Stunning Statistics About the War Every American Should Know
A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, "the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history." That’s not in one war zone — that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.
In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff, "From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000."
At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.
The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.
Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. "The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight," according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. "In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant."
A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are "administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations." According to one USAID official, the agency is "sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent." As a result, the agency does not "know … where the money is going."
The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:
In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.
The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: "The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan." Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.
As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.
Read more by Jeremy Scahill
- Blackwater Wants to Surge Its Armed Force in Afghanistan – January 19th, 2010
- Congressman Prepares Legislation to Ban Blackwater – January 13th, 2010
- Two Blackwater Guards Arrested by FBI on Murder Charges – January 7th, 2010
- Why Is the State Department Speaking for JSOC? – November 26th, 2009
- Pentagon Instructs Officials to Cancel Contracts with ACORN – October 23rd, 2009





Steve Hogan
December 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
In short, it's another government program, which means vast amounts of other people's money will be squandered with no negative consequences for the morons administering the largesse. What could possibly go wrong?
MvGuy
December 20th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Nice comment Steve Hogan…. Maybe it should be "What couldn't go wrong"! And the exclamation mark ought to resemble a mushroom cloud…….
jonahbrown
December 20th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Let's not forget, either, that the Flying Tigers were "private contractors" in a marked-as-humanitarian aid program in China. Just a coincidence that they were flying combat missions against both the Empire of Japan AND the Empire of China. "to protect the supply routes" for the "humanitarian" emergency food aid. Which found itself disproportionately in the hands of General Xiang Kai Shek and those who were willing to swear loyalty to him. Or that these "non-combat" combat missions were undertaken long before the Unprovoked Pearl Harbor raid.
Afghanistan just happened to be one of the stops as well, the British Empire was "managing the affairs" there and it was part of India. And surprise of surprises, another "private contractor" paramilitary adventure was heavily involved, the British East India Co.
That sort of thinking could change the perceptions we have of being the "wounded victims fighting back" in World War 2. The bit about the British East India Co. should give the Tea-Party folks a little bit of pause. Pause, step back, maybe stand the Hell down.
Not entirely likely but there is a hope.
As to (the "just" part is unspoken…)"another government program" well, the notion that the administrators have an unlimited license to kill is kind of a big difference.
Big like the way The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy described the Universe. It's enough to drive a Loonie sane.
As to the mushroom cloud, how much information is there about contractors working for the Indian nuclear program, the Pakistani nuclear program, or the Chinese nuclear program, or D all of the above? That would be nuclear Weapons programs.
One corporation rattling nuclear sabres at it's own corporate trading partners, or even subsidiaries of the same Corporation. Hey, everything's possible. We even had a semi-articulate Chimpanzee as a president for 8 years.
damocles
December 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
What was the percent of contrators in Viet Nam war?
Alan MacDonald
December 20th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Jonah, you speculate "One corporation rattling nuclear sabres at it's own corporate trading partners".
Once this ruling-elite Global corporate/financial/militarist Empire — which controls America (and several other former nation-states) by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy —- really gets into top gear, it will be the Empire itself, though its massively merged corporate states, that will deploy all strategic weapons in the world, and certainly not the unrealiable and potentially citizen influenced old 'countries'.
The U.S. role as military muscle-man for the fast expanding Global Empire will be a brief blink in history, and Justin will have to shift the focus of Antiwar.com to corporate and not state actors!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine