This is good news and I sincerely hope that Congress has taken care of this. I know Doug Brooks and the ISOA have been working hard to overturn this practice, and it is amazing to me that we have allowed Afghanistan to do this. How much money has been lost to this corrupt practice? And what an insult?
Here is a quote from ISOA’s website on what exactly the Afghan government has been doing all of these years.
The Afghanistan Ministry of Finance (MoF) has adopted the practice of taxing foreign organizations hired by the U.S. government to support reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. Despite tax exemptions negotiated by the U.S. Department of State (DoS) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) that are applicable to U.S. government (USG) contracts, “tax exempt” companies and organizations continue to receive tax bills from the Afghan government. Given that the Afghan government can withhold necessary work permits in the absence of tax payments, companies and organizations have little recourse but to attempt direct negotiations with Afghan officials or to pay the tax bills.
Yeah, so that is one of the methods used to harass companies and it is pathetic. If you don’t pay the tax, you don’t get the permit. And really what is being requested by the ISOA and others, is to have Afghanistan live up to their agreements. I mean it is US taxpayer dollars that are going towards aid to help stabilize this country–and this is how Afghanistan honors that? Here is the ISOA position on this deal.
This tax situation undermines international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, creates barriers to effective implementation of much-needed aid programs, creates significant new opportunities for corruption within the host government and among companies, and unnecessarily penalizes American taxpayers – costing them millions of dollars – for offering assistance to a foreign nation.
USG contractors in Afghanistan are caught between USG regulations that require valid business licenses and the demands of the Afghan MoF that disputed taxes be paid in order to receive these permits. Because DoS discourages companies and organizations from negotiating the tax issue with the Afghan government directly, USG assistance is critical. There is an urgent need for clear direction from the U.S. Congress in opposing this unacceptable tax situation.
So after all of this pressure, finally Congress does the right thing. We will see if it works. A big thanks to the ISOA for bringing attention to this matter and keeping up the pressure over the years. –Matt
Congress Takes Important Step to Stop?? Afghan Taxation of U.S. Aid Dollars
07 May 2012
The International Stability Operations Association is pleased to note that the House Armed Services Committee Chairman’s Mark for the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains a provision that aims to end unlawful taxation of U.S. foreign assistance by the Afghan Ministry of Finance (MOF). The provision requires the Secretary of Defense to determine that the MOF is not violating bilateral agreements with the U.S. before the Department may use a contracting preference for Afghan goods and services, as required under the “Afghan First” policy. ISOA has worked the Afghan Tax issue as an advocacy priority and is committed to ending this inappropriate taxation.
This is a very important deal, because with these Status of Forces Agreements contractors can get left behind and disregarded–even though they are a vital part of the post war mission. We saw this with the quick and highly political exodus from Iraq, and I would hate for us to experience the same thing in Afghanistan. We have so many lessons to learn from past SOFA mistakes, and to ‘not’ create a fair and comprehensive SOFA with Afghanistan that actually covers contractors would be profoundly idiotic.
So what I would like to do here is get folks talking about this future SOFA, and let DoS and our law makers know that contractors in Afghanistan must be taken care of in this agreement. That our lives are just as important as soldiers and our services will be crucial to our long term strategic goals in Afghanistan. From reconstruction to training Afghanistan’s military, contractors will be there doing good work. They need protections in order to be effective and continue that work.
I would also like to see law makers and diplomats confront Karzai on this idiotic scheme called the APPF. Even the SIGAR has identified that this program is deficient. Are we going to wait until an incident happens–like a rogue APPF guard killing clients? Or watch as guards that are poorly trained and equipped, do a horrible job of protection–and then insurgents easily kill or kidnap clients? pffft…
The latest quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (or SIGAR) released on Monday also chronicles how corruption in the country shows no signs of having let up.
The report’s most urgent warning concerns the “imminent transition” from private security contractors (PSC) to the state-owned Afghan Public Protection Force.
Steven J. Trent, the acting special inspector general, expressed concerns that as many as 29 major USAID projects costing nearly $1.5 billion are at risk of full or partial termination “if the APPF cannot provide the needed security.” About half that amount has already been spent.
