As Obama Sends More Troops, Giant Shadow Army Of Contractors Set To Grow In Afghanistan/The Campaign Cash Behind the Afghanistan Escalation

Published on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 by Talking Points Memo

As Obama Sends More Troops, Giant Shadow Army Of Contractors Set To Grow In Afghanistan

by Justin Elliott

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 [1] and Post [2] 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 [3] -- 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 [4] 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 [5] at a hearing last month. At that hearing, military witnesses couldn't come up [5] with a precise count of contractors, prompting former GOP congressman Chris Shays to remark [6], "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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9] 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 [10], created by Congress in 2008, is due in the summer of 2011.

Finally, it's worth noting that Hamid Karzai recently promised [11] 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.

© 2009 Talking Points Memo

Published on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 by Facing South

The Campaign Cash Behind the Afghanistan Escalation

by Sue Sturgis

President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the nation tonight from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., in which he's expected to announce he's sending up to 35,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

In this photograph taken on July 2, US Marines from the 2nd Battalion, wait for helicopter transport at Camp Dwyer in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Medics and air force pilots at the main US base in Afghanistan are gearing up for the grim reality of the new US war strategy -- a likely escalation in the number of casualties in an increasingly bloody battlefield. (AFP/File/Manpreet Romana)

Anti-war groups are already planning protests against the escalation. United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 1,400 local and national groups, is holding numerous protest actions [1] around the country today and tomorrow, as is the anti-war group Code Pink [2].

Some are calling the president's plan to ratchet up the war a betrayal of the Democratic base, which overwhelmingly opposes sending more troops. For example, a recent Gallup poll [3] found that 60% of Democrats want the president to begin reducing troop levels in Afghanistan.

But while the president may be showing disloyalty to his political base, he's remaining faithful to the defense industry interests that so generously funded his campaign.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database [4], the top recipient of defense industry money in the 2008 election cycle was Barack Obama, whose haul of $1,029,997 far surpassed Republican contender Sen. John McCain's $696,948.

During the 2008 cycle, the industry contributed a total of $23.7 million to federal candidates -- far more than the $17.4 million it invested during the 2006 cycle or the $18.1 million in the 2004 cycle.

The top five defense industry contributors during the 2008 elections [5] were Lockheed Martin at $2.5 million, Boeing at $2.1 million, Northrop Grumman at $1.8 million, and Raytheon and General Dynamics at $1.7 million each.

And it appears their investment may be paying off: The Associated Press reports [6] that analyst Howard A. Rubel of the global investment bank Jefferies & Co. sent out a client note today stating that the fiscal 2010 Defense Department Budget will likely boost demand for precision munitions, communications gear, helicopters, armor and surveillance systems.

Among the companies whose stock Rubel rated as "Buy"? General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman.

© 2009 Institute for Southern Studies

 

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218.  Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

 

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs