Feral Jundi

   So this is it. This is the magic number that everyone was anticipating.  I guess you could call this surge-light maybe? Anyway, my focus is on what does this mean for security contractors and contractors in general?  Well we can certainly expect to see a civilian contractor surge to accompany this troop surge, if history is any indicator.

   The difference this time around, as far as comparing the Iraq surge to the Afghanistan surge, is geography.  Everything depends upon geography.  That, and weather.  We can always count on the enemy to do what they do too. But the real deal is geography, and this is where the heart of the discussion should be.

   All of these troops will need a place to sleep, food to eat, ammo and spare parts for their guns, and transportation to get them around in a country the size of Texas.  In Iraq, the logistics were pretty smooth because we didn’t have mountains to worry about, and the roads were pretty decent.  We also had a port to ship stuff to, and Kuwait was right next door.  The geography was kind to us in Iraq.

   In Afghanistan, there are mountains galore, roads are crappy and in some places non-existent, and there are no ports to ship stuff to.  So the way this thing is going to shape up, is lots of aviation work-helicopters and transport.  And to top it off, an increase in convoy work through mountains infested with enemy.  There will also be an effort to provide stuff locally to fill the needs, but for things like fuel or ammo and all of our little goodies that the troops ‘have to have’, we will be depending largely on flying it in or convoy work through some very dangerous and rough terrain. Expect to see long serpentine style convoys, snaking through the mountain passes, and pissing off all sorts of people.  These convoys will be massive, and they will be juicy targets for the enemy.

   Of course the second story I posted is a little old, but still relevant.  Contractors currently out number the troops in Afghanistan.  In the realm of security contractor numbers, Afghan security contractors are the dominate force there.  They are also doing a lot of fighting and dying up in those hills as they transport those goods.  And in some cases, they are causing issues, and especially when they go through population centers and engaging with the enemy there. Think Nisour Square, but at a local level, and these guys are not winning many friends when it comes to fire discipline.

     As these security companies continue to get into trouble locally, and the Afghan government doesn’t do anything to shore up their PSC’s, then that will only hurt the overall war effort. The Taliban will narrate the whole thing as ‘these companies and militias are killing locals, and it is all the infidel’s fault because they want all of these supplies’. And there is even some piracy going on, with the enemy attacking these convoys and taking the loot. Pffft.  What will be interesting to see is that with this new surge of troops, will there be a new push to use expat contractors to insure the security contracting aspect of the surge does not hinder the war effort?

   The other area of concern are these damn pay offs to war lords and the Taliban.  That has to stop, and we must get a handle on this activity. These local PSC’s can be better managed by the Afghan government, and with this upturn in work, there must be an effort on our part to get this in order.  If not, PSC’s will be painted with a broad brush as corrupt and working with the enemy.  I think if contracts were properly written to reflect reality and to reflect what the desired outcome of the contract should be, then this could be fixed.  It takes leadership and a trust but verify attitude to ensure these contracts are being carried out properly.  If not, then withhold the money and claim a default on contract or do something similar.  The guy that writes the checks, should definitely demand quality of service, and should have all the power.

   Back to numbers.  Can we expect upwards of around 30,000 to 35,000 contractors (a one to one ratio maybe?)? I think that is a reasonable amount.  Could we see an increase in expat managed security contracts, as well as an increase of expat security contractors to keep local national teams in line?  I think so. Will we see an increase in helicopter contracts, along with security/support teams for helicopters and transport?  Most definitely. (I also predict a PMC search and rescue element emerging because of this increase) Will the enemy try to shoot down more of these contractor helicopters? You bet.  How about an increase in TWISS style contracts in Afghanistan, complete with local national guards and even Ugandan guards to man posts?  Yes, and I have posted several reports to indicate that.  Will more contractors die in the line of duty?  Unfortunately, yes.  Will the nation and the world recognize that sacrifice and the civilian contractor contribution to the war effort?  Probably not.

   Now onto strategy, or the lack there of, when it comes to this coming contractor surge.  Where is the talk about shoring up these local national PSC’s, so they ‘don’t’ ruin the COIN strategy we so carefully crafted?  Why is Karzai wanting to get rid of foreign PSC’s, yet has not discussed how he plans to keep his own PSC’s in line?  Or how about Karzai telling these local PSC’s to stop paying protection money to the enemy? Or what is being done to insure all expat security contractors and LN contractors that will be interacting with and around the local populations, will not negatively impact COIN strategy in Afghanistan? I have yet to hear a General or think-tanker address this specifically, yet there are more contractors than troops in Afghanistan?  Hmmmm, how frustrating.

     Finally, if logistics is key to winning wars, and it will be contractors primarily tasked with protecting those logistics in Afghanistan, then what are we doing to insure their success? Are we going to actually give these convoy teams the means to protect themselves, or give them communications gear for unity of effort in the fight, or assign aviation assets to watch over these essential war goods?  Will we actually use these convoys as a means to engage with the enemy, and draw him out for the fight?  Who knows, but these are a few things that I have yet to hear being talked about in regards to the war effort in Afghanistan.

     We need to start talking about some of this stuff, because the surge is on like Donkey Kong, and there will be a whole bunch of us security contractors and regular contractors coming in right beside these 30,000 troops. –Matt

Edit: I noticed after today’s speech, the numbers have changed from 34,000 in reports, to 30,000.  So as you can see, I have made the edits up top.

——————————————————————

34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

OBAMA DETAILS PLAN FOR ALLIES

Other nations to be asked for more forces

By Karen DeYoung and Scott WilsonWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, December 1, 2009

President Obama will outline Tuesday his intention to send an additional 34,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials and diplomatic sources briefed Monday as Obama began informing allies of his plan.

The new deployments, along with 22,000 troops he authorized early this year, would bring the total U.S. force in Afghanistan to more than 100,000, more than half of which will have been sent to the war zone by Obama.

The president also plans to ask NATO and other partners in an international coalition to contribute 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, officials said. The combined U.S. and NATO deployments would nearly reach the 40,000 requested last summer by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, as part of an intensified counterinsurgency strategy.

The new troops are to be sent in stages beginning in January, with options to delay or cancel deployments, depending on the performance of the Afghan government and other factors. Defense officials said that, beyond Marine units deploying next month, no final decisions have been made about specific units or the order in which they would be sent.

Details of Obama’s plan emerged on the eve of his prime-time address from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He will use the Tuesday speech to explain his Afghan strategy to an American public that is increasingly pessimistic about the war after eight years and rising casualties.

Even as he escalates U.S. involvement, Obama will lay out in his speech what amounts to an exit strategy, centered on measures to strengthen the Afghan government so that its security forces can begin taking control of their own country. He is expected to specify benchmarks for Afghan progress on both the military and political fronts, according to U.S. and allied officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the strategy.

White House officials remained tight-lipped, but British Prime Minister Gordon Brown — with whom Obama spoke Monday — offered a preview of aspects of the strategy when he addressed Parliament.

The military objective, Brown said, is “to create the space for an effective political strategy to work, weakening the Taliban by strengthening Afghanistan itself.” Over the next year, he said, the Afghan army will be expanded from 90,000 to 134,000 troops, with 10,000 of them going to Helmand province, where U.S. Marines and British forces have focused their fight against the Taliban. Further increases are envisioned for later.

The number of Afghan policemen in Helmand will increase immediately to 4,100, Brown said, and the size of the police training academy in Helmand is to be doubled. Within six months, the coalition is to finalize a plan for overall police reform with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Brown said that the strategy calls for “transfer of lead security responsibility to the Afghans — district by district, province by province — with the first districts and provinces potentially being handed over during the next year,” depending on “the Afghans being ready.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that transferring security responsibility for specific Afghan areas will be “a big part of what you’ll hear the president talk about tomorrow.”

Allied governments have pressed Karzai to remove warlords and cronies from senior government positions. Over the next nine months, Brown said, the Afghan president “will be expected to implement . . . far-reaching reforms to ensure that, from now on, all 400 provinces and districts have a governor appointed on merit, free from corruption, with clearly defined roles, skills and resources.”

Strategy objectives, Brown said, also include encouraging “a new set of relationships between Afghanistan and its neighbors, based on their guarantee of non-interference in Afghanistan’s affairs,” increased economic and cultural links, and “immediate confidence-building security measures.”

Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, while insisting that Pakistani troops take action against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban sanctuaries in that country. Coalition and Afghan efforts, Brown said, “must be matched by actions not simply to isolate but defeat al-Qaeda within Pakistan.”

