“Group of Experts” Wants Russian Help, At Arm’s Length

Мадлен ОлбрайтAlbright calls for mutually beneficial cooperation with Moscow

Expert Group headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright invited NATO to expand cooperation with Russia on all levels, but made it clear that relations with Moscow will not please all members of the alliance.

Introducing the report of the expert group in the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Albright noted that the successful cooperation of a military bloc with Russia would benefit all stakeholders.

“For historical and geographical reasons, some NATO members are more pessimistic than others about Russia’s commitment to positive relations – said Albright. – It is obvious that NATO’s interests are fully consistent with the work with Moscow in order to create a constructive Euro-Atlantic order and solve common problems we face terrorism, nuclear proliferation, piracy and drug smuggling. ”

C in terms of the alliance the door to cooperation with Moscow should be open at all levels

Madeline Albright, head of the group of NATO experts

“As we know, the partnership requires efforts from both sides – continued Albright. – But in terms of the alliance the door to cooperation with Moscow should be open at all levels.”

Relations between NATO and Russia have deteriorated sharply after the Russian-Georgian military conflict, which sharply in Brussels condemned. Then, the alliance announced the freezing of cooperation with Moscow, but in January this year, military coordination has been renewed.

In February, Russia has expressed concern in connection with talk about the fact that the new NATO strategy suggests the possibility of using military force around the world.

What they said “wise men”

It is expected that the new concept will be approved at the next NATO summit in Lisbon, which will be held in November. Its development involved a group of prominent experts and former diplomats called “Council of Wise Men”, whose members recently traveled to Moscow for consultations.

Флаг НАТОNATO is preparing to revise its strategic doctrine

The new strategic concept of NATO alliance should set objectives for the next decade and to identify methods for their solution. Among the problems that are not mentioned in the previous strategy – global warming, energy supplies, cyberattacks and maritime piracy.

Earlier, at a conference in Prague, Albright talked about the importance of the “reboot” of relations with Russia, but at the same time, she said, it is necessary to assure members of the alliance that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the key to the organization.

According to this article, in case of an armed attack on a NATO member other members of the alliance should help it, “including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic region.”

Currently, NATO has 26 European countries, as well as the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the organization has 40 partners, including Russia, Australia, India, Pakistan and Japan. They were, by treaty, alliance members are not required to defend.

Preparation of a new NATO strategy complicated the contradictions within the alliance. Some allies would like to see NATO functions limited to protecting its own members, the other part – including the U.S. and Britain – in favor of greater authority.

This would imply, in particular, the mission outside the traditional area of NATO, including – patrolling the African coastal waters to combat pirates.

Recent conflicts over the powers of the alliance – the debate about the war in Iraq: few countries (among them – France, Germany and Belgium) were against it and against participation in the NATO contingent.

Russian concept

Russia is ahead of NATO’s own military doctrine publication for nearly a year: President Dmitry Medvedev has approved a document at the beginning of February. The previous two versions were adopted in 1993 and 2000.

Under the doctrine, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the application against her or her allies of any weapons of mass destruction. The authors of the document, Russia is to be feared above all to strengthen NATO through the accession of new members and the deployment of missile defense systems.

In addition, the new Russian doctrine stipulates the right of Russia to use its armed forces abroad “in order to protect the interests of Russia and its people but also for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

After the publication of the doctrine of NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that it “does not reflect reality” and “clearly contrary to all of our efforts to improve relations between NATO and Russia.”

Oil contracts should be reviewed to avert ecological disaster in Caspian Sea

Oil contracts should be reviewed to avert ecological disaster in Caspian Sea

Mon 17 May 2010 | 12:32 GMT Text size: 

Ikram Israfilov

News.Az interviews Ikram Israfilov, member of the parliamentary committee on natural resources, energy and ecology of Azerbaijani parliament.

Is it necessary for Azerbaijan to stiffen ecological requirements to foreign oil companies in the light of ecological disaster in the Mexican gulf after the fire on the Deepwater Horizon drill tower and oil leakage?

