Intelligence, CBI, Competitive Business Intelligence, Cross-Border, Defense, Economic Intelligence, Executives, Finance & Economics, Financial Intelligence, Foreign, Global, Governments, Insurance, Intelligence, International, Investments, Leadership, Mercenaries, Mercenary, Military Intelligence, National Security, News, NOC, Non-Official Cover Agents, Offshore Banks, Outcomes, Paramilitary Forces, Petroleum Security, PMC, Private Military Companies, Private Military Contractors, Private Military Contracts, Private Sector, Programs, Projects, Rescue Missions, Research, Risk Management, Soldiers, Soldiers Of Fortune, Solutions, Strategic, Venture Capital, Warfaring. Bookmark the permalink.
Be the first to like this post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>