And whether it can is very much an open question, Trent wrote. The U.S. embassy, the Afghan government and the U.S.-led military forces agreed a year ago to check the progress of the Afghan Public Protection Force at the 6-, 9-, and 12-month marks.
“The 6-month assessment, completed in September 2011, found that the APPF was not ready to assume any of the essential PSC responsibilities to meet contract requirements — such as training, equipping, and deploying guard forces,” the report pointed out. “[T]he December assessment, which would have been at the 9-month mark, has not yet been made public” and “the deadline for the 12-month assessment has passed.”….
Yep, that inspires confidence….
Either way, the SOFA must include provisions that allow security contractors to continue offering their services without being hassled or imprisoned by Afghanistan–like what is going on in Iraq. Or these reconstruction programs will just have to pack up and leave….because obviously the APPF is such a horrible option and Afghanistan could care less about this aid. So what do you think, and what would you like to see in this new SOFA, or are contractors destined to be ‘thrown under the bus’? –Matt
U.S. – Afghan agreement short on specifics
By Mike Mount
05/01/2012
President Barack Obama and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement that outlines cooperation between their countries after the withdrawal of U.S.-led international forces in 2014.
With little detail and few specifics in the document, U.S. officials say it paints a broad stroke of what the U.S.-Afghanistan relationship will look like from 2014 through 2024.
Officials said the document highlights military, diplomatic and economic relationships between the two countries without offering specifics on troops levels, economic assistance and the status of diplomatic relations.
With some 88,000 U.S. troops operating inside Afghanistan, the document does state that there will be no permanent U.S. bases in the country after the 2014 withdrawal, officials said. The agreement also allows for the possibility of U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to train and conduct counterterrorism operations to go after what a White House fact sheet described as “targeting the remnants of al Qaeda.”??The U.S. and Afghanistan will begin negotiating a new Status of Forces Agreement. The United States will also designate Afghanistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” to provide a long-term framework for security and defense cooperation,” according to the White House statement.
I love it and I was laughing through this whole clip. How could Congressman Rohrabacher’s visit to Afghanistan possibly create a crisis that would be worse than the Koran burning or any of the other mini-crisis? lol Well, I have some clues….hee hee
Obviously, this guy has touched a nerve with Karzai (or the ‘corrupt prima donna’–lol!) , and I suspect it was his intent to visit the new Northern Alliance or National Front of Afghanistan coalition or that he even supports this new crew. Karzai knows they are a threat politically, and that is awesome.
Also, this congressman mentioned how stupid the Afghan political system is. Here is a quote from the Congressman last January:
“The overly centralized government power structure in Afghanistan is contrary to that country’s culture and has inhibited progress toward building a stable and democratic society there.”
Congressman Rohrabacher gets a medal for this one. What he is saying in this video also coincides with what I was talking about in this post about our pact with Afghanistan. Check it out and hopefully he get’s over there and get’s to do his job….. and makes Karzai sweat! lol –Matt
Rep. Rohrabacher Leads Bipartisan Delegation’s Afghanistan Strategy Session With National Front Leaders in Berlin
Calls Any Taliban Inclusion in Coalition Government A “Betrayal”
Berlin, Germany, Jan 9, 2012
Today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), led a bipartisan Congressional delegation strategy session with leaders of Afghanistan’s newly formed National Front, to discuss alternatives to Hamid Karazi’s consideration of including the Taliban in Afghanistan’s coalition government. Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and several leaders of Afghanistan’s National Front joined Rep. Rohrabacher in Berlin.
“The Afghans and Members of Congress meeting in Berlin today have concluded that there is a serious concern the blood and treasure invested in Afghanistan over this last decade may well have been in vain,” said Rohrabacher. “The overly centralized government power structure in Afghanistan is contrary to that country’s culture and has inhibited progress toward building a stable and democratic society there. (more…)
Comments Off on Funny Stuff: Karzai Fears Congressman Rohrabacher!!
“If the Taliban are back in the political process, being imposed on us, the Afghan people will definitely resist, paving the way for another war to happen,” Zia Massoud told Reuters in an interview at his home in Kabul.
