I just found this and thought I would share. The two quotes in the article were the ones I thought were the most interesting, and if you would like to read the whole thing, by all means follow the link below.
What is cool here is Pratap has estimated a ratio of contractors to troops for this drawdown, based on the surges in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the drawdown in Iraq. Or basically the numbers needed for the buildup or drawdown of a conflict. It would be interesting to see how well these figures hold up after all is said and done? Either way, I thought the numbers were pretty impressive.
In the article, he also mentioned how much private security has grown in Afghanistan, and I have talked about that in the past as well. He has predicted, and I agree, that DoS will have a pretty sizable requirement for security contractors there, much like for Iraq.
The other quote that I put up that was interesting, was the possible factors that could impact these numbers. That Karzai could implement the ban on private security companies under Decree 62, and install his own police force wherever. Or there could be a dramatic decrease in reconstruction.
The reconstruction stuff I do not see, because folks want a return on investment for projects they have already invested millions into. If not, what a waste of money? Better to finish the project and then leave.
As to Karzai banning private security companies? Well, as Pratap brought up, I think the latest attack at the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul should change that mindset. I mean Karzai is responsible for shutting down and limiting PSC’s already. According to my readership, the MOI is sitting on approximately 45 licenses that have yet to be issued to companies so they can do their job.
So let’s think about that? That is 45 companies that are wanting to provide security in a country where the enemy is purposely targeting civilians, and the MOI is just sitting on these licenses? The enemy is attacking hotels, supermarkets, hospitals, reconstruction sites, etc., and yet these private security assets are just wasting away…. I say let these private companies contract with private security, and let the Afghan police and military fight crime and wars. –Matt
…Using a range of 1.3 to 1.4 (based on what Afghanistan needed before the surge and Iraq needed after the drawdown), I would project that if the Obama administration draws down to 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by September 2012, they will need 88,400 contractors at the very least, but potentially as many as 95,880.
….But the one group that has seen demand explode since Obama became president is the number of private security contractors (men or women with guns), which spiked from a flat line of about 4,000 to almost 19,000 today. Given the attack on the Intercontinental in Kabul yesterday, that number seems very unlikely to drop.To be sure, there are two reasons that might change — a dramatic slowdown in reconstruction activity or if President Karzai decides to disband the private security contractors in the country as he has threatened to do in the past. –Pratap Chatterjee.
Thanks for the shout-out, Matt! Pratap
Comment by Pratap — Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 12:24 PM
No problem Pratap. It will be interesting to see how your figures hold up during this process. Take care.
Comment by Feral Jundi — Thursday, June 30, 2011 @ 7:48 PM
Role For Contractors May Grow As Afghan Pullout Begins
By Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
June 24, 2011
With President Obama’s announcement of the beginning of a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, attention naturally turned to the troops coming out, those remaining and how they will fare in the difficult months and years ahead. What continues to pass almost unnoticed about our presence in Afghanistan is the number of private contractors at work there supporting U.S. forces. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service there are almost as many contractors in that country as uniformed U.S. personnel (90,000 versus 99,000). When both Iraq and Afghanistan are taken together, there are more contractors (155,000) than military personnel (145,000). In addition, there are thousands more contractors in the Central Command Area of Responsibility (AOR) providing additional support for operations. The President did not mention them at all in his announcement.
The role of private contractors is usually associated with security work. For example, there is the company formerly known as Blackwater that got into trouble in Iraq several years ago but is now back under a new name with a major contract to provide security for State Department personnel once the U.S. military withdraws. However, the vast majority of private contractors are providing logistics, maintenance and support services which otherwise would have to be performed by uniformed personnel. Private contractors man the trucks that bring oil, food and supplies to our forces in Afghanistan. They man the food service facilities, laundries and personal communications networks. Equally important, they provide critical maintenance and sustainment for military vehicles such as Strykers, helicopters and vital intelligence systems. Without the support provided by tens of thousands of contractors, the U.S. military would be rendered ineffective.
The number of contractors in Afghanistan actually rose faster than the number of combat forces. A reason for this is that without their support in areas such as logistics and supply chain operations, base construction and operations, base security and maintenance, military forces could not deploy. Similarly, their numbers are likely to decline more slowly than the number of combat troops. Supplies still have to arrive in country, bases will need to be operated and maintained, and vehicles will have to be repaired.
In fact, it is possible that some categories of contractors may even increase as the drawdown progresses. Combat operations will continue and may even intensify. This means there will be an ongoing need for maintenance and repair, intelligence support and supply chain management. But among the troops being withdrawn will be those providing the same functions as some private contractors, what is called combat service support. Since the work will still need to be done, the demand on those categories of private contractors could grow and their numbers in country actually increase. In addition, withdrawing forces creates new demands for similar services as equipment is prepared for shipment out of country, bases must be closed and their contents inventoried and disposed of and continuity of operations maintained.