It is necessary to take into account that both the Azerbaijani and other Caspian littoral status are interested in the non-pollution of the Caspian Sea. Foreign companies functioning in Azerbaijan as well as Azerbaijani companies should primarily fulfill obligations on the non-pollution of the Caspian sea. As is known, such obligations have been included into all contracts signed between Azerbaijan and foreign oil companies.

Certainly, the Azerbaijani state, SOCAR, as well as foreign oil companies working in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea have obligations not to pollute the Caspian Sea. In this connection, Azerbaijan has a right to demand the fulfillment of undertaken obligations from them. I, as a member of the parliamentary committee of natural resources, energy and ecology of Milli Medjlis (parliament), have taken part in discussions of a number of such contracts and I have witnessed the availability of obligations about the non-fulfillment of the Caspian Sea by oil wastes. The contracts also have paragraphs about inadmissibility of oil leakage in the Caspian Sea and responsibility in cases of such incidents will be laid on the party that has violated the regulations.

Is there a need to review the contracts with foreign oil companies in order to avert the ecological disaster compared to that in Mexican gulf in the Caspian Sea?

It is difficult to imagine the scales of the ecological damage to the Caspian Sea that might be caused by such disasters. All experts and specialists understand that when signing international oil contracts in 1994 the Azerbaijani side was interested in implementation of all tasks envisioned in these documents. Therefore, the foreign companies that have 100 years of work experience in the sphere of oil production have probably managed to prevent inclusion of paragraphs connected with the responsibility and elimination of implications of environmental disaster to these contracts. I do not doubt this. However, in case of appearance of such problems with foreign companies producing oil in Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani side should try to review the paragraphs in those contracts as to environmental obligations. These companies get benefits from oil production and export, therefore, in  case such problems appear the Azerbaijani side must remove the blanks in these contracts related to the environmental issues. The review of these paragraphs of the contracts in case such disaster occurs will be inevitable. In addition, I consider it important to review these contracts. Every person, who loves his homeland and safeguards its citizens and natural resources must be concerned about it. Therefore, there is a need to take steps in this direction.

In this connection, is there a need to introduce amendments to national legislation by the Azerbaijani parliament?

There can be blanks in this sphere in legislation. I think there are no problems that can hamper our actions in introducing amendments to ecological law. We have the relevant legislative basis in ecological sphere, however, the problems can be during its implementation.

Does the Azerbaijani legislation allow controlling observation of environmental requirements by SOCAR?

I would like to note that Milli Medjlis has repeated raised the issue of the need to adopt a law “On oil”. This law is available in most countries that produce oil. Therefore, I think it is important to adopt this law in Azerbaijan. If we adopt the law “On oil” it may include all issues related to observation of environmental requirements by foreign and local oil companies. The adoption of this law would help create a legal basis for these issues and settle emerging legal problems. Certainly, there are numerous paragraphs related to economic and ecological problems. And I do not doubt that these contracts have taken into account all issues related to the national interests of Azerbaijan. But at the same time, there is a need to adopt a separate law to regulate environmental issues.

Which legislative opportunities do nongovernmental organizations have in terms of control over observation of environmental requirements by the oil companies?

I have taken part in a number of projects implemented by nongovernmental organizations specialized in environmental issues. Therefore, I am familiar with their work and I can say that they have no opportunity to control the observation of environmental requirements by the oil companies. The nongovernmental organizations are interested only in gaining profits from the funds allocated by the companies to settle some of the issues. Therefore, NGOs have no opportunity to influence either SOCAR or the foreign companies. Certainly, these nongovernmental organizations are functioning to attract the public attention to existing problems but have no opportunity to interfere with the companies’ affairs.

Lala B.


BP’s Caspian Disaster

[Does the Deepwater Horizon disaster reflect upon BP’s capacity to preserve the delicate Caspian Sea Basin?  (SEE: BP Had Other Problems in Years Leading to Gulf Spill)  Western harvesting of Caspian oil entails huge pipelines that transverse the sea in several places.  If BP can’t be trusted to guarantee that all safety procedures are strictly followed in raising oil 5,000 feet from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, then how could they be trusted to safely maintain hundreds of miles of pipelines on the seabed?]

BP’s Caspian Disaster

by JalilBahar

Azerbaijan is the new colonial cow being milked by Britain. 15 British oil companies have set up shop, and are siphoning Iranian oil from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan.It would be nice if Azerbaijan received some benefit from this oil exploitation (or even Iranians) – but once again the Brtis have installed a puppet dictator to assist them in their milking process.

Mr. Aliev, Azerbaijan’s President, installed himself in power in a rigged election in 2003 – upon the death of this father (a former KGB officer).

The tale of how Britain gained full access to Azeri oil is a sordid one.  There are several reports of how BP executives working for Lord Browne spent millions of pounds on champagne-fuelled sex parties to help secure lucrative international oil contracts. The company also worked with MI6 to help bring about changes in foreign governments, according to an astonishing account of life inside the oil giant. Les Abrahams, who led BP’s successful bid for a multi-million-pound deal with one of the former Soviet republics, today claims that Browne – who was forced to resign as chief executive recently after the collapse of legal proceedings against The Mail on Sunday – presided over an “anything goes” regime of sexual license, spying and financial sweeteners. He also claims that Home Secretary John Reid was arrested at gunpoint on a BP-funded foreign trip for being out on the streets after a military curfew had been imposed. Mr. Abrahams tells how he spent £45 million in expenses over just four months of negotiations with Azerbaijan’s state oil company. Armed with a no-limit company credit card, he ordered supplies of champagne and caviar to be flown on company jets into the boomtown capital, Baku, to be consumed at the “sex parties. The result is an almost mirror reflection of how Iran was exploited for decades by the Brits before Iran’s democratic government was established and Iranian Oil nationalized in the 50’s. Oil gets extracted and a pittance in royalties is handed over to the “locals”. For the poor idiots running Azerbaijan any cash from these oil companies is more than they ever had – but the reality is they are being skimmed. Azeris are being hozed. And as we all know, the Brits who to a large extent were behind the rise of the Mullahs in Iran are at work again.

The Caspian region is the largest untapped hydrocarbon reserve in the world. The wealth under the sea is measured in trillions – not billions of dollars. The world is hungry for more energy. Consider for example that China will be adding 110 million cars to its existing stock of 30 million cars by 2020.

There is over 200 billion barrels of oil, and over three trillion cubic meters of natural gas under there. These riches are at stake in a new economic and political ‘great game.’ Now that North Sea oil is depleted and more Alaskan Oil (where BP was a 50% stake holder) is shut out (because of US Congressional protection of Alaska’s wildlife reserves), Britain and the United States have partnered up to get their hands on Iraqi and Caspian region oil in full force. What’s $100 billion dollars for the Iraq war when there’s trillions out there? Interestingly, Iraq awarded a contract to BPand China National Petroleum Corp to exploit the Rumaila oilfield, a giant field that first entered production in 1955. The field currently produces slightly less than 1 million barrels per day; the contract with BP targets a production plateau of around 2.85 million barrels per day. The BP deal for Rumaila was the only contract awarded in Iraq’s first bidding round in summer 2009.

BP operates 29,000 stations throughout the world, including 15,000 in the United States operating under the BP, Amoco, and ARCO trade names. BP is the second-largest integrated oil company in the world. In 2001, it had fixed U.S. assets totaling approximately $40 billion. With revenues of $174.2 billion in 2001, BP employs 110,159 workers worldwide, including 42,000 in the United States.

Quite clearly, BP is at the heart of political and economic manipulations to exploit global oil. And the Caspian Sea’s littoral states are the victims of these dealings.