After months of deliberations, Obama informed senior war advisers Sunday evening of his decision in an Oval Office meeting attended by Vice President Biden; national security adviser James L. Jones; Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman; Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command; and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama also telephoned Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and spoke with McChrystal and Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and ordered ground commanders to begin carrying out his plan.

On Monday, the president began a carefully orchestrated strategy rollout with calls to allied leaders, including Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. He met at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who increased the Australian contingent in Afghanistan to more than 1,500 troops this year.

Gibbs said Obama would also brief Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari before delivering his address, as well as the leaders of India, China, Poland and Germany.

Before he departs for West Point late Tuesday afternoon, Obama is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders to discuss his plan. Gibbs said that so far, a “bipartisan, bicameral” group of legislators, numbering 31, has been invited to the White House, representing the committees that would consider Obama’s Afghan strategy and the funding request to pay for it.

Clinton, Gates, Mullen and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, will accompany Obama to West Point, and Clinton, Gates and Mullen will testify on the strategy in four congressional hearings Wednesday and Thursday. Next week, Petraeus will testify with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, followed by joint congressional appearances by McChrystal and Eikenberry.

Gibbs said that he did “not have anything conclusive” on how Obama intends to pay for the escalation and that it would not be detailed in the speech.

Equally uncertain is the likelihood that NATO and other allies will contribute additional troops to a war that is deeply unpopular in Europe. Britain has authorized 9,500 troops; France has 3,750 on the ground. Among other NATO allies with forces in Afghanistan, Canada and the Netherlands have set withdrawal dates. Clinton will leave Thursday for Brussels to brief NATO allies, and the alliance will hold a “force generation conference” next week.

Story here.

——————————————————————-

Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

By JAMES GLANZ

Published: September 1, 2009

Civilian contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan not only outnumber the uniformed troops, according to a report by a Congressional research group, but also form the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel recorded in any war in the history of the United States.

On a superficial level, the shift means that most of those representing the United States in the war will be wearing the scruffy cargo pants, polo shirts, baseball caps and other casual accouterments favored by overseas contractors rather than the fatigues and flight suits of the military.

More fundamentally, the contractors who are a majority of the force in what has become the most important American enterprise abroad are subject to lines of authority that are less clear-cut than they are for their military colleagues.

What is clear, the report says, is that when contractors for the Pentagon or other agencies are not properly managed — as when civilian interrogators committed abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq or members of the security firm Blackwater shot and killed 17 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad — the American effort can be severely undermined.

As of March this year, contractors made up 57 percent of the Pentagon’s force in Afghanistan, and if the figure is averaged over the past two years, it is 65 percent, according to the report by the Congressional Research Service. A copy of the report was posted online by Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists.

The 68,197 contractors — many of them Afghans — handle a variety of jobs, including cooking for the troops, serving as interpreters and even providing security, the report says.

The report says the reliance on contractors has grown steadily, with just a small percentage of contractors serving the Pentagon in World War I, but then growing to nearly a third of the total force in the Korean War and about half in the Balkans and Iraq. The change, the report says, has gradually forced the American military to adapt to a far less regimented and, in many ways, less accountable force.

The growing dependence on contractors is partly because the military has lost some of its logistics and support capacity, especially since the end of the cold war, according to the report. Some of the contractors have skills in critical areas like languages and digital technologies that the military needs.

The issue of the role of contractors in war has been a subject of renewed debate in Washington in recent weeks with disclosures that the Central Intelligence Agency used the company formerly known as Blackwater to help with a covert program, now canceled, to assassinate leaders of Al Qaeda. Lawmakers have demanded to know why such work was outsourced.

The State Department also uses contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, although both the department and the C.I.A. have said they want to reduce their dependence on outside workers.

Responding to the Congressional research report, Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said it was highly questionable whether contractors brought the same commitment and willingness to take risks as the men and women of the military or the diplomatic services.

He also questioned whether using contractors was cost effective, saying that no one really knew whether having a force made up mainly of contractors whose salaries were often triple or quadruple those of a corresponding soldier or Marine was cheaper or more expensive for the American taxpayer.

With contractors focused on preserving profits and filing paperwork with government auditors, he said, “you grow the part of government that, probably, the taxpayers appreciate least.”

Congress appropriated at least $106 billion for Pentagon contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 through the first half of the 2008 fiscal year, the report says.

The report said the combined forces in Iraq and Afghanistan still had more uniformed military personnel than contractors over all: 242,657 contractors and about 282,000 troops as of March 31.

Story here.