Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2014 or Bust: In Afghanistan, The Pentagon Digs In
The Pentagon's Building Boom in Afghanistan Indicates a Long War Ahead
In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.
While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.
In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."
Bogged Down at Bagram
Nowhere has the building boom been more apparent than Bagram Air Base, a key military site used by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In its American incarnation, the base has significantly expanded from its old Soviet days and, in just the last two years, the population of the more than 5,000 acre compound has doubled to 20,000 troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. To keep up with its exponential growth rate, more than $200 million in construction projects are planned or in-progress at this moment on just the Air Force section of the base. "Seven days a week, concrete trucks rumble along the dusty perimeter road of this air base as bulldozers and backhoes reshape the rocky earth," Chuck Crumbo of The State reported recently. "Hundreds of laborers slap mortar onto bricks as they build barracks and offices. Four concrete plants on the base have operated around the clock for 18 months to keep up with the construction needs."
The base already boasts fast food favorites Burger King, a combination Pizza Hut/Bojangles, and Popeyes as well as a day spa and shops selling jewelry, cell phones and, of course, Afghan rugs. In the near future, notes Pincus, "the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving on to other sites." In addition, according to the Associated Press, the base command is "acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand" even further.
To handle the influx of troops already being dispatched by the Obama administration (with more expected once the president decides on his long-term war plans) "new dormitories" are going up at Bagram, according to David Axe of the Washington Times. The base's population will also increase in the near future, thanks to a project-in-progress recently profiled in The Freedom Builder, an Army Corps of Engineers publication: the MILCON Bagram Theatre Internment Facility (TIF) currently being built at a cost of $60 million by a team of more than 1,000 Filipinos, Indians, Sri Lankans, and Afghans. When completed, it will consist of 19 buildings and 16 guard towers designed to hold more than 1,000 detainees on the sprawling base which has long been notorious for the torture and even murder of prisoners within its confines.
While the United States officially insists that it is not setting up permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale and permanency of the construction underway at Bagram seems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According to published reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for the complex aren't even slated to be operational until 2011.
One of the private companies involved in hardening and building up Bagram's facilities is Contrack International,
an international engineering and construction firm which, according to
U.S. government records, received more than $120 million in contracts
in 2009 for work in Afghanistan. According to Contrack's website, it
is, among other things, currently designing and constructing a new
"entry control point" -- a fortified entrance -- as well as a new
"ammunition supply point" facility at the base. It is also responsible
for "the design and construction of taxiways and aprons; airfield
lighting and navigation aid improvements; and new apron construction"
for the base's massive and expanding air operations infrastructure. The
building boom at Bagram (which has received at least a modest amount of
attention in the American mainstream press) is, however, just a
fraction of the story of the way the U.S. military -- and Contrack
International -- are digging in throughout Afghanistan.
Rave Reviews for Kandahar
In March, according to Pentagon documents, Contrack was awarded a $23 million contract for "the design and construction of [an] Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance ramp, Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan." Last year, in the Washington Post, Pincus reported that a planned expansion at the airfield, also once used by the Soviets and now a major U.S. and NATO base, was to accommodate aircraft working for a Task Force ODIN -- an Afghanistan-based version of the Army unit which used drones and helicopters to target insurgents planting IEDs in Iraq. Today, Task Force ODIN-Afghanistan -- the acronym stands for "observe, detect, identify and neutralize," with a nod to the chief Norse god -- is up and running, and still reportedly piloted out of "Bagram in one of two small, nondescript ground control stations." Whether ODIN aircraft are also operating out of Kandahar Airfield is -- like so much information about the U.S. military in Afghanistan -- unclear. Certainly, though, many more NATO and U.S. aircraft will be flying out of the base once Contrack, as it notes on its website, completes its "[d]esign and construction of replacement runways with asphalt and touch down areas with concrete pavement" and "rehabilitation of 6 existing taxiways," among other projects.
Contrack's Kandahar contract is set to be fulfilled by late December, but like Bagram, the base already gives every appearance of permanence. "It's one of the busiest single runways in the world," Captain Max Hanlin from the 2nd U.S. Army Division's 5th Stryker Brigade told Agence France-Presse recently. Originally built to house 12,000 troops, Kandahar Air Base now supports 30,000 or more NATO and U.S. personnel. Some do battle in the inhospitable terrain of the surrounding region, while others have never been outside the wire and wile away their time in the base's cafes and small shops (where troops reportedly can buy, among other items, belly dancer costumes), party in the "Dutch corner," play roller hockey in the base's central square, or dance the night away at a Saturday rave. "They are shaking glowsticks as if they have no concept of the mines and the war outside," said one U.S. officer, watching troops on the dance floor.