“If the Taliban want peace, we are ready to make peace, but if they want to fight, there will be a fight. That’s it. If you coddle them, give them a political address and other gains, they will never be ready for any talks,” he said. -Daily Outlook Afghanistan, January 21 2012
There are two deals with this that are of importance. Afghanistan is a strategic position for the US to keep tabs on Al Qaeda/Taliban in Pakistan. So having some type of presence in Afghanistan helps in that goal.
The second deal is that as troops pull out, the Taliban will increase their attacks and you will begin to see the strengths and weaknesses of the Afghan government rear their ugly head. Not that we haven’t seen this already, but when the Afghans are up against an enemy that has been fighting a professional military like the west, I tend to think that the Afghan army and police will have some issues. So having some kind of presence in Afghanistan as this new dynamic unfolds will be crucial.
With that last part, my attention is on the latest formation of Afghans whom have come together to show solidarity against the Taliban and an Afghan government that shows weakness in the face of the Taliban. This group is called The National Front, or what is basically the new Northern Alliance. One of the members of this new Northern Alliance crew is Ahmad Zia Massoud, the brother of the late Afghan ‘Lion of Panjshir’– Ahmad Sha Massoud.
Why is this important? Because I think in a world where the Taliban are surging and causing a lot of pain, the weak leaders will crumble, and the strong leaders will rise to the top and meet the challenge of opposing the Taliban. My hopes are that Karzai crumbles, and goes back into his hole where he belongs, and the National Front grows a leader that can stick it to the Taliban and get Afghanistan on the right path. Here is what the Asia Times had to say about the National Front.
“This is the first time that the leadership of the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities [of Afghanistan] has come to a common line of thinking … In essence, the Northern Alliance is being resuscitated as a political entity. … As the Northern Alliance groups see it, Pakistani strategy is to wait out the period between now and 2014 – the date set for the US troop withdrawal – and then regroup the Taliban and make a bid to capture power in Kabul. Their strong show of unity in Berlin suggests that they will not roll over and give way to an exclusive US-Taliban-Pakistan settlement being imposed on their nation.”
So in my view, having some troops/contractors on hand to help train Afghan forces, and bide our time until ‘real’ Afghan leadership surfaces, could make for a good little alternate plan, on top of dealing with threats in Pakistan.
Kind of a repeat of 2001 where SF units were able to help the Northern Alliance deliver crushing blows to the Taliban. In that case, Afghans truly feared and hated the Taliban, and were fighting them with a sense of purpose. I mean look at what the Taliban did to the Hazaras back in 1998?
On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500 defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead.
Now of course the Hazaras have done all they can to get back at the Taliban, but my point here is that there is some bad blood between the members of the National Front and the Taliban. These guys do not plan on living under Taliban rule–or under a government that appeases the Taliban.
I also think that common Afghans, many of whom are Pashtun, might have no problem with the Taliban. That is a nice attitude to have, seeing how the west has kept the Taliban from imposing their rule on the people. But if the Taliban do take over, look out. The people can kiss goodbye what little freedoms they enjoyed, and the Taliban will take them back into medieval times. Pulling out the majority of troops and letting Afghans deal with this new potential reality might be a good thing. It would force people to re-evaluate what they really want–oppression or freedom?
There are other reasons to being in Afghanistan, like having an eye on Iran. But dealing with Al Qaeda/Taliban in Pakistan and being in position to support (if they need it) a new National Front as it forms are the ones that stand out to me.
As to the contracts in the future? One thing is for sure. If you sell Afghanistan military hardware, then you need the support/mentors/trainers to help them with that stuff. Also, all of those reconstruction contracts and investors looking to do business in Afghanistan will still need protection or advisers to help them navigate that place. (especially as the APPF falters) Also, diplomatic missions will continue to be important, hence WPS will still be in place. Then of course getting all of that equipment out of Afghanistan will be crucial as well. Here is a quote about how much money will be spent there in the future.
The U.S. pledged in the agreement to continue to fund Afghan security forces after 2014. It does not say how much money this will involve, but says it should be enough to support the force. U.S. officials have said they expect to pay about $4 billion a year to fund Afghan forces, but the funding would have to be approved by Congress.
