Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
As Obama Sends More Troops, Giant Shadow Army Of Contractors Set To Grow In Afghanistan
With President Obama addressing the nation tonight about a new escalation in Afghanistan, a perennially underexamined topic is once again receiving short shrift: the huge force of contractors, which as of June outnumbered the size of the U.S. troop presence itself, is likely to swell.
Contractors watch for threats on plane departing from Forward Operating Base Sharana in Eastern Afghanistan in May of 2009. (Newscom The Administration seemingly hasn't addressed the issue, and the
word "contractor" doesn't appear much in media coverage -- for example,
in the Times and Post stories on the escalation today.
But David Berteau, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tells TPM that as Obama increases troop levels to at least 100,000, "there will definitely be an increase in the number of contractors."
The contractors -- the majority of whom are Afghan nationals, according to a Congressional study -- do the work that makes the war possible, like serving food, driving trucks, constructing buildings, transporting fuel, and more. Between 7% and 16% of the total are Blackwater-style private security contractors, according to various estimates.
While contractors allow the U.S. to fight wars with fewer American troops -- which may be good or bad, depending on who you ask -- they also present serious transparency and security concerns. That includes goodwill-draining episodes like the May shooting of two Afghan civilians in Kabul by contractors working for Xe, formerly Blackwater. Experts are also concerned about an attack by enemies who might slip through security as a contractor at an American facility.
It's impossible to say how much taxpayer money is going to private contracts because various government entities either don't know, or don't agree on, just how many contractors are currently in Afghanistan.
That fact "permits and invites waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money and undermines the achievement of US mission objectives," Michael Thibault, co-chair of the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting, complained at a hearing last month. At that hearing, military witnesses couldn't come up with a precise count of contractors, prompting former GOP congressman Chris Shays to remark, "I kind of want to scream."
After being bounced around to several DOD offices in the United States and Afghanistan that professed ignorance about the number of contractors, a U.S. Central Command spokesman told TPM today the issue would take some time to look into, and he would get back to us.
The best count we and the experts we spoke with could find is a September study by the Congressional Research Service, with numbers through June provided by the military. It notes that last December, contractors made up 69% of the DOD workforce, "the highest recorded percentage ... in any conflict in the history of the United States."
The number of contractors in Afghanistan as of June was 73,968, compared with 55,107 troops. Of the total contractors, about 10,000 are Americans, 51,000 are locals, and roughly 12,000 are third-country nationals. Take a look at this graph from the study:
It's not just discussions of troop levels -- which typically ignore contractors -- that obfuscate the size of the American commitment in Afghanistan. According to a powerful piece in the Los Angeles Times, almost 1,600 civilian workers have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
"Since the end of the Cold War the US government has become extremely comfortable with contracting out certain military functions to the private sector, and therefore doesn't consider these contractors to be part of the American commitment," says Peter Juul, a researcher at the Center for American Progress. "They're off the books and don't really count, even though you have to pay for them."
The White House said today that each additional 10,000 troops will cost roughly $10 billion. But does that number include any increase in the contractor force? It's not clear.
A comprehensive study of the issue by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, created by Congress in 2008, is due in the summer of 2011.
Finally, it's worth noting that Hamid Karzai recently promised to kick out all foreign private security firms and transfer their duties to Afghans within two years. But analysts told Mother Jones they don't think the promise is worth much.



28 Comments so far
Show AllThere aren't enough nasty words in the English language to cast opprobrium upon Obama and those who "advised" him on this war policy.
You are right.
However, most people in America are mentally sick and twisted when it comes to their thinking about war and violence.
IF we had a decent country (and I emphasize "IF") then there would be no one signing up to join the military.
(And I am talking about at this time, in our history. If our situation was like it was during the beginning stages of World War II, then of course it would make sense to join the military. But not now.... Situation completely different.)
And if no one joined today's U.S. military, because of our government's idiotic view, then a draft would begin. If we had a decent-thinking citizenry, then no one would show up when drafted. The government could not jail that huge of a number of non-complient draftees.
But, my writings will never happen. Why?
Because most people in America are mentally sick and twisted when it comes to their thinking about war and violence.
Not to mention selfish, apathetic and utterly stupid.
I can think of two words that aptly describe obama: POLITICAL WHORE
Keep in mind that President Obama is not a Liberal.
He is a "Centrist".
If people realize that, then his actions make more sense.
He is NOT NEARLY liberal enough for me.
Of the people who were running for President in 2008, Dennis Kucinich was my favorite, because only he was what one could call a "Liberal".
Congressman Kucinich wanted to start a Department of Peace to help offset the Department of Defense.
We have a very twisted country, when someone like Dennis Kucinich doesn't stand a chance of becoming President.
Not only that but, if he keeps it up, he may very well find himself under the wheels of a Mack truck quite by "accident" one of these days
Honestly, our view of "centrist" has evolved. Eisenhower was way to the left of this current series of administrations. We are now at a point where launching and supporting optional military invasions, killing civilians, suborning torture, transferring billions of public wealth to the corporatocracy, ignoring human rights where money is involved, imprisoning more adults and children than any other country qualifies as "centrist". We are obviously the main dealer in military hardware to opposing sides in local conflicts and the main fomenter of war in the entire world.
No - we are now in my view a right wing country with such inequalities of power and wealth that we increasingly qualify as what we used to call a third world country. There is an oligarchy that controls everything and ignores the popular good and wishes. War contractors are now at the center. So if that is centrist, well ....
Joe
Also: OBOMBA NATION.