In recent days, U.S. forces announced a decrease in recreational perks and an imposition of more austere circumstances -- salsa and karaoke nights have already been cut at Kandahar -- prompting worries by NATO allies that their recreational facilities will be overrun by entertainment-starved U.S. troops.
A Mob of FOBs
It seems that no one outside the Pentagon knows just exactly how many U.S. camps, forward operating bases, combat outposts, patrol bases and other fortified sites the U.S. military is currently using or constructing in Afghanistan. And while the Americans have recently abandoned a few of their installations, effectively ceding the northeastern province of Nuristan to Taliban forces, elsewhere a base-building boom has been underway.
In April, Contrack was awarded another $28 million contract for work on airfields -- to be performed at unspecified sites in Afghanistan. In June, Florida-based IAP Worldwide Services was awarded a $21 million contract to enhance electrical power distribution at the U.S. Marines' still-growing Forward Operating Base (FOB) Leatherneck in Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold. Scheduled for completion in June 2010, that project is only part of IAP's work, which has involved "almost two dozen power plants at U.S. Army bases in Afghanistan and Iraq" that, according to the company's promotional literature, its teams have "delivered, installed, operated and maintained."
FOB Dwyer, also in Helmand Province, is fast becoming a "hub" for air support in southern Afghanistan, according to Captain Vincent Rea of the Air Force's 809th Expeditionary Red Horse Squadron. To that end, Marine Corps and Air Force personnel are building runways and helipads to accommodate ever more fixed-wing and rotary aircraft on the base. The two services collaborated on the construction of a 4,300-foot airstrip capable of accommodating giant C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that increase the U.S. capability to support more troops on more bases in more remote areas.
"With the C-130s coming in more frequently, more Marines can travel at a given time and will definitely help Camp Dwyer and other FOBs and COPs (Combat Outposts) to build up," says Capt. Alexander Lugo-Velazquez of Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron 169. In September, the Air Force reported the completion of the first phase of a six-phase construction project at FOB Dwyer which will eventually include additional fuel pits and taxiways, increased tarmac space, and the lengthening of the runway to 6,000 feet. In October, according to government documents, the Army also began soliciting bids -- in the $10-$25 million range -- for construction of fuel storage and distribution facilities at FOB Dwyer. These, like the infrastructure upgrades at Bagram, are not scheduled to be completed until sometime in 2011.
In Helmand, as well as Farah, Kandahar, and Nimruz provinces, between June and September the Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan alone established four new forward operating bases, "10 combat outposts, six patrol bases, and four ancillary operating positions, helicopter landing zones and an expeditionary airfield." In October, defense contractor AECOM Technology signed a $78 million, 6-month extension contract with the Army to "provide general-support maintenance as well as the operation of maintenance facilities, living quarters and offices at two U.S. military bases as well as forward operating bases and satellite locations" in Afghanistan.
Defense contracting giant Fluor has also been hard at work landing lucrative deals in Afghanistan. In March, the Army reported that, in accordance with President Obama's spring surge of troops, Regional Command East in Afghanistan had tasked Fluor to expand four existing forward operating bases and, if need be, build another eight new ones.
In Regional Command South, it was reported that "[e]mergency work to expand eight FOBs [wa]s underway after being competitively awarded to Fluor under LOGCAP IV." This is the current version of a military program first instituted by the Pentagon in 1985. It has been the key means by which military logistics and supply functions have been turned over to private contractors. (The previous version of the program, LOGCAP III, was awarded solely to Kellogg, Brown and Root Services or KBR, then a division of the oil services giant Halliburton, primarily in support of U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait and was plagued by scandals.)
In Afghanistan, companies like Fluor are clearly digging in. Fluor, in fact, describes itself as "co-located with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, where the team coordinates, provides oversight, and implements Fluor's execution plan to provide the necessary resources and labor to accomplish this mission" of "providing multi-functional base life support and combat services support (CSS) to the U.S. and Coalition Forces in Afghanistan."
The company is "simultaneously constructing and managing the expansion of eight Forward Operating Bases[...] in Southern Afghanistan. This includes the construction of an FOB to accommodate 17,000 to 20,000 U.S. Military personnel." Fluor, no doubt, expects to be "co-located with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan" for a long time. In July 2009, the defense giant was awarded a $1.5 billion contract for LOGCAP IV services in Afghanistan; in October, the Army reported that the LOGCAP program was responsible for erecting 6,020 units of containerized housing known as relocatable buildings or RLBs in Regional Command South.
In July, under an existing LOGCAP IV contract, scandal-tainted defense contractor DynCorp International, along with partners CH2M Hill and Taos Industries, received a one year $643.5 million order to "provide existing bases within the Afghanistan South AOR [area of responsibility] with operations and maintenance support, including but not limited to: facilities management, electrical power, water, sewage and waste management, laundry operations, food services and transportation motor pool operations," as well as "construction services for additional sites." With an eye to the future, the Pentagon has included four one-year options in the contract which, if taken up, would be worth an estimated $5.8 billion.
Just recently, the Australian military indicated it was also digging in for a long stay, announcing a $37 million upgrade of its main base near Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan province, to be completed by mid-2011. As at other NATO facilities, increasing numbers of U.S. troops have been operating out of Tarin Kowt recently and, in late September, the U.S.-based company Kandahar Constructors signed a $25 million deal with the Pentagon for runway upgrades there, also to be completed in 2011.
Speaking the Language of Occupation
In 2009 alone, after many billions of dollars had already gone into the construction, expansion, and maintenance of U.S. bases in Afghanistan, American taxpayers were called upon to pay for more than $1 billion in construction contracts -- and based on the evidence at hand, including those future options, this may prove just a drop in the proverbial bucket.
All of this has been happening without a clear plan laid out in Washington for the future of U.S. military operations in that country, without a legitimate national government in Kabul, and of course with no shortage of infrastructural repairs needed at home. Americans curious to know much of anything about the Pentagon's Afghan building boom beyond Bagram would have found little on the nightly news or in major newspapers. It has essentially been carried out in the dark, far away, and with only the most modest reportorial interest.
Forget for a moment the "debates" in Washington over Afghan War policy and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military's building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decide upon. Alternatively, it suggests that the Pentagon is willing to waste taxpayer money (which might have shored up sagging infrastructure in the U.S. and created a plethora of jobs) on what will sooner or later be abandoned runways, landing zones and forward operating bases.
The building and fortifying of bases in Afghanistan isn't the only sign that the U.S. military is digging in for an even longer haul. Another key indicator can be found in a Pentagon contract awarded in late September to SOS International, Ltd., a privately owned "operations support company" that provides everything from "cultural advisory services" to "intelligence and counterintelligence analysis and training" to numerous federal agencies. That contract, primarily for linguistic services in support of military operations in Afghanistan, has an estimated completion date of September 2014.
- Posted in




22 Comments so far
Show AllWow. maybe New Orleans should organize some Cajuns and attack New York City. Then they can finally get rebuit.
Maybe a suicide airboat attack on the Statue of Liberty's left big toe?
Afganistan is shaping up to be a winless victory to go along with the USA's jobless recovery.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
We simply can't afford it, and to those who say we have to stay involved for security reasons, think again. Take a quick look at the porous U.S. border and depleted U.S. National Guard (who for Pete's sake dreamed up Homeland Security?), now there's some real
national security.
Who dreamed it up? Wiki the word "Reichssicherheitshauptamt".
Central Reich Security Office-go figure!
The Imperial Industrial Complex rakes in obscene profits and we pay the bills as usual. These parasites are going to bleed the host dry. We are paying going to pay for the debts and long term effects of this for a generation: assuming that the Empire does not collapse before that.
Meanwhile, back in the mother country, we get no health care, no education, crumbling public infrastrucure, unemployment, legalized financial organized crime, and ever growing socio-economic stratification.
If you aint got the dough ray me, that's too f-in bad. We will just have to die early and reduce the surplus population. That will bring the official unemployment rate down as well eh.
This is the real US policy unfurled.
To build massive bases in strategic places.
No matter what the cost.
To join the dots and ring the world.
To be able to attack anywhere anytime.
No matter that everyone is lost.
