PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan Contractors Outnumber Troops



madjack
08-22-2009, 07:22 AM
Despite Surge in U.S. Deployments, More Civilians Are Posted in War Zone; Reliance Echoes the Controversy in Iraq
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089638739950599.html
By AUGUST COLE
Even as U.S. troops surge to new highs in Afghanistan they are outnumbered by military contractors working alongside them, according to a Defense Department census due to be distributed to Congress -- illustrating how hard it is for the U.S. to wean itself from the large numbers of war-zone contractors that proved controversial in Iraq.
The number of military contractors in Afghanistan rose to almost 74,000 by June 30, far outnumbering the roughly 58,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground at that point. As the military force in Afghanistan grows further, to a planned 68,000 by the end of the year, the Defense Department expects the ranks of contractors to increase more.
The military requires contractors for essential functions ranging from supplying food and laundry services to guarding convoys and even military bases -- functions that were once performed by military personnel but have been outsourced so a slimmed-down military can focus more on battle-related tasks.
The Obama administration has sought to reduce its reliance on military contractors, worried that the Pentagon was ceding too much power to outside companies, failing to rein in costs and not achieving desired results.
President Obama has repeatedly called defense contractors to task since taking office. "In Iraq, too much money has been paid out for services that were never performed, buildings that were never completed, companies that skimmed off the top," he said during a March speech.
In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 civilian officials during to cut the percentage of contractors in the Pentagon's own work force, and last month he told an audience of soldiers that contractor use overseas needed better controls.

Military contractors' personnel for a time outnumbered U.S. troops in Iraq. The large contractor force was accompanied by issues ranging from questionable costs billed to the government to shooting of civilians by armed security guards. A September 2007 shooting incident involving Blackwater Worldwide guards working for the U.S. State Department, in which 17 Iraqis were killed, forced the U.S. to aggressively rework oversight of security firms.
Yet in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the Pentagon has found that the military has shrunk so much since the Cold War ended that it isn't big enough to sustain operations without using companies to directly support military operations.
"Because of the surge, we're trying to get ahead of the troops," said Gary Motsek, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program Support, who helps oversee the Pentagon's battlefield contractor efforts. "So we're pushing contractors in place, doing it as fast as we can, and trying to be responsible about it."
The heavy reliance on contractors in Afghanistan signals that a situation that defense planners once considered temporary has become a standard fixture of U.S. military operations.
"For a sustained fight like our current commitments, the U.S. military can't go to war without contractors on the battlefield," said Steven Arnold, a former Army general and retired executive at logistics specialists Ecolog USA and KBR Inc., military contractors formerly owned by Halliburton Co. He added, "For that matter, neither can NATO."
That poses a challenge for military planners who must keep tabs on tens of thousands of people who are crucial to their operations yet are civilians outside the chain of command.
In Congress, there's a particular concern about security contractors who might upset diplomatic and military relationships. "We've had incidents when force has been used, we believe, improperly against citizens by contractors," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. "This creates huge problems, obviously, for those who have been injured or killed and their families, but it also creates huge problems for us and our policies in Afghanistan."
In Iraq, as of June 30 there were 119,706 military contractors, down 10% from three months earlier and smaller than the number of U.S. troops, which stood at approximately 132,000. But as the Pentagon has been drawing down contractors in Iraq, their ranks have been growing in Afghanistan -- rising by 9% over that same three-month period to 73,968. More than two-thirds of those are local, which reflects the desire to employ Afghans as part of the counterinsurgency there.
Many contractors in Afghanistan are likely to face combat-like conditions, particularly those manning far-flung outposts, and are exposed to possible militant attacks -- blurring the line between soldier and support staff.
The reliance on contractors has prompted a shift in the defense industry, sending more money to logistics and construction companies that can perform everything from basic functions to project engineering.
A recent contract is worth up to $15 billion to two firms, DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corp., to build and support U.S. military bases throughout Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, government auditors have repeatedly uncovered military mismanagement of contractors. The Wartime Contracting Commission reported finding during an April trip that the military had accepted a new headquarters building in Kabul hobbled by shoddy construction. Officials in Iraq and Afghanistan were unable to give the commission complete lists of work being contracted out at the bases they visited.
Coordination of security contractors, one of the most charged issues in Iraq, is being beefed up for Afghanistan, said Mr. Motsek, the Pentagon official. A new umbrella contract planned for later this year is designed to make awarding work speedier and to help oversight and vetting.
As well, he said more Defense Department civilians are being sent to oversee all types of contracts, and they will stay longer overseas than their predecessors did in Iraq.
Video conferencing and other remote management tools had fallen short as a substitute. The Army is also adding hundreds of civilian contracting personnel, among the measures being put in place.

Remember the "Peace Dividend?" We're paying for it now in spades.

unthinking
08-22-2009, 08:03 AM
Great, let's continue to pay these guys $500/day to fly around in Little Birds doing stunts, just like I watched them do every day in Iraq in '07-'08.

...and they wonder why these wars are so expensive.

Seek
08-22-2009, 02:17 PM
not all of them are toting guns... the bangadeshi serving the troops in chow hall is a contractor too...

NuckmasterJ
08-22-2009, 06:10 PM
Great, let's continue to pay these guys $500/day to fly around in Little Birds doing stunts, just like I watched them do every day in Iraq in '07-'08.

...and they wonder why these wars are so expensive.