On a side note with the equipment in theater, I am wondering how much we will leave versus how much will be taken out? It is extremely expensive to get stuff into and out of Afghanistan, and perhaps we might see a lot more equipment just handed over to the Afghans? Compare that to Iraq and the massive operation to get equipment out of there. Who knows, but I do know that contractors will be crucial to that effort.
In essence, what you are seeing in Iraq now, will probably repeat itself in Afghanistan. So contractors will have utility in one shape or another in Afghanistan to make the transition go smoothly and support the continuing efforts. –Matt
Ahmad Zia Massoud.
Afghan-US pact: US ready to defend Afghanistan for at least a decade after 2014 drawdown
April 23, 2012
Washington has pledged in a newly agreed strategic pact to help defend Afghanistan militarily for at least a decade after the country formally takes control of its own security, an Afghan official said Monday.
The draft agreement signed on Sunday also says the U.S. will only take such actions with Afghan agreement. The United States also pledged it will not launch attacks on other countries from Afghan soil, according to sections of the accord read out in parliament by Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta.
Afghan officials had previously said that they would not allow their country to be used to launch drone attacks into Pakistan or other neighboring countries after the deadline for most foreign forces to withdraw by the end of 2014.
“Considering that stability in Afghanistan would be stability for Central Asia and South Asia, the United States emphasizes that any kind of interference in Afghan affairs would be a matter of concern for the United States,” he said, quoting from the Dari language version of the agreement.
“These airdrops bring the supplies closer to the troops, and lowers the risk of IED attacks by taking convoys off dangerous roads,” Bobby Robinson, a government civilian logistician, told an Air Force public affairs officer last year.
I don’t think people realize how significant LCLA resupply is to the war effort. Every paracargo bundle dropped, is one less convoy operation that could be exposed to IED’s. It get’s the troops off of the roads and diminishes the effectiveness of IED’s. That’s unless the Taliban can figure out how to mine the sky? lol
But what is key here is the amount of contractor involvement with this crucial logistics method. Below I have posted three separate bits of news that when combined, are pretty significant.
The first is a video showing an old Caribou dropping paracargo in Afghanistan. Wired’s Danger Room did a great little post on this and got some quotes about what was going on with it. No word on what company this is, but I am sure the Caribou clubs know and are cheering them on. I also would not be surprised if the pilots are former smokejumper pilots, because the way they were dropping that stuff is exactly how the jumpers would do this.
The Army deployed to Marzak in January. Anticipating the need to supply it and other remote locations, in October the Army hired a boutique resupply company built around a single, 50-year-old DeHavilland Caribou and 15 civilian pilots, staff and ground crew. The Caribou and its crews, based at Bagram airfield near Kabul, are asked to do things most military airlifters cannot: Fly low and fast to drop small loads of critical supplies with pinpoint accuracy.
The company, whose name we’ve been asked to keep secret, began flying resupply missions in October. Since then, it has delivered more than a million pounds of cargo, according to a source close to the company. The secret to its success is the skill of the flight crews, the mechanics’ meticulous maintenance of the 1960s-vintage Caribou and upgrades to the rugged plane’s engines that give it extra oomph. “It makes for a perfect LCLA airdrop platform,” the source tells Danger Room.
“Low-Cost, Low-Altitude airdrops by civilians in Afghanistan is an extremely vital asset that’s usually overlooked by most,” the source continues. The lack of publicity could be intended to spare the Air Force any embarrassment. After all, until recently the flying branch did possess one small airlifter in the Caribou’s general category that could possibly have equaled the civilian plane’s low, pinpoint drops. The would be the C-27J, built by Alenia.
On a side note, smokejumpers used this aircraft for operations back in the day. We have used all sorts of aircraft, and we still use the DC-3 from WW2! lol I remember watching this really cool 70’s video of some smokejumpers doing some loadmaster work out of a Caribou over some forest fire. The footage was amazing and vintage, and in color! If I find it or someone posts it on youtube, I will put it up one of these days.