Same old dumbass US foreign policy.Prospects will not change until the US public make major shifts in perspectives, some of the major which are: cutting defense spending about 75% which will still leave us with biggest military and will not reduce our security a bit but will increase it if accompanied by non-hypocritical non-imperialistic cooperative policies; stopping all aid monetary and diplomatic to the apartheid colonialist despicable Israel government and shift support to the Palestinian victims; restoring the top progressive tax rate to the past 90%; eliminate the extension of individual legal rights to corporations and expand the legal penalties for corporate fraud and illegal activity to personal penalties for corporate management;cap corporate management annual "cash" compensation and limit other compensation to corporate stock with limits on the rights to trade it to long terms reflecting their decision impact on corporate health (5 years +); taxation increases effectively doubling the prices of fossil fuels and gasoline cars; usage of the substantial revenues from the above on social improvements like real universal government funded healthcare for all, universal higher education, stimulating renewable fuels usage and development and softening the impact of the new taxes on the poor.... I don't expect to see it...unless I live to see the crash
All excellent comments regarding the ubiquitous and obscene nature of the United States military. But as Turse accurately notes, the military and the U.S. government have little to fear that anything critical will ever happen because this important story is being, for all practical purposes, totally ignored by the mainstream media. Will any reporter or television anchor ever ask Obama or his press secretary about all these bases being built in Afghanistan and especially about all this money being spent in that country in order to further the imperial aims of the United States? Perhaps at the very least Bill Moyers will have Nick Turse on his program in order to spur other television programs [where so many Americans receive their news] to cover this significant story.
You all need to read the column "What Obama Is Up Against." It says that the military is ready to revolt, and if Obama tries to stop the Afghanistan war, he will be risking his life. It says that John Kennedy was killed because he tried to stop Vietnam. We have the military, the corporations, the media, and the Republicans all trying to destroy everything that Obama is trying to accomplish, and the Democrats go their own selfish way. What can be done?
Former UK Ambassador: CIA Sent People to be ‘Raped with Broken Bottles’
By Daniel Tencer
November 05, 2009 "Raw Story" -- November 04, 2009 --- The CIA relied on intelligence based on torture in prisons in Uzbekistan, a place where widespread torture practices include raping suspects with broken bottles and boiling them alive, says a former British ambassador to the central Asian country.
Craig Murray, the rector of the University of Dundee in Scotland and until 2004 the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the CIA not only relied on confessions gleaned through extreme torture, it sent terror war suspects to Uzbekistan as part of its extraordinary rendition program.
"I'm talking of people being raped with broken bottles," he said at a lecture late last month that was re-broadcast by the Real News Network. "I'm talking of people having their children tortured in front of them until they sign a confession. I'm talking of people being boiled alive. And the intelligence from these torture sessions was being received by the CIA, and was being passed on."
Human rights groups have long been raising the alarm about the legal system in Uzbekistan. In 2007, Human Rights Watch declared that torture is "endemic" to the country's justice system.
Murray said he only realized after his stint as ambassador that the CIA was sending people to be tortured in Uzbekistan, country he describes as a "totalitarian" state that has never moved on from its communist era, when it was a part of the Soviet Union.
Suspects in Uzbekistan's gulags "were being told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they'd been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes."
"I was absolutely stunned -- it changed my whole world view in an instant -- to be told that London knew [the intelligence] coming from torture, that it was not illegal because our legal advisers had decided that under the United Nations convention against torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture as long as we didn't do the torture ourselves," Murray said.
IT'S THE PIPELINE, STUPID
Murray asserts that the primary motivation for US and British military involvement in central Asia has to do with large natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. As evidence, he points to the plans to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan that would allow Western oil companies to avoid Russia and Iran when transporting natural gas out of the region.
Murray alleged that in the late 1990s the Uzbek ambassador to the US met with then-Texas Governor George W. Bush to discuss a pipeline for the region, and out of that meeting came agreements that would see Texas-based Enron gain the rights to Uzbekistan's natural gas deposits, while oil company Unocal worked on developing the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
"The consultant who was organizing this for Unocal was a certain Mr. Karzai, who is now president of Afghanistan," Murray noted.
Murray said part of the motive in hyping up the threat of Islamic terrorism in Uzbekistan through forced confessions was to ensure the country remained on-side in the war on terror, so that the pipeline could be built.
"There are designs of this pipeline, and if you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you'll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It's what it's about. It's about money, it's about oil, it's not about democracy."
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline is slated to be completed in 2014, with $7.6 billion in funding from the Asian Development Bank.
Murray was dismissed from his position as ambassador in 2004, following his first public allegations that the British government relied on torture in Uzbekistan for intelligence.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sooo, this is what 'winning' means - a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan that avoids Russia and Iran. For this we have murdered millions and bankrupt America. Suppose EXXON/Unocal do get their pipeline - then what? The entire Muslim world will be taking RPG potshots at the pipeline. Will a million man army be enough to protect our 'victory' for 24/7? I think not.