In addition, when surveying Central Command’s AOR there are a lot of unknowns regarding the management of equipment and the operations of forces outside Afghanistan proper. Withdrawal from Afghanistan does not necessarily mean that troops or equipment are coming all the way back to the United States. In the case of much of the equipment acquired for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan such as MRAPs, mine countermeasure systems, unmanned aerial systems and even white goods (e.g., air conditioners) it may make more sense to leave them in the region. This means that such equipment will have to be organized, repaired, maintained and managed. The U.S. Army estimates that resetting just its equipment coming out of the two wars is a process that will require billions of dollars and take years. This will be a job for private contractors.
There is no equation that establishes the number of private contractors required to support an individual soldier in Afghanistan. The experience has been that the military requires an equal or somewhat greater number of contractors as uniformed forces. Ironically, the ratio could even shift in favor of the former as the number of combat troops declines. Tens of thousands of private contractors will remain in country at least until the planned pullout date of December 2014. After that, there will be many others who will be supporting Central Command elsewhere in its area of responsibility.
Story here. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/role-for-contra…
Comment by Feral Jundi — Saturday, July 9, 2011 @ 1:28 PM
—————–
In Afghanistan war, US civilian surge peaks as Pentagon begins pullback
While President Obama has laid out a path for reducing US military involvement in the Afghanistan war, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the civilian surge of 1,100 engineers, aid workers, and diplomats is only now hitting top gear.
By Howard LaFranchi?June 23, 2011
A day after President Obama declared in his Afghanistan war speech that “it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was on Capitol Hill trying to rally support for maintaining a significant nation-building program in Afghanistan.
The United States has tripled the number of civilian-assistance workers and diplomats in Afghanistan since the beginning of the military “surge” in January 2010 – to more than 1,100.
What has been called the “civilian surge” was also part of Afghanistan commander Gen. David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency “secure-hold-build” strategy: secure territory, establish a presence to hold on to it, and build up institutions of the state to inoculate local populations against the Taliban’s return.
Secretary Clinton gave no hint in her Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony Thursday of how a shrinking military presence would affect the American civilian operation in Afghanistan. But she did suggest that the civilian surge has reached its maximum – even as she outlined a justification for keeping US civilian experts, ranging from agronomists to judicial and local-governance specialists, in Afghanistan for years to come.
“We have now reached the height of the civilian surge,” Clinton said. “Looking ahead, as the transition proceeds, we will shift our efforts from short-term stabilization projects to longer-term sustainable development that focuses on spurring growth and integrating Afghanistan into South Central Asia’s economy.”
Clinton offered the senators a list of statistics on how life in Afghanistan has improved as a result of US and international programs – irrigation systems built or restored, infant mortality down, numbers of kids in school – especially girls – up.
But she bristled at questions about “nation-building,” and insisted that what the US is doing is in the US national interest.
“So-called nation-building raises a lot of questions in people’s minds. That is not what we think we are doing or what we intend to do,” she said. Instead, “the aim of the civilian surge was to give Afghans a stake in their country’s future and provide credible alternatives to extremism and insurgency. It was not nor was it ever designed to solve all of Afghanistan’s development challenges.”
And even though she was speaking to a Senate committee that has found billions of dollars of wasted spending in investigations of the US civilian program, Clinton painted a picture of a bargain – especially when compared with what the Pentagon spends in Afghanistan.
“Let’s not forget,” she said, “an entire year of civilian assistance in Afghanistan costs Americans the same amount as 10 days of military operations.”
But Clinton did not explain how the civilian assistance program will continue as the US military draws down. Currently, Afghanistan’s daunting security environment means that civilian aid workers must work with substantial security teams.
One recent report out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concluded that many US assistance programs won’t be able to carry on in the absence of US forces.
At one point, the State Department and USAID planned to continue increasing the number of civilian experts in Afghanistan into 2014, when the US is to have all its combat forces out of the country under a NATO-endorsed plan. The State Department has a plan to divide the civilians among the capital of Kabul and four provincial consulates once combat troops depart – a scenario that reflects a similar cover-the-country plan for continuing civilian operations in Iraq after US troops depart.
But the State Department has already trimmed back it budget request for Afghanistan next year by about a quarter, to about $3 billion.
And even though that pales when compared with the $2 billion to $3 billion a week the Pentagon spends on military operations, as Clinton likes to point out, many in Congress expect future spending on civilian operations in Afghanistan to be cut even further.
Story here. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/…
Comment by Feral Jundi — Saturday, July 9, 2011 @ 1:28 PM