This is a new high-stakes scramble of vital long-term geopolitical significance. Basically, the very future of Britain’s economy and US economic leadership are at stake — with for example China and India’s long-term dependence on Western controlled energy resources at issue.

But, this time it’s not just about the theft of wealth. The very survival of the Caspian Sea is in question — and the future of over 400 unique biological species. Much of the biological focus has been on the high value Sturgeon populations, yet for example there is unprecedented death among the Caspian’s seal population with thousands dying as a result of poisoning from oil pollution. The carcasses are there for every one to witness.

There is simply NO environmental regulation in the whole Caspian region. Not only are there large off shore oil rigs pumping out millions of barrels of oil, but there are major pipelines being built to transport the oil.

The only option to transport this oil is to build large pipelines across the Caspian Sea bed to Southern Turkey – crossing 4 countries each. Two pipelines are now on the drawing board across the Caspian Sea (one from Turkmenistan and the other from Kazakhstan) to ports on the Mediterranean.

To get a sense of what these pipelines might do to the Caspian, let’s look at two smaller pipelines operating today. Already the Baku-Novarisk and the Baku-Sepia pipelines have caused major leaks. And then there is the issue of discharges from actual oil and gas drilling into the Sea. And finally, there is the issue of operating refineries and chemical plants on the perimeter of the Sea. Interestingly, all southern land-based pipeline options to Iranian markets have been rejected, although it is by far the cheapest and most environmentally benign option…i.e. the shortest route! Iran could purchase oil and gas for its major cities in the North and in exchange ship out product from its southern ports.

In any case, the Absheron Peninsula refinery (in Azerbaijan) has already been sited with major environmental abuses. There is simply no environmental regulation in the region, which is very openly designed to attract foreign investment and maintain cash flow for the region’s corrupt dictatorships that are heavily interested in signing multibillion dollar deals with foreign companies. (ref: Azerbaijani’s recent $4Bn deal with BP)!

The issue of environmental regulation is important in many ways. On the one hand disasters need to be prevented. There has to be clear oversight, inspections, engineering and operational reviews.

But on the other hand, there has to be an international (cross-border), multilateral way to deal with disasters if they happen. And there is currently NO coordination between the Caspian Sea’s littoral states in disaster management. This issue not only impacts oil and gas exploration, but is also significant in dealing with over-fishing, and protection and promotion of the Caspian’s Biological heritage.

BP is the most significant player in the Caspian Sea. If BP could not operate safely in a heavily regulated US operating environment, you have to wonder what corners they are cutting in the Caspian Sea. As the world’s most profitable Oil Company, with record 3.5 Billion dollars in profits last quarter (that’s on track for about $14 Billion dollars annually) …you just can’t help wonder? And with that much money at stake, to continue to buy off politicians in these puppet Caspian States …would simply be the equivalent of us throwing quarters into a beggars bowl at the train station.

It’s simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Does the Term “Islamic Bomb” Imply Secret Ace In Hole for Saudis?

Pakistan has pleged to provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia

ICT by ANI –

London, May 17 (ANI): The biggest concern that has emerged during the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty this month is that if Iran crosses the nuclear threshhold, it would trigger an arms race across the Middle East.

“Pakistan’s bomb and Saudi ArabiaWestern intelligence officials believe that Pakistan has pledged to provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia in a Middle East crisis, but would Islamabad keep its end of the bargain?,” reports Guardian.co.uk.

Israel already has an arsenal of course, but over a dozen other countries in the region have recently announced plans to pursue or explore civilian nuclear energy programmes, in what is seen as a hedge against future threats. But which states, if any, would be prepared to go the whole way?

“The Centre for European Studies and the German Marshall Fund of the United States has just held a small conference in Brussels called “Transatlantic test: What should the West do with Iran?”, reports Guardian.co.uk.

Turkey would not jeopardise the Nato umbrella by going nuclear unilaterally. Egypt has considered its options and decided it cannot afford to go nuclear and risk losing its annual US grant. The biggest worry is Saudi Arabia, which cannot rely on a US nuclear umbrella for reasons of domestic and regional politics.