The next bit of news is that FlightWorks Inc. just won a $13,182,338 firm-fixed-price contract for LCLA resupply in Afghanistan. They also have to provide short take off and landing aircraft for the contract. That means aircraft that can land on small runways up in the mountains, much like how smokejumpers use their aircraft to supply folks. No word yet on what type of aircraft Flightworks Inc. will use, or if they will be using their own loadmasters or not.
Last I had heard, contract aircraft would fly the stuff, but military loadmasters would kick it. Maybe that has changed and we will see. I would also be curious as to what this company will do for preparing pilot, air crew, and aircraft for combat operations? Because dumping this stuff at low levels will definitely expose them to enemy attacks. Dangerous stuff, and if an aircraft crashes, that air crew must have the tools necessary to survive until rescue. From weapons to first aid supplies to survival items–they must be prepared.
The last story though is the most eye opening. The military just announced multiple contracts totaling $838 million for the manufacture and purchase of pre-packed paracargo chutes. That is a lot of cargo chutes.
But what I was most concerned with is that they are one time use–supposedly. That is surprising to me if true. These chutes should be re-packed and used over and over again. What a waste of parachutes by just using them once and throwing them away? If anything, a company could be contracted to re-pack them in Afghanistan, and re-distribute those chutes to aerial resupply units that need them. Either use a local company that is managed well by professional cargo chute packers (contract civilian Master Riggers?) and re-use these things. That is what makes the concept ‘low cost’. Here is the quote from the author of the post.
These so-called LCLV parachutes are one-time-use ‘chutes designed to deliver fuel, ammo and food to troops at isolated bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re packed into a “Low-Cost Container” as part of the Army’s “Low Cost Aerial Delivery Systems” program. Beginning to notice a pattern?
Perhaps the author of the blog post made a mistake here and that there is a paracargo packing system in place to re-use this stuff? That is how we used paracargo chutes in the smokejumpers, and those things can last forever if taken care of properly. One chute can be used for hundreds of paracargo missions, and when I was jumping, we would pack and use everything form the old French Cross military cargo chutes to converted and chopped up older/out of service canopies. Jumpers would repair these cargo chutes to get even more use out of them, and it was a system that worked great. Even our rigging was re-usable.
Either way, this is great to see private industry meet the requirements for these crucial logistics. We are also flying helicopters and cargo aircraft all over Afghanistan, and private aviation is crucial to the logistics there. It also saves lives, because every bundle that can be flown, is one less bundle that has to be transported on IED infested roads. –Matt
FlightWorks, Inc., Kennesaw, Ga., was awarded a $13,182,338 firm-fixed-price contract.
The award will provide for the short take off and landing and low cost low altitude aerial resupply services in Afghanistan.
Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 26, 2012.
One bid was solicited, with one bid received.
The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W560MY-11-C-0005).
Air Force photo / Staff Sgt. Chad Chisholm A flock of Low-Cost, Low-Velocity parachutes gently drop bundles of needed supplies to a remote forward operating base in Afghanistan.
They Better Be 100% Silk
By Mark Thompson
April 18, 2012
Five of the first six contract awards announced Tuesday were for parachutes costing nearly $1 billion. All five contracts were for “low-cost, low velocity parachutes.” Alas, as is becoming increasingly common, the contract announcements don’t specify how many are being bought, so it’s difficult to assess the “low cost” claim. We trust the competition keeps prices down.
These so-called LCLV parachutes are one-time-use ‘chutes designed to deliver fuel, ammo and food to troops at isolated bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re packed into a “Low-Cost Container” as part of the Army’s “Low Cost Aerial Delivery Systems” program. Beginning to notice a pattern?
The parachutes aren’t made of silk, but of a polypropylene fabric similar to that often used for sand bags. “These airdrops bring the supplies closer to the troops, and lowers the risk of IED attacks by taking convoys off dangerous roads,” Bobby Robinson, a government civilian logistician, told an Air Force public affairs officer last year. “LCLV parachutes look like a big Hefty bag flying in mid-air.”
They’re dropped at a rate of less than 28 feet a second from cargo planes at altitudes ranging from 500 to 1,250 feet. Each can deliver up to 2,200 pounds.