When someone says "Afghanistan" and "Contractors" stop thinking Blackwater and start thinking hash smoking Afghan with an AK. A massive number are Afghan men who don't want to join the ANA or ANP and are hired through outside firms to be "contractors".

They're great at lighting up friendly's when someone farts in there general direction.

As for real contractors, they guard bases, supply depots, NGO buildings and Government structures mostly. Oh and air resupply. I hear great things about those crazy Blackwater/Xe buggers and there ability to drop tons of ammo on small mountain top outposts.

3rdMillhouse
08-22-2009, 06:31 PM
OMG!!! It's them mercs!!! Run for the hills!!! What with all this histeria around the usage of private contractors in conflict areas? Most of them are not even involved in armed operation, be it armed escort, convoy protection or private security.

2495
08-22-2009, 06:33 PM
Great, let's continue to pay these guys $500/day to fly around in Little Birds doing stunts, just like I watched them do every day in Iraq in '07-'08.

...and they wonder why these wars are so expensive.

Shop staff, truck drivers, cleaners, maintenance, theres a fvck load of jobs armed forces folks don't want to do, so civvies get paid for it.

Its not all little birds and cool gear.:cantbeli:

California Joe
08-22-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm a miltary contractor. I work from home on my computer...Silly perceptions...

gaijinsamurai
08-22-2009, 07:28 PM
A good friend of mine is currently working as a contractor in Afghanistan. He's a former Army Ranger with a PhD., and from what he says, the company he works for is very selective regarding who they employ.

Elbs
08-22-2009, 07:30 PM
Good points gents. Such a big fuss over something so mundane. The DoD has been using contractors for decades...nothing new to see here. Carry on.

Dominique
08-22-2009, 09:16 PM
Great, let's continue to pay these guys $500/day to fly around in Little Birds doing stunts, just like I watched them do every day in Iraq in '07-'08.

...and they wonder why these wars are so expensive.

Not a problem, need someone to clean out the port-a-potties, let Joe do it. Need cooks in the DFACs, let Joe do it. Need someone to drive all those vehicles in tha convoy of tankers, let Joe do it. Unless you plan on doubling the size of the military, then you're going to have to use contractors to provide those services.

ShotOver
08-22-2009, 09:20 PM
Then there is always the Russian girls who give a good massage at Kandahar Airfield. Not going to go in to talking about the Thai girls though, that's always an amusing topic.

deagle
08-23-2009, 02:19 AM
so the contractors are completing duties and otherwise waiting to get paid for a days work ? no wonder a-stan is still so messed up.

Soldat_Américain
08-23-2009, 02:31 AM
Anyone read Jeremy Scahill's book...I've been listening to him on Bill Maher and although I know some of things he's talking about are real...I think the bugger got dropped on his head when he was about four months old.

James
08-23-2009, 04:57 AM
Not a problem, need someone to clean out the port-a-potties, let Joe do it. Need cooks in the DFACs, let Joe do it. Need someone to drive all those vehicles in tha convoy of tankers, let Joe do it. Unless you plan on doubling the size of the military, then you're going to have to use contractors to provide those services.

Indeed. The vast majority of contractors are unarmed locals and third country nationals, like the Afghans man who is paid $50 to drive a fuel tanker from Bagram to Kandahar.

James
08-23-2009, 04:58 AM
Anyone read Jeremy Scahill's book...I've been listening to him on Bill Maher and although I know some of things he's talking about are real...I think the bugger got dropped on his head when he was about four months old.

Scahill is an ignorant fool.

James
08-23-2009, 05:00 AM
Great, let's continue to pay these guys $500/day to fly around in Little Birds doing stunts, just like I watched them do every day in Iraq in '07-'08.

What about the other 99% of contractors? :cantbeli:

VAMAN
08-23-2009, 05:03 AM
For every soldier there are more number of logistics people. Military contractors provide logistics to soldiers. So it makes sense that there are more military contractors than soldiers.

Eoin666
08-24-2009, 05:20 AM
Nothing changes in history....today 'contractors' 2000yrs ago 'auxiliaries'

Auxiliaries (from Latin: auxilia = "supports") formed the standing non-citizen corps of the Roman army of the Principate (30 BC–284 AD), alongside the citizen legions. By the 2nd century, the auxilia contained the same number of infantry as the legions and in addition provided almost all the Roman army's cavalry and more specialised troops (especially light cavalry and archers). The auxilia thus represented three-fifths of Rome's regular land forces at that time. Like their legionary counterparts, auxiliary recruits were mostly volunteers, not conscripts.

PeterG
08-24-2009, 06:39 AM
Like it or not - and fair or not: I think that Blackwater and Halliburton, and others, have cost the US a LOT in PR terms, and therefore, politically. That is putting it mildly.

When a very large, and rapidly increasing number of people in the world are not sure if the US military use Blackwater and Halliburton in their wars, or if it is Blackwater and Halliburton that use the US military in their wars - the US has a problem.

Dominique
08-24-2009, 10:18 AM
When a very large, and rapidly increasing number of people in the world are not sure if the US military use Blackwater and Halliburton in their wars, or if it is Blackwater and Halliburton that use the US military in their wars - the US has a problem.

Say what? What wars are Blackwater and Haliburton fighting, much less using the US military? And I know most of you crying about contractors find it hard to believe, but those two companies are far from being the only big contractors working for the government.