“According to western intelligence sources (the meeting was under Chatham House rules so I am not allowed to be more specific) the Saudi monarchy paid for up to 60% of the Pakistani nuclear programme, and in return has the option to buy a small nuclear arsenal (’five to six warheads) off the shelf if things got tough in the neighbourhood,” reports Guardian.co.uk.

There has been much reporting about this alleged deal over recent years, notably by The Guardian back in 2003, when Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor wrote about a Saudi strategic review to weigh the kingdom’s nuclear options.

“A report by Mark Fitzpatrick at the IISS in 2008 on Nuclear Programmes in the Middle East, found the Guardian article was “an accurate representation of what had emerged from the Saudi side during discussions” at a symposium in Britain attended by several members of the Saudi royal family,” reports Guardian.co.uk.

The Saudis and the Pakistanis have consistently denied any such deal, but what I heard in Brussels was billed by an official as being from intelligence sources. Whether or not anything has been signed, however, there are real questions on whether Pakistan would deliver when it came to the crunch.

“There is a third partner in the relationship, the US, who might have something to say about it and the means to exert pressure to make sure it did not happen. Still, it remains one of the more likely dominoes to fall in a worst-case scenario,” reports Guardian.co.uk. (ANI)

Iraq signs oil field deal with Chinese, Turkish firms

Iraq signs oil field deal with Chinese, Turkish firms

By Marwa Sabah (AFP)

BAGHDAD — Iraq signed a deal with Chinese energy giant CNOOC and Turkey’s TPAO on Monday to develop a major southern oilfield complex, its 11th deal with foreign energy firms as Baghdad aims to boost crude output.

Among the three fields in the Maysan complex, along Iraq’s border with Iran, is one partially claimed by Tehran, whose forces took over an oil well in the Fakka field in December for several days but withdrew after bilateral talks.

“Today is a very important day in the history of Iraqi oil production, with the development of very important fields in Maysan province,” Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said at the contract signing in Baghdad.

“After several contacts with CNOOC and TPAO, a price for exploitation has been agreed.”

The fields were first put up for auction in June last year but no agreement was reached.

CNOOC and TPAO agreed to be paid 2.30 dollars per barrel of oil extracted from the three Maysan fields, which has proven reserves of 2.6 billion barrels of oil, Shahristani said on Monday.

Under the deal, output is projected to be ramped up to 450,000 barrels per day (bpd), compared to current production of around 100,000 bpd.

The Chinese firm will have an 85-percent stake in the joint venture, while TPAO holds the remaining 15 percent. The Iraqi government will have a 25-percent stake in the overall project.

The agreed deal was worth around a tenth of what was initially requested — CNOOC and Sinochem, another Chinese energy firm, had asked for 21.4 dollars per barrel when the field was auctioned to foreign firms last June.

Sinochem has since pulled out of the deal.

Last year, Iraq held two auctions of its oil fields for development, the first time foreign energy firms have had the opportunity to plant a foot firmly in the country since its energy sector was nationalised in 1972.

The Maysan deal means Chinese companies now have stakes in four major oil projects in Iraq.

As with the CNOOC-TPAO deal, companies which sign contracts with Iraq will receive a fixed fee per barrel, not a share of profits, and the fee will only be paid once an agreed production threshold is reached.

The 11 deals signed by Iraq so far will, if fully realised, ramp up its oil output five-fold to 12 million bpd, putting it on a par with the world’s top producer Saudi Arabia.

At 115 billion barrels, Iraq has the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Iran.

However, there has been little exploration or development of fields in the past three decades because of wars and a UN embargo imposed on Iraq in 1990 following now executed dictator Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

Oil sales account for 85 percent of Iraqi government revenues.

Middle East Insurance Premium Set to Double by 2013

Middle East Insurance Premium Set to Double by 2013

With largely underpenetrated market and growing prospects, the Middle East insurance sector is expected to grow at CAGR of about 25% during 2010-2013.