Quite right! Sadly, many Americans would not believe this since they did not see it on TV.
The reason we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan has to do with more than just the pipeline, though that is certainly the immediate goal of the current fighting. In fact, the great game which the U.S. is playing, with the lives of American, Afghani and Pakistani citizens as the chips, appears to be "the prevention of a Russian energy monopoly" in Central Asia or Chinese domination of the energy-rich region, according to an article published last year in the magazine of the US Army War College by Dr. Stephen Blank, the college’s professor of National Security Studies. Studying the strategic papers of those who guide the national security state can yield rich understanding to those who want to counter their tactics.
"Not surprisingly," Blank writes, "the leitmotif of US energy policy has been focused on fostering the development of multiple pipelines and links to foreign consumers and producers of energy" that bypass the control of our regional rivals. He singles out the most important of these pipelines as the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAPI) pipeline, which would pump oil and natural gas from Central Asia across the exact territory now occupied by US troops.
Note that it is not a single pipeline that is motivating U.S. foreign policy, but a network of multiple pipelines that are intended to counter the Russian threat. Suddenly, the "nuclear threat" of Iran begins to make sense. Iran has allied with Russia and China and serves as a proxy for the Central Asian hegemonic powers. What anti-war resisters need is a consistent, in-depth analysis of this strategy, so that we are never tempted to fall into the frames of discourse presented by the Democratic party. The key to fighting a successful anti-war campaign is to understand what actually motivates your enemy, not to directly counter the miasma of lies that clouds their strategy.
Does anyone know of someone who has analyzed this "Great Game" strategy in detail? I think it would make an effective talking point for planning anti-war activities. One of the powerful aspects of this narrative is that breaks the corporate media frameworks of discussion, frameworks that have been carefully designed to support the war effort. Secondly, it puts the focus on power relations and provides a predictive check on the validity of our analysis.
If you go on www.globalresearch.ca, you will find many analytical articles precisely concerning the US's aim and thrust in that region.
I like your approach: reasonable and based on "what can progressives DO" to fight against the MIC (to summarize a bit crudely what is the 'problem').
People often talk about the 'planned pipeline' as if that was the reason for being there. But as you point out, it's obviously about energy/geopolitical hegemony in the region that is the point.
Also, the Bush/Cheney criminal gang had designs for NATO after the collapse of the USSR that are at stake here. If the mission 'fails' (as it is obviously doing), NATO pretty much takes a huge hit, like a fatal hit and that part of the Full Spectrum Dominance of the PNAC fantasies die with it.
It's obviously a long-term committment and a ginormous cash cow for certain corporations and the politicians and military big-wigs who have a financial interest in them.
I think that progressives and anti-Afghan war protesters in particular must be as sophisticated in their international analysis as the government-based think tanks. We actually have the theoretical sophistication to counter anything they can produce. We simply have to call on those with the requisite background We don't have to accept the Democratic party frameworks for discourse.
A copy of this article needs to be sent to every Congressional Representative's and Senator's office with a letter as much as asking:
1. Are you aware of this long term spending in the neighborhood of billions of dollars for permanent military facilites in Afghanistan?
2. Do you support this program of permanent military facilities in Afghnaistan?
3. If yes, then why and if no then what are you going to do about it?
Poet
Of course they are aware, all the pigs feed from the same trough.The trough of greed.
It will be sourly interesting to hear The Great One trot out his latest salvo of uplifting lies for keeping the United States in Afghanistan. Perhaps, scared by the results of Tuesday's election, he will even profess that it is God's Will.
Keep building or die.
In 2014 the dollar will be worthless, a war victim. Maybe the Pentagon can sell Afghan heroin to support its war.
they know whats happening of course!
Yourself Esteem Unlocked
Turse's analysis/report brings up an analogy with the Iraq war. The invasion force was assembled and waiting near Iraq for the go-ahead to land and invade Iraq. As we know today that belied President Bush's statements that he had not yet decided yet to go ahead. He already had decided. The massive buildup in Afghanistan likewise belies the White House's statements that it is still analyzing the situation and that no decision has been made yet. Some additional increase above the earlier 20,000 has already been accepted as a distinct possibility; the discussion is about how many, if any, more and what kind of soldiers. If the Obama administration has approved the continuation of the buildup in Afghanistan after January 2009 how can it backtrack and argue that it should not be used?
Karzai? He may be an embarrassment in the short run but given a continued long-term occupation of Afghanistan he may be shoved aside completely in favor of dealing with the various warlords directly.