TPMMuckraker

DOD: Obama's Afghan Surge Will Rely Heavily On Private Contractors

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

DynCorp instructor with police recruits in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, June 2008.

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Private contractors will make up at least half of the total military workforce in Afghanistan going forward, according to Defense Department officials cited in a new congressional study.

As President Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan unfolds, the number of contractors will likely jump by between 16,000 and 56,000, adding up to a total of 120,000-160,000, according to an updated study from the Congressional Research Service.

DOD officials who spoke with the study's author said contractors would make up 50-55 percent of the total workforce -- troops plus contractors -- in the future. This would actually be a significant reduction from the last two years, when contractors have averaged 62 percent of the total.

As we've reported, many questions about the army of contractors, which outnumbers the size of the U.S. troop force, remain unanswered and underexamined. We don't have up to date numbers on how much the United States spends on private contracts, and the DOD does not break down the services done by contractors in Afghanistan (it does for Iraq).

As of September 2009, contractors providing security, transportation, and logistical services numbered 104,100 in Afghanistan and 113,700 in Iraq, according to the military. Most of the contractors in Afghanistan are local nationals, according to the military. Here's a table looking at how much the numbers in Afghanistan will increase with Obama's surge:

Interestingly, it looks like military planners themselves -- not just the media and politicians -- find it all too easy to ignore the role of contractors in U.S. foreign policy. The most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, a key strategic overview of American defense and military policy, runs over 100 pages. Just five sentences of the QDR document addresses the use of private contractors, the CRS study notes.

Besides crunching the numbers, the study also looks at whether contractors can undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the issue of abuses of civilians by contractors.

Here's a graph we've shown you before, now updated through September 2009:

The whole study is worth a read:

CRS Contractors Study 12/09

Comments (19) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (6)

December 15, 2009 9:34 AM   

Haliburton? Say it ain't so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:14 PM    in reply to Silence

Halliburton is primarily an oilfield services provider, nitwit. Unless fat oil deposits have recently been discovered in Afghanistan, Halliburton's probably not the go-to outfit.

Man, you're stupid. Do you ever think before you post, or do drive-bys like that get you off or something?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:41 PM    in reply to Signalman

How's are things going in psycho land?

WASHINGTON, July 12 — The Halliburton Company, the Dallas oil services company bedeviled lately by an array of accounting and business issues, is benefiting very directly from the United States efforts to combat terrorism.

From building cells for detainees at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba to feeding American troops in Uzbekistan, the Pentagon is increasingly relying on a unit of Halliburton called KBR, sometimes referred to as Kellogg Brown & Root.

Although the unit has been building projects all over the world for the federal government for decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have led to significant additional business. KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation. The contract recently won from the Army is for 10 years and has no lid on costs, the only logistical arrangement by the Army without an estimated cost.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 1:57 PM    in reply to Silence

****chirp****

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:03 PM    in reply to Silence

I don't post in a time and fashion to please you. Unlike you, I have actual responsibilities.

Grow up, troll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:00 PM    in reply to Silence

Thanks for confirming my takedown of you, moron.

Oilfield services, stupid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 2:14 PM    in reply to Signalman

ADD, huh?

Perhaps, Halliburton can send a short bus for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 3:38 PM    in reply to Silence

You are not only inattentive, you're also stupid.

Read Halliburton's webpage and marketing material. Read their Wikipedia entry. They are, as the first sentence of the matter you quoted admits, an oilfield services company.

Nothing you have posted refutes my statement which was (since you clearly don't understand it): Unless fat oil deposits have recently been discovered in Afghanistan, Halliburton's probably not the go-to outfit.

By all means, show us how Halliburton's take in Afghanistan is expected to increase if the Afghan surge goes forward. Show us the increased number of contracts that Halliburton has there as a result of the surge. Show us the increased gross and net that Halliburton will enjoy as a result of the surge. Show us the anticipated increase in staffing levels in Halliburton's Afghan operations as a result of the surge.

Oh. Wait. You can't. Those contracts haven't been written (or even bid) yet. That money hasn't been earned (or even committed) yet. Those employees haven't been assigned (or even hired) yet. All because the surge hasn't *happened* yet. Once again, as I said, Halliburton *probably isn't the go-to outfit.* If you think you can tell the future, then I'm beginning to better understand your mental disability as well as your psychological maladies.

Come back in a year and show me the numbers then, fool. Either that or reinstall your Windows For Precognates software, idiot. And get on the short bus yourself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Vv

user-pic

December 16, 2009 11:59 PM    in reply to Silence

Silence--- your source is from 2002!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/business/13HALL.html?pagewanted=all

come on... read a news paper, a new one, from today.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 9:44 AM   

This is another consequence of not having national service. The poor and mercenaries prosecute our wars while the upper class makes the $$. The middle class tries to pretend nothing is happening.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 11:42 AM    in reply to thomas1

Maybe, but it looks to me like the consequence of deliberately hollowing the armed forces so contractors do everything they can possibly do, regardless of whether that makes sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:52 PM    in reply to ericf

It maintains the illusion that a military can build nations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 10:03 AM   

Hey, so it is a jobs bill that will wildly increase employment?

It looks like the military oil complex is expanding its business into Latin and South America to increase that type of employment too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 12:48 PM   

The American people long ago figured out that the military isn't really trained for nation building.

Someone figured out that if you start sneaking in contractors, no one will notice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 15, 2009 1:07 PM   

What a perfect petroleum industry business plan.

Use the US taxpayers funds, their military, their guns/bullets/bombs, the blood of their youth - to expand your access to oil wells and natural resources.

Business plan: Business operational and capital expenditures socialized - profits, income, bonuses, perks privatized. The American taxpayer get$ to hold another bag of $teaming robber baron $HIT, and they make off with all the reward$ ($$$$$$).

How post bu$$$h/cheney - Fascist Capitalist Hyper-Avaricious American Industrialist.
~

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 18, 2009 4:48 AM    in reply to 2turk

they've brought their brilliant business model home and are working diligently to cannibalize all the small businesses in the U.S. via predatory (or nonexistent) banking and monopolistic practices.

fuck intel, dismantle wells fargo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 16, 2009 9:12 AM   

Why does TPM continue to use the mainstream media euphemism "contractors."

The gentlemen of DynCorp, Xe, formerly Blackwater, and so on are mercenaries, period.

A contractor wears a tool belt not a holster for a sidearm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 16, 2009 9:12 AM   

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 11:26 PM   

Maybe, but it looks to me like the consequence of deliberately hollowing the armed forces so contractors do everything they can possibly do, regardless of whether that makes sense.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!