(EMAILWIRE.COM, May 17, 2010 ) New Delhi, India – As per our recent report “Middle East Insurance MarketForecast to 2012”, the Middle East has emerged as a growing market for insurers across the world with a rapid transformation in its insurance industry. As per our estimations, insurance premium is expected to grow at a rate of 25% during 2010-2013 as compared to a growth rate of 14% in 2007-2009. Saudi Arabia will witness the highest CAGR of 37%, followed by UAE and Bahrain during the forecast period.

The report covers in depth research of GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) nations including Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman. Along with that, the insurance industry of Turkey, Iran, Israel and Jordan are also analyzed. The report details the market size of all these countries, like Israel in 2009 was the largest market in the region for Insurance premium followed by Turkey and the UAE. Share of local and foreign insurance companies in few countries are also covered in the report.

The research report provides an extensive evaluation of Life and Non-life insurance segments. Non life insurance segments like health, motor, marine, fire insurance are well analyzed. Islamic Insurance is another growing area in Middle East and the report also covers Takaful share in different countries.

Additionally, various growth opportunities and hurdles present in Middle Eastern countries are discussed in the report. On one hand, increment in new car registration will boost insurance segment, and at the same time, the lack of skills and training can hinder segments’ growth.

“Middle East Insurance Market Forecast to 2012” is a comprehensive research report that comprises quality research and analysis on the insurance market in Middle East. It studies the emerging market trends, recent developments and their impact on the sector. The report will help clients to examine the leading-edge opportunities, expected future outlook and all the other factors which are critical to the success of a new entrant in the Middle East Insurance Sector.

For FREE SAMPLE of this report visit: http://www.rncos.com/Report/IM178.htm

Check DISCOUNTED REPORTS on: http://www.rncos.com

About RNCOS:

RNCOS, incorporated in the year 2002, is an industry research firm. We are a team of industry experts who analyze data collected from credible sources. We provide industry insights and analysis that helps corporations to take timely and accurate business decision in today’s globally competitive environment.

USSOCOM Contractor Concerned Over US and UK Domestic Tranquility Next 3-5 Years

Vodpod videos no longer available.
more about “Blackwater, America’s Private Army“, posted with vodpod

[Brookings Institute describes use of CACI as The Contract the Military Needs to BreakPrivate employees of the company outsourced interrogations (torture) at Abu Gharib prison in Iraq.  CACI is branded “war profiteer” in the film “Iraq for Sale.”

Here is a perfect example of the new privatized military and intelligence contractors performing duties that should only be trusted to authorized military personnel.  This is especially true when the contractor is one of the few companies that have been recognized for participation in the abuses at Agu Gharib.  Lawsuits into CACI activities in Iraq may come back to haunt the company, as suggested in the disclaimer at the bottom of the following article, related to “forward looking”  comments.  The most disturbing part of this article is, in fact, the forward looking comments.  Ahead of the disclaimers citing concerns overIraqi misdeeds, the primary reason for worry given is:

“regional and national economic conditions in the United States and the United Kingdom, including conditions that result from a prolonged recession.”

What do these insiders know that causes them to plan around domestic US and UK turmoil?  Could it possibly be the same reasons that cause Middle East insurance premiums to double in the next two years?]

CACI Awarded Prime Position on $1.5 Billion, Multiple-Award Contract to Support U.S. Special Operations Command

New Work Will Support Operations and Intelligence, Acquisition and Logistics, and Business Operations/Financial Management Mission Areas

ARLINGTON, Va., May 17, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — CACI International Inc (CACI 48.79, +0.40, +0.83%), announced today that it has been awarded one of four prime contracts to support the United States Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) Global Battlestaff and Program Support (GBPS) effort. The indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract has a ceiling value of $1.5 billion and a period of performance that consists of a three-year base period and a two-year option period.

USSOCOM provides fully capable Special Operations Forces to defend the United States and its interests, and synchronizes planning of global operations against terrorist networks. This new work with the command grows CACI’s functional core competency in integrated security and intelligence solutions (ISIS) through its support to USSOCOM’s force sustainment, equipping, and modernization efforts, particularly focused on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. ISIS assists customers in developing integrated solutions to help them meet mission objectives in the areas of security, intelligence, and law enforcement.

Simultaneous to winning the ID/IQ contract award, CACI also won one of four task orders (Task Order 1) that were bid with the overall GBPS contract proposal. The $4 million Task Order 1, Intelligence Production Support for the USSOCOM Integrated Survey Program, has a five year period of performance and will provide USSOCOM with multimedia intelligence production, publication, and dissemination support services over the life of the task order.

Bill Fairl, CACI President of U.S. Operations, said “Our selection as one of only four primes on this contract is a significant win for CACI. By providing USSOCOM with operations and intelligence, acquisition and logistics, and business operations and financial management support services, we’re able to help the Special Operations Forces with their critical missions worldwide.”

According to Paul Cofoni, CACI President and Chief Executive Officer, “Winning this contract partners us with a customer whose mission sets are expanding and whose contributions to national interests are becoming more important as threats by non-nation states increase. Working with USSOCOM will enable us to make meaningful contributions to national interests as well as support warfighters serving in harm’s way.”

CACI provides professional services and IT solutions needed to prevail in the defense, intelligence, homeland security, and federal civilian government arenas. We deliver enterprise IT and network services; data, information, and knowledge management services; business system solutions; logistics and material readiness; C4ISR integration services; cyber solutions; integrated security and intelligence solutions; and program management and SETA support services. CACI services and solutions help our federal clients provide for national security, improve communications and collaboration, secure the integrity of information systems and networks, enhance data collection and analysis, and increase efficiency and mission effectiveness. CACI is a member of the Fortune 1000 Largest Companies and the Russell 2000 index. CACI provides dynamic careers for approximately 13,100 employees working in over 120 offices in the U.S. and Europe. Visit CACI on the web at www.caci.com and www.asymmetricthreat.net.

There are statements made herein which do not address historical facts, and therefore could be interpreted to be forward-looking statements as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are subject to factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from anticipated results.

The factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated include, but are not limited to, the following: regional and national economic conditions in the United States and the United Kingdom, including conditions that result from a prolonged recession;

terrorist activities or war; changes in interest rates; currency fluctuations; significant fluctuations in the equity markets; failure to achieve contract awards in connection with recompetes for present business and/or competition for new business; the risks and uncertainties associated with client interest in and purchases of new products and/or services; continued funding of U.S. government or other public sector projects, based on a change in spending patterns, or in the event of a priority need for funds, such as homeland security, the war on terrorism or rebuilding Iraq; or an economic stimulus package; government contract procurement (such as bid protest, small business set asides, loss of work due to organizational conflicts of interest, etc.) and termination risks; the results of government investigations into allegations of improper actions related to the provision of services in support of U.S. military operations in Iraq; the results of government audit and reviews conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency or other government entities with cognizant oversight; individual business decisions of our clients; paradigm shifts in technology; competitive factors such as pricing pressures and/or competition to hire and retain employees (particularly those with security clearances); market speculation regarding our continued independence; material changes in laws or regulations applicable to our businesses, particularly in connection with (i) government contracts for services, (ii) outsourcing of activities that have been performed by the government, (iii) competition for task orders under Government Wide Acquisition Contracts (“GWACs”) and/or schedule contracts with the General Services Administration; and (iv) accounting for convertible debt instruments; our own ability to achieve the objectives of near term or long range business plans; and other risks described in the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.


Corporate Communications and Media: 
Jody Brown, Executive Vice President, Public Relations 
(703) 841-7801 
Investor Relations: 
David Dragics, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations 
(866) 606-3471 

Copyright Business Wire 2010