What a giant scam! Private killers being paid a fortune in a losing war while people at home can't get decent healthcare. What a great country!
Private killers. You got that right.
What is lower than anyone that will go anywhere to kill anyone for money?
If a single U.S. enlistee cost $1,000,000.00 to deploy(they certainly don't earn that much) how much for an American mercenary?And what are they paying the foreign mercenaries?Are foreign contractors providing mercenaries besides the Afghan nationals ?Do any speak Pushtu or whatever language the Pashtun or other tribes speak?Does the Congress of the U.S. have any over sight?Do the hired guns have to abide by the "code of conduct" of regular forces?And what happened to the War Powers Act?Is there a secret deal with Pakistan to violate their sovereignty with Robotic Drones?Did the Congress authorise that too?I would like some answers to those questions,does anybody know?I hope somebody asks these question at the post speech press conference do you hear me Helen? peace
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
When last I heard this topic raised in the MSM, the Establishment line was that American military personnel are ultimately more expensive to field than mercenaries and other support contractors because of their long-term benefits. But the obvious counter-argument to that is the duration of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan: Private companies that have contracts with the Pentagon for mercenaries, logistical support and intelligence gathering are capitalistically incentivized to help prolong and renew contracts (and hence, conflicts) rather than help achieve decisive victories or rebuilding gains or intelligence outcomes in a short period of time that will lead to the termination of their multi-billion dollar contracts with the Pentagon. Our over-reliance on private intelligence gathering (by some estimates upwards of 70%) is folly on its face because of this conflict between maintaining long-term, profitable contracts and generating quick and decisive victories.
Yep, it is all about business.
"Private, privileged information"
It is not just the long term benefits. Think about it. If you need one soldier on the ground you have to recruit, train, feed, retire etc. three (3) or more soldiers. These units rotate home and have mandatory stand down time. So its 3 times the expense for every one soldier you want to put on the ground. For one contract position on the ground you pay one price per day for that slot. When that guys leaves/quits/rotates he is not paid anymore. It's not like they hide these contract numbers. It is just part of the US footprint on the ground.
After the first half of your statement I have no idea what your point is.
It seems to me, In these kinds of good questions they always say, "talk to another dept. or I'll get back to you".
The answers are usually not even known because if they were it would be top secret.
Most know by now that it was Wall Street, Bush "SR". and the GOP that got Obama elected, to use as another puppet like Bush Jr. He kept the same Bush Generals,and Gates, who goes back with Bush Sr. to their CIA days together. Also the Blackwater killing gang. So no matter whom is called president, it is still the Republicans who intend to conquer the Middle East just like the one time leader of Germany, who set out to conquer Europe. Same tactics, same kind of hate, and discrimination against a certain groups of people.
We also mustn't forget . . . Mr. Obama used to work for a company called Business International Corporation after graduating from Columbia. It has been used as a CIA front company for years.
If true, that explains almost everything.
Seventhson, You are correct Sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation
Yeah, he was an editor there.
I believe reporter John Pilger talks about it briefly in one of his video interviews. I will see if I can find that.
Thanks, I just learned from the links that the author of the Strawberry Statement writes about how the protests at Columbia started after lots of this info and CIA recruitment documents were found in the library in the mid 60's.
I heard he mentions our tune, Jim and Jean's "People World" in the book, I got to find it now because I forgot all that stuff.
I'll get from the library.
PS I know from personal experience that when I met Phil Ochs at Ohio State in 60, It was being used as a CIA front in those respects too.
The beneficiaries of imperial aggression and wars are always the profiteers and private business interests. We pay, many die, they profit and laugh all the way to the bank. Just follow the money. It has been that way since the beginning of organized warfare. Eisenhower did not call it the MIC for nothin.
War and imperialism are always a win-win for the MIC and always a lose lose for us, there is no good war, or right war.
The Emperor's speech tonight will be tragically hysterical, I can do nothing but scoff, satirize and laugh at all the lies.
NOOOOO! You're kidding about the contractors, right? Butt, butt, butt...this war is about democracy...errrr...no, saving the women...errr...maybe Al Qaeda? Or was it Osama bin Laden?
Oh, well, whatever it is about, I'm sure it's got absolutely nothing positively whatsoever to do with warprofeteering for the military industrial complex.
HEYYYYYYYYYYY!!!! Obama is the Nobel Peace Prize recipient!
I had seen this coming a long time ago as I caught up with the details on the privatization of Iraq and it's only a matter of time before Afghanistan gets it too. Add to it that Afghanistan has fewer anti-war op-eds.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
What a tangled web we weave. Soldiers contaminated by a soup of toxic and radioactive substances in Gulf Oil War I came back with a variety of related illnesses and produced children with unnaturally high levels of birth defects. Several recent news stories have described the elevated levels of cancer and birth defects in areas of Iraq attacked by U.S. forces--especially around Fallujah where the U.S. used DU, phosphorus, and, according to doctors in the city at the time, other unknown substances. We've been in Afghanistan even longer using depleted uranium munitions and who knows what else. No one, to my knowledge, has yet raised the question: What will be the health impact on the contractors and their families in terms of cancers, birth defects and other health problems for living and working in these contaminated areas for years on end? Greed, macho aggression and war profiteering from mass murder in illegal wars of occupation is their religion, but I wonder if any of them ever wonder if it's worth the risk of all the battlefield toxins and radiation they and their families will be exposed to. All part of the cost of doing business, no doubt.
How large are Mister Obama's carbon footprints from endless wars?
But he eats from an organic garden.
Joe